Scott Peterson Death Penalty Overturned

[disneychrista]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crim...turned-in-murder-of-pregnant-wife/ar-BB18kxaC

 

[Bella the Ball 360]

Is anyone surprised? It is encumbered upon me to ask why but really there is no good reason they could give. Let me guess he found religion, is a model prisoner, furthered his education and became a lawyer or minister. As a parent there is nothing on this earth that would justify in my mind the lack of an eye for an eye if it was my child and grandchild.

 

[disneychrista]

Is anyone surprised? It is encumbered upon me to ask why but really there is no good reason they could give. Let me guess he found religion, is a model prisoner, furthered his education and became a lawyer or minister. As a parent there is nothing on this earth that would justify in my mind the lack of an eye for an eye if it was my child and grandchild.

I"m guessing you didn't read the article. It had to do with how the jury was selected. They have the option to retry him on the penalty phase.

 

[ronandannette]

I"m guessing you didn't read the article. It had to do with how the jury was selected. They have the option to retry him on the penalty phase.

As long as his life sentence is upheld, why bother? I understand California hasn't executed a prisoner since 2006 and your current governor upholds the moratorium. If one can believe what they see on TV, maybe going into gen pop from the protection of death row would be a more fitting punishment for him anyway.

 

[Micca]

I heard his attorney (or one of his attorneys) saying they expect him to be released in the next two years.

 

[Bella Paige]

I heard his attorney (or one of his attorneys) saying they expect him to be released in the next two years.

For that to be possible he would need to be awarded a new trial and then be found not guilty. This isn't likely to happen, his current sentence is LWOP and nothing will change that without a complete new trial.

 

[ronandannette]

For that to be possible he would need to be awarded a new trial and then be found not guilty. This isn't likely to happen, his current sentence is LWOP and nothing will change that without a complete new trial.

Let's hope - that would be an unbearable miscarriage of justice.

 

[lynxstch]

All I have to say is-----

 

[mousefan73]

I must say when I re-read up on this case the actual hard evidence was VERY limited.. I believe they only found a hair of Laci's on his fishing flyers on his boat.. Since they lived together this could mean nothing. I mean my hairs are all over our property and it annoys my DH.. Jurors found his behavior, affair, etc..and changiing his hair to avoid press suspicious, but yet again no hard evidence... The guy was a dog, but a killer ? REading this now i am surprised they convicted him. Others have gotten off on much more evidence.

 

[brockash]

I must say when I re-read up on this case the actual hard evidence was VERY limited.. I believe they only found a hair of Laci's on his fishing flyers on his boat.. Since they lived together this could mean nothing. I mean my hairs are all over our property and it annoys my DH.. Jurors found his behavior, affair, etc..and changiing his hair to avoid press suspicious, but yet again no hard evidence... The guy was a dog, but a killer ? REading this now i am surprised they convicted him. Others have gotten off on much more evidence.

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.

 

[Hikergirl]

I must say when I re-read up on this case the actual hard evidence was VERY limited.. I believe they only found a hair of Laci's on his fishing flyers on his boat.. Since they lived together this could mean nothing. I mean my hairs are all over our property and it annoys my DH.. Jurors found his behavior, affair, etc..and changiing his hair to avoid press suspicious, but yet again no hard evidence... The guy was a dog, but a killer ? REading this now i am surprised they convicted him. Others have gotten off on much more evidence.

When this first happened I was sure he was guilty, after all I was seeing exactly what the press wanted me to see. Hadn't really thought about the case in years until I wanted a documentary recently about it, I think on Netflix (but not 100% sure).
I'm not so sure he's guilty anymore based on the limited evidence they had against him, and the things they had that showed he could be innocent.

 

[mousefan73]

When this first happened I was sure he was guilty, after all I was seeing exactly what the press wanted me to see. Hadn't really thought about the case in years until I wanted a documentary recently about it, I think on Netflix (but not 100% sure).
I'm not so sure he's guilty anymore based on the limited evidence they had against him, and the things they had that showed he could be innocent.

Your totally right.. back then the press convicted him right away... that I do rememver, the trial I really dont... didnt he gets tons of love letters and didnt he marry in jail?? or maybe I am mistaken.

 

[Hikergirl]

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 of Drew Peterson?

 

[brockash]

Are you thinking of Drew Peterson?

Ahhh...yes, sorry wrong Peterson lol.

 

[Hikergirl]

Your totally right.. back then the press convicted him right away... that I do rememver, the trial I really dont... didnt he gets tons of love letters and didnt he marry in jail?? or maybe I am mistaken.

I'm sure he got love letters, but I don't think he ever remarried.

Ahhh...yes, sorry wrong Peterson lol.

Easy to get them mixed up that is for sure.

 

[disneychrista]

As long as his life sentence is upheld, why bother?

I agree. He is more likely to die of old age/health reasons than to be executed.

 

[fly girl]

When this first happened I was sure he was guilty, after all I was seeing exactly what the press wanted me to see. Hadn't really thought about the case in years until I wanted a documentary recently about it, I think on Netflix (but not 100% sure).
I'm not so sure he's guilty anymore based on the limited evidence they had against him, and the things they had that showed he could be innocent.

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.

 

[starry_solo]

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.

 

[FairestOfThemAll37]

I must say when I re-read up on this case the actual hard evidence was VERY limited.. I believe they only found a hair of Laci's on his fishing flyers on his boat.. Since they lived together this could mean nothing. I mean my hairs are all over our property and it annoys my DH.. Jurors found his behavior, affair, etc..and changiing his hair to avoid press suspicious, but yet again no hard evidence... The guy was a dog, but a killer ? REading this now i am surprised they convicted him. Others have gotten off on much more evidence.

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?

 

[bcla]

I heard his attorney (or one of his attorneys) saying they expect him to be released in the next two years.

No way. Ther conviction wasn't overturned and there's no indication that he's getting a new trial. The only thing at issue is the death sentence. I guess the state could retry him to try and get a new conviction and sentence, but that's only for the penalty phase. Not quite sure how that works since typically everyone in the jury has been through a complete trial to determine guilt.

It's solely about whether or not potential jury members were excluded because of a professed opposition to the death penalty. The judge summarily dismissed them before questioning them face to face.

The defense is trying for a Hail Mary to get a new trial.