Scott Peterson....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050317/D88SPGMG0.html


Not that anyone here will agree with me, and I'll admit I don't know California sentencing procedure, but usually...the Defendant does (and should) get to have witnesses on his own behalf at the sentencing, and if that article is correct, Scott's parents were denied the chance to address the Court. Again, maybe in California you can do that, but otherwise that's nonsense.

ANd I'm sorry, but the more I hear these jurors speak, the less and less I think of them. Plus, it may lay groundwork for an appeal. The pro-death penalty crowd whines about how long the appellate process takes, but this kind of crap is why.

Hey Lew, from the article I'm not sure if this was the sentencing phase or just the formal pronouncement. Doesn't the accused only get character witnesses during the sentencing phase?

I heard rumors that some of the jurors have book deals already.

There's good basis for an appeal right there. If jurors are thinking about possible financial incentives from being jurors, this could have a serious effect on their impartiality.

It's easy for me to decry this, I know it would be tempting...

It is true that the judge could hold a sentencing hearing, take the matter under advisement, and then come back later and pronounce the sentence. But if that occurred here, then the victim's people should not have been allowed to speak, either. One element of our legal system that holds throughout, with very few exceptions, is that both sides get their say in Court. And based on that article, it seemed the judge all but told Geragos that the victims could speak, not Peterson's parents, and like I said, unless that's some quirky California rule (which I don't think would pass Constitutional muster anyway) that is absolute nonsense.

Several of the jurors were there, and yeah, it sure sounds to me like they're not camera shy. Book deals would not surprise me.


BTW, a bunch of us at the courthouse debated this the other day, surprise I was in the minority. But I'm sorry, when your life is on the line, your primal instinct to survive has to kick in. And that means, he needed to get his ass on the stand at the sentencing and plead for mercy like there was no tomorrow. My cohorts disagreed with me, arguing that, if he does that, then the judge is angry because of all the crap they had to go through with the trial, and that these are just crocodile tears, etc. I understand all of that. And if he were looking at 5 years up the river, sure, I can see keeping your mouth shut. But when death is an option, in this case a very real one, you need to cowboy up and say something.

Now, Geragos may feel he's got a slam dunk appeal and didn't want Peterson to blow it. Well, newsflash there is NO SUCH THING as a 'slam dunk' appeal. The odds are already 4-1 against you that you'll lose. And you could 'win' on a technicality but the court of appeals could deem it 'harmless error' and still uphold.

And even if they were to remand for a new trial...what makes Geragos think the result would be any different? It's going to be virtually impossible to find jurors who don't know about this case.

They may win on appeal, but the odds are against it, and Geragos knows that, so does Peterson, and I can't believe Peterson didn't try to exonerate himself.

Can you make sure he gets gang raped a couple of times first!

Peterson just needs to die. And soon.

Preferably in the middle of a prison riot and very, very painfully.