Scott Peterson
Moderator: S2k Moderators
-
- S2K Supporter
- Posts: 38118
- Age: 37
- Joined: Sun May 16, 2004 10:30 pm
- Location: Tulsa Oklahoma
- Contact:
Skywatch_NC wrote:Heard this morning on the news that the jurors have been sequestered at a hotel for the weekend...no family visits allowed, no newspaper/tabloid reading, no TV watching...hope they have a nice stack of books to read then, some knitting, video games, etc., so they won't go stir crazy!![]()
Eric
They can read and watch TV, it just can't be related to Scott Peterson.

0 likes
#neversummer
- yoda
- Category 5
- Posts: 7874
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:51 pm
- Location: Springfield VA (20 mins south of DC)
- Contact:
Skywatch_NC wrote:streetsoldier wrote:There may be a problem with a clear verdict...one of the jurors is both an M.D. and an attorney, and as I understand things, he is the foreman.
This person will have much to say about evidence, both from a legal point of view AND a medical/forensic one. Ergo, I don't envision the jury coming out all that soon.
It would have seemed then that would have made that person inelligible for a murder trial jury.
Eric
Who? The lawyer or the MD? That is what pre-emptive strikes are for...
0 likes
- Skywatch_NC
- Category 5
- Posts: 10949
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Contact:
yoda wrote:Skywatch_NC wrote:streetsoldier wrote:There may be a problem with a clear verdict...one of the jurors is both an M.D. and an attorney, and as I understand things, he is the foreman.
This person will have much to say about evidence, both from a legal point of view AND a medical/forensic one. Ergo, I don't envision the jury coming out all that soon.
It would have seemed then that would have made that person inelligible for a murder trial jury.
Eric
Who? The lawyer or the MD? That is what pre-emptive strikes are for...
0 likes
- Skywatch_NC
- Category 5
- Posts: 10949
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Contact:
- streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
Usually in capital cases, one needs three of four criteria for conviction.
These are motive (which the judge threw out of the deliberations), means, opportunity, and fruits/evidentiary property.
The fruits (Amber Frye? Living out a bachelor lifestyle unencumbered? Financial?), IMHO, will be the final determinor.
These are motive (which the judge threw out of the deliberations), means, opportunity, and fruits/evidentiary property.
The fruits (Amber Frye? Living out a bachelor lifestyle unencumbered? Financial?), IMHO, will be the final determinor.
0 likes
- yoda
- Category 5
- Posts: 7874
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:51 pm
- Location: Springfield VA (20 mins south of DC)
- Contact:
streetsoldier wrote:Usually in capital cases, one needs three of four criteria for conviction.
These are motive (which the judge threw out of the deliberations), means, opportunity, and fruits/evidentiary property.
The fruits (Amber Frye? Living out a bachelor lifestyle unencumbered? Financial?), IMHO, will be the final determinor.
Correct. But I found a lot of the evidence presented in the case was circumstantial.
0 likes
- streetsoldier
- Retired Staff
- Posts: 9705
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 11:33 pm
- Location: Under the rainbow
The judge also insructed the jury to take a broad view of the evidence...if the circumstantial evidence points to guilt, vote that way; if it goes to innocence, so vote.
This one will be a contest of evidence...one stack for guilt, one for innocence, and which one is larger or more compelling.
This one will be a contest of evidence...one stack for guilt, one for innocence, and which one is larger or more compelling.
0 likes
- Skywatch_NC
- Category 5
- Posts: 10949
- Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:31 pm
- Location: Raleigh, NC
- Contact:
yoda wrote:Skywatch_NC wrote:yoda wrote:Am I missing something? Or are you just agreeing with me?
Bill's original post...one of the jurors is BOTH a doctor AND a lawyer is how I understand it.
Ah ok... I thought you were questioning how they were not sent off the jury.
Well, yes that too....I would think that this particular person who is both a lawyer and a doctor would have been inelligible right off from having been interviewed by a lawyer for possible jury selection...and then I saw your post about pre-emptive strikes.

0 likes
- yoda
- Category 5
- Posts: 7874
- Joined: Tue Jan 13, 2004 3:51 pm
- Location: Springfield VA (20 mins south of DC)
- Contact:
Skywatch_NC wrote:yoda wrote:Skywatch_NC wrote:yoda wrote:Am I missing something? Or are you just agreeing with me?
Bill's original post...one of the jurors is BOTH a doctor AND a lawyer is how I understand it.
Ah ok... I thought you were questioning how they were not sent off the jury.
Well, yes that too....I would think that this particular person who is both a lawyer and a doctor would have been inelligible right off from having been interviewed by a lawyer for possible jury selection...and then I saw your post about pre-emptive strikes.
Well according to VA law, a lawyer on both sides has 3 pre-emptive strikes. After that, a juror may only be struck if both the prosecutor and defense attorney agree on it. There is a Supreme Court case on this as well.
0 likes
-
- Category 5
- Posts: 15941
- Age: 57
- Joined: Fri Oct 11, 2002 8:11 am
- Location: Galveston, oh Galveston (And yeah, it's a barrier island. Wanna make something of it?)
- therock1811
- Category 5
- Posts: 5163
- Age: 40
- Joined: Thu May 15, 2003 2:15 pm
- Location: Kentucky
- Contact:
Why would a lawyer be ineligible for jury duty? The only reason I would think so was if he knew the judge, knew the prosecutors, etc. Not all lawyers are trial lawyers...
Here's a link to the Modesto Bee, where the person be talked about here is Alternate #1:
http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/ ... 5067c.html
Here's a link to the Modesto Bee, where the person be talked about here is Alternate #1:
http://www.modbee.com/reports/peterson/ ... 5067c.html
0 likes
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests