Haggling Over Evidence in Peterson Trial

The Guardian ^ | 3/01/2004 | Brian Skoloff

[Devil_Anse]

I think you're absolutely right about the reason they mention banking/finance expertise on the questionnaire.

As for handwriting analysis, the only kind that is even accepted as a serious science is that which tends to prove whether a particular person wrote a particular document or signature. This business about trying to determine a person's character traits from his handwriting is pop science, nothing more--and so, couldn't be evidence in a trial. Furthermore, a defendant's character may not be discussed in a trial unless the DEFENDANT raises the issue, and trying to show good character is always a risky proposition, so it is seldom done. No way do I think the defense plans to provide evidence of good character on the part of Scott.

The fingerprinting questions... we just don't know, but it sure will be great when we find out! That sort of evidence can only be detrimental to Scott! (Maybe they found Scott's fingerprints on Amber.)

On the firearms questions, I guess you're right. Since everything, nowadays, is politicized, I guess the question of whether he owns a gun or guns is something that would affect a California jury... it might make some of them not like him!

Then there is the question of drugs. Maybe I was too hasty when I dismissed the idea that Scott slipped Laci some GHB that night. I abandoned that idea b/c I heard the med examiner didn't find it in her remains, but who knows? There wasn't much left of the poor girl; who knows, maybe he DID order GHB on the computer, and maybe they found some of it in the house.

Or maybe a drug expert is gonna discuss Viagra!

[RGSpincich]

lots of middle aged, pony-tailed guys driving around in their beat up old vans with bumper stickers. I live in what is known as Berkeley East,

Grizzley Peak, no doubt. I'm in El Sobrante East and see those same anti-Bush bumper stickers all over the Bay area.

[Devil_Anse]

Thanks for the cite. I just read the questionnaire.

I was amused that they asked if the juror candidate watched Greta VS, Larry King, or Geraldo. (How long has it been since Geraldo featured this case??)

Perhaps they should have added a question like this: "If you have watched any of the above cable shows, did you happen to catch any of the ones where attorney Mark Geragos said the defendant didn't have a chance, or where said attorney expressed an opinion that the defendant did these murders?"

[William Terrell]

Why should there be any evidence needed. Anyone just looking at the pictures of Scott knows he's guilty. I mean, that dead pan face and smirk on his lying lips! They just oughta deem him guilty and save everybody a lot of time, so we can bring closure to Laci and her poor, sweet, dead baby!

[Jackie-O]

Remember the report of the questioning of SP when they asked him to be tested for gunshot residue, and he asked if he would test positive if he ran an outboard motor???
May that's the possible firearms testimony...maybe Snott tested positive for gunshot residue????
Thanks for that report Lynn, great stuff, maybe a little peek into the State's case.

[Canadian Outrage]

I agree WT but that's not unfortunately the way the justice system works. I would have NOT ONE problem convicting him to death, TODAY!!

[Canadian Outrage]

#343 - It would be very tempting to ask the prospective Jurors if they saw Geragos creaming his own client!! LOL

[Devil_Anse]

Gosh, I never thought of it that way! We need more deep thinkers on these shallow threads.

[Devil_Anse]

Also, remember how they said at the prelim that, in spite of their having tested him for that, they had never even gotten the results??

[Jackie-O]

Well lookie here! Someone finally showed up!
Morning Dev!
I wonder why there were no results. Who said at the pre-lin that there were none? Pros or MG??

[Devil_Anse]

It was Brocchini. He said that yes, they'd done the swab of Scott's hand, but that he'd never picked up the results from the lab--or the lab had never delivered the results, or something like that. It sounded really strange.

[Lucy Lake]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113700,00.html

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. — Defense attorneys in Scott Peterson's (search) double-murder trial told a judge Tuesday they believe too many prospective jurors already have concluded their client is guilty and, among other possible remedies, may seek a second move for the trial.
"The prejudgment rate ... is at a level where the court needs to take some action," Peterson lawyer Mark Geragos (search) told the judge.

Geragos said he would file a motion Monday "asking for one of three remedies."

He said he would seek either a change of venue out of San Mateo County (search), to have the judge revisit the issue of having two juries — one for the guilt phase and one for the penalty phase — or for the defense to be given an additional number of challenges to dismiss unwanted potential jurors.

[onyx]

I saw that and it makes me mad. Another Geragos trick.

[pinz-n-needlez]

Very interesting, thanks for posting.

We've been traveling, so I have a lot of reading to catch up on.

I wander over to CTV some evenings when things are quiet here. It gets brutal sometimes. I like life here. :-)

Pinz

[Lucy Lake]

LOL, this one?