Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Haggling Over Evidence in Peterson Trial
The Guardian ^ | 3/01/2004 | Brian Skoloff

Posted on 03/01/2004 5:35:24 AM PST by runningbear

Haggling Over Evidence in Peterson Trial

Haggling Over Evidence in Peterson Trial

Monday March 1, 2004 10:46 AM

By BRIAN SKOLOFF

Associated Press Writer

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) - Just days before jury selection is set to begin, attorneys in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial continue to haggle over the admissibility of evidence.

Judge Alfred A. Delucchi has already made several key rulings in the case, including a decision to allow prosecutors to use evidence police gathered with electronic devices used to track Peterson after his wife disappeared.

But still at issue is the admissibility of monitored phone calls, which was set to be the topic when court hearings resume Monday. Peterson is charged in the deaths of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son.

Peterson attorney Mark Geragos was prepared to challenge the wiretap evidence, which was gathered by police in the weeks after Laci Peterson's disappearance. Geragos claims investigators violated Scott Peterson's attorney-client privilege when they listened to bits of conversations with his first attorney, Kirk McAllister.

During the first months of 2003, investigators monitored about 3,000 calls Peterson made or received, including 76 between the former fertilizer salesman and his first attorney.

With both sides bound by a gag order, it's unclear exactly what evidence prosecutors plan to use from the wiretaps, but authorities have maintained they followed all federal guidelines when using the listening devices.

The bodies of Laci Peterson and the baby washed ashore in April along the shores of San Francisco Bay, not far from where Scott Peterson claims he was fishing on the day his wife vanished - Christmas Eve, 2002.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Thursday, with court officials summoning 200 potential jurors for questioning.

In other crucial decisions, Delucchi ruled last week that only one jury will be seated for the trial and that panelists will not be sequestered. Geragos had sought two juries - one to decide guilt or innocence and one to levy a sentence if Peterson is convicted. He could face the death penalty.

Delucchi has yet to rule on what could be the most damaging ...........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Passes Unborn Victims Of Violence Act

House Passes Unborn Victims Of Violence Act

( ABP) -- The U.S. House of Representatives voted Feb. 26 to treat an attack on a pregnant woman as two separate crimes against her and the fetus she is carrying. Critics say the bill would undermine abortion rights by giving fetuses new legal status.

The measure would be applicable only to federal crimes, such as terrorism or drug trafficking. But supporters said Congress needs to bring federal law in line with state statutes. Twenty-nine states already have laws that recognize crimes against fetuses.

Passage of the Unborn Victims of Violence Act is backed by President Bush and conservative religious groups. It is the major legislative objective of abortion opponents this year, after Congress banned partial-birth abortions last year. A similar bill awaits action in the Senate. Although the House has twice passed bills recognizing crimes against fetuses, the Senate has yet to do so.

Bush urged the Senate to follow the House's lead. "Pregnant women who have been harmed by violence, and their families, know that there are two victims -- the mother and the unborn child -- and both victims should be protected by federal law," he said in a statement.

Before passing the bill 254-163, House members easily rejected a Democratic substitute that would have increased penalties for attacks on pregnant women in which the fetus is injured or killed without recognizing the fetus as a victim. .........

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demographics less important than attitudes in Peterson jury

Posted on Sun, Feb. 29, 2004

Demographics less important than attitudes in Peterson jury

KIM CURTIS

Associated Press

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Attitudes about the death penalty and extramarital affairs may be more important than demographics when it comes to picking a jury for Scott Peterson's double-murder trial, experts say.

Jury selection is slated to begin later this week, as the first 200 questionnaires are handed out to San Mateo County residents. After the judge dismisses people for hardship reasons, the next step will be further questioning, or voir dire. Jurors will be questioned one by one in the courtroom by lawyers and Judge Alfred A. Delucchi.

"Demographics are not the controlling factors," said Lois Heaney of the San Francisco-based National Jury Project, the nation's oldest trial consulting firm. "It's people's attitudes, their life experiences, what life has taught them."

Authorities allege Peterson, 31, murdered his pregnant wife, Laci, in their Modesto home on Dec. 24, 2002 because he was having an affair with a massage therapist, then drove her body to San Francisco Bay and dumped it overboard from his boat.

On Monday, attorneys will continue arguing over the admissibility of wiretap evidence gathered in the weeks after Laci Peterson's disappearance.

In addition to age, occupation, marital status and other demographic data, prosecutors and defense lawyers will ask potential jurors on the 30-page questionnaire whether they've had an extramarital affair, how they feel about people who have affairs, whether they've ever lost a child or been a victim of a violent crime, whether they've ever considered a career in law enforcement and if they own a gun.

"The prosecution is looking for people who are more conservative, more conventional and who are deeply, personally offended by things like people having an affair," Heaney said.

Prosecutors also will likely favor "authoritarians," or judgmental people who tend to discriminate, according to David Graeven, president of the San Francisco-based Trial Behavior Consulting. "They're very black and white. They tend to follow authority. They respect that which is above them, but not what's below them."

However, people who work in the hard sciences, such as engineers, would be ideal for the defense, Graeven said.

"Engineers rely on evidence," he said, adding that the prosecution has an extremely high burden of proof in a double-murder capital case.

The defense also wants jurors with "a high tolerance for ambiguity," Heaney said. "People who can tolerate just not knowing if the prosecution can't prove his guilt."

On the other hand, prosecutors want people who say "good enough," she said. "There's enough smoke here."

In most capital cases, the real issue isn't guilt, but whether to sentence the defendant to death, said Edward Bronson, who teaches at Chico State University and has studied juries for 40 years.

"There are exceptions, and this arguably is going to be one," Bronson said. "A lot of the evidence is kind of hokey. Some of it's barely admissible. This could be a close case on guilt."

Defense lawyer Mark Geragos failed in his attempt to empanel two separate juries - one to determine guilt and another to impose sentencing. Now, all 12 jurors and six alternates will need to proclaim their willingness to sentence a person to death.

That means trouble for the defense, experts agree.

Talking to people about the death penalty before the person is convicted, means "placing in people's minds that he's guilty," Heaney said.

And the more questions you ask, and the more you talk about the death penalty, "the worse it gets for the defense," Bronson said. "This is an absolutely atypical capital case. This ain't no Charles Manson. He's white, he's middle class ... This isn't what you typically find.".......

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DEVELOPMENTS:

Posted on Fri, Feb. 27, 2004

DEVELOPMENTS:

Judge Alfred Delucchi denied a defense request Thursday to sequester the jury for the six-month trial. He also denied a defense motion to select two juries, one for the guilt phase and one for the penalty phase.

The supervisor of a dog handler testified that Laci Peterson's sunglasses used by the dogs to recognize Laci's her scent were not contaminated by Scott Peterson's scent from his brown slipper.........

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Wiretap, dog tracking evidence to be challenged by defense

Wiretap, dog tracking evidence to be challenged by defense

Redwood City, California-AP -- Attorneys in Scott Peterson's murder trial will be back in court today to haggle over what can be admitted as evidence.

One issue is the wiretapping of three-thousand phone calls. Peterson's attorney says investigators violated attorney-client privilege when they listened to calls between Peterson and his first lawyer. Authorities say they followed federal guidelines when using the listening devices.

The judge has yet to rule on evidence from police who say tracking dogs picked up Laci Peterson's scent on her husband's boat and at a marina. Laci Peterson's......

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The People of the State of California vs Scott Lee Peterson

(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: avoidingchildsupport; baby; babyunborn; conner; deathpenaltytime; dontubelievemyalibi; getarope; ibefishing; laci; lacipeterson; smallbaby; smallchild; sonkiller; unborn; wifekiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-355 next last
To: pinz-n-needlez
pinz I think this Judge is a cool cucumber. Remember Geragos's pathetic remark to the Judge that "you barely have contro over this Courtroom"!! Judge Delucchi completely IGNORED him. Didn't even acknowledge that he'd said it!! LOL This guy, is calm, cool, level headed, has great control over the courtroom while at the same time giving the Lawyers on both sides, plenty of latitude to try their cases. He's NOT moved by any theatrics. He knows the Law well.
101 posted on 03/02/2004 7:32:47 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
So that's one vote for opera and Madiera....

I agree, btw.

Pinz
102 posted on 03/02/2004 7:35:12 PM PST by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
So Where did everyone go????
103 posted on 03/02/2004 8:09:27 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
Are we it pinz?? I'm exhausted anyway so will probably pack it in early tonight. Sweet dreams all. Let's see what tomorrow brings. CO
104 posted on 03/02/2004 8:19:40 PM PST by Canadian Outrage (All us Western Canuks belong South!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
Don't know, but I need to leave, too.

A good day, a good judge. Let's hope he stays focused.

'Night CO, eh? ;-) (We used to live 65 miles from Canada.)

Pinz
105 posted on 03/02/2004 8:21:11 PM PST by pinz-n-needlez
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: runningbear
The prosecution's star witness...


106 posted on 03/02/2004 10:51:35 PM PST by Diver Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Diver Dave; runningbear; Velveeta; Canadian Outrage; drjulie; pinz-n-needlez; All

Updated March 2, 2004, 4:49 p.m. ET


Judge rules that Peterson jurors will hear evidence from dogs, wiretaps

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — In two of the most crucial decisions yet in Scott Peterson's murder trial, a judge ruled Tuesday that jurors will hear wiretap evidence collected by investigators and some, but not all, of the details gathered by scent-sniffing police dogs.

Experts have said the dog-tracking evidence could be the most damaging to the defense theory that Laci Peterson was at home Christmas Eve morning 2002 before she vanished later that day — when Scott Peterson claims to have been fishing on San Francisco Bay.

Prosecutors say the dogs picked up Laci Peterson's scent in several places in the days after her disappearance, including the Berkeley Marina where Peterson claims to have launched his solo fishing trip.

Judge Alfred A. Delucchi decided to allow in only the evidence gathered by dogs at the marina. Prosecutors also wanted to present evidence that the dogs had detected a broken trail of scents leading from Laci Peterson's home to the warehouse where Scott Peterson kept his boat, along the boat's rim and at the marina.

