|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 11, 2007 0:12:35 GMT -5
If the jury doesn't like the accused he/she will be convicted Northwestern did a study indicating a 37% chance in a trial of a factually innocent defendant being convicted. I've talked to more than a few jurors in my time. Not a few will convict or decide based on whether they like the client's lawyer. Not only are we tinkering with the machinery of death, but we're doing so with a fractured mop handle. In my state (Washington) of all felonies charged (2006) only 0.57% resulted in acquitals. The number that were plea bargained were a smaller fraction of even that number. Either my state's prosecution and law enforcement teams have godlike powers for discerning who the miscreants are or there's a hanging jury culture out there.
|
|
|
Post by looking4justice on Sept 11, 2007 2:37:53 GMT -5
I've been slightly obsessed with this case now for a while. I followed the timeline and it seems to me he had his time accounted for. It's just a shame. So people at work really don't want to hear me go on about it anymore because they think what others do. Jen, what are you thinking, are you crazy? Of course he did it! Who else could of? He cheated and lied. And I say, you read a few tabloids and suddenly you're an expert on this. At the very least humor me and read about it. Read the transcripts and the timeline and then tell me I'm the crazy one. So I put a blog on my myspace page to get my point across since everyone's is sick of hearing me talk about this. I simply needed a place to state my opinion and get some feedback from people I know in general. Or at least put it back in people's minds and maybe make people at least look at this case again and see for themselves what's happened. Somebody's got to care. At least Scott has so much attention from so many that he may not slip through the cracks. Hi Joon, you should try doing Ron G's timeline. I tried it and it sure didn't add up to me. He said he drove the 45 miles to Lodi to pick up his check and give his boss an update on the site that was nearly completed. 45 miles= approx drive time, 50 minutes He left his home at around 6:30 am so he should have arrived at around 7:20 am 104 miles to Los Banos=Just over a 2 hour drive. He claims he arrived there between 11:00 and 12:00 am. That would mean he stayed in Lodi for three hours? Even two hours would have been too long if all he did was pick up his check and give an update on site that is nearly completed. In order for him to make it Los Banos by 11:00 am and noon, he would have to have left Lodi between 9:00 and 10:00 am. He also said he wished the men a Merry Christmas. How could there be men there when everyone was given the rest of the week off? Then, on his way home, he decides to go fishing after talking to Sharon. Not even Sharon knew he decided to go fishing because he didn't tell her. So now he's on his way to Oakdale to go fishing which just happens to be 16 miles East of Modesto. Suppose he didn't go to Los Banos. Suppose he went to Scott and Laci's house instead and arrived there just after Scott left? Suppose Sharon didn't tell Ron the night before that Laci would be coming to dinner so he wanted to stop by and ask her why she wasn't coming or what ever? What if he accidently killed her? Also, he said he went fishing at noon, so that would mean no way could he have been at Los Banos by noon because he was already in Oakdale with a pole in his hand. Los Banos to Oakdale=51 miles=1 hour drive. If you go with Ron's time line, he would have to have been in Lodi for over 2 hours, close to 3. Edit to add. I read this over on another board, but I'm not sure if I'm allowed to say which board. I don't want to break any rules.
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 11, 2007 4:29:03 GMT -5
Some confusion appears to surround the meaning of 'circumstantial evidence' which almost all concede the jury relied on to make their determination of 'guilty' in the Scott Peterson murder case.
Black's Law Dictionary (revised 4th ed.) defines CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE as follows:
It is well established law that juries are allowed to use circumstantial evidence to convict and a number of murderers are on DR due to this. Peterson's attorney(s) possibly erred in underestimating the power of circumstantial evidence in the jury's mind. And given the deference appeal courts give to jurys, the conviction may well be upheld. Many prosecutors recognize the power of cases built on circumstantial evidence--even prefering it in some instances to more easily attacked eye-witness testimony or physical evidence since it is more difficult for the defense to refute. If you don't think 'circumstantial evidence' can convict/hang you, you're living in a naive and dangerous land of barkers and colored balloons.
|
|
|
Post by pinbalwyz on Sept 11, 2007 5:00:55 GMT -5
Having said all that but for those less inclined to the esoteric, perhaps we can think of 'circumstantial evidence' as incorporated in the following argument.
"Mr. Jones walks like a duck and sounds like a duck--therefore he must be a duck!"
Mr. Jones may be a good mimic or actually have a speaking impediment (removal of the vocal chords due to throat cancer, requiring an electronic voicebox?) and possibly he is crippled or has an unusual gait for some other reason. None of these makes him a duck. But a jury could conclude as much.
Was it the O.J. trial (I forget) where a witness was cast as a 'racist' for suggesting he could tell the speaker on the other end of a telephone conversation was BLACK because of how his voice sounded? Again, a jury would be allowed to infer the race of the speaker from hearing the audio of such a conversation using the same reasoning as the witness challenged in the scenario mentioned.
Given the already tenuous nature of the DP in view of those released from DR for mistakes made--some within hours of their execution times, a re-examination of 'circumstantial evidence' admissability at least and foremost in capital cases needs to be ordered. No jury should be permitted to render a guilty verdict based on that (or substantially so) alone.
In the end, the Peterson case may become the poster child of an example where the convicted man was condemned to die as a result of what amounts to a popularity contest rather than the physical evidence in the case, just as Saco and Vanzetti have come to represent the miscarriage of justice based on 'racial' presumptions. But it's a long row to hoe and neither Saco nor Vanzetti made the cut before the American judicial system woke up!
|
|
|
Post by happyhaddock on Sept 12, 2007 21:51:32 GMT -5
... In my state (Washington) of all felonies charged (2006) only 0.57% resulted in acquitals. The number that were plea bargained were a smaller fraction of even that number. Either my state's prosecution and law enforcement teams have godlike powers for discerning who the miscreants are or there's a hanging jury culture out there. One has only to look at the 'Witch Hunt in Wenatchee' and all of those convictions to affirm this view.
|
|