Could this be the case that finally gets the CCA to realize how foolish it was to give defendants a free ticket to delay trial?

Yates' attorneys ask appeals court to halt March retrial

By PAM EASTON
Associated Press

Andrea Yates' attorneys asked an appeals court today to halt her capital murder retrial, which is scheduled to begin in just more than a week.

Her attorneys argue the indictments against Yates, 41, for the bathtub drownings of her children in 2001 should be dismissed and any further prosecution halted because of prosecutorial misconduct resulting in double jeopardy if she were to be tried again.

Attorney Wendell Odom said Yates' double jeopardy claims should be reviewed by the appellate court because "her claims are not frivolous or used as a tactic for delay."

"She seeks to show that the hidden prosecutorial misconduct was so egregious that her first trial was completely tainted and retrial would violate her rights against double jeopardy protected by the federal and state constitutions," Odom wrote.

State District Judge Belinda Hill, the trial judge in Yates' case, rejected the double jeopardy claim earlier this month and found the request frivolous, allowing Yates' case to proceed to trial March 20.

Wonder why the defense didn't raise this issue in the direct appeal, where it could have been addressed along with the issue of the error committed by the expert witness? Could it, maybe, just maybe, have been because then there would have been no opportunity to DELAY the trial even further?

It is bad enough that Bauder survives. But such eleventh hour tactics should not be tolerated. Slick conduct like that does nothing to help the client's case either. Maybe one or both of Tarrant County's two cases attacking Bauder can abolish or further erode its stranglehold.

Prosecutors fire back at Yates appeal in brief
Asssistant DA argues new trial should not be delayed while defense fights rejection of double jeopardy claims

By PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

Andrea Yates and her attorneys chose to "trash the reputations" of two Harris County prosecutors with "the flimsiest of evidence," rather than accept the new trial she has been granted, prosecutors wrote in a brief to an appeals court Tuesday.

In a brief filed with the state's First Court of Appeals, assistant district attorney Alan Curry argued Yates' new trial, set to begin Monday, should not be delayed while she fights state District Judge Belinda Hill's rejection of her double jeopardy claims.

Yates' capital murder conviction for her children's drowning deaths was thrown out by that same appeals court last year because of erroneous testimony during her first trial from a forensic psychiatrist who served as prosecutors' only mental health expert.

The appeals court concluded Dr. Park Dietz's testimony about an episode of the TV program Law & Order � an episode that was later determined not to exist � could have influenced the jury's judgment.

Yates' attorneys have alleged a second trial would amount to double jeopardy because of "prosecutorial misconduct" relating to Dietz's mistake. They claim prosecutors knew they were using false testimony or at least consciously disregarded its questionable veracity. Prosecutors Joe Owmby and Kaylynn Williford have denied that.

Even so, Yates' attorneys are trying to delay her new trial or to have the capital murder charges against her dismissed.

The appeals court is scheduled to consider the matter Thursday, but will only review written briefs and will not hear oral arguments.

Evidence does not support the defense's "outrageous" assertion that prosecutors elicited false testimony from Dietz, Curry wrote in the brief filed Tuesday.

Dietz "did not intentionally make it up. He made a mistake. More importantly, the trial prosecutors did not know that Dr. Dietz was mistaken when this testimony was elicited from him," Curry wrote.

Yates and her attorneys have failed to show that any prosecutorial misconduct occurred during her first trial in 2002, Curry wrote. Hill came to the same conclusion when she declared Yates' double jeopardy claims "frivolous" earlier thismonth.

"This is an unusual case, but the state has previously shown that the defendant knew that her conduct was wrong at the time that she committed the charged offenses, and the state will be ready to do so again when the new trial begins," Curry wrote.

Best of luck to Harris County on this one. Though the immediate concern must be the Yates case, the implications of an adverse decision are much wider.

Court says Yates retrial should go forward next week
Defense's claim of double jeopardy rejected.
By Pam Easton
ASSOCIATED PRESS
Friday, March 17, 2006

HOUSTON � An appeals court ruled Thursday that Andrea Yates' capital murder retrial shouldn't be halted on double jeopardy claims. The trial is set to begin Monday.

The 1st Court of Appeals, which overturned Yates' two capital murder convictions last year, sided with state District Judge Belinda Hill's ruling that defense claims of double jeopardy were frivolous.

Defense again asks for delay in Yates' trial
Lawyers say two witnesses are unavailable for the start of the proceedings

By PEGGY O'HARE
Copyright 2006 Houston Chronicle

With jury selection for Andrea Yates' new capital murder trial expected to begin Monday, her attorneys on Friday again asked a judge to consider delaying the proceedings until summer.