Peterson ....GUILTY
- Thread starter hambone
- Start date
Nope. As I understand it, the ruling can only be overturned if the judge erred on a matter of law. The judge acted, as far as every commentator I have heard, within his discretionary powers. Another judge may disagree with how he used his discretionary powers but that it was within the judge's rights to make those decisions and therefore it cannot be overturned...papasmerf said:Verdict too fast with new jury in place
will be appealed
Well, I wouldn't say "innocent". He was found not guilty by reasonable doubt...papasmerf said:Need I remind you that OJ was found innocent.
Kicking someone off the jury (jury foreman in this case) just because the judge wanted the trial over with is a hard sell to me. I am sure that the conduct of the judge in this matter ( he did not have a valid reason for getting rid of this juror ) is sure to bring an appeal and possible having to start a whole new trial.ocean976124 said:Nope. As I understand it, the ruling can only be overturned if the judge erred on a matter of law. The judge acted, as far as every commentator I have heard, within his discretionary powers. Another judge may disagree with how he used his discretionary powers but that it was within the judge's rights to make those decisions and therefore it cannot be overturned...
I find it a gross misuse of a judge's discretionary power if that is what he claims he used in this case. The jury came back way to fast in my mind and that will certainly open the door for an appeal and all kinds of other legal options open to the defense.
Where did you read the reasoning for the juror's dismissal? As far as I know, it hasn't been released...scubadoo said:Kicking someone off the jury (jury foreman in this case) just because the judge wanted the trial over with is a hard sell to me. I am sure that the conduct of the judge in this matter ( he did not have a valid reason for getting rid of this juror ) is sure to bring an appeal and possible having to start a whole new trial.
I find it a gross misuse of a judge's discretionary power if that is what he claims he used in this case. The jury came back way to fast in my mind and that will certainly open the door for an appeal and all kinds of other legal options open to the defense.
The only things I've heard is that one juror was kicked off for doing his/her own research on the case and that one juror was kicked off for "refusing to deliberate."
Sitting on his girlfriends couch and tearfully explaining to her he had recently "lost" his wife, two weeks before Laci Peterson actually did disappear, probably didn't help much either.bbking said:Scott if innocent (which I doubt) shot himselve in the foot with all those lies, leaving the Jury the opportunity to make a leap in logic to convict.
bbk
Yes that and the "When Lacy disappeared I was playing golf, no, no, I was fishing, yeah thats it, I was fishing not playing golf..."Asterix said:Sitting on his girlfriends couch and tearfully explaining to her he had recently "lost" his wife, two weeks before Laci Peterson actually did disappear, probably didn't help much either.
He should have stuck to the golf story. Worked for OJ.
What gets me is how all the people over the years who have killed their families, try to blame it on the homeless or burglars, as if there are roving bands of them out there with nothing better to do then abduct your wife and kids. You'd think it would occur to them that the cops just might have heard that one before. In the end it was his arrogance and stupidity that nailed him. Thankfully.
What gets me is how all the people over the years who have killed their families, try to blame it on the homeless or burglars, as if there are roving bands of them out there with nothing better to do then abduct your wife and kids. You'd think it would occur to them that the cops just might have heard that one before. In the end it was his arrogance and stupidity that nailed him. Thankfully.
Boston Police fell hook-line-and-sinker for the "armed black male" story in the Charles Smith murder case...Asterix said:He should have stuck to the golf story. Worked for OJ.
What gets me is how all the people over the years who have killed their families, try to blame it on the homeless or burglars, as if there are roving bands of them out there with nothing better to do then abduct your wife and kids. You'd think it would occur to them that the cops just might have heard that one before. In the end it was his arrogance and stupidity that nailed him. Thankfully.
Yeah, and hopefully a few heads rolled in that department because of it.ocean976124 said:Boston Police fell hook-line-and-sinker for the "armed black male" story in the Charles Smith murder case...
Go back and read the whole post. I was speculating that the judge had no good reason to kick the juror off since he did not give a reason for doing so.ocean976124 said:Where did you read the reasoning for the juror's dismissal? As far as I know, it hasn't been released...
The only things I've heard is that one juror was kicked off for doing his/her own research on the case and that one juror was kicked off for "refusing to deliberate."
The fact that Peterson was found guilty is no surprise, that only way he was getting off was if the prosecution would screw up. eg the dumb & dumber pair on OJ's case.
Was the motive determined ? was it the girlfriend or did Lacy have a large insurance policy ?
Anybody know,
Was the motive determined ? was it the girlfriend or did Lacy have a large insurance policy ?
Anybody know,
langeweile said:You are right on the appeal, but I don't believe you can appeal a verdict based on the "Jury was too fast". Or can you?
I am not sure about that but I would investigate why they dismissed those 2 jurors. I think they may have been holding a not guilty stance although I don't have all the details yet.
