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 This material may not be published, broadcast,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 ...
Too late, once you tip your hand, you can't un-tip it.
winstonchurchill is doing a good job of explaining the strategic aspects of this. Read his posts, I'm not a lawyer. It's not a matter of whether or not Scot did it, these are strategy issues, and you need good strategy whether you're guilty of innocent.
They probably have at least one or two cracker jack prosecutors. BUT, just looking at their website, the DA seems a little too much interested in being PC. He's done the AA thing putting females in charge and that will destroy morale with the guys actually pulling the load.
25-30 years ago, I was the operational head of a similarly sized DA's office in CA and it's tough. You generally only have one or two really good trial lawyers and the rest are divided into (i) rookies with little experience who leave for private practice (and more money) as soon as they get the experience, (ii) journeymen who went out into private practice and failed and are now just going through the motions on their way to a county retirement and (iii) affirmative action hires to satisfy the relevant constituent voter groups (in CA read women and hispanics with an occasional black thrown in) to get your DA re-elected next time.
But the good news is that the DA is super-motivated to free up one of his true 'stars' to try this case -- and he will. The DA seems to be challenged in spelling his own name, but you will be impressed with the guy who actually tries the case.
Well, then, you might ask, what happened in OJ? The answer is that the DA wanted to lose the case. That why he assigned two affirmative action types (one black, one woman) to try the case, once his star (can't remember his name but a real good prosecutor) had the heart attack. In LA, they have probably 15-20 of those star prosecutors but the DA couldn't figure out how to put another in charge of his AA types without the AA groups becoming unhinged. Plus, the perp was a well-known black. So he filed downtown and blew the case.
Unfortunately for SP, that won't happen here.
Eyewitness testimony of Laci walking her dog on 12/24 is my assumption of what the defense has and is guarding. I know this type of testimony is unreliable and subject to not only the vision of the witness but the memory, aptitude and honesty of the witness. Time affects all those factors and can cause confusion in a witness.
"Gosh, it was so long ago", how many times have you heard a witness say that? Presumably these witnesses for the defense exist now with fresh minds. Supposedly they can clear SP either in the prelim or at a speedy trial as well as a trial two years from now. Two years of a young man's life wasted, if he's innocent. What's the advantage in delaying the trial?
Wrong, it means your hand was no good and you found out the easy way. Go to plan B at the trial, take the two years or so to develop a new strategy or plead out.
MOB.MOB.MOB.MOB.MOB.
I know we all think Scott did it, but can we REALLY not see that? Any jury member is likely to be a recent angry mob member, who wishes the trial would hurry up and get over with so he can say "GUILTY!" Jury or no jury, any judge will be afraid to give Scott bail, for fear the mob will crucify him.
Mob.
Besides, the defense has not said "We want to wait 2 years." They want to go for another venue, and they want time to get their act together, and they would like to see something else on the front page of the Enquirer for a few weeks. They would like to see a week with no FR threads about "Snott."
Well, if you were Scott's attorney, and you had some witnesses, and you know that really, no matter what they say, this will go to trial, you would probably not tip your hand so early on in the game.
You are using a suicidal strategy for him, one that really has more to do with the fact that WE all want the scoop than trying to get him off the hook, which is what is lawyer is paid to do. And I don't think any lawyer would do what you said unless it was video of the real killer doing the deed. The prosecution is not going to lay its whole case out in the prelim, and neither will the defense.
But I'm not a lawyer, ask winstonchurchill.
Ha! That explains it. You haven't watched near enough Perry Mason. All prelims with the exception of a very few.
Maybe. Depends on the situation. The possible problem with that is that the judge and the prosecutor are buddies.
But, it is all just talk until the case is actually heard. And MPD and Nancy Grace aren't the only ones who can manipulate the media if they find it useful.
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.