The jurors in that case were finding evidence on their own and not in the record, which means they couldn't use it. Same with this one... planting the seed won't be enough, unless the college friend testifies under oath what Brocchini said can be grounds for an appeal by the defense if any of the jurors base their verdict on it. Some think the prosecution hit a home run with that one, I don't think so.
The man's conviction was overturned on appeal--insufficient evidence.
Barring some unexpected suprises by the prosecution evidence wise I think the same thing will happen here should Peterson be convicted. He most likely is guilty but there's not enough there to pass the test in my opinion.
There may not be enough evidence... the jury may want to know exactly how he killed her, and know exactly when and how he got rid of the body. Whether the prosecution can deliver on these remains to be seen.
One point: people talk about how tipping a heavy object (Laci's 140 lbs. plus the weights) out of that small boat might tip over the boat. But on one website someone made a very good point: he could've thrown her out of the back end of the boat. That wouldn't tip it.
There's another point now. Just saw Greta VS. It seems that the college friend was interviewed and his interview was transcribed and everything. Supposedly, in the recorded interview, he doesn't actually mention duct tape. He DOES mention the other details of body disposal--but no mention of duct tape.
So Greta has her drawers in a wad b/c she figures when Brocchini recounted the college friend's statement, he said the man had said "duct tape", when he didn't, so now Greta has Brocchini marked as a perjurer, and says the DA will suffer from not correcting Brocchini on this, should there be an appeal.
Hey, IMO, they need to worry about getting the conviction now--appeal be damned! I don't live in CA; I don't know what their current Supreme Court is like, except to say that THANK GOD Rose Byrd is no longer on it.
But just let me tell you how hard it is to get criminal cases overturned on appeal! The great majority of them are AFFIRMED. In the trial, the prosecution has the burden. Well, all that changes on appeal. The APPELLANT is the one who has to show a really good reason why the conviction should be disturbed. And the appellant in a criminal case is going to be the defendant who was found guilty.Anyway, on to my example:
Woman is tried for grand theft. She allegedly stole from her husband's business. Jury is selected. Let's go back into the jury room, before the jurors are actually herded into the courtroom to be picked over. One woman has come to jury duty ON BEHALF OF HER HUSBAND. He'd gotten the jury summons, but his work was seasonal and he absolutely could not afford to miss that particular day. So she went, carrying HIS jury notice, with HIS name on it.
The court clerk called all the names on her list. When she was through, this woman was still sitting there. So the clerk--mind you, this was the actual elected Clerk of Court--came up and the woman said, "Oh, gee, I, uh, don't know... I, er, think you did call my husband's name, see, but, well, uh... well, I'm here... here's the notice...(and shows the clerk the paper with the husband's name on it)"
The Clerk of Court SENT THIS WOMAN ON TO THE COURTROOM! The woman, who had NOT been summoned for jury duty, actually got picked and placed on the jury.
Finally, AFTER 2 DAYS OF TESTIMONY, the woman came clean and approached the judge and told him what had happened. The judge promptly replaced her with the first alternate.
The defense attorney did not move for a mistrial b/c he felt he was winning the case--but he did move for a mistrial later on, on this same issue.
BTW, the first alternate was a guy who had ONCE BEEN REPRESENTED BY THE DA WHEN HE WAS IN PRIVATE PRACTICE, and YES, that info came out in voir dire. Yet this alternate was placed on the jury.
Jury found her guilty on one count, not guilty on the other count. She appealed.
The appeals court AFFIRMED, saying that having a non-juror on the case for two days was not fatal to the trial. They also didn't think that the defense attorney's allowing a FORMER CLIENT OF THE DA'S to get on the jury unchallenged was ineffective assistance of counsel.
The state supreme court affirmed, too.
WHY will it be grounds for appeal when the Judge fully warned Geragos previously about opening THAT door. Geragos was allowed to bring in hearsay and by doing so kicked the door wide open for Distaso. Geragos has NO comeback, he was warned at the time!!