Peterson trial delay

The Modesto Bee ^ | 08/06/04 | Garth Stapely

[runningbear]

Material found near this site when Laci Peterson's body was discovered in April 2003 led to Thursday's trial delay, a source said.

REDWOOD CITY -- A judge Thursday delayed Scott Peterson's murder trial until Tuesday so newly discovered evidence can be scientifically tested. Neither the judge nor the attorneys indicated what the evidence was, but defense lawyer Mark Geragos called it "potentially exculpatory" -- meaning it could help clear his client.

[runningbear]

Scott Peterson Murder Trial: Thursday's hearing results.

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

Peterson, 31, is charged with murdering his pregnant wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.

The evidence flap involves material found near Laci Peterson's remains, a source close to the case said.

Thursday's revelation came after a closed door meeting of almost an hour in Judge Alfred Delucchi's chambers. The jury then was brought into court and told of the delay.

"There's been some newly discovered evidence that requires an investigation on both sides,"

Delucchi told the panel. "We can't go further until this situation is resolved."

Geragos said the evidence had come to light within the previous 48 hours and suggested preliminary test results would be back by Tuesday........

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

Roadblock for prosecution
New evidence forces judge to order a delay -- duct tape found near Laci Peterson's body was never tested by Modesto police

Roadblock for prosecution
New evidence forces judge to order a delay -- duct tape found near Laci Peterson's body was never tested by Modesto police

Stacy Finz and Diana Walsh, Chronicle Staff Writers

Friday, August 6, 2004

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

The judge in the Scott Peterson capital-murder case abruptly suspended the trial Thursday morning, after new evidence emerged that defense lawyers say could help free their client.

Judge Alfred Delucchi did not reveal what the evidence was. But sources close to the case say it was duct tape and other items found near the remains of Laci Peterson, which could undermine the prosecution's theory of how her killer disposed of her body.

"There is new discovery evidence which requires some investigation on both sides," Delucchi said. "This is up in limbo now, and it has to be resolved before we proceed.''

Prosecutors maintain that Peterson killed his eight-months-pregnant wife and drove her body to the Berkeley Marina on Dec. 24, 2002. They say he tied homemade concrete anchors to her corpse and tossed her from his fishing boat into San Francisco Bay........

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

Woman: Peterson blurted out murder plan at bar

Woman: Peterson blurted out murder plan at bar

Penny Gagnon spoke with Court TV's Catherine Crier Thursday about an encounter she claims to have had with Scott Peterson.

(Court TV) — Police investigating Scott Peterson interviewed a woman who said he blurted out a desire to kill his wife during a brief conversation in a hamburger joint, Court TV's Catherine Crier revealed Thursday.

The woman, Penny Gagnon, told Modesto police detective Allen Brocchini about the encounter in March 2003, about three months after Laci Peterson went missing.

Gagnon claimed that, between late August and October 2002, she was standing at the bar of a southern California restaurant when Peterson walked in, propositioned her for sex and then said he wanted to kill his wife, who was six months pregnant.

"Gagnon asked Scott why he would want to do such a thing since she was pregnant and Scott replied something similar to 'It's a long story' or 'There are a lot of reasons,'" Brocchini wrote in a report obtained by Crier.

Story continues ........

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

New evidence slows Peterson murder trial

New evidence slows Peterson murder trial

By Brian Skoloff, Associated Press | August 6, 2004

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- Scott Peterson's murder trial will be delayed until early next week so the defense can investigate recently discovered evidence, the judge announced yesterday after a closed-door session with the lawyers.

A defense lawyer, Mark Geragos, said outside the court that the evidence is "potentially exculpatory." He also said it had been "reluctantly" turned over by the prosecution. No details about the evidence were announced.

Trial testimony is expected to resume on Tuesday........

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

Peterson trial adjourned to test new evidence

Peterson trial adjourned to test new evidence

Defense says evidence could help accused husband Friday, August 6, 2004 Posted: 4:40 AM EDT (0840 GMT)

REDWOOD CITY, California (CNN) -- A judge adjourned the Scott Peterson murder trial Thursday to allow for the testing of new evidence in the case potentially helpful to Peterson. It is scheduled to resume Tuesday.

Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos, asked for the delay, saying the new evidence -- which was not disclosed -- could potentially help Peterson's defense and that scientific testing needed to be done.......

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

[runningbear]

PINGING.........

[runningbear]

PINGING.........

[runningbear]

PINGING.........

[texson66]

WHY would anyone solicit this woman for sex? I dont believe a word she says. (Didnt she refuse to take a lie detector test too?)

[Constitution Day]

Gagnon claimed that, between late August and October 2002, she was standing at the bar of a southern California restaurant when Peterson walked in, propositioned her for sex and then said he wanted to kill his wife, who was six months pregnant.

Good Lord. The man is desperate.

[cripplecreek]

Evidently some people will do anything to grab a little limelight.

[Sacajaweau]

This AM, an attorney said the trigger word was "potentially" and exculpatory is just a defense word. I don't know what to think but Gregaros might just be going after a mistrial AGAIN. The Peterson money has run out and the state will pick up the tab but not at Gregaros fee schedule.

Look for a deal in the days ahead. Amber Fry will be testifying soon and the defense knows what's on the taped phone calls. It may be a real "Fry'm" testimony.

[sonofatpatcher2]

I hope you realize this trial

didn't end until 2934...

[RGSpincich]

The man is desperate.

As bad as she may look to you, she has been a fine Mother to me and my brothers.

Mark Hacking

[Constitution Day]

LOL!!

[Devil_Anse]

Today there's a newspaper article that recaps many of Geragos' tantrums, points made on cross-exam, and accusations of "unfairness".

They mischaracterized the incident with Laci's yoga instructor, IMO. They said something like, "the jury was admonished that the yoga instructor was embellishing her testimony b/c she said things in her testimony that she did not originally tell police." (Not an exact quote.)

That is BULLSH**. The facts, as I remember them (after reading from a transcipt which someone kindly cut and pasted on another site), are that the yoga lady testified that last time Laci came to yoga, she was so tired, etc., that she wanted to be helped to her car. When the yoga teacher said that, the defense attorney had a tantrum akin to the tantrum my son had when he was 2 and his McDonald's toy fell out the car window. (We're talking screaming fit.)

What is the opponent supposed to do? Map out every inch of his witness' brain, and every thought she's ever had? Yeah.... right!

Here's how it's supposed to work: You look at everything a witness has said previous to testimony, you get familiar with it, and then you question the witness with that knowledge in mind. If the witness contradicts or adds to her previous statements, you try for an "aha" moment. You say, "Well, well, Ms. So-and-so, you talked to the police for an hour, and you never ever mentioned THAT before, did you?"

Ms. S. then says something like, "Well, um, I didn't think it was that big a deal." You come back with, "Oh, okay, so it really wasn't that noticeable, was it? Not even worth mentioning? Maybe... didn't exactly happen that way?"

Now the witness might feel like she is looking like a fool for not having mentioned something obvious, like the fact that Laci was weak or sick, to the police. She will then try to hedge--and when she does, she will begin to look less credible.

That's how it's supposed to work. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE JUDGE HAVING TO STEP IN AND ADMONISH ANYONE. It's just good cross-exam. Geragos is capable of good cross-exam.

I just resent the newspaper's having pretended that the yoga teacher incident was anything beyond that. It wasn't--or it shouldn't have been. I don't recall any admonition by the judge at that time, but if he did make one, IMO he was a fool to "admonish" anyone.

[SheLion]

Please add me to your ping list, runningbear!

Thanks!

[Devil_Anse]

And another thing! How is it that the Peterson defense can play the part of "victims of prosecution's evil conspiracy", while simultaneously playing the part of "most awesome lawyers in the world"?

And we're supposed to buy that they are BOTH?

[SheLion]

Look for a deal in the days ahead. Amber Fry will be testifying soon and the defense knows what's on the taped phone calls. It may be a real "Fry'm" testimony.

Does anyone remember many months ago when Amber was recording Scott's calls, and she point blank ask him if he did it? And Scott's reply was "No. But I know who did. I will tell you when I see you."

Then, all of a sudden, this tid bit was dropped from the radar. Never heard anymore about it. I am sure wondering about this 'who he knows who did it' though.

[Marty]

I watched the interview with the woman pictured and she was completely unbelievable. She couldn't recall the restaurant, and would have us believe that in the space of approximately 22 minutes, that Scott had met her for the first time, given his real name, asked her if she wanted to have an affair, asked her how to dispose of a body, said that he didn't want to be a father because he'd be paying for years, among other things. She had asked why he didn't just divorce his wife and that was his answer.

She also said that she'd had a drink, she thought a screwdriver but hadn't finished it--something to do with blood sugar, I think.

One comment that I found interesting was that the moderator said that the woman's husband said that the woman believed what she said. That suggests to me that she may have a problem with the truth such that she is able to deceive herself and has possibly done so in the past. It also appears that the police whom she called well after the disappearance of Laci had problems believing her as well as they didn't list her as a witness. I wonder if she has a history of making similar reports.

Nothing that I saw would make me want to call her as a witness, either. It was strictly a 'she said that he said' with nothing to corroborate her story.

[Devil_Anse]

Why do all the newspapers keep talking about how there has been evidence of Scott's "character"?

There has been evidence of his BEHAVIOR. It is up to the jury to determine if that behavior is relevant to whether he is guilty or innocent.

Character evidence is not admissible in a criminal trial unless the defense makes the decision to put on evidence of the defendant's GOOD character. At that point, the prosecution may then introduce evidence to contradict what the defense has put forth.

So the newspapers' repeated references to various things as going to Scott's "character" is a roundabout way of smearing the prosecution, by suggesting that they are doing something they are not supposed to do.

[Devil_Anse]

I can hear the TV from the other room, and the reporter is repeating the mantra, "so many people who have affairs and they don't kill their wives". Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah.

Well, DUH! Most husbands don't kill their wives! Period! For that matter, most people don't get MURDERED! And this is relevant to the MURDER of this WIFE, because................?

[tje]

fer l8er

[freekitty]

You have to smell a rat here when Scott's lawyer comes out saying he can not talk. If there was something there; he would have been trumpting all over. And haven't they already talked about debris attached or surrounding Laci and the baby's bodies?

Besides, isn't Amber going to testify Tues. Maybe, like they say, they don't want her testimony on Friday; so people can think about it over the weekend.

Anyway, all Scott's lawyer is trying to do is put doubt in the minds of the jurors. Granted there may have been things they would not have known; but there is enough there to convict this guy.