Dev, it's not wine he serves, it's "Jesus juice".
Ugh. How sick is that????
Attorneys in Peterson murder trial use jury screening to preview case
Attorneys in Peterson murder trial use jury screening to preview cases
The Peterson Trial
By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: April 5, 2004, 06:02:12 AM PDT
REDWOOD CITY -- Could you convict someone solely on circumstantial evidence?
Would a defendant's failure to put up a vigorous defense indicate guilt?
Do you think police officers are more likely to tell the truth?
Attorneys on both sides of Scott Peterson's double- murder trial have focused on such questions for two weeks as they've screened potential jurors.
The queries highlight common misperceptions about the legal system and foreshadow key elements in the case.
The ostensible purpose of jury questioning -- known as voir dire -- is to uncover bias. But it also lets attorneys establish a rapport with jurors, educate them about the law and preview their cases, legal observers said.
"It's an art form, because the first purpose is the only legally permissible one, that is, uncovering their biases," said George Bisharat, a specialist in criminal procedure at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.
"But a skilled trial lawyer is able to say a lot to kind of preview the case in the form of questioning they use," he added.
Prosecutors have asked jurors if they could convict Peterson solely on circumstantial evidence, suggesting their case might rely heavily on that.
"They are preparing the jury to not be disappointed with the prosecutors' case," Bisharat said. "They are trying to manage the expectations of the jury."
A circumstantial case is not necessarily a weak one, legal observers said, pointing to a common misperception.
"Unless you have an eyewitness who said, 'I saw Scott Peterson kill his wife,' you've got a circumstantial case," said Gerald Uelmen, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and a member of O.J. Simpson's defense team. "Even if somebody saw Scott Peterson carrying a body out of the house, that's not direct evidence."
In practical terms, direct evidence is either a witness account of the crime or a confession, legal academics said.
Everything else -- DNA test results, gunshot residue and fiber traces -- is circumstantial evidence, they said.
"Circumstantial evidence can be very compelling, and in many cases, more compelling than an eyewitness," Uelmen said.
An example of circumstantial evidence would be someone sitting in a wet bathing suit next to a pool with wet footprints leading from the pool to the person. Those facts are circumstantial evidence the person went swimming, Stanislaus County Chief Deputy District Attorney John Goold said.
Direct and circumstantial evidence are entitled to equal weight under the law, as prosecutors have pointed out to prospective jurors.
Defense attorney Mark Geragos has quickly followed that by noting the difference between the two types. The judge will instruct jurors that if circumstantial evidence permits two reasonable interpretations -- one pointing to guilt, the other to innocence -- jurors must adopt the one pointing to innocence.
"It's all got to fit together and point to guilt," Uelmen said, noting defense attorney Johnnie Cochran's oft-quoted line to jurors in the Simpson trial: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."
"Everybody assumed he was just talking about the glove," Uelmen said. "What he was really talking about was the jury instruction in a circumstantial case. If there is a way you can put it all together and it points in another direction, you've got to follow that direction."
Similarly, jurors will be instructed that prosecutors have the burden of proving Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner, on or just before Christmas Eve 2002. Peterson does not have to prove his innocence.
"Mr. Peterson can sit there like a potted plant," Judge Alfred Delucchi repeatedly has told prospective jurors.
Geragos has returned to that point often, asking prospective jurors if they thought Peterson should have to testify or if he should have to put up a vigorous defense to be acquitted.
"It's one of the single biggest issues in criminal trials," said Beth Bonora, a veteran trial consultant and co-founder of San Francisco trial consulting business Bonora D'Andrea. "People want to hear both sides; everybody does. And yet they are educated by the judge and the attorneys that the defense does not need to put on a defense."
Bonora pointed to her experience as a juror in a drunken-driving trial.
"When the defense got up and didn't call anybody, I was surprised," Bonora said. "I had to say to myself, 'Beth, you know the rules; get over it.' I think it's just a common human reaction to want to hear the other side."
Another common reaction can be to believe police officers are more likely to tell the truth, legal observers said.
Prosecutors have consistently asked potential jurors if they would automatically favor police over other witnesses. That, legal observers said, could be a calculated way to determine if the juror is biased against police.
"This is largely going to be a police- officer testimony case," Uelmen said. "A lot of the prosecution's case is going to be built on their observations."
The defense has portrayed the police as sloppy investigators who ignored credible leads to focus on Peterson.
If a police officer's testimony proves less than credible, that could raise reasonable doubt about the case, Bonora said, which would mean an acquittal.
http://www.modbee.com/local/story/8394629p-9228106c.htmlPuke. There's a special place in hell reserved for that pervert. One thing's for sure, he'll never spend a day in jail in THIS world.
Meanwhile, his victims (except the ones who already have a terminal illness) will spiral downward into self-destructive behavior, and will probably die young, as did Steven Stayner, a similar victim of less affluent pervert, who also never spent a day in jail for what he did.