The jury, after five hours of delibaration, has found her guilty of capital murder!
I’m surprised they took five hours. I cynically expected them to return a guilty verdict within an hour.
Are they going for the death penalty?
I was listening to the radio when the verdict came in.
Not to nitpick, but I was told they deliberated for 3 hours, 40 minutes.
Okay, okay, let me rephrase: To nitpick, etc.
I’m floored that they found her guilty. That just makes no sense to me at all. And, putting her in jail for life or knocking her off, well neither makes sense to me. The woman is mentally ill, what she needs is serious help, something her husband needs as well.
It just doesn’t do the case justice to have the murder conviction for her, without at least a mandatory vasectomy or something ordered for the lunkhead husband… or is that just me?
I just feel desperately sorry for her.
So was I, or rather a bitcast. The only reference to time in the first report was 5 hours so that’s what I put.
Sentencing is tomorrow. According to news reports, she’s looking at anywhere between 40 years and death by lethal injection. One thing that’s never mentioned is that if she gets 40 years, actual prison time will probably be six years and four months.
Waitaminute, I might have confused my “tomorrow” and “today”; if so, sentencing would be this afternoon.
Typically capital murder trials are bifurcated (and I know this one is). In the first stage the jury decides guilt and then after that’s over it decides if the death penalty is warranted. Of course, since it’s the same jury and they obviously have their heads up their asses, they might sentence Yates to death.
–Cliffy
Your forgettin, this was in Texas, where they don’t go easy on Anyone
There’s a thread in the Pit if anyone feels like ranting on this subject.
Query: any possibility of the husband facing civil charges?
Why only that time rather than the full 40 years.
Why? Well, she only murdered her five children, see. There were no drugs involved at all.
bella
Since Noah, John, Paul, Luke and Mary are all dead, there is no one left who would have standing to sue him, except for the killer. I can’t really picture her suing him.
The reason I said 6 years and four months was based the experience of a former inmate and conversations he had with his captors. When one is sentenced to “a year” actual prison time is two months. However, this may not be correct so I used the “probably” qualifier.
I guess my question should have been, “Is anyone around to sue in civil court on the kid’s behalf? Would it be possible for the State of Texas to do so?”
Only two of the 10 were in favor of the death penalty. Mrs. Yates has been sentenced to life, which is a minimum of 40 years in Texas. The state of Texas has no provision for life without parole. I’m still wondering if 40 years is really 40 years.
It seems to me that any women that kills her 5 children is mentally un-balanced. I really don’t think there can be any argument here. So the state of Texas has perpetrated yet another mis-justice, no surprise.
What I really don’t understand is how her husband and mother (or is it mother in law) both knew she was this unbalanced, and left her with the children. How is it that they have not been charged with anything, when they are more guilty than her!
I’m not familiar with the Texas system, but the general rule in corrections is “graduated release” - at certain stages of the sentence the prisoner can apply for expanded liberties: day parole, half-way houses, full parole, and so on. In the example you give, it sounds like an inmate was eligible to apply for some form of parole after serving a sixth of the sentence.
However, being eligible to apply does not normally entitle the inmate to parole. It’s up to the corrections authorities to decide if the inmate will get any parole, based on the inmate’s conduct, their assessment of the risk to the public, and similar factors. If they decide to grant parole, they then have to decide what type of parole: day parole, half-way house, full parole, or some other option. The result in a particular case would depend on the corrections statutes and the decision of the corrections authorities.
That type of graduated release normallly does not apply where the statute sets specific periods of parole ineligibilty. If the statute provides that the person is ineligible to apply for parole for a certain number of years, then the system of graduated release does not apply. I would assume that if the Texas statute says the sentence is a life sentence, with no eligibility for parole for forty years, then graduated release would not be available, and Ms. Yates would not be able to apply for parole until 2041 or 2042 (depending on whether the parole ineligibilty runs from the date of the offence or the date of sentence).
I wish I could remember the particulars cited by that former inmate and where he was in prison. I do remember that he said that time served prior to trial is often taken into consideration.