Right to sue

[earth goddess]

It is everyone's right to sue someone for whatever reason. It is the Judge who decides if it is a frivilous (sic) or nusance suit. The state does not pay for the law suit - the person who files it pays.
I only know of one law suit in which a judge told the complainent to stop harrassing the respondent - that was an ex husband who kept suing his ex-wife for any little thing he could come up with.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by wyatt


And just WHO do you think pays the judge, jury, bailiff, court clerk etc?

The money would be accessed from the county's budget.

Which, of course, is filled with money collected from taxes paid by the people residing in said county.

IMO.

[Land Shark®]

Originally posted by dan4081


Of course the Rochas would have to pay for some of it also. There are fees involved in bringing a civil case to court. It is different in all states. (It may come out of the judgement if any)

True that.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Land Shark®


The money would be accessed from the county's budget.

Which, of course, is filled with money collected from taxes paid by the people residing in said county.

IMO. [/*]What does the plaintiff pay?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by dan4081


Of course the Rochas would have to pay for some of it also. There are fees involved in bringing a civil case to court. It is different in all states. (It may come out of the judgement if any) [/*]If the Rochas get a judgement of 50 million, how much would they pay. (Assuming Scott never gives them a dime.)

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by dan4081


No idea. I do know it costs money to bring a civil case to court. I also know that there are different fees in some counties if there is a jury involved compared to if a judge will be ruling, some counties charge more if a sheriff is needed, etc etc.

They kind of nickel and dime ya for each little thing..... [/*]Do the witnesses get paid? I'm thinking of Amber Frey testifying for two weeks or perhaps a coroner for a few days.

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by holiday
I thought only real experts get paid. AF doens't fall in that category.

:shrug: [/*]Does that mean the witnesses must disrupt their lives and go to court where ever it is for however long it takes?

[Land Shark®]

Paid witnesses. Who are not experts in any field.

Now that's rich.

[Anakerie]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Does that mean the witnesses must disrupt their lives and go to court where ever it is for however long it takes? [/*]

In a word, yes.

Or so I've been told.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
What does the plaintiff pay? [/*]

You have to pay to file a case. I don't know the amount, but you pay anytime you file anything with the court.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Anakerie


In a word, yes.

Or so I've been told. [/*]

Sometimes witnesses can testify via phone I believe

[Katprint]

Ordinary non-expert witnesses in California are paid the princely sum [/sarcasm] of $35 per day plus 20 cents per mile.
http://www.dir.ca.gov/title8/382.htm

This cost, like the other court costs for filing fees, process servers, court reporters, jury fees, etc. are initially paid by the parties but then the winning party is reimbursed by the losing party for their court costs (except generally not attorneys fees unless the lawsuit arises from a contract or civil rights law containing an attorneys fees clause.)

As to whether witnesses can testify by telephone: I have seen the court allow this in small claims court and family law mediations, but I have successfully objected to it in regular civil litigation (because the jury needs to be able to judge the demeanor of the witness for credibility purposes and because the attorneys need to be able to show things to the witness to question them about those things) and I have never even seen anyone ask for it in criminal court. Attorneys can appear by telephone at status conferences and similar hearings; perhaps that is what earth goddess was thinking of.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by holiday
Don't you watch trials? What witness are you referring to? [/*]I have watched a few trials but not a wrongful death civil suit of a convicted double murderer.

Cyril Wecht
Henry Lee
Amber Frey
Charles March
Rick Distaso
Gloria Allred
Donna Thomas
Catherine Crier
Richelle Nice
Justin Falconer
Shawn Sibley
Martin Laffer

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by dan4081



Why are you listing jurors and witnesses? [/*]It is a reply to a question concerning possible witnesses in the civil trial. It might be interesting to have some jurors, who came to a verdict or were excused, as witnesses along with former prosecuters and detectives. This isn't meant to be a complete list but a representative sample of some people who might be interesting to call. Some of them are no longer local, some never were. The point is it could be disruptive for some to travel to Modesto or where ever the trial may be.



MOO

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by W_D_1



One I'd love to see the defense call just to clear up some questions would be Kim McGregor. Her actions were always very weird. [/*]:beer: Exactly. In away it will be interesting just to see "where are they now".

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by dan4081


Got ya.
I dont believe jurors can be called as witnesses. Maybe someone can chime in here (Katprint?) [/*]I'm just guessing those who wrote the book gave up any rights to confidentiality.:shrug:

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I'm just guessing those who wrote the book gave up any rights to confidentiality.:shrug: [/*]


I would like to say otherwise, but the answer is no.

[Babes]

Does scott P even have any money or assetts left on his name? Why would the Rochas sue if all they will have to do is pay some bills?

Scott P is on death penalty at San Quentin . He'll die on lethal injection soon so what can they get from him? Or why dont we just face it - they needed to sue so that this case will be hitting the news again and will bring more money on book sales?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Babes
Does scott P even have any money or assetts left on his name? Why would the Rochas sue if all they will have to do is pay some bills?

Scott P is on death penalty at San Quentin . He'll die on lethal injection soon so what can they get from him? Or why dont we just face it - they needed to sue so that this case will be hitting the news again and will bring more money on book sales? [/*]The unsuccessful fertilizer salesguy is secretly the greatest writer of all time and is going to make a gazillion dollars off his story.:shrug:

[Mamie]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
It is a reply to a question concerning possible witnesses in the civil trial. It might be interesting to have some jurors, who came to a verdict or were excused, as witnesses along with former prosecuters and detectives. This isn't meant to be a complete list but a representative sample of some people who might be interesting to call. Some of them are no longer local, some never were. The point is it could be disruptive for some to travel to Modesto or where ever the trial may be.



MOO [/*]

Oh please Dear God, spare us from any more of Justin F! JMO

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by wyatt


And just WHO do you think pays the judge, jury, bailiff, court clerk etc? [/*]Not Scott.:hat:

[Sturgeon_Moon]

Originally posted by Mamie


Oh please Dear God, spare us from any more of Justin F! JMO [/*]Did you read his book?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
Did you read his book? [/*]

He's literate?

[Katprint]

Originally posted by dan4081 I dont believe jurors can be called as witnesses. Maybe someone can chime in here (Katprint?)
In a nutshell, only relevant evidence (including testimonial evidence from witnesses) is admissible. It might be interesting to hear the thoughts of the criminal trial jurors but their personal opinions are not really relevant to any issues in the civil trial - just like our opinions are not really relevant either - so they cannot be called as witnesses. The civil trial jurors will hear fresh evidence and will make up their own minds.

