Scott Peterson - on death row in California - this was a weird one (case, husband)

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by ClaraC

I think the changing story theory is that people believe that he said he was golfing because he kind of couldn't remember his alibi, which would be fishing.

I don't believe it. I think those people, in the heat of the emergency, misheard or misremembered what he said.

Agreed. None of the testimony offered about a different story was convincing (or even relevant to the case).

Unfortunately the fact this testimony was even allowed was prejudicial and should never have been seen by the jury.

This case was truly tried in the court of public opinion, hearsay, and the realm of "circumstances". There never was any evidence presented that implicated Scott in the murder. Its kind of amazing we lock people up for life and sentence them to death in the absence of evidence, based solely on belief.

[ransomryan111]

Has anyone seen or read an interview Gregory Jackson? He was the last juror to be removed in the Peterson trial. He was initially the foreman. I've heard that he was physically threatened by another juror because he was voting not guilty and because he wanted to go back through all of his notes during deliberations. When he asked the judge to dismiss him, those records were apparently sealed. If anyone has anymore information about how or why he was dismissed and can share a link, that would be GREAT!!! Thanks!
-Shane

[Lieneke]

Originally Posted by ransomryan111

Has anyone seen or read an interview Gregory Jackson? He was the last juror to be removed in the Peterson trial. He was initially the foreman. I've heard that he was physically threatened by another juror because he was voting not guilty and because he wanted to go back through all of his notes during deliberations. When he asked the judge to dismiss him, those records were apparently sealed. If anyone has anymore information about how or why he was dismissed and can share a link, that would be GREAT!!! Thanks!
-Shane

"The motion included quotes from the transcript of a hearing in the judge’s chambers. Jackson told Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi that he felt he had lost his ability to be fair and impartial.

“When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly,” Jackson explained as he requested to be let go.

“And given what’s transpired, my individual ability to do that, I think, has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community’s verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might — I don’t know — produce the best book,” Jackson said."

November 24, 2004
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/11...-jury-foreman/

[enigmatico]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

"The motion included quotes from the transcript of a hearing in the judge’s chambers. Jackson told Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi that he felt he had lost his ability to be fair and impartial.

“When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly,” Jackson explained as he requested to be let go.

“And given what’s transpired, my individual ability to do that, I think, has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community’s verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might — I don’t know — produce the best book,” Jackson said."

November 24, 2004
https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2004/11...-jury-foreman/

And that reinforces the exact point made by phantompilot: this case was truly tried in the court of public opinion. No juror should ever have to weigh his verdict against what's popular, expected, profitable, or desired by the community. Even more disturbing is Jackson told the judge that comments from other jurors made him feel "unsafe". We don't know if that included him being physically threatened, but it sounds as though he believed he was in a "vote guilty or else" situation. Knowing this, I can't agree this was a fair trial at all.

[Lieneke]

Originally Posted by enigmatico

And that reinforces the exact point made by phantompilot: this case was truly tried in the court of public opinion. No juror should ever have to weigh his verdict against what's popular, expected, profitable, or desired by the community. Even more disturbing is Jackson told the judge that comments from other jurors made him feel "unsafe". We don't know if that included him being physically threatened, but it sounds as though he believed he was in a "vote guilty or else" situation. Knowing this, I can't agree this was a fair trial at all.

How do you get from a juror who has lost his ability to deliberate to suspect tried in the court of public opinion? The juror, a doctor and lawyer, was very detail oriented and wanted to discuss each aspect and detail of the trial in the jury room simply because that's how he problem solves. That would have taken several months. That is not the role of a jury. The jury determined the verdict with a new foreperson who understood the difference between the role of the jury and the role of the lawyer.

The verdict has been appealed, hasn't it? That's the opportunity to bring forward all legitimate points where the suspect's rights were not observed. Have the appeals been successful? If not, does that mean that everyone in the justice system is against the suspect, or that the suspect is guilty?

[enigmatico]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

How do you get from a juror who has lost his ability to deliberate to suspect tried in the court of public opinion? The juror, a doctor and lawyer, was very detail oriented and wanted to discuss each aspect and detail of the trial in the jury room simply because that's how he problem solves. That would have taken several months. That is not the role of a jury. The jury determined the verdict with a new foreperson who understood the difference between the role of the jury and the role of the lawyer.

