Former Attorney Says Defense Is 'Strong'Kirk McAllister Is Protecting Key Witnesses

NBC11 ^ | May 1, 2003 | Karen Brown

[Yeti]

You haven't watched near enough Perry Mason.

LOL! I knew I was missing something.

[PleaseNoMore]

"Geragos has been castigating Scott Peterson on TV for months all the while scheming for a way to insert himself into the position of representing Snott. It's because it's hight profile, it is certainly not because he really cares about Scott Peterson. He has publicaly called him a Sociopath!! "

This just crossed my mind and it may be ridiculous but here it goes.

Geragos has been speculating publicly about SP's guilt. Millions of TV viewers have seen it. All of a sudden, after his meeting with Scott, he "totally without a doubt blieves in him". Now, here is a defense atty who is saying "it sure looks bad for Scott" then all of a sudden "believes in him". Couldn't this be to sway the jurors? To create reasonable doubt? I mean, if a "high profile" defense atty, of all people, suddenly begins "believing" in this man's innocence surely something somewhere must indicate that he could be innocent and thus create an atmosphere of "hmmmmmm".

It makes me wonder, if this was a totally indefensible case, why would Geragos take it on? He is getting something besides publicity here. Just something that crossed my mind.

[Devil_Anse]

It doesn't work that way, Yeti! It's not tit for tat--it's: everyone better follow the rules and "share" what the law requires them to share, or they are in big trouble.

The point is, if the defense has the sort of affirmative proof of innocence that McAllister seemed to be saying they have, there is absolutely no reason not to present it to the court as soon as possible, since such blockbuster proof will result in the freeing of Scott from jail.

OF COURSE the defense wouldn't just toodle down to the police department or D.A.'s and hand over its evidence! That's what the court is for--they would hand it over to the court! Let's see them put their money where McAllister's mouth is. I have a feeling we'll be waiting a long time, though.

Believe it or not, I have been also having the feeling that I didn't want Scott to be guilty of this. Unfortunately, God does not ask me what I want when he determines events. Nor does "fate". And I'm afraid my desire for Scott to be innocent has been disregarded.

[Canadian Outrage]

Yeah if McAllister has this IRREFUTABLE BLOCK BUSTER PROOF, why isn't HE Snott's Lawyer. He could bring this whole thing to a resolution for Snott!! Bluster, bluster, bluster!!

[winstonchurchill]

There is also a reciprocal request that they make to the defense, in which the defense is obligated to turn certain things over to THEM. This business of trial by ambush is frowned upon by the courts, as you must know.

Sure, but there is what's known as a 'discovery cut-off' (after which no more discovery is allowed). Moreover, trial prep is subject to the 'work product rule' (sometimes inappropriately known as the 'work product privilege') which covers the lawyers 'thoughts, impressions and conclusions'.

You would be positively amazed how much more inventive I get in the last 30 days before trial.

In civil practice, there is expert disclosure -- but only for your case in chief. So, you want to hold something for rebuttal. Lots of planning goes into what you disclose and when.

It isn't wrong -- in my view -- because the law isn't very realistic about the degree to which people are willing to lie in court. My job is to expose the liars and I have to have some weapons to do so. If everything is disclosed, the lies just get better.

[Devil_Anse]

Dude, they said they've already given the new defense lawyer thousands of pages of reports!

I'm an "old prosecutor" too, and I can tell you that if some defense attorney comes out and tells the world that NOT ONLY could the police not possibly be able to prove his innocent client guilty, but that he has AFFIRMATIVE EVIDENCE OF INNOCENCE, everyone sits up straight, and this attorney had better be ready to deliver! What if Scott's attorney said such a thing to the jury in his opening statement? You know what happens to lawyers who make promises of "rock-solid proof" to a jury, and then don't deliver during the trial? That's right--they lose.

[Velveeta]

I found pics:

http://uci.net/~appraise/amberscott1.jpg
http://uci.net/~appraise/amberscott2.jpg

[Devil_Anse]

I doubt any witness is that strong, etc.

NOW, you're getting it, my friend. Scott's lawyer Mr. McAllister was engaging in hyperbole. Not a good idea when you know you're going to have to deliver eventually, or lose your case.

[winstonchurchill]

everyone better follow the rules and "share" what the law requires them to share, or they are in big trouble.

Were that it were so. I have never seen any substantial sanction for discovery violations. Moreover, there is no effective sanction for criminal defendant's failure to disclose since you can't prevent them from using evidence if they failed to disclose. You can fine the lawyer (seldom done) but you can't prevent the perp from using it.

[Devil_Anse]

Yes, but it is not good strategy to make extreme statements on which you will not be able to deliver the goods.

[Yeti]

OF COURSE the defense wouldn't just toodle down to the police department or D.A.'s and hand over its evidence! That's what the court is for--they would hand it over to the court!

Exactly. When it gets to court.

RG and Canadian seem to be saying that they should have given it to the MPD or Nancy Grace. I think that would be suicidal, and the info would only be used to develop a more convoluted case against him. I think that NONE of us knows all of the facts(except YOU, Devil, and you won't let on until you're done toying with us), and so we don't know how to weigh the relative merits of one strategy over another.

Scott's probably guilty, or at least complicit, so this is probably just what Canadian said: blustering. But it is strategic blustering.

[Canadian Outrage]

Geragos' behaviour to me makes him look like a a self-serving media slut!! He clearly stated that Peterson sure didn't act like a man who just lost his pregnant wife. No there is no rule book on how to act in these circumstances but Peterson has acted like he's just been set free. His behaviour wasn't even in the ballpark in the area of grief.

[Velveeta]

RE: Pic #2 = Look Ma....no wedding ring

[Devil_Anse]

Was Nancy Grace an affirmative action hire for that Georgia prosecutor's office for which she worked? If so, maybe there is something to this affirmative action crap. I heard she had a 100% win record.

Wonder who the man behind her was, who told her what to say and what to do in each and every one of those cases. He must be dynamite. Maybe Stanislaus County can acquire his services.

[Yeti]

I like that second one "unsuspecting Amber..."

MMMMMM-Hmmmmm.

[Devil_Anse]

The defense has not said they want to wait 2 years, but they know darn well that they may have to if they waive his right to speedy trial. And they might waive it by something as simple as requesting a continuance or two.

[Velveeta]

Yep, I wonder if there's a tan line where the wedding ring used to be?

[Devil_Anse]

Whatever his knowledge of legal maneuverings, the fact is, winston has clearly not been following the reports of this case as much as we have. He needs to review those reports in order to effectively apply his knowledge to this situation.

Not putting him down, but in order to be an expert on something, you not only have to have the training, you have to know what's happened as a practical matter.

[Canadian Outrage]

Thanks Vel!! Gawd what a puke that Peterson is. I pray that the Jury gets to see these. This is what was taking place as his 7 1/2 month pregnant wife was home preparing for Xmas and decorating a Nursery etc. What an absolute POS> I would Love to ask daddy Peterson (Lee) so is this your PERFECT son!! This WONDERFUL man you were referring to?? Sorry, mister, go peddle your bs elsewhere.

[Yeti]

I zoomed in and couldn't see one, the whole hand looks distorted when you get up close. Not enough detail to tell, but it looks like there is not a tan line.