Juror No. 7, identified as Fran Gorman, was the second juror to be dismissed from the case.
Lifted this picture from CNN.
I'm wondering if she has the hots for Scottie.
Posted on 11/10/2004 10:37:18 AM PST by Former Military Chick
I agree. Seems like he has a verdict in mind and will be sure that the sitting jury will agree with him or be dismissed.
When do they get a new Judge?
Juror No. 7, identified as Fran Gorman, was the second juror to be dismissed from the case.
Lifted this picture from CNN.
I'm wondering if she has the hots for Scottie.
What ever will she talk about after this trial is over? This has been the central focus of her show for too long now.
New evidence can not be introduced at an appeal. Only matters of law.
But, it looks to me like Scott gets two bites of the apple. This trial where a not guilty verdict would stand, and a second one after an appeal where the general atmosphere of a farce will be found to have infringed on his rights.
Geragos must be licking his chops. The Judge can not just go ahead & dismiss jurrors until he finds a set which will deliver the verdict he wants.
This is about the only current article, at the end I put the profiles of the new juror's - this does seem to help the defense. This is another reason we should allow camaras in the court, if were there we could see it now we have to listen to the talking heads .. -FMC
REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (Court TV) — The judge in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial removed another juror from the case Wednesday.
After conducting a one-hour meeting with lawyers in his chambers, Judge Alfred Delucchi announced that Juror 5, the foreman, had been replaced with an alternate.
He also announced that Juror 6 would now serve as the panel's foreman.
The move comes just one day after Delucchi removed Juror 7 and replaced her with an alternate.
Delucchi did not comment on why he had removed the second juror in as many days from the fertilizer salesman's trial.
However, he reminded jurors again that they must "decide all questions of fact in this case from the evidence received in this trial and not from any other source," which is part of jury instructions that prohibits panelists from conducting their own investigations.
The judge also did not provide a reason for dismissing Juror 7 Tuesday, but his instructions to the remaining jurors indicated the woman, Frances Gorman, may have done her own research on the case, which jurors are forbidden to do.
Peterson, 32, faces the death penalty or life in prison if convicted of first-degree murder in the deaths of his wife, Laci, and the couple's unborn son.
The eight-months-pregnant woman was last seen alive Dec. 23, 2002. Her body and that of her fetus washed up on the San Francisco Bay shore about four months later.
's
#6 (new foreperson) A white man in his 30's, juror #6 is a firefighter and paramedic. He lives with his girlfriend and, when he isn't on duty, spends four to five hours a day riding his bike. Because of his schedule, he know little about the case from the media. He is skeptical of what he has heard because the media has misreported some of his fire calls. "It's crunch time and they often don't get the facts before they report things," he said. His fire captain told him he thought Peterson was innocent, but, the juror said he would disregard that opinion and all others once in the jury box. He said that, while driving to court for jury selection, he remembered a conversation he had with his mother about lynching's in the South and thought how horrible it would be face false capital charges. "There's always a mob looking for somebody for something," he said. Despite working frequently with police officers, he said he would not give them special consideration as witnesses. "I don't prejudge based on somebody having a badge. I've met a lot of people who have badges that I'm ashamed to be associated with," he said.
#3 White man who appears to be in his 30's, he has worked for a county social services agency for 13 years. She began her career determining public assistance eligibility and now studies at night for her master's degree. Her sister once worked fro the public defender. She said she had "superficial" knowledge of the case and generally does not follow legal news. "I'm not a Court TV person," she said. She told lawyers she would be a good juror "because I tend to really want to do what's in the best interests of whoever it is I's serving."
Giving the jury system a black eye. Folks wonder why folks do not want to serve.
Giving the jury system a black eye. Folks wonder why folks do not want to serve.
I thought it odd that they allowed him to be on the jury. My beloved said if there were ever a good excuse for someone not serving it would be this person.
While he might offer a wealth of information I wondered how he would be as a team player.
It is breaking. But, I have been adding articles as they become available to the thread.
If there is a hung jury, they will try it again.
You all might want to come over here, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1276228/posts?page=1,50 to the regular daily Laci thread.
We've been following this case for 2 1/2 years, newcomers are always welcome, as are our regular trolls. lol
Pinz
BUMP
But .. the foreman has already tainted the jury.
I did not look for an ongoing thread. I heard it breaking, looked and nothing yet on the breaking news so I posted the update. I certainly did not mean to step on anyone's toes.
I am not sure what the troll reference means and hope that is not intended for me.
This kind of nonsense wouldn't be happening if the trial was held in Texas.
What a joke this proceeding has become. It sure will be interesting to see if the jurors that were replaced were favorable or unfavorable to Peterson.
Or was this a case of the judge let a juror go that was favorable to Peterson so he had to let one go that was not favorable to him to even the score.
And what is this garbage of letting the jurors get inside the boat and try to rock it while it is on a trailor? What kind of incompetance it this to let this happen?
These media circus trials are always a travesty. The prosecution should never have gone to trial with the evidence that they have presented in this case. They should have waited and built their case.
And what if it is a hung jury or a mistrial, the proscution gets to have another go at it? How many times? And where does a defendant come up with the resources for a second trial? Forget what it cost for the first.
Peterson may very well be guilty, but they have to prove it. That is our system of law. This trial is a travesty.
Certainly not! :-) Sorry if I left that impression. :-/
Just inviting folks over to the regular thread, to keep myself from getting dizzy. :-)
Pinz
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.