You don't know Gregory Jackson. You don't know how he problem-solves. You don't know how long it would have taken to deliberate had he continued as a member of the jury. The role/responsibility of a jury is clearly spelled out to them and it is not based on a time limit. Jackson told the judge that he felt his ability to fulfill his oath, to weigh both sides fairly and openly, had been compromised. Not because he himself had simply lost the ability to deliberate, but by what had transpired. And whatever transpired was sufficient enough for him to question whether the verdict he could offer would be based on his fair and open evaluation of the evidence rather than 'the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might produce the best books'...And what do all of these factors have in common? They're all based on public opinion. It's pretty obvious to me that's what he was referring to. That's how I read his statement.

Scott was entitled to 12 independent, fair and impartial jurors, not 11 who were willing to brow-beat number 12 into agreement or force him to leave.

Originally Posted by Lieneke

The verdict has been appealed, hasn't it? That's the opportunity to bring forward all legitimate points where the suspect's rights were not observed. Have the appeals been successful? If not, does that mean that everyone in the justice system is against the suspect, or that the suspect is guilty?

Scott's appeal hasn't been heard yet, but I don't think it means anything with regard to his guilt or innocence. Michael Morton and countless others innocently convicted were no more guilty after 2 years in prison than they were after 20. I'm not sure what your point is.

[Lieneke]

Originally Posted by enigmatico

You don't know Gregory Jackson. You don't know how he problem-solves. You don't know how long it would have taken to deliberate had he continued as a member of the jury. The role/responsibility of a jury is clearly spelled out to them and it is not based on a time limit. Jackson told the judge that he felt his ability to fulfill his oath, to weigh both sides fairly and openly, had been compromised. Not because he himself had simply lost the ability to deliberate, but by what had transpired. And whatever transpired was sufficient enough for him to question whether the verdict he could offer would be based on his fair and open evaluation of the evidence rather than 'the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might produce the best books'...And what do all of these factors have in common? They're all based on public opinion. It's pretty obvious to me that's what he was referring to. That's how I read his statement.

Scott was entitled to 12 independent, fair and impartial jurors, not 11 who were willing to brow-beat number 12 into agreement or force him to leave.Scott's appeal hasn't been heard yet, but I don't think it means anything with regard to his guilt or innocence. Michael Morton and countless others innocently convicted were no more guilty after 2 years in prison than they were after 20. I'm not sure what your point is.

The juror, according to his own words, lost his ability to be fair and impartial and requested to be excused from the jury. As a result, the accused was provided with a jury that could be fair and impartial. Why is that a problem?

[enigmatico]

Originally Posted by Lieneke

The juror, according to his own words, lost his ability to be fair and impartial and requested to be excused from the jury. As a result, the accused was provided with a jury that could be fair and impartial. Why is that a problem?

Those were not his words, Leineke. Gregory Jackson, according to his own words, said that his ability to fulfill his oath, to weigh both sides fairly and openly, had been compromised based on what had transpired. He also reportedly declared that he felt unsafe! What does that tell us? That he was being unreasonably pressured and/or threatened by the other members of the jury.

You seriously can't see why that's a problem?

[ClaraC]

Originally Posted by enigmatico

Those were not his words, Leineke. Gregory Jackson, according to his own words, said that his ability to fulfill his oath, to weigh both sides fairly and openly, had been compromised based on what had transpired. He also reportedly declared that he felt unsafe! What does that tell us? That he was being unreasonably pressured and/or threatened by the other members of the jury.

You seriously can't see why that's a problem?

Well, I see it. At that point, he was ready to do anything/say anything that would allow him to be removed.

Because he was being threatened and pressured, even by the judge to agree with the others. So rather than vote "guilty", which he couldn't do, he used the verbiage that would allow him to be released from the jury.

They were forced to deliberate after all minds were made up, including his.

And that's what a hung jury is. And judges, in the interest of the $$ of a retrial, often force juries who are hung to agree on a verdict, even when it goes completely against their belief about guilt or innocence.

[Cliff Hardy]

Have just gotten interested in the Peterson case. Fascinating to say the least. Thus far I think Scott is guilty. But I have have only scratched the scratch with this one so far.