Court precedent requires corroboration of any dog-tracking evidence, Delucchi said, adding that Scott Peterson has admitted to being at the marina and that the bodies of his wife and unborn son washed ashore along San Francisco Bay in April just two miles from there.

"It would be foolhardy for the court to admit this (other) evidence because it would inject a cancer into the record," Delucchi said.

Defense lawyers likened dog tracking to witchcraft, and said the canines were unreliable. Prosecutors have presented neither witnesses to the killing nor a murder weapon.

Authorities allege that Peterson, 31, murdered his pregnant wife in their Modesto home on Dec. 24, 2002, because he was having an affair with a massage therapist, then drove her to the bay and dumped her overboard from his small boat.

Jury selection is scheduled to begin Thursday, when court officials will summon an initial 200 residents for questioning. Peterson could face the death penalty if convicted.

On the topic of wiretaps, defense lawyers had argued investigators violated Peterson's attorney-client privilege when they listened to bits of conversations with his first attorney, Kirk McAllister.

Delucchi was unswayed by the arguments, saying investigators followed proper procedures when monitoring the calls and any privileged information they heard was "so minimal to be of no consequence."

During the first few months of 2003, investigators monitored about 3,000 of Peterson's calls, including 76 between the former fertilizer salesman and his first attorney.

With both sides bound by a gag order, it's unclear exactly what evidence prosecutors plan to use from the wiretaps, but authorities have maintained they followed all federal guidelines when using the listening devices.



http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/030204_admitted_ap.html






107 posted on 03/03/2004 5:04:32 AM PST by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Constitution Day
Judge rules that Peterson jurors will hear evidence from dogs

I love Scotty, for me to poop on!
108 posted on 03/03/2004 5:12:14 AM PST by Tijeras_Slim (Just once I'd like to get by on my looks.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Devil_Anse
Meant to ping you too! Mornin'!
109 posted on 03/03/2004 5:13:12 AM PST by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: Jackie-O
Yes, you know, Jackie, that conversation was picked up only weeks or months after the "disappearance". The bodies hadn't been found. IMO, it is highly doubtful that the attorney had the trust of a nut like Scott, enough so that Scott would be giving him detailed facts about a crime on the phone. Plus, I honestly think that the attorney would have warned Scott not to go into too many facts on the phone, since Scott was not in jail, and they had many opportunities to meet and talk in absolute secrecy.

I don't believe that conversation consisted of Scott giving up any facts to his attorney, so even if the cops are lying (even if they really did hear it), I don't see how it could have benefitted them much. I have a feeling the conversation consisted of Scott's assuaging his anxiety, asking about the probable legal course that the police were going to take.
110 posted on 03/03/2004 5:22:03 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: runningbear
Concept of Justice versus the Theater of the Absurd. The latter usually prevails!
111 posted on 03/03/2004 5:24:41 AM PST by verity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
ROFLMAO!!! You guys are the best!
112 posted on 03/03/2004 5:25:09 AM PST by Jackie-O
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
I can't picture Scott explaining any such thing to his lawyer. A con artist is going to try to snow everyone, even his own lawyer.

Some people think "if this lawyer really knew the awful thing I did, HE wouldn't like me, and would know how bad I really am, and he might not work hard to get me off." So they have trouble telling their lawyer what they REALLY did, if they are really guilty. I wouldn't be surprised if Scott were one of those.
113 posted on 03/03/2004 5:25:57 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
I remember that some of us here wondered if she might have helped him get rid of his wife.

Turns out, though, that while she seems to be a game-player, she has her limits on how much bad behavior she will condone.
114 posted on 03/03/2004 5:27:50 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
Seriously, it sounds like a really neat hobby. What is the story behind the Gunnister Man?

What? No toothpaste and toilet paper? Hey, someday those items Scott makes will be valuable! (If nobody flushes them first...)
115 posted on 03/03/2004 5:30:17 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Canadian Outrage
LOL! Seriously, CO, ever since the time I first saw Geragos on TV, during Lewinsky, he's clearly never once looked like anything but a bloody idiot.
116 posted on 03/03/2004 5:33:17 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: pinz-n-needlez
That last thing you said! Count on it!

I'm sure that judge has seen many a braying jackass before. I doubt he thinks about it when he's off-duty!
117 posted on 03/03/2004 5:35:38 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: Diver Dave
Yes! And he has an IQ greater than that of Scott and his lead attorney combined.
118 posted on 03/03/2004 5:37:24 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Jackie-O
Good morning, Jackie!!
119 posted on 03/03/2004 5:39:27 AM PST by Devil_Anse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: Tijeras_Slim
Heh.

If the Canucks thought Triumph the Insult Comic Dog was offensive, I think we should bombard them with Peterson trial coverage.

120 posted on 03/03/2004 5:50:48 AM PST by Constitution Day ("The germ of dissolution of our federal government is in the constitution of the federal Judiciary.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 81-100101-120121-140 ... 341-355 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson