Yates juror calls for 'guilty but insane' verdict

One of the jurors who found Andrea Yates not guilty by reason of insanity last week is speaking up now, saying the verdict was all right, but what the local justice system really needs is a way to find people guilty but insane.

Lucille Kelley told KPRC she didn't want Yates to be acquitted, but also didn't want to send her to prison: Instead, she wanted Yates to be under state care for the rest of her life. As it happens, that will probably be the case, as Yates will remain under court supervision in a state mental hospital and may never be released. But Kelley and the other jurors didn't know that: They were told a guilty verdict would mean an automatic life sentence in jail, but they were not told that finding Yates not guilty would send her to a state institution. So Kelley apparently decided to go with what she felt was the lesser of two evils, though she said she "[doesn't] want her released ever under any circumstances." She told KHOU in another interview yesterday that her idea of a guilty but insane verdict would mean an offender would be sent to a state hospital, and if "cured," he or she would be transferred to a supervised living situation.

Though some states have a guilty but insane verdict — Michigan was the first to offer it, in 1975 — some analysts argue that a person can't logically be both insane and guilty because, in criminal law, insanity excuses criminal liability. Brian Wice, a legal analyst for KPRC, said Texas law covers cases like Yates's well as is:

"It sounds like buyer's remorse, and certainly we don't have any guarantee that the people we release from the penitentiary on a daily basis won't re-offend," Wice said. "With the firestorm of publicity that this case has gotten, with the tragic facts this case underscores, that there is no reasonable probability that Andrea Yates would ever walk free."

Kelley said she'll start a petition drive to try to convince the Legislature change state law to include a guilty but insane verdict.