I smell a Mistrial/Hung-Jury.
Dammit, i was hoping to see the end of this dog and pony show.![]()
I smell a Mistrial/Hung-Jury.
Dammit, i was hoping to see the end of this dog and pony show.![]()
So far two jurors have been dismissed. If things go the way they've gone historically, his legal team will get him a reprieve. That's usually the way it goes. Wealthy and can afford decent representation, has a seventy-five percent chance of getting away with murder. Indigent and getting defended by the public defender, has a seventy-five percent chance of getting railroaded. Here in NJ, we have our own version of O.J. with even more damning evidence. Jayson Williams, former NJ Net, shot and killed his limosine driver, yet walks away scott free. How does that happen? I mean even with O.J. there was some kind of doubt. Ditto with Scott "Duh" Peterson. Ladies, some of you are genuinely articulate and insightful. No wonder you're so good at parting guys with their money lol.
Holy S***! "Doing her own research"? Really? If that's the case, the only good outcome now is a hung jury, as a guilty verdict will be so tainted by the possibility that she shared her "research" with the other jurors the appellate court will have a very difficult time sustaining it. OMG. Surprised the Judge didn't hold her in contempt and put her in jail for awhile! What a moron - she just screwed the whole system and cost the taxpayers hundreds of thousands, if not millions of dollars... and whether you believe he's guilty or not, wrongfully jacked around with the defendant's life - no matter who he is or what you think he did, he has a right to fair trial (as does the State), and she's seriously jeopardized that.Originally Posted by Rhiannon
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
Don't know about the numbers (percentages), but you're absolutely correct as to the basic principle. That said, why does it come as a surprise to anyone? If your surgeon was in the bottom 10% of his medical school class and is performing procedures in a dilapidated, woefully understaffed and out-of-date surgical facility, isn't it intuitively obvious that your odds of a good outcome are significantly lower than if he's graduated in the top 10% of his class, done his residency at Johns-Hopkins, and is performing the surgery at M.D. Anderson in a state of the art facility with 1/2 dozen other similarly qualified surgeons taking the time to work through the procedure with him step-by-step before he actually performs it? Works the same way with law - spend the money, buy the best, give them the time and resources to really work the case, and your odds of a good outcome are dramatically better than when you're represented by a grossly overburdended PD who has little, if any resources at his disposal and virtually no time at all to work your case or prepare for trial.Originally Posted by RedZ28
Then again, a PD's better than nothing... and I can tell you from personal experience that convincing a legislative body to finance PD's for accused criminals is no small feat - for the most part, they'd flat refuse but for the Court's rulings mandating some minimal level of indigent defense.
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
^^^^Agree wholeheartedly with the last two posts by Grn. The jurors all receive clear and explicit instructions before the trial is started and at points during the trial about not doing their own research and only relying on the admissible evidence that is presented. A juror who researches on his or her own, particularly in a case of this magnitude, scope, and expense, should be in jail for screwing the system.
if you have a lot of money and a good defense team like he does then most likely your going to get off. isn't that sad!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
the slutty one
The jury foreman quit the jury because the rest of the jurors thought he was going through the evidence too slowly. So, he quit. It is also said that the other jurors were mad at him for blowing the whistle on the first juror that was let go.
Well, if I were him, I don't think I'd want to be involved with that either.
However, they are giving the defense a lot of ammunition to get an appeal should they convict him.
Geeezus Krist...how stupid can people be?
You say this as if the system is somehow a perfect mathematical balance. It isn't. It's twelve people doing their best to find the truth in a really difficult problem that could decide the fate of another person's life. Twelve humans, not twelve machines.Originally Posted by Jay Zeno
In California, all jury instructions are given at the discretion of the Court and counsel. The reality of a jury trial is far different from the ideal. For example, I have yet to see a jury that did not discuss the case prior to deliberation. Holding juries to zero tolerance rules would result in universal mistrials. The intense scrutiny of the Peterson trial is the only reason for this ejection. Who cares? Make a decision already. Hang the a hole.
(I'm assuming the juror is not conducting a factual investigation, which would be a freakish thing to do.)





Guilty.......first degree.
you live like an ivy vine
you can only survive by clinging onto trees
that's your flaw
put down some roots so you can stand on your own
-Kenpachi
Just saw it when I got up! Wooohooo! Now fry the bastard. Funny how fast they said that smile disappeared after the verdict was read.





Guilty first degree for Laci
Guilty second degree for Connor.
Woohoo!! Bastard deserves it.
Because there ain't no tits on the radio
I second that! I hope he gets the death penalty!Originally Posted by hardkandee
![]()
I'm glad that he was convicted...
However, with all of the controversy surrounding the jury...it'll be interesting to see what the defense says in the appeals...and how that battle is fought.
It's far from over.
Yup
Whether or not you think he did it the prosecution did not have any real evidence, the entire case is circumstantial. People should be more concerned about the complete joke of a criminal judicial system we have in the US.
