Scott Peterson Death Penalty Overturned

[Hikergirl]

I saw the series too, and agree. (It originally aired on A&E, but I believe you can watch on Netflix now).

No doubt the media coverage before and during trial jaded my opinion. Even if you didn’t watch Nancy Grace, which I didn’t, you still couldn’t escape her snippets. She was all over any media outlet she could get on spewing her opinion.

Then I watched the series and thought he really could be innocent. But then I had to consider that the producers only put in the facts that fit the narrative they wanted to portray too.

Ack!

I just don’t know what to think. But his phone calls to Amber after his wife and baby went missing are just so appalling. That’s the part that I can’t wrap my brain around. Even if you fell out of love with your wife and didn’t want your baby, the reaction and actions after the fact are just plain bizarre.

This case is like Jon Benet. I waffle back and forth depending on what I watch.

That is exactly how I feel, and the same with JBR. After watching the most recent documentaries on both cases, which do have a bias all their own , I find it hard to "know" one way or another.

 

[Hikergirl]

No comment about guilt or innocence. But I’ve often wondered if my hair will eventually get me mixed up in some criminal case I should be bald with the amount I lose, though coincidentally, I have enough for three people. It’s also rather easy to pull my hairs out so I’m sure there’s hair with the tags attached in places I couldn’t even imagine.

I found a hair stuck in the edge of a light fixture on the ceiling the other day, like, how?

I think the same thing. I'm always losing hairs and I always think- my DNA is all over this place whenever I go somewhere.

 

[kymom99]

No comment about guilt or innocence. But I’ve often wondered if my hair will eventually get me mixed up in some criminal case I should be bald with the amount I lose, though coincidentally, I have enough for three people. It’s also rather easy to pull my hairs out so I’m sure there’s hair with the tags attached in places I couldn’t even imagine.

I found a hair stuck in the edge of a light fixture on the ceiling the other day, like, how?

Yep, between me and the cat, we could knit a few sweaters.

 

[Hikergirl]

All I can say is that the jury heard all the evidence presented by the prosecution, the defense put on by the defense, and convicted him.

I don't watch the "documentaries"

But if anyone wants to read the opinion by the Supreme Court, you can find it here:

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/S132449.PDF
It was a 7-0 opinion.

The first two pages summarize what the flaws were, but here's a cut & paste:

But before the trial began, the trial court made a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson’s right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase. While a court may dismiss a prospective juror as unqualified to sit on a capital case if the juror’s views on capital punishment would substantially impair his or her ability to follow the law, a juror may not be dismissed merely because he or she has expressed opposition to the death penalty as a general matter. (See Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) 391 U.S. 510; Wainwright v. Witt (1985) 469 U.S. 412.) Here, the trial court erroneously dismissed many prospective jurors because of written questionnaire responses expressing opposition to the death penalty, even though the jurors gave no indication that their views would prevent them from following the law — and, indeed, specifically attested in their questionnaire responses that they would have no such difficulty. Under United States Supreme Court precedent, these errors require us to reverse the death sentence in this case. (Gray v. Mississippi (1987) 481 U.S. 648; see People v. Riccardi (2012) 54 Cal.4th 758, 778.) On remand, the People may retry the penalty phase if they so choose.

The documentaries explained some evidence that the jury didn't hear because it wasn't investigated thoroughly. There were also some issues with jury members.
I found it enlightening, and it definitely made me question whether or not he really did it.

 

[sasywtch]

The documentaries that I saw were all with the Peterson family. Definitely a Peterson slant on them. The part that gets me (and still isn't proof) is someone from Modesto taking a small fishing boat to the bay in december and on Christmas eve.

 

[mousefan73]

I think the same thing. I'm always losing hairs and I always think- my DNA is all over this place whenever I go somewhere.

We actually just got back from a road trip the other day and when packing out our trunk I found at least two hairs of mine. So if I were to go missing would my husband look guilty because they found two of my hairs in our trunk?

 

[Alicefan]

I mean...I think it's pretty obvious he's killed at least 2 ppl. - both wives??? I will admit that he was pretty good and had a very nice advantage with his position in covering it up etc.

Are you thinking about the right Scott Peterson? There's the one that killed his pregnant wife and the one that was a cop that keeps killing all his wives.

 

[Alicefan]

Are you thinking of Drew Peterson?

oh yeah, it's Drew...I was thinking they were both Scotts. I think they are thinking of Drew. Sorry, I see this was already answered....I should've kept reading before I commented.

 

[rigs32]

I must say when I re-read up on this case the actual hard evidence was VERY limited.

I think what you mean by "hard evidence" is direct evidence (like eye witnesses) or forensic evidence (DNA, etc). What they had a lot of was circumstantial evidence. Most homicide cases are based on circumstantial and forensic evidence as more murderers make sure there aren't any eye witnesses.

As for documentaries..... I've watched plenty that claimed to be unbiased, but it was clear to me as a trial lawyer that they were not. It would, however, be difficult to spot that bias for anyone not involved with the criminal justice system.

 

[mousefan73]

I think what you mean by "hard evidence" is direct evidence (like eye witnesses) or forensic evidence (DNA, etc). What they had a lot of was circumstantial evidence. Most homicide cases are based on circumstantial and forensic evidence as more murderers make sure there aren't any eye witnesses.

As for documentaries..... I've watched plenty that claimed to be unbiased, but it was clear to me as a trial lawyer that they were not. It would, however, be difficult to spot that bias for anyone not involved with the criminal justice system.
[/QUOTE

Correct that is what I meant.Hmm curious what your unbiased opinion is? I’m not sure how much you know about this case but in your opinion was there enough circumstantial ?

 

[rigs32]

Correct that is what I meant.Hmm curious what your unbiased opinion is? I’m not sure how much you know about this case but in your opinion was there enough circumstantial ?

I was in law school at the time of the trial and I would listed to the testimony on my commute home every day (45 min drive plus EST = middle of the afternoon session). This is the kind of case that could go either way based on the jurors chosen. We often say that you can't win your case at jury selection, but you can certainly lose it before a single witness is ever called.

ETA: I never specifically answered your question. I think both this case and the Casey Anthony case could have gone either way. One jury chose to convict, the other chose to acquit.

One could argue that by dismissing jurors who are personally against the death penalty, you are stacking the jury panel in favor of the prosecution for both the trial phase and the penalty phase. But the voir dire process is supposed to get rid of jurors on the extremes for both sides and end up with a fair and impartial jury. IF jurors are being honest during jury selection, they will say something to expose any biases.

 

[mousefan73]

I was in law school at the time of the trial and I would listed to the testimony on my commute home every day (45 min drive plus EST = middle of the afternoon session). This is the kind of case that could go either way based on the jurors chosen. We often say that you can't win your case at jury selection, but you can certainly lose it before a single witness is ever called.

ETA: I never specifically answered your question. I think both this case and the Casey Anthony case could have gone either way. One jury chose to convict, the other chose to acquit.

One could argue that by dismissing jurors who are personally against the death penalty, you are stacking the jury panel in favor of the prosecution for both the trial phase and the penalty phase. But the voir dire process is supposed to get rid of jurors on the extremes for both sides and end up with a fair and impartial jury. IF jurors are being honest during jury selection, they will say something to expose any biases.

Thx! Interesting. And good point on. the Casey Anthony trial comparison on how it can go either way.

 

[bcla]

One could argue that by dismissing jurors who are personally against the death penalty, you are stacking the jury panel in favor of the prosecution for both the trial phase and the penalty phase. But the voir dire process is supposed to get rid of jurors on the extremes for both sides and end up with a fair and impartial jury. IF jurors are being honest during jury selection, they will say something to expose any biases.

I've been through the process a few times. We all answered a questionnaire about specific potential biases that might relate to the case. The judge would personally ask each potential juror who answered yes/no to specific questions whether or not they thought that it would precluded them from being impartial. But he didn't summarily dismiss them before speaking to each one.

 

[rigs32]

No. There needs to be a record made before anyone can be dismissed.

 

[longboard55]

He is still guilty, just no death penalty

 

[Lumpy1106]

He is still guilty, just no death penalty

THIS. If they re-try anything, it will be the penalty phase. Of course, I suppose a crafty attorney could then find a way to get a full re-trial based on this decision, but that is not what is on the table at the moment.

I followed this really closely when it all went down, mostly because I had a lot of similarities to Drew and could not fathom why he did it. I was I think 5 years ahead of him, but we went to the same University, got married to spouses we met while attending said college, and my first born shared his (deceased) son's name. I still don't understand it, but dude is guilty. the most damming evidence was yes, the boat and the makeshift concrete anchors, the "fishing" trip on Christmas Eve, and, more than anything, the surveillance done by the other woman. She got suspicious and continued dating him while wearing a wire just so the State could get the evidence. She's the hero in all of this if there is to be a hero. Sad, all around. Laci and Conor deserved better. I usually favor the death penalty, but if their memory haunts him every day while he rots in prison I can accept that.

 

[longboard55]

THIS. If they re-try anything, it will be the penalty phase. Of course, I suppose a crafty attorney could then find a way to get a full re-trial based on this decision, but that is not what is on the table at the moment.

I followed this really closely when it all went down, mostly because I had a lot of similarities to Drew and could not fathom why he did it. I was I think 5 years ahead of him, but we went to the same University, got married to spouses we met while attending said college, and my first born shared his (deceased) son's name. I still don't understand it, but dude is guilty. the most damming evidence was yes, the boat and the makeshift concrete anchors, the "fishing" trip on Christmas Eve, and, more than anything, the surveillance done by the other woman. She got suspicious and continued dating him while wearing a wire just so the State could get the evidence. She's the hero in all of this if there is to be a hero. Sad, all around. Laci and Conor deserved better. I usually favor the death penalty, but if their memory haunts him every day while he rots in prison I can accept that.

I really think the death penalty just gives them more to amuse themselves with for the next 20 years. I am fine with life with no parole. Nothing worse than the feeling that no one cares