|
Post by WaterLilly on Jan 28, 2006 7:32:53 GMT -5
Celebrity lawyer chastises mediaGeragos claims Scott Peterson trial unfair because of attention
By PRENTISS FINDLAY The Post and Courier
Celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos told the South Carolina Bar Association on Friday that his former client Scott Peterson is innocent and his conviction will be overturned on appeal.
Peterson was sentenced to die for killing his pregnant wife, Laci, in a case that drew international publicity and endless coverage in print and on cable TV news shows.
"I believe he's innocent. That's why I lose a lot of sleep," Geragos said to the annual gathering of state lawyers and judges at Charleston Place. He was one of the keynote speakers at the four-day convention that runs through Sunday. He has represented such high-profile defendants as Peterson, Winona Ryder, Michael Jackson and former U.S. Rep. Gary Condit. He talked about how difficult it is for celebrities to get a fair trial because of the constant pressure from the national media.
"I just think the jurors could not get past him talking on the tapes to Amber," he said. Amber Frey, Peterson's former girlfriend, worked with police to tape her calls with Peterson as evidence.
Peterson is on death row at San Quentin Prison in California. His appeals process could take as long as 10 years. Geragos said Peterson did not receive his constitutional right to a fair trial because jurors, judges and attorneys are affected to some degree by such intense media scrutiny.
Geragos said there is a symbiotic relationship between police and the media that allows information to leak. The result is what he called the "Foxification of the criminal justice system," referring to cable's Fox News. He called the trio of morning news shows, cable TV news and the tabloids the "axis of evil" when it comes to a criminal defendant receiving a fair trial.
National pretrial publicity made a fair trial for Peterson impossible because there was no impartial venue, he said.
He said the biggest threat to justice is a "stealth juror," a person who lies to get on a jury and has an agenda for being there, such as a book deal. He said there was at least one stealth juror on the Peterson jury, and that will be the basis of the appeal. That appeal is being handled by another lawyer because the case needs a "fresh set of eyes," he said.
Reach Prentiss Findlay at 745-5854 or pfindlay@postandcourier.com
|
|
|
Post by edinkansas on Jan 28, 2006 8:51:31 GMT -5
That is a VERY good article... and so true. I don't care what the jurors say- there is no way that they couldn't go in with an opinion before the trial started. I still recall something that I saw that haunts me. One of the jurors, I can't think of his name at the moment, was on a television show awhile back, and he mentioned how after he was appointed to the jury, that everywhere he would go, he would have people come up to him and say "Fry him". This was either after the trial had started, or just prior to it starting. I thought that was horrible. Plus the fact that he said it on national television, and no one seemed to think that was a bad thing! I don't know if that is the "stealth juror" that Mark G. was talking about or not, but I think that alone should be enough for an appeal... how in the world are you going to have a clear mind going in when people are telling you to "fry" the person you are supposed to be impartial about?
|
|
bebop
New Arrival
Posts: 1
|
Post by bebop on Jan 28, 2006 17:09:03 GMT -5
Greetings, may have the wrong info, but the lone juror who was voting to aquit, the forman, why was he replaced? Frey him is exactly what happened, as in Amber Frey. She claimed that a man was the father of her child, and this person was paying child support for several years. DNA proved that he was not. This fact came out after the trial. Amber's agenda is not stealthy. She collects on people's coming and going! I hope that he will get a new trial, unbiased, fair...etc. As for Amber, people with eyes to see let them see.
|
|
|
Post by martina on Feb 4, 2006 13:11:25 GMT -5
He asked to get off the jury. I don't remember anyone saying he was leaning towards acquital.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Feb 8, 2006 8:59:19 GMT -5
He asked to get off the jury. I don't remember anyone saying he was leaning towards acquital. Why do you think he asked to get off the jury?? That in and of itself is very telling as to what was going on in that jury room. The original foreman took many notes and actually paid attention to the testimony. He actually wanted to analyze the evidence and testimony-- something the other jurors weren't all that interested in doing. He was also an intelligent and educated man. Possibly the only one on the jury who understood the testimony of the ME and Dr. March. The fact that he was bullied in that jury room is nothing less than totally disgusting in my opinion. Delucchi should have called a mistrial. Just another petri-dish moment for Delucchi.
|
|
|
Post by edinkansas on Feb 8, 2006 23:06:16 GMT -5
I think I remember hearing someone say that the thought he was taking too many notes and looking at everything to deeply.. or something like that.... how in the WORLD can you take too many notes or over analyze..... a man's life was at stake!!! I thought that was a very frightening mentality for the jury to have.
