One has to wonder...

I mean, come on, the jury was making no headway, then the judge removes two jurors and boom, he's guilty?

I see this one being overturned on appeal, if not...I'm scared for legal justice in California.

Nah. Thing is, he was guilty before they even started the trial. Changing the jurors doesn't make him any more or less guilty. I hope they FRY the bastard. :D

they removed 3.

Ah, yes, I forgot about the one they removed earlier.

Nah. Thing is, he was guilty before they even started the trial. Changing the jurors doesn't make him any more or less guilty. I hope they FRY the bastard.

Its this type of thought which prompts judges to remove jurors who won't get them a re-electable verdict, rather than a just verdict.

Maybe the realized TDG OT forums needed a new topic and so jumped to a conclusion quickly?

Hmm, I'll have to sent them a thank-you note =D

Its this type of thought which prompts judges to remove jurors who won't get them a re-electable verdict, rather than a just verdict.Not really. See... no one asked me to serve on that jury. But I wasn't predisposed to the idea that he was guilty. HOWEVER, today I DO believe that he's guilty as sin. :frocket:

Sorry Aidon. I guess I should have waited for YOUR verdict before I expressed mine, but I'm just not that pc these days, living in rural america. :D

Two different questions.

First is the question of whether you think he is guilty or not. That, ultimately, is irrelevant, because what matters is whether the jury thinks he was guilty or not. And that leads to the second question....

Did the two jurors who got dismissed think he was guilty? And if they didn't, did the judge dismiss them because they were preventing the jury from reaching a verdict? If so, then that will create an issue on appeal that may result in him getting off entirely.

What I heard was that the juror who was a doctor/lawyer was dismissed possibly because he was using his experience as a doctor/lawyer to sway other jurors rather than just the testimony and evidence. The first juror who was dismissed was doing some research outside of what was presented to try to reach a conclusion. Both, no-nos.

I hope we find out after the penalty is decided.

The juror they removed earlier on was fraternizing with the Peterson's and their lawyer. I think that's the reason he was removed.

Obviously the conviction is based entirely on circumstantial evidence but it sure as hell all piled up to make Scott look guilty beyond any doubt in my mind. One of the difficulties of murders where people who live or spend time together is that you don't have much to go on for DNA or fibers and what not and unless you find the murder weapon or something like that you're going to have a REAL hard time proving your case.

In a case where the evidence is purely circumstantial...one seriously has to wonder when three jurors are removed and then the jury returns a guilty verdict.

Personally, the idea of conviction, especially of a capital crime, with no physical evidence and no witnesses, is frightening. Especially in this day and age of media exposure.

Scott Peterson was not going to get a fair trial anywhere in this nation.

Did he kill his wife? Probably. Is his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Not from anything I've heard of the evidence. I suspect the two jurors removed during deliberations probably believed similarly.

Other than a "building a computer, must watch something on tv, oh look a made for tv movie" movie about the Peterson story, I can't stay I've kept up with it much, however from reading just a few bits on the news site, I'm really surprised this got a guilty on both counts, just by looking at the evidence provided. Whether he did it or not being outside the scope of my questioning, the fact that the jury was able to convict him with the (lack of) evidence provided is seriously suspect to me. This has retrial written all over it to me.

What I heard was that the juror who was a doctor/lawyer was dismissed possibly because he was using his experience as a doctor/lawyer to sway other jurors rather than just the testimony and evidence.


Nothing wrong with that.

Is his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? Not from anything I've heard of the evidence. I suspect the two jurors removed during deliberations probably believed similarly. It appears that the juror who was ousted for doing her own research has stated that she supports the verdict of guilty.

I still hope they fry the bastard! :D

A bigger issue than convicting on circumstantial evidence to me is that they convicted him of murdering a fetus. The wife, I can see. The fetus is a different issue altogether.

I thought he was guilty from the start. I highly doubt he'll get the death penalty, only because they jury convicted him of murder 2 on the baby. Had it been murder 1 on both, yes, he would have gotten it. He'll just spend the rest of his life in prison.

I'm disheartened by the American Justice system that focuses so much on process, that the fundamental question of guilt/innocence and justice seems to fall victim. The media coverage on high profile cases is also amazing.

Canadian criminal justice takes a somewhat different approach. Questionable processes (e.g. did the police say the right things when arresting the accused, was there potential jury misconduct) are certainly considered but seldom affect the outcome of serious criminal cases. There is very little 'the accused was released on a technicality'. Also, if Canadian media were to try the nonsense that I see in the U.S. they would be barred from the courtroom and potentially found in contempt. The legal and media circus surrounding the Simpson trial caused most Canadians to shake their heads. You folks south of the Canadian border really need to get your act together when it comes to lawyers and media coverage in criminal cases.

Aw gee. Look at it this way, we have highly entertaining Reality TV built into our justice system! 99.9% of our court cases get 0 coverage in the media.

I think the Simpson case would have turned out the way it did regardless of media coverage. I think that was just bad jury selection.

I'm disheartened by the American Justice system that focuses so much on process, that the fundamental question of guilt/innocence and justice seems to fall victim. The media coverage on high profile cases is also amazing.

Canadian criminal justice takes a somewhat different approach. Questionable processes (e.g. did the police say the right things when arresting the accused, was there potential jury misconduct) are certainly considered but seldom affect the outcome of serious criminal cases. There is very little 'the accused was released on a technicality'. Also, if Canadian media were to try the nonsense that I see in the U.S. they would be barred from the courtroom and potentially found in contempt. The legal and media circus surrounding the Simpson trial caused most Canadians to shake their heads. You folks south of the Canadian border really need to get your act together when it comes to lawyers and media coverage in criminal cases.


The process is as important as whether the man was actually guilty. When you ignore the process...you open the door for even greater abuse and far more innocent people will be harmed by the state.

The questions of process vs fairness is common. In the UK there's currently a political debate on whether the justicial system protects the criminals or the victims, which in itself ignores the falsely accused but there you go.

Anyway one thing I'm not sure about is media reporting of trials. In the UK most cases have standard media restrictions and if the media ignore them they will be prosecuted themselves. Only limited details can be reported before the trial. Only the courtroom statements are reported during the trial with no photographs, audio, or video footage. After the trial the reporting restrictions are lifted and all of the public's "right to know" is satisfied and the case is open to public scrutiny. I can't see why the US needs open media reporting of trial cases prior to judgement as it clearly causes immense difficulty in jury selection and invites the public to try the accused before any courtroom verdict is reached.

Limiting camera's in the court room will do little to stop the media hype. The media hype in national cases begins during the investigative stage, where the court has no say.

Its quite the quandry. However, as much as I deplore the media essentially convicting people before the trial, I loathe any attempt by the state to control the media. Its a door that just shouldn't be opened.

However, as much as I deplore the media essentially convicting people before the trial, I loathe any attempt by the state to control the media. Its a door that just shouldn't be opened.

It wouldn't be the state controlling the media, it would be the judiciary controlling the judicial process. US lawyers seem to have their hooks into so much in the US I'm surprised they haven't thought of this too.

The Judicary should be free whereever possible of any influence, be it govemental or media.

Reporting should be limited until the court hears the full evidence, any other way will lead to undue influence in the process.

The judical process is there to enforce the law, not to entertain the masses seems some people in both the US and UK have forgotten. Editors in the UK have to walk a fine line when reporting ongoing court cases, step over it and they will be stamped on hard.

where is 'klatu' when we need him most?

I agree with many of the comments. It's an independent Judiciary that should control the judicial process, including controlling the media. The ideal situation is that the Judiciary is not influenced by political machinations (we know it's not that ideal).

The fundamental objective is to determine the criminal guilt or innocence of someone. The process is a means to fulfill that objective. It should not have a life of its own. If the process usurps the ability to reach the fundamental fair guilt/innocence determination, then it's a faulty process.

In my opinion, the media has both a positive and a negative impact on the judicial process.

On the positive side, media attention often encourages people to bring forth valuable information about a criminal case (passive). Sometimes, investigative reporting can proactively bring information to light (active).

On the negative side, the media can sensationalize, distort or otherwise inappropriately affect the judicial process. How many jurors would be unaffected by intensive media coverage of a court case? Not many, I would guess.

I like the system where information is made public after a court case. It protects the integrity of the case, but also meets the right-to-know requirement. Media folks would complain that weeks-old court case information is not newsworthy because it's not timely. Pffft. A fair trial is more important than the business success of media companies.

There is a balance between the public's 'right to know' and public voyeurism. If the media causes the public to speculate about the actions, behaviors and motives of jurors, then it's not appropriate in my opinion. If the court questions the actions, behaviors and motives of jurors, then it's fair for the media to report these facts.

Thicket

The Judicary should be free whereever possible of any influence, be it govemental or media.I agree, however the real issue we have with, as Panamah puts it, the Reality TV built into our justice system, is that so much has changed since the original founding fathers designed our entire governmental system. I'm sure that not everyone agreed with what they put together either, but they weren't thwarted by insta-commentary being broadcast all over the world as each took a breath or made eye contact with one another. In a society founded on certain freedoms, where do you, and more importantly HOW do you draw the line? We have a remarkable system, but in this day and age "fine tuning" can open the door to abuse and erosion of our fundamental rights. So, how DO you allow freedom of speech AND the right to a fair trial? Our system wasn't built on degrees of certain rights, but very definitive rights.

Oh... and I'm not so naive as to think that we retain all the rights the country was founded on. We give up these freedoms under the guise of "security" every day. This issue is however, one that will show an opinion from EVERY citizen. Is our current government up for the media scrutiny a change to the system would bring?

Actually I think our jury system is horribly flawed. Really, the only jurists you can find to sit on these long cases are ones that are either retired and have nothing better to do or just weird somehow. Perhaps they don't have jobs. I really think that juries should be professional juries. People who get paid a decent salary and are educated.

But other than that, I heard yesterday talk about the Dr/Lawyer who was dismissed from the jury. He basically asked to be let off the jury. Here's why. He took 19 notebooks full of exhaustively detailed notes through the 5-6 months of the trial and he wanted to go over, in detail, all of his notes before voting (he was the foreman). It sounds like he didn't want to make up his mind until all the evidence was rehashed. Everyone else wanted to do a preliminary vote and see if they all agreed. Anyway, I guess some of the other jurors were intimidating him and refused to rehash his 19 notebooks full of notes and so he asked to be let off the jury.

Anyway, that's what I heard yesterday.

If it were me, I'd probably be pretty pissed if someone wanted to take another 5 weeks to deliberate especially if I had already come to a decision.

Ah! The talk of keeping the judiciary independent made me think of something else. How do you keep a judges political affliation from influencing their judgements when it comes to judging laws? For instance, in San Diego we had a mayoral election where a write in candidate was allowed. No one objected to it before the campaign, but now it appears she is going to win and now the law suits are getting filed. So how do you find a judge to try this that won't let his own preferences for mayor determine the outcome.... or more importantly how do you avoid the appearance of that? In this case they brought one in from another city. I just thought that was a very good thing.