By contrast, let's pretend that the criminal jury had been tampered with - for example if the Rochas had bribed or threatened the jurors to obtain a guilty verdict. In the jury tampering trial, the former jurors from the prior trial could be called as witnesses because their testimony would be relevant to jury-tampering issues.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Jay]

Originally posted by earth goddess
It is everyone's right to sue someone for whatever reason. It is the Judge who decides if it is a frivilous (sic) or nusance suit. The state does not pay for the law suit - the person who files it pays.
[/*]


A Right of action is, yes, of course different from a Cause of action, however, state laws now afix some the title of "vexatious litigator" and can ONLY be permitted to file a case once the Judge has approved it, even before the defendant even sees it.

Then the defendant can file thier Answer/Motion to dismiss, etc. after they are served.

Some are permitted to proceed "in forma pauperis", and the filing fee is waived, but in a Wrongful death suit, it is very unlikely a court would permit a Plaintiff to procceed as such, as the Attorney certainly would advance the client.

[Mamie]

Originally posted by Sturgeon_Moon
Did you read his book? [/*]

You're serious right? He has a book? No, I haven't read it.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Katprint

In a nutshell, only relevant evidence (including testimonial evidence from witnesses) is admissible. It might be interesting to hear the thoughts of the criminal trial jurors but their personal opinions are not really relevant to any issues in the civil trial - just like our opinions are not really relevant either - so they cannot be called as witnesses. The civil trial jurors will hear fresh evidence and will make up their own minds.

By contrast, let's pretend that the criminal jury had been tampered with - for example if the Rochas had bribed or threatened the jurors to obtain a guilty verdict. In the jury tampering trial, the former jurors from the prior trial could be called as witnesses because their testimony would be relevant to jury-tampering issues.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]

Kat, you're walking somewhat of a different path then the question I reponded to, which was posed in reference to jurors who wrote a book. However, your "let's pretend" prompted an interesting thought.

Let's play, but not pretend (my fingers will never leave my hand).

Here's the game (knowingly limited). A juror, Gregory Jackson (MD and attorney) tells Judge Delucchi that he feels physically threatened -- because of statements other jurors have made. He further tells Judge Delucchi that comments had been made to him personally that made him reflect on whether or not his safety as a juror was an issue.

However, rather then investigate the perceived threat, Judge Delucchi asks him: "As you sit there now do you feel you can be a fair and impartial juror". Gregory Jackson replies: No. And he is removed from the jury.

Did Judge Delucchi properly investigate and/or try to cure the possible "coercion of a juror"? Is it reversible error. If so, what is the remedy?

[Katprint]

Originally posted by Wudge+ <respectfully snipped>
Did Judge Delucchi properly investigate and/or try to cure the possible "coercion of a juror"? Is it reversible error. If so, what is the remedy? [/*]
Because the judge in the civil trial is NOT allowing the plaintiffs to rely on res judicata (the thing has already been adjudicated) / collateral estoppel as to the guilty verdict for the murders, nothing that happens in the criminal appeal will have any effect on the civil trial.

As to the eventual outcome of the criminal appeals, well, it is really counting one's chickens before they hatch to speculate until the appellate briefs have been filed. Also the moderators will lock the thread if it begins to rehash the criminal trial and not discuss the civil trial.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Katprint


SNIP

As to the eventual outcome of the criminal appeals, well, it is really counting one's chickens before they hatch to speculate until the appellate briefs have been filed. Also the moderators will lock the thread if it begins to rehash the criminal trial and not discuss the civil trial.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]

Improper juror removal is certain to be an appeal issue. My questions clearly were in regard to that.

I think the most recent input from Coldwater said that we would be permitted to discuss evidence and issues from the criminal trial as long as the discussion remained civil and respectful.

Beebee, WD1, alter ego, anyone?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by holiday
It is to stop the baby killer from profiting. Read up.

:read: [/*]Just how much profit do you think Scott could make? I doubt his profit would equal the cost of the trial.


MOO

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Just how much profit do you think Scott could make? I doubt his profit would equal the cost of the trial.


MOO [/*]

If Scott wrote a book, I bet he'd make millions off it.
"If I Had Done it"

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by earth goddess


If Scott wrote a book, I bet he'd make millions off it.
"If I Had Done it" [/*]Then why hasn't he written it?

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by dan4081


Maybe he has.

You'd have to ask him. [/*]I'm not interested in his opinion. I am interested in those who think he would be rich from telling his story.

[Jay]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
I'm not interested in his opinion. I am interested in those who think he would be rich from telling his story. [/*]


According to this link, CA's Son of Sam law is still constitutional:


http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13495

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Improper juror removal is certain to be an appeal issue. My questions clearly were in regard to that.

I think the most recent input from Coldwater said that we would be permitted to discuss evidence and issues from the criminal trial as long as the discussion remained civil and respectful.

Beebee, WD1, alter ego, anyone? [/*]Yes, we can discuss the criminal case as long as the same old tired fighting doesn't start up.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Jay



According to this link, CA's Son of Sam law is still constitutional:


http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13495 [/*]
It was struck down in 2002

http://www.metnews.com/articles/keen022202.htm

[Jay]

Originally posted by alter ego

It was struck down in 2002

http://www.metnews.com/articles/keen022202.htm [/*]


I see, thanks!!

[Jay]

Originally posted by holiday
Not true according to the website you provided.

http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15490

California high court mulls 'Son of Sam' law

By The Associated Press

12.07.01 [/*]


Yes, but in the link you quote, under; "Update" it says it was struck down:


http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=15773

They should change the front page I linked then to reflect the update.

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1



One I'd love to see the defense call just to clear up some questions would be Kim McGregor. Her actions were always very weird. [/*]What would you like to ask her?

[California]

Originally posted by holiday


Your question was answered. Why aren't you satisfied with the answer? He can profit and he shouldn't. That is the point.

How about the nutcase who has been running around pretending to be Scott's lover and said he confessed? She was finally exposed as the fraud she is via the modesto bee, but she still put her self published book on amazon and barnes & noble. She made money by tellng pure lies.

Do you think that is right?


:shrug: [/*]Who is that?

[California]

Originally posted by Jay



According to this link, CA's Son of Sam law is still constitutional:


http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=13495 [/*]Then why is Scott being sued?

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1



How she met the family, why she broke into the home, why she dressed in Laci's wedding gown and got drunk, what other clothes did she steal that were never returned. [/*]IIRC she was a volunteer and met Sharon at a place where they were handing out missing posters. Sharon suggested she watch the dog while Scott went to the Super Bowl and searched for Laci in San Diego.

[Katprint]

Originally posted by California
Then why is Scott being sued? [/*]
A civil judgment would not only attach to money SP might make from selling his story, but would also attach to any other assets SP has or receives in the future - bank accounts, cars, jewelry, inheritances, gifts from his pen pal gals, etc. As an example, the valuable memorabilia OJ took in Las Vegas robbery incident was immediately the subject of a judgment collection action by the Goldman family.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[California]

Originally posted by Katprint

A civil judgment would not only attach to money SP might make from selling his story, but would also attach to any other assets SP has or receives in the future - bank accounts, cars, jewelry, inheritances, gifts from his pen pal gals, etc. As an example, the valuable memorabilia OJ took in Las Vegas robbery incident was immediately the subject of a judgment collection action by the Goldman family.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]Thank you, I was unaware inheritances were subject to collection action.

[Jay]

Originally posted by wyatt


You are getting ahead of yourself. He has no assets at the moment. Future assets, if any, would have to be tracked down by the Rochas and if in another state, would need to get the CA judgement recognized in that state before executing. If the monies were to remain offshore for example, good luck to them finding said monies, let alone attaching. :D [/*]


All states follow the UEFJA:

http://www.nccusl.org/Update/uniformact_factsheets/uniformacts-fs-uefja.asp

I have not checked, but a Judgment in CA is probably enforceable for at least 10 years, and possibly renewable for 5 or 10 more??

Any assests that are attachable, within the time frame permitted, are fair game.

[Jay]

Originally posted by Jay


I have not checked, but a Judgment in CA is probably enforceable for at least 10 years, and possibly renewable for 5 or 10 more??

[/*]

Enforcement of Judgments:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=683.010-683.050

Renewal:


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=ccp&group=00001-01000&file=683.110-683.220

[Katprint]

Originally posted by wyatt
You are getting ahead of yourself. He has no assets at the moment. Future assets, if any, would have to be tracked down by the Rochas and if in another state, would need to get the CA judgement recognized in that state before executing. If the monies were to remain offshore for example, good luck to them finding said monies, let alone attaching. :D
While it is true that having a judgment lien in place is only the first step, it beats waiting until SP gets a pile of money from somewhere and THEN trying to sue for a judgment and THEN trying to collect on that judgment. Particularly since the statute of limitations would have already run by then not to mention the additional time for SP to hide the money.

Some monies would be easy to attach. For example, if the Rochas (who also live in California) leave money to SP as an inheritance, then it is fairly easy to file a claim with the California probate court. Also, an inmate has fewer options to secretly move money around "offshore" than a regular person. Also, California is not as "debtor-friendly" as other states like Florida, and it looks like SP will be a California resident for the foreseeable future thus subject to California laws concerning fraudulent transfers, debt collection, etc.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by wyatt


I agree improper juror removal will be an apellate issue but IMO it is not his strongest issue albeit he has several. He has 2 right off the top that demand reversal per se. [/*]Any idea when the appeal will be heard? I'm thinking 2014 but I remember people saying it would be up before now.


MOO

[Babes]

why not wait till scott makes the book or inherit money or get some assetts/ resources from any source before they sue him? Who in his right mind will give him inheritance when he's just going to loose it to a lawsuit? What's the point of making the book if he's not going to make money now? Heck he can write a book and gift that book to someone and that someone can release it and make millions
- What's the point of suing him? I dont see any. He'll die for the crimes he did - Money will not bring back anything IMO

[California]

:beer:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
What would you like to ask her? [/*] Why Scott put her up to the breakin.

She conveniently breaks in while he is out of town and he neglects to set the burglar alarm.

Scott also refuses to press charges against her and it is Scott, not the police, who get the return of the items.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Babes
why not wait till scott makes the book or inherit money or get some assetts/ resources from any source before they sue him? Who in his right mind will give him inheritance when he's just going to loose it to a lawsuit? What's the point of making the book if he's not going to make money now? Heck he can write a book and gift that book to someone and that someone can release it and make millions
- What's the point of suing him? I dont see any. He'll die for the crimes he did - Money will not bring back anything IMO [/*]

I think Katprint explained in on another thread

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
Any idea when the appeal will be heard? I'm thinking 2014 but I remember people saying it would be up before now.


MOO [/*]

You can sign up on the site to get email updates. Last I read, no attorney has been appointed as yet

[wandering]

Originally posted by wyatt


How would you know what category I fall in?
But I'm quite sure I've paid more in one year than you'll pay in a lifetime. :tongue:

I don't believe in ANYONE wasting taxpayer monies on frivolous lawsuits. And this one is definitely frivolous.:rolleyes: [/*]Everyone has a right to sue anyone over any issue they deem necessary. That's what the courts are for. :rolleyes:

"Frivolous" is a matter of opinion.

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess
Why Scott put her up to the breakin.

She conveniently breaks in while he is out of town and he neglects to set the burglar alarm.

Scott also refuses to press charges against her and it is Scott, not the police, who get the return of the items. [/*]Where is she now?

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1



Scott has two attorneys working on his appeal. Cliff Gardner is one, I don't remember the name of the other. [/*]Were the attorneys appointed?

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1



They don't have to be appointed. They only have to be appelate court certified. [/*]So, no attorneys have been appointed then? Thank you.

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1




Courttv covered this after the conviction.

Appelate attorneys don't have to be appointed. A defendant has the right to hire their own. In this case two appelate attorneys are working on the case. I won't say they were hired because they could be working pro bono for all I know. [/*]Thank you, I had not heard they were appointed or what they were appointed to handle.

Since many appellate lawyers take dual appointments

http://www.metnews.com/articles/deat072202.htm

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by California
So, no attorneys have been appointed then? Thank you. [/*]

As reported in our family letter, November 2005, our family has retained Cliff Gardner and Lawrence Gibbs to handle Scott's habeas proceedings. Both Mr. Gardner and Mr. Gibbs have post-conviction practices that include representing state defendants on direct appeal, and on both state and federal habeas proceedings.

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/SPA1/Related_Links.html

[alter ego]

Originally posted by California
So, no attorneys have been appointed then? Thank you. [/*]Appointed for what?

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by California
Were the attorneys appointed? [/*] No, and they were hired for the habeas portion of the appeals which is not the first step in the appeals. The first step is judiciala review.

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1


Defendants who don't have the money to hire appelate attorneys will have one appointed by the courts but not all have to be appointed. A defendant who has the means to do so can hire their own appelate attorney. [/*]Then these were retained for habeas and not appointed.


imo

[California]

Originally posted by earth goddess
No, and they were hired for the habeas portion of the appeals which is not the first step in the appeals. The first step is judiciala review. [/*]Thank you for answering my question clearly.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


As reported in our family letter, November 2005, our family has retained Cliff Gardner and Lawrence Gibbs to handle Scott's habeas proceedings. Both Mr. Gardner and Mr. Gibbs have post-conviction practices that include representing state defendants on direct appeal, and on both state and federal habeas proceedings.

http://www.scottpetersonappeal.org/SPA1/Related_Links.html [/*]

Gardner and Gibbs handled the appeal for both Menendez brothers.

