[Velveeta]

Judge faces subpoena in Laci Peterson case

By John Coté
The Modesto Bee
(Published Tuesday, June 10, 2003, 6:09 AM)


MODESTO -- One of Scott Peterson's attorneys said Monday he has subpoenaed a Superior Court judge to get information about wiretaps used by investigators probing the disappearance of Laci Peterson.
The move comes after it was revealed Friday that no court reporter was present during meetings between Judge Wray Ladine, a prosecutor and an investigator about the wiretaps.

"I don't know how else you get that information other than doing it this way," defense attorney Kirk McAllister said.

District Attorney James Brazelton is seeking the death penalty against Peterson, 30, for allegedly killing his wife and unborn son.

The absence of a court reporter at the meetings also raised legal questions about the wiretaps, said several defense attorneys not affiliated with the case.

State law requires a court reporter to be present during all court proceedings in capital cases. Prosecutors contend the law applies only to proceedings that take place after a criminal complaint is filed or a grand jury is convened for an indictment.

That hadn't occurred when the wiretap meetings took place.

McAllister said he issued the subpoena Monday and that it likely would be served today.

Defense attorneys also have asked to question prosecutor Rick Distaso and the investigator who supervised the wiretaps, Steve Jacobson.

Ladine, contacted by phone Monday night, said he was unaware of a subpoena and declined to comment. California's judicial canon forbids judges from commenting publicly about proceedings pending in any court.

Peterson was arrested April 18. He has pleaded innocent, and the defense has vowed to find the "real killers." Lead defense attorney Mark Geragos is alleging the Stanislaus County District Attorney's Office engaged in "grave prosecutorial misconduct" after authorities intercepted 71 calls between Peterson and McAllister or his investigator.

The defense might seek to have the District Attorney's Office removed from the case over the wiretap issue, according to documents they filed in court.

Prosecutors maintain that investigators listened to less than two minutes of total calls and that the wiretaps were consistent with state and federal law.

http://www.fresnobee.com/local/story/6934121p-7869372c.html

_____________

I hope the prosecution has plenty of evidence *without* the tapes. It appears that the defense is trying their best to have the tapes thrown out.

[cherry]

not to dredge up old trials, but westerfield was dragged thru the countryside, kept out of his house, not fed, not allowed to sleep , all this without representation, and yet the Peterson attorneys are subpoening a judge about a few minutes of telephone conversation?

just goes to show you what money will buy you.....

[Devil_Anse]

This is interesting, about their subpoenaing the judge.

I can't believe there would be a law in CA that would require a court reporter to be present during proceedings to get a warrant. Such proceedings are allowed to be held ex parte, and having to have a court reporter present would just about defeat the utility of that. Furthermore, getting warrants is often an emergency matter (they might have to get a warrant in a hurry, say, b/f someone destroyed some evidence in a house), and this would make them have to dig up a court reporter, which would take time and might jeopardize the safety of other potential victims of the suspect the police were getting the warrant against.

I mean, the defense might just as well be saying, "you have to notify the suspect of all you are doing to get a warrant against him or his property." What the heck good would a warrant BE, if the suspect were notified about its details ahead of time??

I think the judge/magistrate is there to protect the rights of the suspect, and that in general, that should be trustworthy enough. B/C the judge/magistrate who hears or reads the stated grounds for the warrant is definitely supposed to be an impartial judge/magistrate, who is not in any way on the side of the police. I think that was the way lawmakers decided to try to protect the rights of suspects, while still allowing the police to conduct their investigations with the secrecy required not to tip their hand and allow suspects to flee or destroy evidence.

So I am thinking of about 100 different ways that this subpoenaed judge probably will think of, to quash that subpoena they are serving him with.

[Jackie-O]

MG will stop at nothing to throw out those tapes...that evidence will co-oberate Amber's testimony. He is doing his best to discredit her already, getting the tapes thrown out is just another part of his plan to try and make Snott's affair with her irrelivant, a non-motive...

[runningbear]

wow, that is the first for me to hear for a judge who is assigned to this case... McAllister is making his name MUDD....

Thanks Vel for posting the article....