Judical Council Reveals Peterson Venue Choices

KTVU News ^ | Jan 13 2004

[runningbear]

Wednesday's Details

Posted on Tuesday, January 13 2004 at 12:25 PM PST ----

Requests for Media seats in the courtroom have been received and e-mails were sent this morning to those who faxed in a request. Please check the e-mail account you indicated on that form.

What is a 995 Motion? Click here to read the 995 Penal Code law

Wednesday's hearing will be in the same courtroom as before - Department 2. Court begins at 8:30 am. The Honorable Judge Marie Silveira will preside. The court anticipates the hearing to last approximately 1 hour unless unusual circumstances are presented.

Pool cameras are CourtTV and the Modesto Bee. Pool Audio is KFBK Sacramento.

[runningbear]

Pinging.....

[runningbear]

Pinging.....

[MEG33]

Thanks

[Devil_Anse]

I don't get it. Why is Orange County on the list? Solely to placate Geragos? Is there some procedural or other rule in CA that says "if a lawyer is a loudmouth, and files a change of venue motion, he must be given some of what he asks for, even if rightfully opposed"?

[runningbear]

Not sure.. I saw that too. I think Santa Clara is getting it. Based on the recent news published lately. We'll know maybe today?

[Constitution Day]

[maggief]

"The Judicial Council of California, made up of California judges, surveyed a number of counties to determine which ones could handle the Peterson trial. The council submitted its report Tuesday to Stanislaus County Superior Court."

Should this survey be trusted?!?

(Thanks for the pings, rb.)

[Velveeta]

A survey scandal in the Scott Peterson case will delay a murder trial in Fresno County whose defendant -- an alleged Muslim terrorist -- relied on the same survey expert.

Oh, great.

[RGSpincich]

Orange County? From Modesto to OC would not pose undue hardship? Do they have maps at the Judicial Council.

[Devil_Anse]

I know--I don't get it!

I can say this much, though. Yes, a request to change venue based on publicity "tainting" potential jurors--yes, that might be legitimate, but never have I heard of the requestor being able to dictate where the venue is changed to.

I mean, "forum-shopping" is frowned on by courts. And there are many mechanisms in place, in various contexts, to prevent it. This matter at hand is not exactly forum-shopping, but it's very close, IMO.

[Spunky]

From Article"• Another judge extended until Feb. 10 the authority of Sharon Rocha over the estate of her daughter, Laci Peterson."

Did I miss something? Does this mean that Sharon Rocha got authority over Laci's estate and they are just extending the time she can start that authority?

[Tijeras_Slim]

A bit of free advice for Scotty.

[Velveeta]

From Court TV's online chat transcript with Nancy Grace:
http://www.courttv.com/talk/chat_transcripts/2004/0106grace.html

"Nancy Grace: Apparently, yes, according to the New York Times, a member of the Nation of Islam has moved into Geragos's law offices."

ROFL!! This is too much!

[runningbear]

this sucks, and stinks!!! Geragos is full it!!

[Diver Dave]

From the Opinions page in the Modesto Bee - 1/13/04:

University's falsified survey results another blot on the region's character

By John Michael Flint


The CNN talking head says "In Modesto, California, today..." and you wince. What now?
This now: To the sad list of names forever linked to a Modesto dateline -- think Cary, think Gary, think Scott -- add that of Stephen Schoenthaler and at least eight of his criminal justice students at California State University, Stanislaus (as Turkey Tech prefers to be called these days).

The T.T. Eight have admitted falsifying "results" of a survey on attitudes here and in the Bay Area relating to the Scott Peterson case. When they discovered that Schoenthaler had presented these data to the court as evidence in a change of venue motion, they 'fessed up.

The students, all of whom are anonymous as this is being written, offered two excuses for cheating.

First, they claimed that it was too time-consuming to be dumped on them at the time of final exams. This sounds a lot like sniveling when you consider that there were more than 60 students involved in the survey, and most of them seemed to have managed the task. On the other hand, it isn't safe to assume that those who've admitted the deception are the only ones who did it.

The other student complaint definitely resonates: that they were expected to pay for the long-distance calls out of their own pockets. Given the number of calls required, this could have amounted to a considerable pile of change, especially for those students with little or no change to spare. Having been one such, long ago, I can testify that the prospect would have been daunting, if not impossible.

As news of this latest local stain spread, additional criticism was leveled at Schoenthaler, specifically at the lack of controls involved: students were simply "on their honor" to actually make the calls -- there was no supervision and no call-backs to verify that the people supposedly called really had been called.

When he first heard about his students' admissions, Schoenthaler said it "seems impossible" that he could have missed the fakery. Really? Given the absence of oversight, one has to wonder exactly how the professor thinks he might have caught it.

The T.T. Eight did wrong, no doubt. They cheated, and they'll pay for that. But when they realized the use to which their creativity was being put, they owned up to what they did, knowing it would cost them. They didn't get caught -- they stepped up.

Schoenthaler also needs to answer for his part. To take data collected (or, as it turns out, not) in such a loosey-goosey mannner, and then present it as fact to a court in a case involving a charge of premeditated murder requires a detailed and compelling explanation.

The school will eventually render judgment, the media will move on to the Next Big Thing and it will once again be safe to watch TV. But a bad taste is going to linger.

Leonard Henry Courtney observed (Mark Twain quoted him, misattributing it to Benjamin Disraeli) that there are three types of lies: "Lies, damned lies, and statistics." This episode neatly rolls all three into one.


Flint is a Modesto resident and frequent guest columnist to the Mod Bee.

[Velveeta]

Do you think the Nation of Islam member will accompany Geragos and the Petersons to court today?

It might have been Islamic extremists/satanist-kidnapper-burglar-nazi-homeless-drunken neighbor-artists who took Laci, ya know. ;-)

[Neenah]

Did anyone ever get to the point where you just want to throw your hands up, but you can't because you are at the porcelain on your knees when you hear about our judicial system ??????

[An American In Dairyland]

>>I don't get it. Why is Orange County on the list? Solely to placate Geragos? <<

I don't know if it has to do with Geragos. But if it does, I don't see how Orange County is beneficial to Scott. Orange County is not LA County by any means. My father used to live in Orange County and he always said it was "Redneck Country" meaning it has a very conservative population. Not the kind of population to give Scott a sympathetic or easy pass on killing his wife and baby.

[maggief]

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/13/pzn.00.html

PAULA ZAHN NOW

Aired January 13, 2004 - 20:00 ET



...ZAHN: There will be no news cameras in the courtroom when Michael Jackson is arraigned on child molestation charges on Friday. Joining us to look at Michael Jackson case and more, Linda Fairstein, former head of the sex crimes unit of the New York district attorney's office, and she also happens to be the author of a brand new book out today called "The Kills."

It's always good to see you, welcome. Let's start out by talking about the Michael Jackson case. Do you think the prosecution has a sound case?

LINDA FAIRSTEIN, AUTHOR, "THE KILLS": I would hope the prosecution has a sound case. There's a history between this prosecutor and the defendant, and I'd like to make sure he wouldn't go out and try this again if you didn't have the case and the facts.

ZAHN: But as a prosecutor, how do you deal with a videotaped statement, an affidavit by the same accuser who suggested nothing bad, nothing inappropriate happened there?

FAIRSTEIN: As a prosecutor, you'd have to know the reason for this inconsistency. There is nothing more devastating to a case than a tape that will show your witness saying the counterside, the exact opposite of what he or she is saying in court. There has to be an awfully good reason for it, or that too may not survive the direct case of a prosecutor.

ZAHN: Onto the Kobe Bryant case now. This is an area of the law you've had a tremendous amount of exposure to. How do you think that case is shaping up?

FAIRSTEIN: I think the prosecution went out on this way too early.

ZAHN: Why?

FAIRSTEIN: Well, I think most of us were shocked a few months back to find out there were two separate DNA profiles when this young lady turned up at the hospital with her underwear and the medical exam. I thought for a long time, as did many other lawyers in this country, to prevent a victim's sexual history from being an issue at this trial.

ZAHN: That's exactly what this trial will be about, her sexual history, how many partners she had? FAIRSTEIN: If there was a sexual interaction with someone else after she claims she and Kobe Bryant had this event together and before she went to the police, everybody is entitled to scrutinize that. For 30 years I have prosecuted these cases, and I have never had a sexual assault victim who claimed to have been raped and went home and had a sexual encounter consensually with someone else before reporting the rape.

ZAHN: Are you suggesting you do not believe this accuser?

FAIRSTEIN: No, I'm not suggesting that. I'm suggesting the prosecution should never have charged when they did without knowing there was a second DNA profile and without knowing whose profile that is.

ZAHN: Finally, let's look at the Scott Peterson case. Scott has change of venue. Will that have a major impact, you think, on the outcome of this trial?

FAIRSTEIN: I don't think so. I think -- and in this case, the Peterson case, I think the prosecution and the police have done an extraordinary job in preventing leaks. I assume there's an extraordinary amount of evidence and information found in the search of the home and on the boat that will be the pieces of this puzzle put together. But I think once we get beyond the talking heads, that this is a case -- there will be solid evidence to present no matter what the venue.

ZAHN: Linda, finally, I'm going to put you on the spot here. Verdict scorecard. Michael Jackson, you think a jury will find what?

FAIRSTEIN: I think he's probably guilty. Not sure a jury will find it, but the prosecution mounts the case correctly, perhaps they will.

ZAHN: Kobe Bryant?

FAIRSTEIN: I think we may find he should never have been charged in this case. Maybe successfully by his team have a motion to dismiss before the trial as the evidence unfolds. I think he'd be acquitted by a jury.

ZAHN: Scott Peterson?

FAIRSTEIN: I think Scott Peterson is the easiest of these cases for a prosecutor to try, and I think from the evidence we know -- and I assume there's more -- that he will be found guilty by an intelligent jury.

ZAHN: Looks like a case you might have been comfortable trying yourself.

FAIRSTEIN: I would love to be in the middle of that one.

ZAHN: Linda Fairstein, we always appreciate your insight. Thank you. And we want to thank you all for being with us tonight. Thanks so much for joining us. "Larry King Live" is next. Have a good night, hope you'll be back with us again tomorrow night.