[joolz]

Originally posted by Stuy


Gardner and Gibbs handled the appeal for both Menendez brothers. [/*]

Not much of a recommendation.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by earth goddess
No, and they were hired for the habeas portion of the appeals which is not the first step in the appeals. The first step is judiciala review. [/*]
Huh? Atty's can work on the State habeas corpus
review even if the Direct Appeal is not filed. This is normally the case anyway since the habeas corpus review presents facts outside the trial record.

[Jay]

A federal HC Petition for a "state" prisoner will ONLY be entertained IF state remedies have been exhausted AND a federal question is involved, etc., etc.

State appeals must take place first as in district appeals, then the state supreme court. State HC only applies if a person is held in custody without a charge/conviction, etc., and is challenging the legality of the detention.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=2254&url=/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002254----000-.html

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Jay
A federal HC Petition for a "state" prisoner will ONLY be entertained IF state remedies have been exhausted AND a federal question is involved, etc., etc.

State appeals must take place first as in district appeals, then the state supreme court. State HC only applies if a person is held in custody without a charge/conviction, etc., and is challenging the legality of the detention.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=2254&url=/uscode/html/uscode28/usc_sec_28_00002254----000-.html [/*]:confused:

A defendant sentenced to death is also entitled to
seek state habeas corpus review

http://ag.ca.gov/publications/pdf/deathpen.pdf

[Jay]

Originally posted by alter ego
:confused:

A defendant sentenced to death is also entitled to
seek state habeas corpus review

http://ag.ca.gov/publications/pdf/deathpen.pdf [/*]


As the link explains, HC is used to introduce new evidence that was not sumitted at trial. IF an appeal is based soley on evidence judged upon, then it is not a HC action, simply an appeal.

As my link showed, a federal HC petition will only be entertained IF a federal question is involved, which more than likely always is under the Bill of Rights.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by alter ego
:confused:

A defendant sentenced to death is also entitled to
seek state habeas corpus review

http://ag.ca.gov/publications/pdf/deathpen.pdf [/*]

Correct.

In fact in death penalty cases, it is not unusual for there to be more than one State Habeas Corpus proceeding and review.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Jay



As the link explains, HC is used to introduce new evidence that was not sumitted at trial. IF an appeal is based soley on evidence judged upon, then it is not a HC action, simply an appeal.

As my link showed, a federal HC petition will only be entertained IF a federal question is involved, which more than likely always is under the Bill of Rights. [/*]:confused: You stated "State HC only applies if a person is held in custody without a charge/conviction, etc., and is challenging the legality of the detention." which is not correct as it pertains to Cali DP cases.

[Jay]

Originally posted by alter ego
:confused: You stated "State HC only applies if a person is held in custody without a charge/conviction, etc., and is challenging the legality of the detention." which is not correct as it pertains to Cali DP cases. [/*]



My answer was a general one, but yes, as far as CA is concerned, you are correct, and as always, appreciate the point if I am unclear or just plain wrong!!

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Jay




My answer was a general one, but yes, as far as CA is concerned, you are correct, and as always, appreciate the point if I am unclear or just plain wrong!! [/*]No worries Jay and thanks for clarifying your post. :patriot:

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by earth goddess


You can sign up on the site to get email updates. Last I read, no attorney has been appointed as yet [/*]Two have been retained.


MOO

[CSloper]

Originally posted by California
What would you like to ask her? [/*]

I'd like to ask her where she was on the afternoon of January 19.

[Raven]

Originally posted by wandering
Everyone has a right to sue anyone over any issue they deem necessary. That's what the courts are for. :rolleyes:

"Frivolous" is a matter of opinion. [/*]

I would hardly think this case would be deemed "Frivolous" by any parent of a dead child and grandchild.

Frivolous is suing your neighbor 40 times because he doesn't cut his grass on the same schedule as you. Frivolous is filing lawsuit after lawsuit when you don't have any real harm done.

There is a nutcase in San Francisco who filed something like 300 frivolous lawsuits against her neighbors until the courts stopped her. She filed suit against children for playing on the sidewalk in front of her house.

The way I see is that Scott has two (2) chances:

SLIM

NONE

And that's just how it's gonna play out. The appeals will be even more remote cuz there just isn't any "new" or compelling evidence. Pity, Scott!

:lol: and MOO of course

[roytoy]

Originally posted by Stuy


Gardner and Gibbs handled the appeal for both Menendez brothers. [/*]

Gee, that's working out well for them.

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by Raven


I would hardly think this case would be deemed "Frivolous" by any parent of a dead child and grandchild.

Frivolous is suing your neighbor 40 times because he doesn't cut his grass on the same schedule as you. Frivolous is filing lawsuit after lawsuit when you don't have any real harm done.

There is a nutcase in San Francisco who filed something like 300 frivolous lawsuits against her neighbors until the courts stopped her. She filed suit against children for playing on the sidewalk in front of her house.

The way I see is that Scott has two (2) chances:

SLIM

NONE

And that's just how it's gonna play out. The appeals will be even more remote cuz there just isn't any "new" or compelling evidence. Pity, Scott!

:lol: and MOO of course [/*]

The appeals is not about new or compelling evidence, it is about errors in the original trial and in the Peterson trial there are MANY errors. Even the judge said the case was a petri dish for an appeals court.

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


The appeals is not about new or compelling evidence, it is about errors in the original trial and in the Peterson trial there are MANY errors. Even the judge said the case was a petri dish for an appeals court. [/*] You can put many things on a petri dish - that does not mean that all will grow. The judge handled most motions during the trial.

[Babes]

Originally posted by Katprint

A civil judgment would not only attach to money SP might make from selling his story, but would also attach to any other assets SP has or receives in the future - bank accounts, cars, jewelry, inheritances, gifts from his pen pal gals, etc. As an example, the valuable memorabilia OJ took in Las Vegas robbery incident was immediately the subject of a judgment collection action by the Goldman family.

Katprint
Always only my own opinions [/*]


Who will give him any assets in the future when he is sitting on a death row and facing a possible lawsuit? OJ is a different story - he's not in San Quentin and not facing the deathrow. This lawsuit is not needed as of this moment. When he started selling the book he wrote then i agree but now? It is just a waste of Rocha's money and energy IMO.

My opinion - Not a smart move IMO. Well maybe there is another book to be released by the Rochas and this is a way to introduce the new book to the people. Let the sad memory comes back ...

[Luke Davis]

Originally posted by Babes



Who will give him any assets in the future when he is sitting on a death row and facing a possible lawsuit? OJ is a different story - he's not in San Quentin and not facing the deathrow. This lawsuit is not needed as of this moment. When he started selling the book he wrote then i agree but now? It is just a waste of Rocha's money and energy IMO.

My opinion - Not a smart move IMO. Well maybe there is another book to be released by the Rochas and this is a way to introduce the new book to the people. Let the sad memory comes back ... [/*]The statute of limitations could run out.


MOO

[Raven]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


The appeals is not about new or compelling evidence, it is about errors in the original trial and in the Peterson trial there are MANY errors. Even the judge said the case was a petri dish for an appeals court. [/*]

Oh YAWN!! Not that tired old saw again! And plenty of stuff gets put into petri dishes that is experimental and nothing ever comes of it. Familiar with pharmaceutical companies are ya? They sure don't come up with too many cures in their petri dishes do they?

Too bad the few of you who support killers can't recognize the context that the Judge used, but instead, subvert it to make it sound like he was agreeing there were issues. He knew better.

Errors? Quelle horror!! Imagine humans making errors!!!!! The issue would only concern Reversible Errors. Judge DeLucchi was too fine a jurist to allow that to happen, which is why he booted out #5, the woman who researched the tide charts during deliberations and that silly foreman. THOSE are NOT reversible errors.

There are errors made every single day in every single court in the country and I seriously doubt anything that happened in RWC equals the rather LARGE error Scott made when he killed his wife and unborn son.

Somehow I don't see him getting out anymore than Jeffrey MacDonald will ever get out. Birds of a feather. Narcisstic, self centered nobodys who are so cowardly they kill those those pledged to protect. Yeah, those are some good husbands!

MOO

[Babes]

Originally posted by Luke Davis
The statute of limitations could run out.


MOO [/*]

for how long?

[California]

Originally posted by W_D_1



No this trial is a wrongful death trial. The judge that will hear the case has ordered a trial because he sees issues sufficeint for retrial.

The first appeal will be to examine the trial record. It will be done at the appelate level out of the eyes of the public. [/*]I wonder which verdict would make the most money for the jurors? Wouldn't it make big headlines if the Rochas lost?

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Raven


Oh YAWN!! Not that tired old saw again! And plenty of stuff gets put into petri dishes that is experimental and nothing ever comes of it. Familiar with pharmaceutical companies are ya? They sure don't come up with too many cures in their petri dishes do they?

Too bad the few of you who support killers can't recognize the context that the Judge used, but instead, subvert it to make it sound like he was agreeing there were issues. He knew better.

Errors? Quelle horror!! Imagine humans making errors!!!!! The issue would only concern Reversible Errors. Judge DeLucchi was too fine a jurist to allow that to happen, which is why he booted out #5, the woman who researched the tide charts during deliberations and that silly foreman. THOSE are NOT reversible errors.

There are errors made every single day in every single court in the country and I seriously doubt anything that happened in RWC equals the rather LARGE error Scott made when he killed his wife and unborn son.

Somehow I don't see him getting out anymore than Jeffrey MacDonald will ever get out. Birds of a feather. Narcisstic, self centered nobodys who are so cowardly they kill those those pledged to protect. Yeah, those are some good husbands!

MOO [/*]Delucchi was overturned on appeal for failure to included the lessor charge of manslaughter - the same thing he did in this case.

What you don't seem to understand is that an error in this case doesn't have to be LARGE - it only has to be one that would have resulted in a different outcome.

What exactly do you think Delucchi meant when he said this case will be an appellate lawyer's petri dish because there are so many issues?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Raven


SNIP

The issue would only concern Reversible Errors. Judge DeLucchi was too fine a jurist to allow that to happen, which is why he booted out #5, the woman who researched the tide charts during deliberations and that silly foreman. THOSE are NOT reversible errors.

SNIP

[/*]

Improper juror removal is grave error in every state.

Rather than investigate Gregory Jackson's concern for his safety, Judge Delucchi removed him.

Because he did remove Jackson from the jury, Judge Delucchi had to secure the trial record with clear articulation of the just cause upon which he based Jackson's removal. Moreover, such articulation would have had to take in account that Jackson's removal came after Jackson expressed concern for his safety.

Judge Delucchi was responsible to do all that he could to cure Jackson's safety concern. Once Jackson expressed concern for his safety, properly removing Jackson could only come after Judge Delucchi exhausted all other options.

The trial record is void of Judge Delucchi articulating good cause for Jackson's removal. And the trial record establishes that Judge Delucchi did not even investigate Jackson's concern for his safety much less try to cure it.

The remedy for improper juror removal is to reverse with prejudice, which would preclude a second trial.

[roytoy]

Originally posted by W_D_1



No this trial is a wrongful death trial. The judge that will hear the case has ordered a trial because he sees issues sufficeint for retrial.
*]
This statement is not correct. A civil trial is completely different.

The judge did not order this trial. The Rocha's attorney's brought a civil suit to keep SP from profitting from Laci's death.

This has NOTHING to do with the criminal trial. You know, the one that found SP GUILTY and sat him on death row, where IMO, he will stay until his sentence is carried out or he dies, whichever comes first.

[California]

Originally posted by roytoy

This statement is not correct. A civil trial is completely different.

The judge did not order this trial. The Rocha's attorney's brought a civil suit to keep SP from profitting from Laci's death.

This has NOTHING to do with the criminal trial. You know, the one that found SP GUILTY and sat him on death row, where IMO, he will stay until his sentence is carried out or he dies, whichever comes first. [/*]Isn't the verdict of the criminal trial considered in the civil trial? Why else would they wait for the criminal trial to conclude?

[GrandmaGA]

Originally posted by roytoy

This statement is not correct. A civil trial is completely different.

The judge did not order this trial. The Rocha's attorney's brought a civil suit to keep SP from profitting from Laci's death.

This has NOTHING to do with the criminal trial. You know, the one that found SP GUILTY and sat him on death row, where IMO, he will stay until his sentence is carried out or he dies, whichever comes first. [/*]

"Attorneys for Laci Peterson's father, Dennis Rocha, and mother, Sharon Rocha, argued that the facts of the case already were settled. Beauchesne disagreed, [/saying there still were issues in the case sufficient to be retried. "]

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/652988.html [

[alter ego]

Originally posted by roytoy

This statement is not correct. A civil trial is completely different.

The judge did not order this trial. The Rocha's attorney's brought a civil suit to keep SP from profitting from Laci's death.

This has NOTHING to do with the criminal trial. You know, the one that found SP GUILTY and sat him on death row, where IMO, he will stay until his sentence is carried out or he dies, whichever comes first. [/*]The judge overseeing the tort action (ie wrongful death suit) did indeed order a trial.

[roytoy]

Originally posted by alter ego
The judge overseeing the tort action (ie wrongful death suit) did indeed order a trial. [/*]

Not at Mr. Peterson's request. You can only twist the facts so much.

[alter ego]

Thank ya kindly Beebee

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by GrandmaGA


"Attorneys for Laci Peterson's father, Dennis Rocha, and mother, Sharon Rocha, argued that the facts of the case already were settled. Beauchesne disagreed, [/saying there still were issues in the case sufficient to be retried. "]

http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/652988.html [ [/*]

Did this ruling set a precedent for wrongful death following a DP criminal conviction?

TIA

[California]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Did this ruling set a precedent for wrongful death following a DP criminal conviction?

TIA [/*]I haven't seen that reported.

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by California
I haven't seen that reported. [/*]

Thanks for your reply. The reason I asked was because I believe it was such an extraordinary ruling. I don't recall another one like it, especially one stemming from one where a defendant was convicted and the DP was imposed.

[wcrapkin]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Improper juror removal is grave error in every state.

Rather than investigate Gregory Jackson's concern for his safety, Judge Delucchi removed him.

Because he did remove Jackson from the jury, Judge Delucchi had to secure the trial record with clear articulation of the just cause upon which he based Jackson's removal. Moreover, such articulation would have had to take in account that Jackson's removal came after Jackson expressed concern for his safety.

Judge Delucchi was responsible to do all that he could to cure Jackson's safety concern. Once Jackson expressed concern for his safety, properly removing Jackson could only come after Judge Delucchi exhausted all other options.

The trial record is void of Judge Delucchi articulating good cause for Jackson's removal. And the trial record establishes that Judge Delucchi did not even investigate Jackson's concern for his safety much less try to cure it.

The remedy for improper juror removal is to reverse with prejudice, which would preclude a second trial. [/*]

One possible appeal could be a challenge to Judge Alfred Delucchi's mysterious removal Wednesday of Gregory Jackson, the panel foreman and the second juror yanked in as many days. Peterson's lawyers vehemently challenged Jackson's dismissal.

Another could result from a visit jurors made to the boat that prosecutors said Peterson used to dump his pregnant wife, Laci, into San Francisco Bay. Two jurors climbed aboard, presumably to test a defense theory that the boat would have capsized if Peterson had dumped Laci.

Defense attorneys argued that the action violated a law barring jurors from experiments on evidence. Delucchi dismissed the challenge.

One legal scholar said defense lawyers would have trouble convincing an appellate court.

"That's something the court could say was error, but it was harmless error because it didn't affect the verdict," said Golden Gate University law professor Peter Keane.

Keane saw little in the Peterson trial for a successful appeal. Trial judges have "wide discretion" to unseat jurors, he said.

"The judge would have had to have done something very arbitrary or whimsical or capricious or unjust," he said. "I didn't see any kind of error for the defense to jump on that's going to get any kind of mileage."

[Hey Paula]

Gregory Jackson refused to deliberate, following his removal as jury foreman, and after a time restriction was imposed for each juror to speak during deliberations. Judge Delucchi had no choice but to remove Jackson inasmuch as this juror violated his oath.

IMO

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Dion Belmont



California logic..that is the state that found OJ not guilty.:shrug: [/*]

Hi Hank!

It's always great to see you!!

I've always felt that SP's sentence might be reduced to LWOP once his case reaches the Ninth Circuit Court.

That OJ trial and verdict is a whole nuther issue and a verdict which will live in infamy in the annals of criminal justice.

IMO

[California]

Originally posted by Dion Belmont



California logic..that is the state that found OJ not guilty.:shrug: [/*]Foreign logic... People from other countries seeing the large crowd at the court house asked the reporter if it was the OJ trial. It's just hundreds of gays getting wed.

[Babes]

Originally posted by Hey Paula
Gregory Jackson refused to deliberate, following his removal as jury foreman, and after a time restriction was imposed for each juror to speak during deliberations. Judge Delucchi had no choice but to remove Jackson inasmuch as this juror violated his oath.

IMO [/*]

Hey Paula :seeya:

Nice to see you again

[Babes]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Hi Hank!

It's always great to see you!!

I've always felt that SP's sentence might be reduced to LWOP once his case reaches the Ninth Circuit Court.

That OJ trial and verdict is a whole nuther issue and a verdict which will live in infamy in the annals of criminal justice.

IMO [/*]

why do you think the sentence to scott should be reduced?

[Raven]

Originally posted by W_D_1



No this trial is a wrongful death trial. The judge that will hear the case has ordered a trial because he sees issues sufficeint for retrial.

The first appeal will be to examine the trial record. It will be done at the appelate level out of the eyes of the public. [/*]

Balderdash! That judge hasn't read through 9 months of testimony anymore than you or I have. They have clerks and interns for that.

Nor is he privy to what constitutes appealable issues since he's not any higher on the bench than civil court.....let's get "Night Court" in here since this guy has delusions of grandeur.

And a civil trial having a lower burden of proof...a prepondrance of the evidence.....is not going to impact his appeal since those are 2 separate levels of proceedings.

Sounds to me like this judge just wants some publicity, but he's looking more and more foolish with every link you post. Talk about stepping out of your bailiwick!

MOO

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Babes


Hey Paula :seeya:

Nice to see you again [/*]

Hi Babes! :seeya:

What do you think the outcome will be in this civil suit? What further proof will be required to prove Scott Peterson is responsible for the deaths of Laci and Conner?

It's great to see you too, my friend! I miss posting with you. Where are you posting now?

[Babes]

I have a scenario here :

Just a scenario - so please hold your temper hahahaha

What if Scott wins the appeal from the Supreme Court in the future and Supreme Court let him go home free but he lose on the Civil Trial - Can Scott sue the state and keep the money or the money goes to the Rochas

I know some people will say he's not going to win the appeal from SC - just do consider the scenario if you'll respond to this :)

[Hey Paula]

Originally posted by Babes


why do you think the sentence to scott should be reduced? [/*]

Mainly because of the Ninth Circuit Court's liberal history, the drama which seemed to unfold in the courtroom/jury room so often, Geragos admitting he wasn't prepared to call witnesses in the penalty phase of the trial because he anticipated an acquittal, and I've no doubt that "petri dish" will somehow figure into it too, LOL.

IMO

[Babes]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Hi Babes! :seeya:

What do you think the outcome will be in this civil suit? What further proof will be required to prove Scott Peterson is responsible for the deaths of Laci and Conner?

It's great to see you too, my friend! I miss posting with you. Where are you posting now? [/*]

Honestly - i dont know about this civil suit - It will not bring back Laci's life and this is all about the money. What matters to me is a criminal trial. I dont know if you remember where i stand on this case before LOL ( on the fence ) - although i dont like scott but i do believe that there are some informations that are left open - the Aponti report and the burlgars are my main reason why i maintained to be on the fence on this case. I just dont believe that the burglary happened on the 26th of December. Even the Medina's dont believe it as well. :(

I miss posting with you too - I am usually at Lauterbach's case board but that board is so quiet now - cant wait for Cesar Laurean to go back in the USA and start the trial and i dont believe her wife at all IMO.

