Posted on 06/24/2004 5:54:22 AM PDT by runningbear
"Yes, they are disjointed."
Is there any way to organize, clarify, summarize as you are presenting your case? What can be done to keep the jury from getting lost?
Based on what you know, how would you organize and present this case?
Also, is it common for prosecutors to ignore jury consultants? For the life of me, I can't believe that Varinsky would have selected that recently dismissed juror.
If Brochini didn't include the witness in his report BUT it is in another report and given to the defense, why is this such a big deal? Wouldn't you need to prove that there was a deliberate attempt to keep information from the defense?
I have been so mad at the disgraceful "reporting" on this case that I emailed them all. I doubt any of them will like my emails but it seems to me that they would like to see and/or participate in setting wife and baby killers free. WHY do these TV Lawyers always seem to prefer the Defense side? I actually think that their reporting has been quite INACCURATE. I do wish this Jury was sequestered tho.
Those of us in the 5'1-2" DO get short of breath near the end. I had such a load out front that when I practically had to sleep sitting up!!
Julie becase it was the end of the weeks testimony I BELIEVE Geragos did this DELIBERATELY!! He's had THAT discovery for probably a year. He also knows it's in another Detectives report. He's PLAYING TO THE MEDIA!! I DISPISE that creep. He and the Peterson's make a PERFECT fit in character (or lack thereof) and personality.
'
"He's had THAT discovery for probably a year."
If that is true, the prosecution & LE did not hide this information from the defense! I guess we can expect this kind of melodrama from MG but I don't understand why the media went ga-ga.
LOL. I'm 5'4" and I could only sleep on my side.
It's funny, too, carrying the extra weight seems to make one's feet larger--I'm talking, permanently increasing one's feet by one size (or almost one size) per pregnancy. I sure didn't need that!
If I'm not mistaken, I think he has left his job as a prosecutor--obviously, b/c he found a bigger gravy train was to be had by appearing on cable shows!
Well, I guess it was working, true. Laci came complete with fun-loving friends, so he also had plenty of people to party with.
And the pregnancy is the most obvious change, but I also wonder about the money. It turned out that she was sitting on a nice chunk of change, for a little middle-class lady in her 20's. About a million dollars, eventually, I guess. And the funny thing is, I think Scott was made uneasy by that, rather than looking forward to his better half having all that money in just a few years. I think it made him feel inadequate, for some reason. I think that, in his eyes, it gave her too much power for him to be comfortable with her. Just guessing here, though.
I think the prosecutors decided to do a sort of linear presentation--that is, to go from beginning to end, timewise. Beginning with the crisis of Laci "missing", and developing from there. Sort of following the path that the investigation appears to have followed.
But maybe it would have been better if they had grouped their witnesses into categories: first, the time/events witnesses, that is, the people who could recount how things unfolded in time. (And they have presented those.) Then, perhaps, the witnesses who tended to show a financial motive. Then, the witnesses who may have shown other motives: Scott's not wanting to be a father, and Amber and her friends. Then, maybe they could concentrate on the Bay and go into the dogs, and into whatever they did find in the Bay. And maybe leave the jury with the dreadful images of the remains washed up on shore.
One thing I know they shouldn't be doing is presenting too many cumulative witnesses. For example, was it really necessary to present ALL the ladies from that clinic? (I'm talking about the non-M.D.'s.) And was it really necessary to put on so many officers (non-detectives) who were clearly at the house that night doing similar things? They COULD save some of these cumulative witnesses for rebuttal, if necessary, it seems.
About the jury consultants: yes, you can decide WHICH jurors, and which kind of people, you want, BUT there is still an element of chance in jury selection. It is done by process of elimination. I can only tell you what happens in my state, which is not California. Here, they "strike" a jury. They parade in a bunch of people (absolute minimum allowed is 36 for a capital case), and they question them, and they "thank and excuse" the persons they know they DON'T want. Each side gets 12 strikes (peremptory challenges), and they alternate, with the prosecutor striking one, then the defense, and so on. Then those who are still left standing move into the jury box.
You may run out of peremptory challenges, see, and still not be happy with those remaining. I've never seen it done where they had only the minimum allowable number of jurors in the pool--they've always had more. If you run out of peremptory challenges, you can't strike people you don't want, UNLESS you can find a way to challenge them for cause. You get an unlimited number of challenges for cause, BUT you have to successfully show cause. "Cause" is defined by a certain statute. Some examples of it are that the person says he/she can't be fair; or they are hard of hearing; or they are a relative of some party in the case, or of one of the attorneys (close relative), or perhaps they turn out to be a convicted felon.
So, suppose you've used up all your strikes, and you can't find any reason to challenge for cause the remaining people you don't want. They will go on the jury unless your opponent uses HIS strikes to eliminate them.
I hadn't been paying any particular attention to Hammer as a talking head. I was much more familiar with the earlier members of the "talking heads" gang: Janie Weintraub, Fieger, Pixley, and of course Nancy Grace. Oh--and Gloria Allred, who never misses a chance to be on, but who invariably spends her entire time on TV telling us that she can't reveal anything!
And I don't care if this Hammer guy wants to root for the defense! I really strongly believe that these talking heads are assigned "parts" to play on these shows. These shows are nothing but a form of "passion play" for us to watch and hoot at! But of course we watch them, and occasionally we are rewarded with an actual... fact!
But this Hammer guy has NO BUSINESS making little "rah-rah team!" gestures in favor of Geragos, in the COURTROOM, with the jury there! They need to boot his rear end out of there!
As for what Brocchini allegedly left out of his report, it qualifies as exculpatory evidence. I mean, if it's true that Laci was seen in/near the boat before the 24th, then her hair could've gotten in the boat innocently, and that would tend to exculpate Scott, I guess.
The Supreme Court said a long time ago, in a case called Brady v. Maryland, that the prosecution must turn over exculpatory evidence to the defense, IF the prosecution itself HAS such evidence.
I'm 100% sure that Geragos made the requisite "Brady motion" which (when granted by the court) would cement the prosecution's duty to turn over to them any exculpatory evidence in the prosecution's possession.
So if Brocchini had really, really hidden this witness, it would've been fatal to the case. But, as you said, the witness was not hidden. She, and apparently her evidence, were timely disclosed to the defense. End of story!
So Geragos wouldn't prevail in this situation, on a "Brady" violation. So he's trying the next best thing: to suggest to the jury that the Eeevil Brocchini deliberately hid this witness from him. (The only problem is, if the witness was hidden, then how does Geragos know about her NOW?) The only big deal here is Geragos' attack on Brocchini's character. If the jury buys it, that would be really bad. But IMO it's weak, and will be all but forgotten once Brocchini has moved on and they continue with other witnesses.
Gas prices, Hwy 395, Minden Nevada 1.89-1.98, Bridgeport-Topaz 2.99-3.15 this weekend..> And we Bay Area people complain about the SF gas prices? ;o)
"I think that, in his eyes, it gave her too much power for him to be comfortable with her."
A definate possibility.
Thank you for your post on how you might present the evidence. It was very interesting and I can see how your approach might be easier for the jurors to follow.
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.