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 This material may not be published, broadcast,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 ...
Now I am an old prosecutor and have never defended a crook, but if you believe this you are really dopey. Nothing -- absolutely nothing -- was going to prevent MPD from arresting SP.
Now, I do believe -- from what little we in the public know -- that SP probably did the deed, but whether he did or not, the attorney would have been stupid to turn his witnesses over to the cops (assuming they didn't have them). The cops would simply pressure them until they wilted and then turn back to prosecuting SP.
SLAM!!!
I hate to say it, but I will be relieved if he didn't do it, and just because his lawyers don't leak to the tabloids doesn't mean they don't have anything. If they identify the witnesses, they will get death threats and intimidation. But then again, talk is cheap, and no matter how many Enquirer articles are posted, we won't really know until the time comes, will we?
Regarding the postponment, I can't believe anyone here actually thinks that any sane lawyer would recommend that Scott go to trial in the midst of the mob thing that's going on in Modesto right now. They will probably wait to see if they can spring him until the trial, and if they can't they will try to hurry up with the trial, but elsewhere.
I'm not sure of your assumption. If you are thinking of elderly witnesses there is a deposition procedure (seldom used in criminal law) to preserve the testimony. But the real problem with premature disclosure is the tremendous pressure which the cops can put on a third-party witness. First thing you know, your relatives start getting arrested for overdue parking tickets.
If its a 'scientific' witness, grants start getting declined.
Best approach is to keep it under your hat to as close to trial as possible and then spring it. It's called protecting your witnesses.
I do only civil litigation, but I try -- within the law of civil discovery -- to postpone developing witnesses as long as possible. Few hold up against powerful adversaries if exposed too early.
The prosecution will get the info during the discovery phase of the trial. After all, if MPD isn't sharing, why should the defense?
I'm still inclined to think it was Amber with Scott knowing she did it, or Scott with Amber playing puppeteer.
I was thinking the other night, I'm not sure a blow to the stomach of a pregnant woman would make her vomit. Has anyone considered poisoning? Or that the vomit might be Scott's or Amber's(or whoever the perp is)? I remember a case where a sherriff's daughter was taking a lie detector for having shaken a child to death. When they got to the question, "did you do it?" she started vomiting uncontrollably. The test was ruled inconclusive.
The preliminary hearing is in front of a judge only. Don't think he'll poll the mob. Perfect spot to trot out the "rock solid" defense witnesses to clear the boy. Have him home by the 20th of May. If that doesn't work THEN you go into the stall defense. The police/DA will be told of the defense witnesses, California is a reciprocal discovery state.
Well, of course, that's possible. But it is also possible that they are getting a lot of police reports with 'preliminary results' and 'further testing planned'. So if you spring too early, you get the 'oh, yeah, you're right, that test didn't prove anything, but now we've done the supercalifragilistic test that we hadn't done when we gave you that report.' Lots of gamesmanship on all sides of this kind of thing.
Remember there isn't anyone in the courtroom interested in a dispassionate search for truth, except maybe the prosecutor himself -- and in a high profile case like this, discount that as well. But the cops are certainly no better than the defense is selecting only evidence that covers them.
I'm an old prosecutor and I can't tell you the number of times the cops lied to me to try to buttress their arrest.
Here's the bottom line, we just don't know very much at all about the state of the case against SP. But I hope the DA is smarter than he has sounded thus far. Our lawyer (the DA is supposed to represent 'the People') sounds to me like a complete dolt.
I doubt any witness is that strong. What could it be? An alibi? The window period is simply too long and malleable for an alibi to be 'rock solid'. The Cops would just adjust the timeline somewhat.
With a circumstantial case, it's a lot of little pieces for the prosecution and a lot of little rebuttal pieces. No one or two witnesses would 'destroy' the circumstantial case.
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.