[Babes]

Originally posted by Hey Paula


Mainly because of the Ninth Circuit Court's liberal history, the drama which seemed to unfold in the courtroom/jury room so often, Geragos admitting he wasn't prepared to call witnesses in the penalty phase of the trial because he anticipated an acquittal, and I've no doubt that "petri dish" will somehow figure into it too, LOL.

IMO [/*]

What's your side on the Aponti report? Do you think the detective is lying on the informations he heard on the phone?

[Babes]

Originally posted by feathergirl


Huh?

They are two different trials. Winning an appeal on one won't invalidate the other.

OJ still owes the money from losing the civil case, even though he won in the criminal case. [/*]

yeah oj won in the criminal case but he didnt sue the state - some people who was jailed and later released after they discovered new evidence that pointed to other criminals sued the state for wrongful conviction.

[Babes]

Originally posted by feathergirl


That wouldn't negate the finding in a civil case. OJ couldn't sue, and Scott can't sue.

My best guess on the civil case is that the judge wants all the evidence to be heard so that Scott's attorneys won't have grounds to appeal the verdict by claiming that they didn't get a chance to refute the evidence from the criminal trial.

Whatever........he's going to lose once again. [/*]

Yeah maybe he'll lose again

but you said Scott cant sue the state for wrongful conviction if SC overturned the decision if a new criminal comes forward? Is this true?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Babes


What's your side on the Aponti report?

SNIP

[/*]

"Investigator Jensen also tracked down Adam Tenbrink in Modesto and spoke with him. Adam Tenbrink acknowledged that Stephen Todd was a close friend and that Todd had approached him on the evening of December 24, 2002, about helping him with a burglary that was already started. This directly contradicts Todd's prior statement that the burglary occurred on December 26th."

HTH

[California]

Originally posted by Babes
I have a scenario here :

Just a scenario - so please hold your temper hahahaha

What if Scott wins the appeal from the Supreme Court in the future and Supreme Court let him go home free but he lose on the Civil Trial - Can Scott sue the state and keep the money or the money goes to the Rochas

I know some people will say he's not going to win the appeal from SC - just do consider the scenario if you'll respond to this :) [/*]I have wondered that too, more in a generic sense. Say the Rochas win a judgement of $15 million. Then evidence is found which clears Scott, someone confesses to the murders.

What if the Rochas have spent the insurance money? What about the money from the house? Does Scott get his boat back?

[vonna]

Originally posted by Babes


yeah oj won in the criminal case but he didnt sue the state - some people who was jailed and later released after they discovered new evidence that pointed to other criminals sued the state for wrongful conviction. [/*]

OJ probably didn't sue because he knew he was guilty and wanted to salvage what ever reputation he had left by getting off the front page of most papers. Are you imputing some moral motivation?

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by wcrapkin

SNIP

"That's something the court could say was error, but it was harmless error because it didn't affect the verdict," said Golden Gate University law professor Peter Keane.

Keane saw little in the Peterson trial for a successful appeal. Trial judges have "wide discretion" to unseat jurors, he said.

"The judge would have had to have done something very arbitrary or whimsical or capricious or unjust," he said. "I didn't see any kind of error for the defense to jump on that's going to get any kind of mileage." [/*]

Keane is wrong. The Ninth Circuit Court's standard of review for valid juror removal is "manifest necessity".

Judge Delucchi did not make a single attempt to investigate or try to cure Gregory Jackson's concern for his safety.

[Stuy]

Originally posted by Wudge+


Keane is wrong. The Ninth Circuit Court's standard of review for valid juror removal is "manifest necessity".

Judge Delucchi did not make a single attempt to investigate or try to cure Gregory Jackson's concern for his safety. [/*]

I would think Keane who is a law professor knows alot more about the appeal process than you do.

How do you know that Judge Delucchi did not make a single attempt to investigate or try to cure Gregory Jackson's conern for his safety?

All that information was sealed so we don't know exacty what Judge Delucchi did or didn't do.

[Raven]

Originally posted by feathergirl


The only way a person can sue for wrongful conviction is if false evidence were presented at the original trial, if the prosecution held back DNA evidence that they had, etc. The defendent would have to prove that the prosecution likely knew the defendent was innocent, but were corrupt.

That's not going to happen in Scott's case. [/*]

Amen sistuh! The evidence painted him as one of the most unlikeable defendants, not as someone who was wrongfully convicted. He's going a big fat nowhere and is just gonna endure more embarrassing revelations as to his "character". :lol:

MOO

[Okito]

Originally posted by Stuy


I would think Keane who is a law professor knows alot more about the appeal process than you do.

How do you know that Judge Delucchi did not make a single attempt to investigate or try to cure Gregory Jackson's conern for his safety?

All that information was sealed so we don't know exacty what Judge Delucchi did or didn't do. [/*]

I'm with you Stuy. A law professor has knowledge that a board poster doesn't. Delucchi was too experienced and smart not to make an attempt to quell jackson's worries. And not frivolous like this spotlight loving Ito copy.

And as you so sagely point out, the record is sealed and unknown.

[juliekan]

MSNBC is showing the interview with Scott's sister...again?

[Babes]

Originally posted by feathergirl


The only way a person can sue for wrongful conviction is if false evidence were presented at the original trial, if the prosecution held back DNA evidence that they had, etc. The defendent would have to prove that the prosecution likely knew the defendent was innocent, but were corrupt.

That's not going to happen in Scott's case. [/*]


so if prosecution held back evidence they had like the aponti report?

[Babes]

Originally posted by vonna


OJ probably didn't sue because he knew he was guilty and wanted to salvage what ever reputation he had left by getting off the front page of most papers. Are you imputing some moral motivation? [/*]


Well i am just citing some scenarios and OJ isnt convicted - I am talking about lawsuit because of possible wrongful conviction.

[Babes]

Originally posted by Raven


Amen sistuh! The evidence painted him as one of the most unlikeable defendants, not as someone who was wrongfully convicted. He's going a big fat nowhere and is just gonna endure more embarrassing revelations as to his "character". :lol:

MOO [/*]

His cable order of porn movies , his lies, color of his hair, media and Gloria Allred IMO are the ones that painted his character while forgetting the side stories of the case like the Aponti.
I dont like Scott Peterson and i dont like his character but the side stories must be heard and if that is true then justice isnt fully serve IMO.

[Babes]

Originally posted by California
I have wondered that too, more in a generic sense. Say the Rochas win a judgement of $15 million. Then evidence is found which clears Scott, someone confesses to the murders.

