Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In my observation, a sentence of "life" allows the convict a lot of freedoms that death penalty prisoners don't have. Death penalty prisoners are, by and large, completely isolated and have very few options for positive programs within the prison system.
Additionally, Peterson's attorneys are pushing for an entire new trial, not just a new punishment phase, with some encouragement from the legal system.
As I recall (it's been a long time) the Rocha family attempted to sue Peterson for wrongful death in a civil court after he was convicted of murder, and the Rochas dropped that civil lawsuit because the judge in the civil case refused to stipulate Peterson's guilt. The Rocha family would have to retry the ENTIRE criminal case, in the civil court, to establish guilt before proceeding with the civil damages. This is virtually unheard of - civil courts almost always accept the verdict of the criminal courts and proceed from there with damages.
To me, that spelled out the doubt that people who are in the court system had for Peterson's guilty verdict.
Only the penalty phase will be reconsidered, not the verdict. The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction.
I suppose he wants to be in general population, although I'm not clear on why that seems like a good idea during pandemic.
"Peterson has spent the last 15 years in jail at San Quentin. The announcement follows an Aug. 24 decision by the California Supreme Court that unanimously upheld Peterson’s conviction but reversed the penalty imposed by the trial jury on account of errors made in jury selection.
...
County prosecutors announced Friday plans to retry the penalty phase of the murder case against Scott Lee Peterson, who was tried and convicted of the murder of his wife and unborn child in 2004 and sentenced to death by lethal injection.
...
According to an NBC News report, Peterson’s lawyer informed the court that he was just learning that the DA would seek death penalty a second time, and he would need time to discuss with his client and prepare."
Everyone knows he was convicted before the trial started, from the start the defense had to prove him innocent, which is the opposite way our court system works. So I guess the question is now, will he get a retrial, or just re-sentenced? That Richelle Nice lady was a mess and lied when she filled out the juror questionnaire.
6th Amendment;
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.
Whether you believe Peterson is innocent or guilty, by the law of our land he should probably get a new trial, so should Steven Avery for that matter.
It wouldn't be the first time in history where people figured out that someone was guilty prior to trial. Everyone can think for themselves independent of verdicts and penalties. In fact, I suspect that it's quite common for people who invest time in criminal investigations to form an opinion prior to trial. That does not mean that the courts are unfair.
Status:
"I don't understand. But I don't care, so it works out."
(set 12 days ago)
35,640 posts, read 17,994,810 times
Reputation: 50680
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lieneke
Only the penalty phase will be reconsidered, not the verdict. The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction.
I suppose he wants to be in general population, although I'm not clear on why that seems like a good idea during pandemic.
"Peterson has spent the last 15 years in jail at San Quentin. The announcement follows an Aug. 24 decision by the California Supreme Court that unanimously upheld Peterson’s conviction but reversed the penalty imposed by the trial jury on account of errors made in jury selection.
...
County prosecutors announced Friday plans to retry the penalty phase of the murder case against Scott Lee Peterson, who was tried and convicted of the murder of his wife and unborn child in 2004 and sentenced to death by lethal injection.
...
According to an NBC News report, Peterson’s lawyer informed the court that he was just learning that the DA would seek death penalty a second time, and he would need time to discuss with his client and prepare."
It wouldn't be the first time in history where people figured out that someone was guilty prior to trial. Everyone can think for themselves independent of verdicts and penalties. In fact, I suspect that it's quite common for people who invest time in criminal investigations to form an opinion prior to trial. That does not mean that the courts are unfair.
To a point, especially if someone goes in believing the person on trial is guilty, when that is not how our court system is supposed to work. I’ve served on 3 jury’s, 2 of them lasted a week and a half, the other was only a few hours.
I would not want that Richelle Nice on my jury, whether I was being tried, or on the jury. Whether it’s Casey Anthony, Scott Peterson, Michael Peterson or Steven Avery, media involvement can change opinions on court cases, and there were a few people whom I served with that let their religious beliefs jade their decisions. That’s a different topic yes but some people like being told what and who to believe, proof of that is in the current election this country is in. Personally, I’d rather have a professional jury system in my trial if I was ever accused of anything.
To a point, especially if someone goes in believing the person on trial is guilty, when that is not how our court system is supposed to work. I’ve served on 3 jury’s, 2 of them lasted a week and a half, the other was only a few hours.
I would not want that Richelle Nice on my jury, whether I was being tried, or on the jury. Whether it’s Casey Anthony, Scott Peterson, Michael Peterson or Steven Avery, media involvement can change opinions on court cases, and there were a few people whom I served with that let their religious beliefs jade their decisions. That’s a different topic yes but some people like being told what and who to believe, proof of that is in the current election this country is in. Personally, I’d rather have a professional jury system in my trial if I was ever accused of anything.
The Michael Peterson case is just crazy.
Agreed that everyone should be carefully screened for jury duty to exclude all those who cannot be objective.
I'm in Canada. Pre-trial information is handled differently in Canada to protect the accused's right to "innocent until proven guilty." Specifically, federal law dictates that investigative information is released pre-trial only for investigative purposes, then there's a blackout on related information until trial.
Canadians are very patient regarding learning the details of criminal activities at the time of trial. Interestingly, most people have moved on and don't much care about the trial when it happens. They had an opinion, they hear the verdict much later, and shrug shoulders regarding whether they were right or wrong.
Canadians also truly enjoy talking-heads spilling their guts with pre-trial murder information in the USA. It's entertaining, like solving a puzzle, but it does little to protect innocent people.
I agree that releasing trial information in the media before there is a trial seems careless, and it can result in the wrong verdict, but it seems too late to fix that in the USA. Best option is better jury screening.
The Mike Peterson case is a mess even though there are many reasons to believe that it was a murder. The forensic lab expert was unqualified and in cahoots with investigators, pre-trial info was abundant, and there is the small problem of the woman in Germany who accidentally died in an identical manner. I'm guessing that Mike was given control of the estate finances to raise the children. He's an old man now, unlikely he'll murder again. Is there going to be a re-trial? Seems pointless.
Ok. So I watched to the 30 minute mark, and it's not fair.
They do mention - extremely briefly - alternative theories and witnesses who saw her, but then say those sightings/information were dismissed.
I really, really wish I could find a fair revisiting of this case. Maybe in the form of a compilation of people who are sure he's guilty, and those who aren't sure.
Ok. So I watched to the 30 minute mark, and it's not fair.
I watched about 24 minutes of the clip, and the number of red flags that go up about Peterson's behavior and actions is astounding. However, I didn't follow this case closely.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
