Thats what I thought...I loved your posts...I could tell right off the bat that you had incredible knowledge of the law.
I am not surprised that you have a connection with law enforcement. People in law enforcement are sometimes stereotyped as pro-prosecution, but in my experience, they are pro law and order. And having to prove a case by a certain standard of evidence, i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt, is the law.
Its amazing that people assume that, but you are right..they always think that its an automatic siding with the prosecution...how wrong they are..One thing they dont realize is that we are harder on the detectives and DA's in cases like this than most people.
I think many people in different fields are like that...they are always harder on the people in their own field..because we expect certain things from them...and in this case, those things and the law itself.
You also think like a lawyer in this case too. Most of my colleagues have the same opinion as you and me: he probably did it, but the prosecution didn't meet its burden. Now was that a compliment or an insult?
Ill take it as a compliment regardless!! ...Ive had enough insults in here from people that didnt like that I gave Scott Peterson his right to be innocent until proven guilty...I got slammed for that more times than not.
Its nice to see that Im not the only one, besides Ken, that thought the DA didnt meet his burden of proof.
- dave
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I'm glad that Laci and Conner finally have justice after such a long and grueling process. From what I understand there was a lot of animosity between the jury and the foreman, as many of them saw him as the primary reason for juror #7 getting axed off the jury earller this week. As deliberations got heated, the jury and foreman both requested that he be removed. But that's just another report from the media, and we all know how much we can trust hype..
Once the penalty phase is over and the gag orders lifted, I hope more light will be shed on what really happened. I've never thought the murder was a matter of such old calculation and premeditation that it deserved a 1st degree charge or conviction. I agree with Mystic that they were selected out of emotion. Here was a man who simply would not come clean and tell the truth. If he had just admitted to an accidental death, he would have spared himself, his family and Laci's family the grief of the trial process. But the sad sick thing is he never owned up because he thought he could get away with it. Because of that callousness, he sealed his own fate.
What I found sick and distasteful was the mob outside the courthouse harrassing Scott's family after the verdict was read. I understand the emotional ties people felt to this case, I even understand feelings of hatred towards Scott. But to mock his family, "Are you proud of your son NOW??" is just out of line and uncalled for. Justice spoke volumes, there was no need to rub salt in the wounds.
One thing is for sure, there was no happy ending to this case for either family. Hopefully the following years will bring some sense of peace and healing to them.
Holy War....You're basically killing each other to see who's got the better imaginary friend. - Richard Jeni
chelktty said this in post #32 : But to mock his family, "Are you proud of your son NOW??" is just out of line and uncalled for. Justice spoke volumes, there was no need to rub salt in the wounds.
One thing is for sure, there was no happy ending to this case for either family. Hopefully the following years will bring some sense of peace and healing to them.
Chel...
This had to be the most irresponsible behavior Ive ever seen people do to an innocent family before.
I was horrified to think that they would be taunted in a manner such as this...
How can someone take the actions of one person and put them on the rest of the family??
People like this are nothing short of trailer trash!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
I need woolfe to answer this....if this is the ONLY reason this guy left does it stand to reason that an appeal could happen because of this?
Source: Peterson jury foreman wanted to be taken off panel
Judge Alfred Delucchi dismissed Gregory Jackson (pictured), the jury foreman in Scott Peterson's capital murder trial, on Wednesday.
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (Court TV) — The foreman dismissed from the jury deliberating murder charges against Scott Peterson Wednesday asked to be removed from the panel, a source close to the case told Court TV anchor Kimberly Guilfoyle Newsom.
"This juror wanted off the case," Guilfoyle Newsom reported Thursday.
The panelist, identified as Gregory Jackson, 46, quit the jury after his fellow jurors said they wanted another panelist to lead them, the source told Guilfoyle Newsom.
"He was removed as the foreperson and then decided he wanted off the case," Guilfoyle Newsom said.
The courthouse was closed Thursday because of the Veterans Day holiday and jurors remained in sequestration at their hotel. The panel is not permitted to discuss the case except in the jury room.
Even the media took a day off covering the trial in observance of Veteran's Day. The normally packed media booths stood desolate.
Some panelists felt Jackson, a lawyer who also holds a medical degree, was leading the jury through the evidence too slowly and wanted Juror No. 6, a firefighter and paramedic, to take over. Others also resented him for his perceived role in the removal of another juror, the source said.
When he announced Jackson was being replaced by an alternate, Judge Alfred Delucchi did not offer an explanation.
Jackson is bound by Delucchi's gag order not to talk about the case and sent a letter to the judge as he left court asking to be left alone by the media.
He was elected foreman of the jury when deliberations began Nov. 3.
Jackson, who works for a pharmaceutical company, took more notes than any other panelist during the five and a half months of trial testimony, filling at least a dozen notebooks. He normally ate lunch alone with a book while other jurors ate in groups.
His medical and law degrees and obsessive notetaking may have made him an obvious choice to lead the jury in a case that includes disputed autopsy findings and hundreds of detailed pieces of circumstantial evidence, but experts say the serious demeanor and standoffishness he displayed during the five months of trial testimony may have led to problems in the deliberation room.
"My hunch is that they didn't dislike him. They respected him or they wouldn't have made him foreperson. Maybe they respected his thorough nature and they respected the attention he was giving to the case, but perhaps he was a little to attentive and perhaps a little too methodical," said Richard Matthews, a San Francisco-based jury consultant.
The jury has deliberated for six days, but each time a juror was dismissed Delucchi ordered them to start anew. After the foreman's dismissal Wednesday, the panel worked just over five hours.
The jury is weighing first- and second-degree murder charges against Peterson, 32, a Modesto fertilizer salesman, in the death of his pregnant wife, Laci, and unborn son. She was last seen alive Dec. 23, 2002. Her body and that of the child they planned to name Conner washed up on the San Francisco Bay shore four months later.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Well, first of all, I'm blown away by how accurate my hunch was on this:
"Some panelists felt Jackson, a lawyer who also holds a medical degree, was leading the jury through the evidence too slowly and wanted Juror No. 6, a firefighter and paramedic, to take over."
But I got the other part wrong. I had assumed another juror reported him for some technical violation of the rules. Should have realized that this guy was probably a by-the-book sort.
Anyway, in answer to your question, this will not be a good ground for appeal. If the juror asked to be removed, that's pretty much the end of the issue, unless this juror alleges misconduct on the part of the other jurors as his reason for wanting to leave.
Not wanting to spend as much time examining each piece of evidence is not juror misconduct. Jurors are considered "informed" about the evidence by virtue of having sat through the trial. There is no set required duration for a deliberation, not even a rough guideline. Remember OJ?
I think the defense will be wanting to talk with Mr. Jackson, and the other dismissed jurors. Any appeal would of course only be based on what is a part of the trial record. However, if one of the dismissed jurors suddenly pipes up about alleged misconduct on the part of other jurors who remained on the panel, such a revelation could be the basis for habeus corpus relief. Very unlikely though.
The case will go up on appeal. It was a long trial and there are always issues that can be raised. If he's given the death penalty, the appeal is automatic, and goes directly the CA Supreme Court. Death penalty appeals raise every issue under the sun, sometimes 40-50 issues if the trial was long. They are only very rarely successful though. I think in CA there has only been a tiny handful of death penalty reversals (either on guilt or penalty) since CA re-instituted the death penalty.
- dave
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
Let me ask one more thing then in reference to the one comment you made...
If the guy asked to be released, maybe it was done under some form of mutiny or something?? I didnt realize a juror after a five day deliberation could just ask to leave and the judge just allow him to go. Ive heard so many attorneys say that you cant, as a juror, just leave because you dont want to be there anymore...they say it isnt cause to be released...and that this is his best chance for appeal if that is found true.
So...someone can just ask to leave because they dont want to be there anymore?
Thanks in advance!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Let me ask one more thing then in reference to the one comment you made...
If the guy asked to be released, maybe it was done under some form of mutiny or something?? I didnt realize a juror after a five day deliberation could just ask to leave and the judge just allow him to go. Ive heard so many attorneys say that you cant, as a juror, just leave because you dont want to be there anymore...they say it isnt cause to be released...and that this is his best chance for appeal if that is found true.
So...someone can just ask to leave because they dont want to be there anymore?
Thanks in advance!
No, you can't automatically be discharged from a jury upon request. It remains the judge's discretion whether to allow you to be removed, which in turn depends on your reasons. In theory, if the foreman's reasons for wanting to leave point to some kind of juror misconduct, then there would be grounds for appeal. Anything short of that would not be good grounds, particularly as it was the juror's idea that he be removed, not the court's.
- dave
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
As more questions are raised about the Peterson jury's conduct during the double-murder case, experts say the defense could be readying an immediate demand for a new trial.
On Friday, 12 San Mateo County jurors convicted Peterson of first-degree murder in Laci Peterson's death, and second-degree murder in their son Conner's death. Peterson will face a death penalty trial next week.
But the jurors have come under a shadow based on questionable deliberations and now statements they made earlier in the case.
From the beginning of the five-month trial, jurors were apparently discussing their desire to avoid being "the OJ jury," referring to the panel that acquitted former football star O.J. Simpson of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
That comes on top of last week's complaints to Judge Alfred Delucchi by the replaced foreman that a fellow juror had threatened him for trying to keep the panel from reaching an immediate verdict.
Dr. Gregory Jackson of Burlingame, who quit the panel Wednesday saying he could no longer function in the hostile environment, also said jurors seemed to be more intent on pleasing the public than examining the evidence.
And he suggested to the judge that jurors were making their decision based in part on possible book deals after the trial.
Defense attorney Mark Geragos spent the weekend examining the various reports, and experts say he could be planning to ask Delucchi to stop the penalty phase and grant a new trial.
"He could go to the judge about juror misconduct, and the judge is likely to say that should be part of a motion for a new trial," said Chuck Smith, former San Mateo County prosecutor who has monitored the trial.
But whether the judge would be willing to hear such a motion before the penalty phase is doubtful, Smith said.
"I think it would have to wait until after the penalty phase, and it could take several months to get all the paperwork done," Smith said.
But Smith added that almost nothing in the Peterson case has proceeded normally, so anything is possible.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
As more questions are raised about the Peterson jury's conduct during the double-murder case, experts say the defense could be readying an immediate demand for a new trial.
On Friday, 12 San Mateo County jurors convicted Peterson of first-degree murder in Laci Peterson's death, and second-degree murder in their son Conner's death. Peterson will face a death penalty trial next week.
But the jurors have come under a shadow based on questionable deliberations and now statements they made earlier in the case.
From the beginning of the five-month trial, jurors were apparently discussing their desire to avoid being "the OJ jury," referring to the panel that acquitted former football star O.J. Simpson of murdering Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman.
That comes on top of last week's complaints to Judge Alfred Delucchi by the replaced foreman that a fellow juror had threatened him for trying to keep the panel from reaching an immediate verdict.
Dr. Gregory Jackson of Burlingame, who quit the panel Wednesday saying he could no longer function in the hostile environment, also said jurors seemed to be more intent on pleasing the public than examining the evidence.
And he suggested to the judge that jurors were making their decision based in part on possible book deals after the trial.
Defense attorney Mark Geragos spent the weekend examining the various reports, and experts say he could be planning to ask Delucchi to stop the penalty phase and grant a new trial.
"He could go to the judge about juror misconduct, and the judge is likely to say that should be part of a motion for a new trial," said Chuck Smith, former San Mateo County prosecutor who has monitored the trial.
But whether the judge would be willing to hear such a motion before the penalty phase is doubtful, Smith said.
"I think it would have to wait until after the penalty phase, and it could take several months to get all the paperwork done," Smith said.
But Smith added that almost nothing in the Peterson case has proceeded normally, so anything is possible.
It will depend on the specifics of what the dismissed juror claims the other jurors said, and what their version is. Isolated remarks of not wanting to be the OJ jury or mentioning possible book deals might be insufficient in and of themselves, or they might be misconduct, depending on context.
Tactically, Garagos definitely should move for a new trial, rather than waiting to bring the matter up on appeal. Filing a motion for new trial will make these allegations part of the trial record, and therefore they will be addressable by the Court of Appeal. I tend to doubt that Deluchi would grant such a motion, but Garagos needs to make his record in the trial court or it'll be tough to make a case for misconduct on appeal.
- dave
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are filled with passionate intensity.
woolfe99 said this in post #40 : I tend to doubt that Deluchi would grant such a motion, but Garagos needs to make his record in the trial court or it'll be tough to make a case for misconduct on appeal.
- dave
I agree....with both statements...
I know Delucchi wont give it to him...he hasnt given him anything else for the most part...so its probably safe to say he wont give him this either.
I think Delucchi would rather it just go to the appeals court and let them handle it.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Thats what I thought...I loved your posts...I could tell right off the bat that you had incredible knowledge of the law. 
...Ive had enough insults in here from people that didnt like that I gave Scott Peterson his right to be innocent until proven guilty...I got slammed for that more times than not.
11-13-2004 03:32 AM
