The First COA reversed Andrea Yates' capital murder conviction and remanded for a new trial. The jury may have been influenced by Dietz's false "Law and Order" testimony--admission of the testimony affected "substantial rights."

Let the griping begin!

Geez.

Gosh, for something that isn't remarkable, everyone seems to be talking about it. While I agree in the grand scheme of things that it may not be the most earth-shattering case, I am just as appalled as the rest that a expert, whether defense or state, makes such an outright lie. I've been an attorney a while, both prosecuting and defense, and I have never seen such a bold lie. What could that 'expert' possibly have said in his defense when confronted by the truth? I think the court was right, his statements had the possibility and probability of impacting the jury's decision. I think all of us, on both sides, want cleaner experts than that. I hope he wasn't paid by the county coffers, and if so, I hope he is billed for all the appellate time he has put the DA, Defense Attorney and Court of Appeals through.

Was it a lie, or was it a mistake? Can you keep all of your hundreds or thousands of past cases straight? I know I can't keep mine straight, and I have only 10 years worth. Any experienced expert in a big case can make a mistake, misunderstand a question, even lie. Are you sure what it was in this case? Regardless of whether it was a lie or mistake, it was wrong, it seems to be important to the issues at hand, and the prosecutors used it. That seems to be the trigger for the decision.

Beck, someday, somewhere, you, too, will make a mistake others might wish to characterize as a deliberate bit of misconduct. Should we speak of you in the same way as you speak of Dr. Dietz?

Here is the relevant quote from the opinion:

"Although the record does not show that Dr. Dietz intentionally lied in his testimony, his false testimony undoubtedly gave greater weight to his opinion."

By the way, at least one juror has already been quoted as saying they did not consider Dietz's testimony regarding the alleged Law & Order episode to be important because no one showed Yates had watched the episode.

[This message was edited by John Bradley on 01-07-05 at .]

Well, John, at my age, I've made lots of mistakes. Some were misinterpreted, some weren't, so I know what you are saying. However, if I were brought forward to testify on a certain case, I would review my records, testify to only what I could recall, and not make something up (in fact, don't we all tell our witnesses to answer only to what they can recall, don't guess). Tell me that this guy consulted on another show, another movie, about this concept of a woman drowning her kids and getting an insanity ruling, prior to Andrea Yates' case, and I'd say honest mistake, he just got the wrong show. I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT YET! Just tell me the show he confused this case with. I think that would be note-worthy and 'press-worthy'.

Right now, I just turn on the TV and I can read between the lines - Texas convicted another person, this time because the State's only expert on insanity lied. This on the heals of lab scandals. Boy it won't take long for the(in this humble writer's opinion) 'way too liberal media' to have a prime time special, scathing report about Texas justice. So, the fact that we have not heard what show he confused his testimony with, makes me very concerned that we have left ourselves open to this. And, to be honest with you, it offends me to hear about the Texas justice system in an unflattering light. I never turn on the news and hear stories of good justice in Texas. I have handled many, many cases. I have worked with prosecutors and defense attorney's, as a conscientous Attorney, to see that Justice is done, and justice has been served. I suppose that I take the bad media too personally, and figure that we don't need any more of it.

In the Chronicle today, they quote a writer who wrote a book about the Yate's matter, and that writer had also been a consultant for Law and Order. Apparently, she was at the trial, heard the testimony and it was she who made the calls to the producers to discover that there had been no such episode.

This writer is quoted as saying that she did not think that the statement was made with the intent to deceive, but rather with careless disregard in the heat of cross-examination.

As I step into my "John Bradley" mode as the instigator of discussion, I ask you fellow forumites: "What effect do you think this will have on the good Dr's future employment as an expert"?

I could be completely off base here since I'm not a regular L&O watcher, but I was under the impression that they did run an episode in which a mother drowned her children but it was after, and in response to, the Yates murders. If that is the case, Dietz's error would be somewhat more understandable -- an error of timing rather than just dreaming something up, albeit no less harmful.

As for the media's glee in reporting on Texas justice failures, I just try and remind myself that the headline "State gets the right guy, and what a bad man he was" simply does not make good press or sell many papers.

Well, imagine my chagrin. After I posted this morning, I read the AOL version of Dr. Dietz's interview this morning. I admit I made a mistake, and I humbly ask forgiveness of you fellow posters. It seems that he does have a defense, he says the prosecutors 'put the idea in his head' before he testified, and he then, in the intense heat of cross examination/interrogation by defense counsel, he got it in his head that he had consulted on that show.

I just remember challenging a confession once, where my client said he didn't do the crime, but after the 2 1/2 hour long interrogation (by a skilled veteran of DPS) eroded his sensibilities, and the interrogator told him what to confess to, and my client confessed to it. The prosecutor, in a nut shell, called his explanation crap.

I don't do Court TV and so my knowledge of the Yates trial is limited to this website and general news. I don't understand why the defense asked the shrink about this non-existent episode during cross-examination anyway. Can anyone enlighten me? or have I been misled by the current reports (and the court's opinion) and it wasn't the defense that brought this up to begin with.

Well, if your asking if I'm vouching for all defense arguments, the answer is no. What I am saying is that the esteemed Park Dietz can crack under pressure, and prosecutors are saying that he made a 'mistake', an understandable 'mistake', an unfortuante 'mistake', due to a 'vigarous cross examination'. And this 'expert' is an expert OF THE MIND, he knows pressure and it's results on sensibilities, he studied it, it is his passion and his life, and he cracked. Apply those same principals to an uneducated, undereducated, unsavy, untrained individual. You do the math.

From my research, there has never been a Law & Order episode in which a mother has drowned her kids. I thought there had been as well. I found 7 episodes in the history of the show dealing with a mother killing her kids and one in which God told her to do it. Of the 7 episodes, 6 were aired before the Yates murder. Additionally, there has has never been an episode on NYPD Blue or the Practice dealing with this issue. Just wanted to throw that out there.

I'd like to see attention go in a different direction here. People have been busting on the prosecutors for prosectuing Yates, but as I see it, they were handed a mess that was left by a lot of people and asked to do something about it.

As I recall, the medical profession had their hands all over Yates in the years and months before she killed her children? Why didn't they do anything to stop this? What's up with the responsibiity of their profession for this mess?

Seems to me that those guys are in the dark ages when it comes to fixing broken people; why folks go after the prosecutors when we have to clean up the mess is beyond me....

Please do not misunderstand me, I have no beef with the prosecutors here. I have been one, and am well qualified to say they are over worked, underpaid, and genuinely underappreciated for their many talents. My beef is with the guy who lied, oh, I'm sorry, the guy who made an unfortunate mistake due to a vigorous cross, and whose only defense is that 'the prosecutors put it in his head' (which sounds like a lot of blame shifting to me).

The most amazing thing about the case was this argument by the prosecutors:

"She gets very depressed and goes into Devereux [Hospital]. And at times she says these thoughts came to her during that month. These thoughts came to her, and she watches 'Law & Order' regularly, she sees this program. There is a way out. She tells that to Dr. Dietz. A way out."

Two thoughts: (1) this guaranteed a reversal and (2) if I, as a prosecutor, believe that such a show exists, I think I would want to track it down and watch it sometime before closing.

I sure don't know what happened. I have heard Deets speak on two occaisions and I found him to be impressive. I seriously doubt he would deliberately lie about something so easy to controvert; either the thing aired or it did not. I have heard that he consulted on a similar script but it never aired. By the way, did you notice that the defense injected the subject into the trial? Maybe they laid a little trap for the state? Certainly it would behoove the state to confirm if the program ran and take a peek....but heaven knows I've made enough mistakes in my career.