Attorney McAllister
Posted on 05/02/2003 5:48:38 AM PDT by runningbear
Former Attorney Says Defense Is 'Strong'
Kirk McAllister Is Protecting Key Witnesses
Attorney McAllister
Former Attorney Says Defense Is 'Strong'
Kirk McAllister Is Protecting Key Witnesses
Karen Brown
POSTED: 10:25 p.m. PDT May 1, 2003
UPDATED: 10:58 p.m. PDT May 1, 2003
MODESTO, Calif. -- Scott Peterson's former attorney says he has some powerful evidence that will help defend Peterson against charges that he murdered his wife, Laci, and his unborn son.
Scott Peterson's original attorney, Kirk McAllister (pictured left) said his office has uncovered evidence that will exonerate Peterson -- evidence that will be turned over to his new attorney. Defense sources say the new attorney will be Mark Garagos, NBC11's Karen Brown reported.
To send condolences Laci Case(my insert)
Condolences:
1508 Coffee Road
Suite H
Modesto, CA 95355
McAllister told NBC11 that the defense's case is "strong."
When asked why, he said, "because we investigated it instead of calling press conferences like the police did."
The key to Peterson's defense will be the testimony of witnesses uncovered by McAllister, witnesses he says need to be protected, Brown reported.
"I'm protecting witnesses, because I have concerns for them if I go public," he said.
According to defense sources, Los Angeles attorney Mark Garagos -- who has represented high-profile clients like Winona Ryder -- will take over the case Friday morning.
The current public defender says getting Garagos will only strengthen Peterson's defense.
"I think he's going to do a great job," said Kent Faulkner, the deputy public defender. "He's got the resources. He's got the knowledge. He's got the connections. I think it'll change the landscape of the way the case is tried."
Meanwhile, the District Attorney's office issued a statement saying, "We treat all cases as the case needs to be treated. Who the defense attorney is, is not going to change what we do."
In the meantime, Laci Peterson's family is busy preparing for the memorial that will take place Sunday at the First Baptist Church in Modesto.
Scott Peterson has not made an official request to attend that memorial, but the sheriff here says if that request is made, he'll deny it, Brown reported. Sign-up For Breaking News E-mail Alerts Copyright 2003 by NBC11.com. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast,
Public defender says he believes Geragos will assist Peterson
EXCERPTED:
Public defender says he believes Geragos will assist Peterson
By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER
Published: May 2, 2003, 05:11:14 AM PDT
Stanislaus County Public Defender Tim Bazar said he expects Los Angeles attorney Mark Geragos to step in today to defend Scott Peterson, who is charged with murdering his wife and unborn son.
"I do anticipate that he is going to come in on the case,"
Bazar said Thursday afternoon. "But I've got to hear it from the judge."
Peterson, 30, is charged with two counts of murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.
Superior Court Judge Nancy Ashley appointed the public defender to the case last week. A hearing scheduled for 8:30 a.m. today before Judge Al Girolami is designated for substitution of counsel.
If Geragos steps in, the public defender's office would turn over the case completely
Bazar said.
"It's just not appropriate for a county agency to take a secondary role," Bazar said. "We wouldn't be in a position to actually control the course of the case."
Bazar said his office has canceled one contract extended to a potential expert, and ceased efforts to retain other experts and investigators.
"I don't think it'd be prudent to spend county money on a case where it appears we would be off the case in a matter of hours," Bazar said.
Geragos said Wednesday on the CNN program "Larry King Live" that he would make a decision on the case Thursday. But Geragos did not return calls Thursday.
In Modesto on Tuesday, Geragos met with Peterson and representatives of the public defender's office.
LA lawyer expected to take case
Laci Peterson
LA lawyer expected to take case
By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER
Published: May 2, 2003, 05:11:44 AM PDT
About 3,000 people are ex-pected to attend a Sunday afternoon memorial service for Laci Peterson, the Modesto woman whose remains were found last month along the eastern shore of San Francisco Bay.
That turnout would be more than double the estimated 1,200 people who nearly a year ago paid their respects to Chandra Levy, a Modesto woman whose disappearance, like Peterson's, gripped the nation.
The 24-year-old Levy was the subject of a major search and intense media coverage after she disappeared in 2001 in Washington, D.C., where she had just completed a federal internship. Her remains were found almost 13 months later in a District of Columbia park.
The body of Peterson's unborn son, Conner, washed ashore about a mile from his mother's body. Scott Peterson, 30, has pleaded not guilty to two counts of murder in the slayings of his wife and son. He faces the death penalty.
The memorial service is set to take place on what would have been Laci Peterson's 28th birthday.
"The family wanted it to be on her birthday," spokeswoman Kim Petersen said.
Family and friends are slated to speak at the memorial service, which will include a video tribute, choir performance and other music.
"There will be songs that were some of Laci's favorites and ones that had a lot of meaning to the family," Petersen said.
The memorial service is set to start at 3 p.m. at First Baptist Church, and is expected to last an hour.
Streets near the large church generally are closed for Sunday services, but there will be more closures this week, and they will be longer, police said.
The city will have 17 officers on duty around the church Sunday, Lt. Gary Watts said. Four will be working overtime, and another four will be reserves.
The extra police were required because several scheduled officers already are assigned to other events on the Cinco de Mayo weekend, he said. The city will absorb the approximately $1,200 extra cost, Watts said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nbc11.com ...
LOL! I knew I was missing something.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
MMMMMM-Hmmmmm.
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.