It was ENTIRELY circumstantial. I would say that one of the defenses arguments at appeals will be that the prosecution actually did not PROVE anything except the fact that Scott was an adulterer (is that a word?). Also, with the problems within the jury and all of that drama...there's a bunch of other arguments there, as well.
I think he did it...totally...without a doubt. However, I do not believe that the prosecution PROVED without at doubt that he did it, either. No murder weapon...no blood...no witnesses...the odds of someone ELSE doing this is VERY minutely slim...however...you know?
Yeah, but how much circumstance do ya need?
1) He's sturgeon fishing alone in a boat about the size of a bathtub in san fransisco bay on christman eve? Riiiiight.
2) Laci is found right where he was...
3) They catch him on the way to mexico, he's grown a beard and he's packing ten grand...
1 + 2 + 3 = Guilt
I'm glad he got a guilty verdict.
I am hoping he will get life in prisonrather than death as I would like to see him studied by science.
In a way, I'm hoping for life in prison too, Laura. You know that'll be ten times worse for him, and that's what he deserves. Anyway, the prisoners (even those there for murders of spouses and children) will take care of him. They don't take kindly to those types of things, even if the ones there for the same kind of crime.
As long as he's not put in his own little cell away from the rest of the prisoners, they'll take care of him.
I totally agree. This could be used as a dangerous precedent for multiple trials in the future.Originally Posted by Rebuildme
That said, I haven't seen the evidence the jury has seen so I can't say whether there is doubt or not. I have certainly seen enough to make me go "Hmmmmm" and will readily admit that.
It seems that those juror's who might have had reasonable doubt were simply let go. If you don't sing with the majority - you're fired. Get along or move along.
Yes, but your beliefs as to his guilt are the reason why convictions on the basis of only circumstantial evidence may be upheld and are perfectly valid - so long as the circumstantial evidence is sufficient enough for the jury to have made reasonable inferences therefrom, it's enough. On appeal, the court closely scrutinizes the inferences which would have necessarily had to been drawn by the jury in order for them to have decided to find the defendant guilty - and while there's no "bright-line" rule under a standard like "reasonable," the line is much more clearly defined than you realize because of the thousands and thousands of cases that have been decided this way - read enough of them and you begin to get a very clear picture re "reasonable inferences" which may be drawn from the evidence.Originally Posted by VenusGoddess
In this case, doubt that'll be the problem on appeal - there's enough here to sustain the verdict. Instead, the juror dismissals will likely be the focus - when a juror's dismissed, it's very closely scrutinized on appeal, especially if there's any indication the dismissed juror was leaning towards "not guilty." And the "research" stuff is truly problematic, for obvious reasons.
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
Well, how do you decide what is "reasonable inferences" based solely on the prosecution's admitted evidence and how much of it is "reasonable inferences" based upon the press's coverage of the missing phase, the arrest and the indictment of Peterson?
ESPECIALLY since the one juror was dismissed because she violated the "role" of being a juror (and has said that she does not know how Peterson could have committed such a heinous crime)...and possibly "contaminated" the jurors and the "evidence".
Another juror was let go by his own request because his fellow jurors thought he was going through the evidence too slowly. They wanted a man who appeared so disinterested in the case to be the foreman. It would be nice to hear from the doctor/lawyer to learn which way he was leaning...I'll bet it was more towards not guilty.
I dunno...seems to me that there's going to be quite a fight on appeals...and the defense is going to actually have a bit of firepower here.
Just for the record..."reasonable inferences" don't mean chit. They shouldn't be even allowed in court, IMHO. Too many innocent people have been imprisoned because people "think" they know something. The legal system needs a whole new make-over.
That actually covers my opinion on the matter quite nicely.If the fetus is wanted, he/she has full rights - if the fetus is not wanted, he/she has no rights?
To clarify, let's say it like this:Originally Posted by LauraLove
If a mother chooses to have an abortion, done in the first trimester, it's not murder...done in later trimesters (as long as it's for sound medical reasons) it's not murder.
Someone going up to a pregnant mother and killing her, then it would be muder charges for both mother and child.
Laura...if I am wrong in what you were meaning...my apologies.
Actually, that does appear to be the case in California... the statute makes no mention of viability and the California Supreme Court declined to read any such requirement into it, settling instead on a "7-8 week" requirement for reasons too long to go into (see People v. Davis, 872 P.2d 591 (1994)), and relying on the mother's privacy interest in abortion context to distinguish abortion and feticide.Originally Posted by BigGreenMnM
Stant - has this changed since '94?
"That's your answer Old Man? I guess you're a Hard Case too...."
- Luke
"Some men, you just can't reach...."
- Boss, re Luke
If there's one thing in my life these years have taught me,
it's that you can always see it coming, but you can never stop it.
-Cowboy Junkies
Bookmarks