|
|
|
Post by martina on Feb 10, 2006 17:00:01 GMT -5
I think he asked to be excused because he is a control freak. When he couldn't control the jury and order them about, he took his ball and went home. Doesn't sound very intelligent to me. That, by the way, is not a legal basis for declaring a mistrial. He asked to get off the jury. I don't remember anyone saying he was leaning towards acquital. Why do you think he asked to get off the jury?? That in and of itself is very telling as to what was going on in that jury room. The original foreman took many notes and actually paid attention to the testimony. He actually wanted to analyze the evidence and testimony-- something the other jurors weren't all that interested in doing. He was also an intelligent and educated man. Possibly the only one on the jury who understood the testimony of the ME and Dr. March. The fact that he was bullied in that jury room is nothing less than totally disgusting in my opinion. Delucchi should have called a mistrial. Just another petri-dish moment for Delucchi.
|
|
|
Post by martina on Feb 10, 2006 17:08:31 GMT -5
I think I remember hearing someone say that the thought he was taking too many notes and looking at everything to deeply.. or something like that.... how in the WORLD can you take too many notes or over analyze..... a man's life was at stake!!! I thought that was a very frightening mentality for the jury to have. I think urging the jury to not follow the jury instructions is a very frightening mentality which is what you are doing. The jury is instructed not to be distracted by note taking, that notes are only an aid to the memory of the notetaker, and that someone else's notes do not take precedence over the recollection of other jurors that do not take notes. If there is a discrepancy, they are to ask for readback. Dr. OCD wanted everyone to listen while he located and read his notes to them whether there was a conflict in recollection or not.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Feb 10, 2006 17:12:58 GMT -5
I think he asked to be excused because he is a control freak. When he couldn't control the jury and order them about, he took his ball and went home. Doesn't sound very intelligent to me. That, by the way, is not a legal basis for declaring a mistrial. Threats made to a juror by other jurors certainly is grounds for calling a mistrial. Delucchi made a cowardly mistake. We will have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by martina on Feb 10, 2006 17:49:25 GMT -5
Jackson claimed other jurors were "hostile" towards him and therefore his ability to render a verdict was compromised. However, when the judge questioned Jackson directly, he retracted his claim that he was pressured by the other jurors. And that is definitely not grounds for a mistrial.
I don't have to agree with you about anything. Facts are facts.
|
|
|
Post by Maggie on Feb 11, 2006 8:00:58 GMT -5
Jackson claimed other jurors were "hostile" towards him and therefore his ability to render a verdict was compromised. However, when the judge questioned Jackson directly, he retracted his claim that he was pressured by the other jurors. And that is definitely not grounds for a mistrial. I don't have to agree with you about anything. Facts are facts. You are not posting facts. If you were you could back up this statement: However, when the judge questioned Jackson directly, he retracted his claim that he was pressured by the other jurors.
This is blatant misinformation. Jackson's dismissal from the jury during deliberations will be an appeal issue.... no matter what you think.
|
|
|
Post by edinkansas on Feb 11, 2006 9:29:37 GMT -5
different people process information differently. Perhaps he was the kind of person who needs to take notes while people are talking to help him understand. I work with people like that. It may look to some as if they aren't paying attention, but they truly are. It would be wrong to tell someone that they can't process information in the way that they are comfortable doing so.
|
|
|
Post by martina on Feb 11, 2006 10:17:47 GMT -5
different people process information differently. Perhaps he was the kind of person who needs to take notes while people are talking to help him understand. I work with people like that. It may look to some as if they aren't paying attention, but they truly are. It would be wrong to tell someone that they can't process information in the way that they are comfortable doing so. Hey! You misstated what I wrote. Let me repeat it for you: jury is instructed not to be distracted by note taking, that notes are only an aid to the memory of the notetaker, and that someone else's notes do not take precedence over the recollection of other jurors that do not take notes. If there is a discrepancy, they are to ask for readback. Now, where did I or the jury instructions say he couldn't take notes?
|
|
|
Post by martina on Feb 11, 2006 10:22:24 GMT -5
Jackson claimed other jurors were "hostile" towards him and therefore his ability to render a verdict was compromised. However, when the judge questioned Jackson directly, he retracted his claim that he was pressured by the other jurors. And that is definitely not grounds for a mistrial. I don't have to agree with you about anything. Facts are facts. You are not posting facts. If you were you could back up this statement: However, when the judge questioned Jackson directly, he retracted his claim that he was pressured by the other jurors.
This is blatant misinformation. Jackson's dismissal from the jury during deliberations will be an appeal issue.... no matter what you think. Nah, it's the truth. The appellate atty may argue it on appeal, but the court will find no error. This isn't the first, nor will it be the last, time jurors didn't get along and one asked to be excused.
|
|
|
Post by edinkansas on Feb 11, 2006 15:16:41 GMT -5
I totally understood what you wrote. What I was saying was that the story I heard was that he was being bothered by other jurors because they said he took too many notes and always wanted to refer to them. That is what I was trying to say anyway. I am going on memory, and that may not be exactly right. I was just saying that if it is true, that is kind of rude. Rude by the other jurors or rude by the judge.. but still rude. I see no reason why he shouldn't refer to his notes in deliberations. It is much easier to remember what happened if you take notes at the time. Makes sense to me.
|
|