in the hinckley case and dietz was also a consultant on the hit series law & order. on several points, the experts agreed. we both agreed that she had a severe mental disease when she drowned her children. we both agreed she believed she was doing what was in the best interest of the children, and we both agreed she knew what she was doing against the law. where we differed was despite what was against the law, she believes she was doing what was right for her children. the prosecution contended there was more method than madness. she said satan was telling her this, and if you re a religious person and satan is telling you to do something, you start out with the assumption that it s wrong, that it s bad conduct, so starting from that simple proposition, we knew that she knew that it was wrong, and she d expressed that she knew it was wrong. so dr. dietz testified that
mrs. yates knew it was wrong, not just against the law, but against society and against god. that s pretty powerful testimony. dietz took it one step further and also presented a likely inspiration for andrea yates actions. he testified that she had watched a law & order episode that week in which a woman to be free of her responsibilities drowned her children and got away with murder. the show we almost always watched was law & order and the ones that she watched, i watched with her. and so, you know, i heard about that testimony. and i m like, i don t think that happened, you know? but there was nothing solid to refute dietz s testimony, and after three weeks of trial, the jurors deliberated just under four hours. the jury came back, and i knew when i saw that jury what
argument was the questionable testimony given by park dietz, lead psychiatrist for the prosecution. there s never been an episode that has aired on law & order involving the park dietz testified about. we confronted park dietz about that, and he said he was mistaken. he must have been in vera. the appeals process would take months of meticulous preparation for multiple arguments, but in the end everything hinged on the dietz testimony. we had 19 points of error, and only one point was ever addressed, and that was point number one, and that was his testimony, and the case got reversed, so we started back to trial. i thought it was great that mrs. yates would have another opportunity to have her case heard. dr. dietz in my view made an honest mistake. the reversal, though a major victory, was only the start.
the prosecution planned to argue that andrea s motive was to get back at her husband for perceived wrongs like living in a bus, homeschooling and the inconveniences of a simpler life style. the defense knew better than to bring rusty into the equation. had i gone after rusty, as people wanted me to do, then the jury could be told by the prosecutor in summation or at the end, she, in effect, by killing the kids, she was getting back at rusty for the various things that he had done and would give her an ulterior motive. the trial began in february 2002. both sides brought in pre-eminent psychiatrists to testify. dr. phillip resnick led for the defense. hi counter part was dr. park dietz, renowned for testifying in the hinckley case and dietz
and i said don t worry, andrea, you will be fine. patted her on the knee, and then came back and heard the rumbles in the courtroom about the testimony. and the law and order testimony. the sentencing phase was barely over before questions a rose about the part of dietz s testimony. word was spreading that the testimony didn t exist. suddenly, the defense had new hope. we were in the office looking at scripts, coming up with titles and a show that existed, and a woman that drowned the kids, and could find any. never did find this. susan o malley, one of the reporters, had written episodes, she put them in touch with the show s reporter, dick wolf. and he said i can guarantee