What if the Rochas have spent the insurance money? What about the money from the house? Does Scott get his boat back? [/*]

He'll sue the state and if he wins - the Rochas will still get the money as they won the civil suit of 15m :) - but i think he'll appeal the lawsuit imo - on the other hand - IMO modesto will file for bankruptcy and will not pay him a dime

[Raven]

Originally posted by Babes


His cable order of porn movies , his lies, color of his hair, media and Gloria Allred IMO are the ones that painted his character while forgetting the side stories of the case like the Aponti.
I dont like Scott Peterson and i dont like his character but the side stories must be heard and if that is true then justice isnt fully serve IMO. [/*]

No one forgot about the Aponte side story. There just wasn't anything to it except smoke and mirrors. Hearsay, no corroborating written testimony and a bunch of jail house innuendo and gossip.

Like the Croton watch receipt, the brown van, the satanic "drawings" near the Albany Bulb, it was full of sound and fury and signified nothing. It will come to nothing, again, if it makes it that far. Grasping at straws and certainly NOT compelling evidence of anything, much less signs that the "real" killers are still out there.

The real killer is where his lies put him-on DRow.

[Babes]

Originally posted by Raven


No one forgot about the Aponte side story. There just wasn't anything to it except smoke and mirrors. Hearsay, no corroborating written testimony and a bunch of jail house innuendo and gossip.

. [/*]

I just dont understand why would a Watch Commander make up stories like this. - :shrug:

[Babes]

Originally posted by feathergirl


What do you mean by "wins the appeal"? I believe that at this point, the only thing he could "win" would be a new trial - at which time he would once again be convicted. [/*]

I dont care if he'll be convicted again - as long as we hear all the evidences and if the murder points to him with no doubt - heck i'll volunteer to help process his lethal injections IMO.

[Wudge+]

Originally posted by Stuy


I would think Keane who is a law professor knows alot more about the appeal process than you do.

How do you know that Judge Delucchi did not make a single attempt to investigate or try to cure Gregory Jackson's conern for his safety?

All that information was sealed so we don't know exacty what Judge Delucchi did or didn't do. [/*]

I doubt that is true. Because the Ninth Circuit Court does, indeed, hold "manifest necessity" to be the standard of review for evaluating whether or not the removal of a juror was improper.

The Ninth Circuit Court's authority for "manifest necessity" being the standard of review is Perez v. Marshall (1997). In Perez, the Court said: "He also could not sua sponte order a mistrial because jeopardy had attached and, absent a finding of manifest necessity, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment would have precluded the State from trying Perez before a new jury."

In other words the, Court noted that "if manifest necessity" was not found in the trial record, the removal of the juror requires prejudice to attach to a reversal ruling, which precludes another trial (double jeopardy).

Since Judge Delucchi did not even investigate the reason behind Gregory Jackson's concern for his own safety, grave error (no manifest necessity) is a probable ruling.

HTH

[Babes]

Originally posted by feathergirl


That has already been done. All the rest is just defense attorney spin - the proverbial smoke and mirrors. [/*]

I think you and i and everyone else knew that there are many informations that didnt even come in the trial. I would like to see Diane Jackson interrogated in the trial - i would like to see the other pregnant women they said was the one walking that day interrogated in the trial and all those people who said they saw laci on the morning of december 24 interrogated in the trial - if they are not telling the truth then fine but the people should see why these people come out , tell LE stories - put the Tenbrinks , Lt Aponte , find those people in the van ( i dont believe they are landscapers !) - You would like to see everything for the sake of justice right?

[Babes]

Originally posted by W_D_1




The pregnant women all testified. Either they flat out didn't walk that day or, in the case of two, they walked with their other children. One pulled a wagon with her daughter in it and one pushed a stroller.

Some used that testimony to say it proved Laci wasn't walking but common sense tells you that if a pregnant woman was walking and all were accounted for except for Laci then she is the one who was seen walking. [/*]

Interesting. Thanks

[alter ego]

Originally posted by Raven


-snipped-

The real killer is where his lies put him-on DRow. [/*]
By 'real killer' I take it you mean Scott.

:eek: Scott was sentenced to death for lying?

[jaxback]

Originally posted by alter ego

By 'real killer' I take it you mean Scott.

:eek: Scott was sentenced to death for lying? [/*]

:lol: Scott was sentenced to death for murder, as you well know. But that little :eek: is just sooooooo clever, must be hard to resist!

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by Babes


I think you and i and everyone else knew that there are many informations that didnt even come in the trial. I would like to see Diane Jackson interrogated in the trial - i would like to see the other pregnant women they said was the one walking that day interrogated in the trial and all those people who said they saw laci on the morning of december 24 interrogated in the trial - if they are not telling the truth then fine but the people should see why these people come out , tell LE stories - put the Tenbrinks , Lt Aponte , find those people in the van ( i dont believe they are landscapers !) - You would like to see everything for the sake of justice right? [/*]

I believe they were on the defense witness list, but none were called. Most of the sitings were in a time frame when either Scott was home, or Mac had been put back in the yard, so a woman walking a dog (that was behind a closed fence) makes them unreliable witnesses.

The one witness that was called was biking through the park from one end to the other. He saw ONE pregnant woman and he teswtified that is was NOT Laci.

Grogan covers the witnesses in his testimony and why they were not looked into.

[alter ego]

Originally posted by jaxback


:lol: Scott was sentenced to death for murder, as you well know. But that little :eek: is just sooooooo clever, must be hard to resist! [/*]:confused:

[earth goddess]

Originally posted by W_D_1




The pregnant women all testified. Either they flat out didn't walk that day or, in the case of two, they walked with their other children. One pulled a wagon with her daughter in it and one pushed a stroller.

Some used that testimony to say it proved Laci wasn't walking but common sense tells you that if a pregnant woman was walking and all were accounted for except for Laci then she is the one who was seen walking. [/*]

Kristen Dempewolf walked that day accorfding to her husband and he doesn not mention her taking any children with her


Rick Distaso: Okay. And did your wife go for a walk in the park that morning?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes, she did.

Rick Distaso: And did she go by herself?

Martin Dempewolf: Yes. With my dog.

[jaxback]

Originally posted by alter ego
:confused: [/*]

Are you confused?

[Raven]

Originally posted by alter ego

By 'real killer' I take it you mean Scott.

:eek: Scott was sentenced to death for lying? [/*]

Do you have a better term for not telling the truth? He lied to Laci, his parents, his one or two friends, police, Amber, Diane Sawyer, the Rochas, his neighbors, his BIL and SIL, and his siblings....prolly lied to Geragos too.

If someone consistently lies, especially concerning his missing wife's whereabouts or her movements the last day he claimed he saw her alive, it's a safe bet he isn't gonna tell the truth about what REALLY happened.

Yes, his lies helped get him convicted. And were such an embarrassment, I don't know how he could just sit there like a lump.

buh bye :seeya: