Posted on 01/05/2004 5:38:21 AM PST by runningbear
False rumor led to a law
Life insurance notification bill was prompted by talk in Laci Peterson case.
By Eric Stern -- Bee Capitol Bureau Published 2:15 a.m. PST Monday, January 5, 2004
Though well-intentioned, Assemblyman Dave Cogdill relied on false rumors about the Laci Peterson case to push changes in insurance laws at his wife's urging. It started in January 2003, when Cogdill, a Republican from Modesto, and his wife, Stephanie, heard a news update about Peterson.
The pregnant Modesto resident had disappeared a few weeks earlier, around Christmas Eve. The story was making the rounds in the national media, and the whodunit talk centered on her husband, Scott Peterson.
The Cogdills heard on the radio that weekend that Scott Peterson was having an affair and had taken out a $250,000 life insurance policy on his wife after she got pregnant.
Cogdill's wife asked if it was possible to insure someone without them knowing it.
"I think there ought to be a law against that kind of thing," she told her husband.
Cogdill agreed to look into it. And when he returned to the Capitol the following Monday, his staff began researching the issue.
Feb. 20, Cogdill introduced a bill to require companies to notify people when life insurance policies are taken out on them.
The legislation cleared committee hearings and floor debate in the Assembly and Senate without much discussion. No one voted against it. Gov. Gray Davis signed it July 26.
By then, the bodies of Laci Peterson and her son, Conner, had been found in San Francisco Bay, and her husband was facing double-murder charges. He is scheduled to stand trial beginning Jan. 26, although that date likely will be delayed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pregnant Amber Frey testimony considered
Article Last Updated: Sunday, January 04, 2004 - 8:07:17 AM PST
Pregnant Amber Frey testimony considered Observers speculate on
By MODESTO BEE
MODESTO -- The prospect of a visibly pregnant Amber Frey taking the stand in the double-murder trial of her former lover, Scott Peterson, could introduce yet another intriguing dynamic, some legal observers say.
"She will remind you that the victim was pregnant, too," said prominent Los Angeles defense attorney Harland Braun.
The victim was Peterson's wife, Laci, who was about eight months pregnant when she was reported missing on Christmas Eve last year.
Frey, 28, is about five months along and the pregnancy is beginning to show, a source said. The father is a Fresno man and former business associate of Frey who helped console the massage therapist after she learned that Peterson was the prime suspect in a high-profile murder case, the source said.
Scott Peterson's trial is scheduled to begin Jan. 26 in Stanislaus County Superior Court, although the date could be pushed back. Also, his attorneys have asked to have the trial moved, because of the publicity in and around Stanislaus County; such requests can take months.
Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for the 31-year-old fertilizer salesman from Modesto. "There is no question it would play to (prosecutors') advantage if the trial occurred when she is obviously great with child," said Modesto defense attorney Ernie Spokes, a former prosecutor.
Aside from Frey possibly evoking sympathy, Spokes said, prosecutors may need every shred of evidence in what so far has shaped up to be a case relying heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Many observers speculate that Frey could provide key testimony. She had been dating Peterson for a little more than a month when his pregnant wife went missing. Six days later, as news reports multiplied, Frey contacted police and began taping her telephone conversations with Peterson, a detective testified at his preliminary hearing.
One transcript released at the hearing showed Peterson dodging Frey's questions about his missing wife and the unborn child he had never mentioned. He said he was "longing to hold onto" Frey, according to the transcript.
Braun, also a former prosecutor, said he would not hesitate to call Frey if he were the district attorney. But, "it's all witchcraft to even speculate" on how Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos of Los Angeles, would approach cross-examination if the pregnancy is obvious, Braun said.
"You probably can't judge (strategy for questions) until you hear Amber Frey's testimony," said Braun, a friend of Geragos. "That's why a trial is so dynamic. It's one of those decisions you make while running on the field, when you see what the obstacles are."
Bernard Grimm, a Washington, D.C., defense attorney, agreed that Geragos probably will not decide how to handle Frey until the moment arrives.
But Spokes said aggressive questioning can backfire if jurors think an attorney treats a witness unfairly -- especially a vulnerable witness.
"That sets a negative tone that's hard to get around," Spokes said. "You have be very .........
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretrial circus threatens justice
Posted 1/4/2004 10:08 PM
Pretrial circus threatens justice
By Ronald Goldfarb
In the repeated debates about the impact of TV on celebrated trials, the wrong questions are being asked, the right ones are not and the most prominent questioner is the chief cause of the problem.
Michael Jackson's highly publicized arrest has prompted the latest blather about prejudicial publicity. First the investigating officials held a press conference before there was an indictment. Then pseudo-pundits began saturating the airwaves with opinions about the case, even though few, if any, facts were known. Finally, Michael Jackson felt compelled to tell his side of the story in an interview broadcast Dec. 28 by CBS' 60 Minutes.
By the time Jackson, Kobe Bryant or Scott Peterson ever gets to trial, if they ever do, the public will have read and seen so much media coverage about their cases that the defendants will have been judged in the courts of public opinion without the benefit of trials.
When it comes to TV publicity and fairness in celebrated cases, debate most often centers on cameras in the courtroom. In fact, televised trials are as decorous, judicious and calm as trials without cameras, arguably more so. People behave better, as a rule, when they are being observed.
What is obnoxious and frightening is the circus outside the courthouses: fleets of media trucks, armies of cameras and pursuits by paparazzi. It is not the camera in the court that is the problem, but the one thrust at silent parties, departing sedans, participants entering public buildings or studio-based "experts" theorizing about what might be happening at any given moment. Despite all the media attention, the public is provided with no substantive information.
Juries, not TV, determine outcome
We won't know whether Peterson killed his wife, Laci, until the evidence emerges at his trial; nor whether Bryant committed rape in addition to adultery; nor whether Jackson was being extorted or is guilty of child molestation charges.
Still, in the many days leading up to the eventual trials, the public will be exposed to hours upon hours of mind-numbing analyses by commentators who offer little but bloviating blather — paradoxically, about whether all their sturm und drang will prejudice the subsequent trial.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wow, for some odd reason, this pdf doc is not viewable on the pressrelease court docs site:
Superior Court, Stanislaus County
January 2, 2004
Opposition to Motion for Change of Venue; Declaration of Dr. Ebbe Ebbesen, Mark Smith, Caitriona Goss; Points and Authorities in Opposition to Change of Venue
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the above link is for last month's and Jan 23nd court filings.
(Excerpt) Read more at sacbee.com ...
That's one euphemism for it.
I agree that Scott should get a fair trial. But it might as well be in Modesto because the whole world knows the story. There is no county in the USA that has no clue.
How I wish they would televise it. But then I am not sure I even have Court TV.
Why would a parent insure their child's life? I suppose a small policy to pay for funeral expenses might be warranted. But anything more then that is just gambling on your child's life.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.