From the infamous Mouser appeal case. Case law denying Mouser's claim that the jury acted improperly in visiting the location of where his step-daughter's body was found.-
In People v. Bogle (1995) 41 Cal.App.4th 770 (Bogle), a set of keys and a safe were introduced into evidence. The jury discovered that one of the keys on the key ring opened the safe. The appellate court concluded that the jury had not engaged in improper experimentation and that the jurys discovery of the relationship between the key and the safe did not violate defendants constitutional rights. It explained that in light of the testimony presented at trial, the jury was entitled to determine, from the evidence it was given, the character and extent of the defendants relationship to the safe. Trying the keys on the safe was an exercise in that pursuit, not a foray into a new field. (Id. at p. 780.) Bogle relied in part on a Louisiana rape case, State v. Gaston (La. 1982) 412 So.2d 574. There, the victim identified defendant by a skin discoloration on his shoulder that she testified was visible because he was wearing a tank top when he accosted her. During deliberations, the jury asked and was permitted to see the defendant dressed in the tank top, which had been admitted into evidence. The reviewing court concluded that the jurors had not viewed new evidence; they merely reexamined the evidence in a slightly different context as an aid in reaching a verdict. (Bogle, supra, 41 Cal.App.4th at p. 781, citing State v. Gaston, supra, 412 So.2d at pp. 576-577.)
Great research,RG...With all the THs wailing about the jury changes and appeals..I heard others today saying that the judge is a careful judge and they feel confident it will not be overturned..
.I hate for the state and the Rochas to go through this again..but am confident of conviction if he gets a retrial.
Nice find on the case law.
And what a coincidence that it's the Mouser case. ;-)
Keane saw little in the Peterson trial for a successful appeal. Trial judges have "wide discretion" to unseat jurors, he said.
"The judge would have had to have done something very arbitrary or whimsical or capricious or unjust," he said. "I didn't see any kind of error for the defense to jump on that's going to get any kind of mileage."
Whether the jury decides on death for the former fertilizer salesman, or life without the possibility of parole, will determine where Peterson may appeal, and perhaps his chance of success as well, legal scholars said.
If the jury decides against the death penalty, Peterson can appeal to a panel of the state appeals court. The state Supreme Court can then decide whether to take it up.
If he gets the death penalty, Peterson would have an automatic appeal to the California Supreme Court. That court, and federal courts, scrutinize capital cases far more closely than others. Indeed, critics blame such scrutiny for a condemned list in California that has grown to 635, the nation's longest. A few inmates have spent more than a quarter-century on death row.
"There'll be a paradoxical benefit for him if he's sentenced to death, in that he'll receive a more exacting review by the appellate courts," said Michael Mello, a Vermont Law School professor and former Florida capital public defender.
Peterson could cite various reasons to appeal conviction
Devil, where are you?
RG, I just wanted to take a minute to tell you and everyone else how wonderful you are.
I an greatful to have "met" you!
Your a good guy!