Yates Murder Case 1

Andrea Yates Murder Case

By Gavin

Written for Criminal Justice

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 2

Andrea Yates Murder Case

On June 20, 2001, Andrea Pia Yates did the inconceivable, she murdered

her five children. Did Andrea Yates have the mens rea to knowingly murder her

children, or was she insane and without control of her faculties? Mens rea

defined by “(law) is with criminal intent; the thoughts and intentions behind a

wrongful act (including knowledge the act is illegal)” (Word Web Pro, 2007). Did

Andrea Yates display the thoughts and intent to satisfy this definition? This is

one-half of the components necessary to charge anyone with murder. The other

component is actus Reus, to complete the criminal act. Andrea Yates was

charged with two counts of Capital Murder pursuant to “Tex. Pen. Code Ann. §

19.03(a) (8) (Vernon Supp. 2004-2005)” (Floyd, 2006). The Grand Jury indicted

Andrea Yates for two Felony Counts of murder on June 20, 2001 (Court TV,

2006). Did Andrea Yates act with reasonableness of mind, or was she questions

Marie Mugavin, MSN, CFPN, “under the influence of hallucinations, epilepsy, or

delirium” (Mugavin, 2005)? Or was she actually insane and without control of her

faculties? Was Andrea Yates acutely psychotic when she murdered her

children? Andrea Pia Yates was eventually found to be mentally incompetent on

reverse and remand in the murders of her five children. However, her actions

show mens rea and actus Reus, which show her to be lucid and in control of her

actions.

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 3

Andrea Pia Yates, the youngest of five children, was a high school

valedictorian, a competitive swimmer, and she graduated from the University Of

Texas School Of Nursing with a BSN degree. This pursuit would indicate

someone with a facilitating mindset. Her mother was raised in Nazi Germany

where she met Andrea’s father during the British occupation. The family’s

religion was Catholic (O’Malley, 2004). There is no evidence of instability within

this family, in any event discovered to date. “Andrea Pia Kennedy marries Rusty

Yates and soon they have five children” (O’Malley, 2004). Was Andrea’s future

behavior pattern latent? Andrea’s criminal behavior exhibits symptoms of

conflicts, traumas, and deprivation of one sort or another. Dr. Stanton Samenow

excogitates on this thought with the following statement. “I thought that people

who turned to crime were victims of a psychological disorder, an oppressive

social environment, or both” (Samenow, 1984). Dr. Samenow initially

questioned the behavioral reasoning of criminals, attributing their behavior to

some psychological disorder, but his later research reveals that criminals choose

to be criminals (Samenow, 1984).

In order to determine Andrea’s state of mind prior to killing her children,

the legal components must be considered. Andrea Yates actions did satisfy the

criminal intent component; the thoughts and intentions behind a wrongful act

(including knowledge the act is illegal). Andrea Yates also completed the

criminal act. The state of Texas indicted Andrea Yates on two counts of capital

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 4

murder (Court TV, 2006). The Grand Jury by this indictment believed that

Andrea Yates satisfied the requirements for these charges. This means that

Andrea Yates acted intentionally, knowingly, and with premeditation murdered

her children.

When Andrea Yates was examined by Dr. Michael “Welner (Prosecution

Expert Witness) said he found 60 instances wherein Andrea Yates knew

drowning 6-month-old Mary, 2-year-old Luke, 3-year-old Paul, 5-year-old John

and 7-year-old Noah was wrong” (Court TV, 2006). Welner also asserted in his

Power Point Presentation during Andrea Yates second trial she had previously

thought about hurting the children (Welner, 2006). This was two years before

she actually committed the crime! Also; Welner in his testimony and

presentation before the jury states, that Andrea Yates thought about killing the

children again two months prior to the actual act, and even went as far as to fill

the tub with water (Welner, 2006). Dr Park Dietz, expert witness for the

prosecution, said in his interview with Andrea Yates “she changed her mind

about hurting the children on a previous occasion because Rusty Yates and

Rusty’s mother Dora were home with her at that time and would have stopped

her” (Dietz, 2001). Dr. Park Dietz also testified in the first trial that Yates waited

for the opportunity to kill her children. Dietz- “So the very first opportunity when

you were home alone with the children was on the twentieth? Yates-“yes (Dietz,

2001). This candid question and answer reveals premeditation and intent.

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 5

The hour and opportunity arrived wherein Andrea Yates was ready to

activate her plan. Yates made careful deliberate movements; the planning

stages were now over. Andrea Yates behavior was calculated, and according to

psychologist James P. Thompson’s testimony, she wanted nothing to get in her

way. “Before she drowned her children, Andrea Yates removed the mat inside

the bathtub, turned on the water and put up the dog -- behavior that indicated

she didn't want anything to get in the way of what she was about to do, a

forensic psychiatrist told jurors” (Thompson, 2006). Andrea Yates filled the tub

with water three inches from the top and systematically drowns her children

(O’Malley, 2004). After drowning her children, Andrea Yates arranges four of

her children on her bed close together, covers them with a sheet, but Yates

leaves her oldest son alone face down in the tub. He had struggled against her

in an attempt to survive. Andrea Yates used her superior strength to forcefully

drown him (O’Malley, 2004).

After she systematically murders all of her children, Andrea Yates calls

911, asks for a police officer to come to her residence. The police arrive and she

tells Officer David Knapp that she just killed her kids (O’Malley, 2004). Andrea

Yates begins her confession (s) of murder with this first admission. She will

confess in response to Sergeant Eric Mehl’s questions when he interviews her at

the Harris County Police Headquarters (O’Malley, 2004). Subsequent interviews

by Dr’s Michael Welner and Park Dietz would also supply evidence against

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 6

Andrea Yates. These interviews include confession, planning, and activation of

an event long in formulation. However, Andrea would plead not guilty by reason

of insanity during arraignment.

From the beginning, speculation concerning Andrea Yates mental

condition was directed towards insanity. Someone who would do something like

this must be insane was the general consensus. But was Andrea Yates insane,

or cleverly coy and extremely cunning? Several points that Dr. Dietz discovers in

his evaluation show a pattern quite different than public opinion and general

consensus. Dr. Dietz’s evaluation of Andrea Yates would become almost

irrelevant because during the initial murder trial of Andrea Yates, Dr. Dietz would

make an incredible mistake during his so-called expert witness testimony.

According to Ken Hausman:

The inaccurate testimony by Dietz, who was the prosecution’s only

mental health expert, involved statements linked to his work as a

consultant to the television show “Law & Order.” During cross-

examination by a defense attorney, Dietz said that he had consulted on an

episode that concerned “a woman with postpartum depression who

drowned her children in a bathtub and was found insane, and it was aired

shortly before the [Yates murders] occurred. (Hausman, 2005)

Dr. Dietz‘s entire testimony become irrelevant because of an inadvertent

error made while testifying. Does this oversight completely devalue his other

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 7

legitimate points? Dr. Dietz’s testimony introduced subtle but obvious clues into

Andrea Yates reasoning’s and ill feelings (resentment) she harbored against her

husband. Dr. Dietz introduces some telling events prior to Andrea Yates

becoming ill with something (undiagnosed) that influenced or changed her

mental state (quasi). At what point did Andrea Yates mental state change?

What were the “triggers”? Consider the following detailed observations

expressed by Dr. Park Dietz, for relevancy in the overall diagnosis of Andrea

Yates’ mental state. “Some of the Life Events Affecting Mrs. Yates Before Her

1999 Episode of Illness:

1. Giving up her career

2. Giving up her possessions

3. Changing her faith

4. Giving up her identity (according to others)

5. Allowing her husband to make all decisions

6. Relative social isolation

7. Five pregnancies (four births and a miscarriage)

8. Living in an RV and a bus

9. Home schooling her children” (Dietz, 2001).

Analysis of these nine points reveal incidents, perhaps acting as triggers,

that eventually contributed to Andrea Yates formulated hatred of her husband,

Rusty Yates. In Andrea Yates’ mind he is the one responsible for causing (quasi)

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 8

these life altering incidents. Dr. Park Dietz would testify during her first trial and

present a Power Point Presentation pertaining to Andrea Yates cognitive

functioning and rationale. Concerning Andrea Yates mental lucidity Dr. Dietz

would attest to the following:

“Cognitive Functioning:

A. Components include level of consciousness, motor behavior, use of

language, memory, concentration, orientation, attention, ability to think

abstractly, plan, and organize

B. Impairment in cognitive functioning may vary from insignificant to

extremely severe

Mrs. Yates had No Significant Cognitive Impairment During the Drownings:

1. She was able to dress herself that morning
2. She awakened the children to say “goodbye” to Rusty, as usual
3. She remembered who each of her children was
4. She was able to stick to the task of drowning all five children
5. She was attentive to completing her task before Dora arrived
6. She remembered to call the police so they would be there before
Dora arrived
7. She was able to call 911 and provide accurate information
8. She was able to dial her husband’s phone number” (Dietz, 2001).
Further analysis of these astute details will point directly to someone lucid

of mind, and entirely competent in every capacity. Andrea Yates lucidity of mind

is apparent in the facts; she could pay attention to each detail and systematically

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 9

execute them in a complete pattern. This is by plan and not by rote, and by

noting the sequence of events; this is not Andrea Yates normal daily routine.

So why evoke the insanity plea; because it was expected, and her

Defense Attorney (probably) knew she was guilty. Associate Psychology Editors

Richard E. Vates & Lee S. Weinberg report on the insanity aspect in their article

Murderous Mothers, for USA Today Magazine. “Let's look at Yates' claim that

she was legally insane--i.e., according to the Texas Penal Code, that, "as a result

of severe mental disease or defect, [she] did not know that [her] conduct was

wrong" at the time of the killings. The prosecution and defense agreed that

Yates was mentally ill when she killed her children, but the prosecution argued

and the jury concluded that she was not legally insane--that she did know what

she was doing was wrong” (Vatz & Weinberg, 2002). After Dr. Yates detailed

psychology analysis, can insanity be considered a viable defense for Andrea

Yates? Is not guilty by reason of insanity a valid plea in this case?

There are many reasonable minded men and women who do not

believe, or accept this plea regarding the Andrea Yates case. Why would her

Attorney maneuver her defense in this direction? Dr. Gary Kesling affirms that a

defense to prosecution can be found in the actor’s conduct was a result of severe

mental disease. He also asserts defense rationale for pleading not guilty by

reason of insanity. “It is often the case that when the person is innocent the

attorney will argue the facts; when the person is guilty the attorney argues the

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 10

law. The defense attorneys in this case argued the law” (Annals of the American

Psychology Association, 2006). The evidence against Andrea Yates was

substantial concerning her guiltiness in this case. And because of the evidence

against her, defense argues the law, depicting Andrea Yates’ actions as less than

sane. The evidence against her was damaging, and she was condemned in the

eyes of many, but she was also considered by many to be insane. Now that the

insanity plea has been entered, there must be some logical or even illogical

reason for Andrea Yates actions. Perhaps it is a post partum disorder, or acute

psychosis.

To explain the insanity defense there must be a psychosis or psychiatric

problem with Andrea Yates. Eileen Meier (JD, MPH, BSN, RN) offers this APA

finding on postpartum depression: “The American Psychiatric Association (APA,

2001) states that postpartum depression can be caused by changes in hormones

and can be inherited; that about one in ten new mothers experience some

degree of postpartum depression; that symptoms can include fatigue, feelings of

hopelessness or depression, disrupted sleep or appetite, lack of interest in the

baby, fear of harming the baby and mood swings” (Meier, 2002). Is Andrea

Yates suffering from post partum depression or an acute psychosis? Will this

drive her to kill her children, all of them? “Postpartum Psychosis: In some

susceptible women, dramatic hormonal changes in childbirth and shortly

afterward can result in a form of brief psychotic disorder often referred to as

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 11

postpartum psychosis. Unfortunately, postpartum conditions are often

misidentified and improperly treated. In many cases of a mother killing her

infant or committing suicide, postpartum psychosis is involved” (Encyclopedia of

Mental Disorders, 2005). However, not every woman with post partum

symptoms or acute psychosis kills, or even considers killing their children!

It can be said that some women may exhibit homicidal behavior during an

episode of severe post partum psychosis, but this is the exception to the rule.

Normally there is a window of time regarding this temporary psychosis. How

long does post partum psychosis normally last among those afflicted by it?

Usually by the first year, or dramatically less (three months) this psychosis

diminishes. This time frame is not new to the law enforcement community.

Past histories knew about this post partum issue and addressed the

problem with the following solution. Psychology Editors Vatz & Weinberg pose

this information on the tough legal questions encountered with the post partum

dilemma. Precedence can be found for the post partum time element.

So, a major issue of the Yates case is how to review what the legal

system does with such cases and how it might be improved. One

alternative is seen in the British law going back to 1922, which provides

that, if a mother kills her baby prior to its first birthday, the act is seen as

so different from other killings that society will treat the offender

differently. Mothers convicted under this law are treated and counseled,

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 12

rather than punished. Note that they do not need to show that they are

insane. The law simply assumes that the mother's behavior is a

manifestation of some profound mental or emotional problem associated

with childbirth. However, mothers in Great Britain who kill children after

their first birthday present the same dilemma as in the Yates case: Either

they meet the difficult test of insanity or they are guilty of murder. In the

Yates case, inasmuch as all but one of the children had passed their first

birthdays, such an infanticide law would not have made any difference in

the outcome. (Vatz, Weinberg, 2002)

Is time relevant to post partum psychosis? Yes, time of incident and age of child

is considered by law enforcement to be determinate. How often does filicide

occur in the general populace, and is there correlation between killing ones

children and spousal revenge?

“Filicide is rare in the general society with only 471 in 2001 roughly equal

maternal, paternal” according to Dr. Welner’s testimony (Welner, 2006). Marie

E. Mugavin, MSN, CFNP, notes in her article “A Meta-Synthesis of Filicide

Classification Systems: Psychosocial and Psychodynamic Issues in Women Who

Kill Their Children” spousal revenge filicide is listed as category five, and acutely

psychotic is category two in Resnick’s 1969 seminal work: “Classification of

Filicide by Motive” (Mugavin, 2005). Was this a revenge killing by Andrea Yates

to make Rusty Yates suffer? Their former Pastor Michael Woroniecki

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 13

emphatically made this accusatory statement. “For whatever it may be worth, I

want to reiterate that Andrea’s sole motive for her diabolical actions was

revenge,” he said. “It was deep and it was intense. She had told me on several

occasions of her intense hatred for Rusty. She pleaded with me for an answer on

how to live with him. She despised him” (O’Malley, 2004). And, this man was

never called to testify in this case (O’Malley, 2004). So, was this a case of

spousal revenge filicide?

How does all of this explain the Andrea Yates case? Was this pre-planned

revenge filicide, or did Andrea Yates have post partum psychosis when she

murdered her children? If one leans towards the post partum psychosis

reasoning, you must remember the youngest was Mary, and she was only six

months old. Yes, Mary’s age falls into the up to one year category previously

mentioned by Vatz & Weinberg. However, Andrea Yates had previous thoughts

of killing her children and these thoughts occurred prior to the birth of Mary her

youngest. Now the question that should be postulated; what if Andrea Yates

knew exactly what she was doing all along? Andrea Yates planned to kill these

children all along as an act of revenge against her husband Rusty Yates. Andrea

Yates felt that he is responsible for all of the problems Dr. Dietz lists in his report

and testimony. Andrea Yates planned this act of revenge and she planned to use

the insanity plea. Is Andrea Yates insane or is she extremely clever? Pleading

insanity in a Texas court of law comes with a degree of legal difficulty. Andrea

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 14

Yates Defense Attorney enters a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity for his

client, Andrea Yates. Can this argument be substantiated or supported legally?

How does Texas legally define the use of M’Naughten as a defense for insanity?

Texas and the Insanity Defense:

Texas uses a form of the M'Naughten test. The insanity defense is

set forth in Texas Penal Code (TPC) Section 8.01 in two parts: (a) It is an

affirmative defense to prosecution that, at the time of the conduct

charged, the actor, as a result of severe mental disease or defect, did not

know that his conduct was wrong; (b) The term "mental disease or

defect" does not include an abnormality manifested by repeated criminal

or otherwise antisocial conduct (Meier, 2002). The M’Naughten test can

be simply defined in the following description.

“A person was not responsible for criminal acts if as a result of a mental

disease or defect he did not understand what he did or that it was wrong, or if

he was under a delusion (but not otherwise insane) which, if true, would have

provided a good defense. The person is unable to distinguish right from wrong”

(Gifis, 1984). Did Andrea Yates know right from wrong? According to Dr.

Dietz’s testimony and court presentation, Andrea Yates knew the difference

between right and wrong (Dietz, 2001). Can this defense be applied considering

the legal definition, the findings of law enforcement, and psychiatric

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 15

examinations by leading Forensic Psychiatrists and Psychologists? In his book,

Straight Talk About Criminals, Dr. Stanton E. Samenow offers this insight.

Some people who are mentally ill also commit crimes. Having evaluated a

number of these individuals, I have found that, despite their mental

illness, they still could distinguish right from wrong. I have encountered

defendants whom others would consider to be legally insane because they

reported delusions, hallucinations, and experiences of dissociation.

Consider the defendant who asserts that he heard a voice commanding

him to commit a crime and felt compelled to obey it. I asked one such

person, “Did the voice ever direct you to do something but you did not do

as it instructed?” He replied that he heard the voice command him to

steal, but he chose to ignore it. I also inquired, “Did you ever hear the

voice order you not to do something, but you did it anyway?” He observed

that the voice told him to stay away from church, but he disobeyed it and

went. (Samenow, 1998)

Did Andrea Yates hear voices instructing her to do something wrong?

Andrea Pia Yates insanity claims were basically prejudiced along some of

these same lines and ideas expressed by Dr. Samenow. Was this part of her

overall plan, to hear voices, talk to Satan? This is an old trick for those wanting

to use the insanity plea in their defense. Remember she had a lot of time to

construct her murderous ideas. Also bear in mind that she was the class

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 16

valedictorian, and she would be considered somewhat intelligent. Can someone

be executed that is found guilty of murder but then insane? Is there precedence

for this exemption?

The broadest significance of Ford v. Wainwright is its overall

ruling that the execution of insane persons is forbidden by the Eighth

Amendment. Although the amendment specifically prohibits "cruel and

unusual" punishment, it does not define what such punishment is… First,

an insane person cannot help think of reasons why he should not be

executed, which means that he or she is deprived of rights to protect

himself or herself. Moreover, executing the insane frustrates the two main

reasons for capital punishment: that it is a deterrent and that it offers

retribution. Executing an insane person will hardly deter anyone, and if

the insane person does not understand why he or she is being killed, no

retribution has been achieved (West's, 1986)

This case is based on someone not knowing the difference between right

and wrong, someone incapable of understanding their actions. Andrea Yates

cannot be classified in this case or category. Andrea Yates knew the difference

between right and wrong. Technically, Andrea Yates could be executed for her

crimes. But; there are those that oppose such an action.

Andrea Yates was given another trial because of Dr. Dietz’s untrue

statements concerning events on the Law & Order show that never actually

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 17

happened. The counter argument resides in the subsequent overturning of the

murder convictions. Should this conviction have been overturned? Is Andrea

Yates really insane? Some chose to believe she was mentally ill or insane at the

time of the murderous incident. Is this true, and is there a compelling counter

argument to support this theory?

In "Who Is Andrea Yates? A Short Story About Insanity," Professor

Deborah W. Denno opens a startling and compelling window on the Yates

prosecutor's distortion and manipulation of facts through its star expert witness,

Park Dietz. (2) Though surprisingly unfamiliar with the nature of the mental

illness from which Andrea was apparently suffering (postpartum depression and

psychosis), as Denno relates, Dietz opined with confidence that Andrea was sane

and in control when she killed her offspring. At least in part because of Dietz's

testimony, a jury convicted Andrea of capital murder” (Colb, 2003). Initially she

was found sane and competent to stand trial for the murders of two of her

children. However, this conviction was overturned because of a witness’s false

testimony.

Andrea Pia Yates was eventually found to be mentally incompetent on

reverse and remand in the murders of her five children. However, her actions

show mens rea and actus Reus, which show her to be lucid and in control of her

actions. This is something the defense hopes for, a mistrial or anything that

would reverse the murder conviction, and in this case they got what they had

Copyright 2010
 Yates Murder Case 18

hoped for. Now Andrea Pia Yates is incarcerated in a state mental facility at the

taxpayer’s expense for a very long time. What would be the best possible

outcome for this terrible event? The facts speak for themselves; she was guilty

of murder in the first degree. She should have been executed for these

atrocious deeds.

Copyright 2010
 References

Annals of the American Psychology Association. (2006). Ask the Expert: The Case of

Andrea Yates. (Original work published 2006)

Colb, Sherry F. (June 22, 2003). THE CONVICTION OF ANDREA YATES: A

NARRATIVE OF DENIA

Dietz, MD. Park (2001). Interview of Andrea Yates. (Original work published 2001)

http://parkdietzassociates.com/files/Excerpts_from_Interview_of_Andrea_Yat

es_by_Dr._Park_Dietz_2001.pdf Web site: http://www.parkdietz.com

Encyclopedia of Mental Disorders, 2005.

http://www.minddisorders.com/Br-Del/Brief-psychotic-disorder.html Web

site: http://www.minddisorders.com/index.html

Yates Indictment. (2006). (Original work published 2006) http://www.courttv.com/

trials/yates/docs/felony1.html?print=yes&page= Web site:

http://www.courttv.com/ Now http://www.trutv.com/newname.html

Floyd, John T. 2006. http://www.johntfloyd.com/news/july/27a.htm

Web site: http://www.johntfloyd.com/

Gifis, Steven H. (1984). Law Dictionary (2nd ed., Vol. 1). Hauppauge, NY: Barron's

Educational Series, Inc. (Original work published 1975). 235.

Hausman, Ken (February 4, 2005). Inaccurate Expert Testimony Wins Yates New

Trial (3rd ed., Vol. 40). . (Original work published February 4, 2005) http://

pn.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/40/3/4. Web site:

http://pn.psychiatryonline.org/

Copyright 2010
 Mugavin, Marie E. MSN, CFNP (2005). “A Meta-Synthesis of Filicide Classification

Systems: Psychosocial and Psychodynamic Issues in Women Who Kill Their

Children.” (Original work published 2005) http://www.medscape.com/

viewarticle/508550_print Web site: www.medscape.com

Meier, Eileen. JD, MPH, BSN, RN (May-June 2002). Andrea Yates: Where Did We Go

Wrong? (Original work published 2002 http://findarticles.com/ Web site:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0FSZ/is_3_28/ai_n18613836/print

O'Malley, Suzanne. (2004). Are You There Alone? (1st ed., Vol. 1) New York: Simon

& Schuster. (Original work published 2004) 4, 12, 14, 22, 28, 97.

Samenow, Stanton E. (1984). Inside the Criminal Mind (1st ed., Vol. 1). New York:

Time Books, Division of Random House. (Original work published 1984)

Preface xiii & xiv

Samenow, Stanton E. (1998). Straight Talk About Criminals (1st ed., Vol. 1).

Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, Inc. (Original work published 1998) 135.

Thompson, James P. Court TV News. (2006). Psychiatrist: Andrea Yates' behavior

before drownings demonstrates self-discipline.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/070706_ap.html Web site:

www.courttv.com/ Now: http://www.trutv.com/newname.html

www.courttv.com/

Vatz, Richard E., Weinberg, Lee S. USA Today (Magazine) November 2002.

http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/summary_0199-2229006_ITM Web site:

http://goliath.ecnext.com/

Copyright 2010
 Web Pro Database. (2007). Web site: http://wordweb.info/.

Welner, & Chairman. (2001). Andrea Yates Filicide (4)/Infanticide(1). . (Original

work published 2001) www.forensicpanel.com/yates.ppt Website: http://

www.forensicpanel.com/

Welner, Dr. Michael (July 18, 2006). 2007. http://www.courttv.com/trials/yates/

071806_psychiatrist_ap.html Web site: www.courttv.com

West's Encyclopedia of American Law 1986. (1986). Ford v. Wainwright-Further

Readings: Great American Court Cases Vol. 6 (Vol. vol.6). . (Original work published

1986) http://www.law.jrank.org/pages/12849/Ford-v-Wainwright.html

http:// www.jrank.org Copyright © 2007-Advameg Inc.

Copyright 2010