The Brief

[marlene]

You can read Scott's brief by going to http://scottpetersonappeal.org/SPA1/ScottPetersonAppeal/ScottsBrief

One thing I am disappointed in is that the brief does not challenge Devore's science. It mentions Devore in the first part, but I thought, as it did Cheng, that it should have shown that Devore used a new scientific method that did not meet the Frye standard.

Great new information about how the Gino-Guinasso situation came about. Very credible source of the information that Guinasso did talk freely about the trial to Gino.

The confusing part was in the middle -- all the discussion about the voir dire exclusions of jurors just because they said they were opposed to the death penalty. I understand the concept, but all of the ins and outs of the discussion got a little heavy for me.

[News247]

i'm only on page 226 - had a hard time getting through the jury process also. what they are arguing makes sense; i just don't remember any of that from the trial at all.

i'm on the amazing wonder dog, trimble, who can scent from east to west and back again

[jane]

This is the basic outline for the appellate brief:

THE APPELLATE BRIEF


ERRORS OCCURRING DURING VOIR DIRE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

I. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY DISCHARGED THIRTEEN
PROSPECTIVE JURORS OVER DEFENSE OBJECTION BASED SOLELY
ON JURY QUESTIONNAIRE ANSWERS SHOWING THAT ALTHOUGH
THEY OPPOSED THE DEATH PENALTY, THEY COULD
NEVERTHELESS CONSIDER DEATH AS AN OPTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

II. THE TRIAL COURT’S IMPROPER DISCHARGE OF THIRTEEN
PROSPECTIVE JURORS BASED ON THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE
DEATH PENALTY ALSO VIOLATED MR. PETERSON’S EIGHTH
AMENDMENT RIGHT TO RELIABLE GUILT PHASE PROCEDURES,
AND REQUIRES REVERSAL OF THE CONVICTIONS AS WELL . . . . . . 108

III. THE TRIAL COURT IMPROPERLY EXCUSED AN ADDITIONAL 17
PROSPECTIVE JURORS BASED SOLELY ON JURY QUESTIONNAIRE
ANSWERS WHICH DID NOT SHOW THESE JURORS WOULD BE
UNABLE TO SET ASIDE THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE DEATH
PENALTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

IV. BECAUSE THE TRIAL COURT ERRONEOUSLY EXCUSED FIVE
PROSPECTIVE JURORS WHO WERE EQUIVOCAL ABOUT WHETHER
THEIR ATTITUDES ABOUT THE DEATH PENALTY WOULD AFFECT
THEIR PENALTY PHASE DELIBERATIONS, REVERSAL OF THE
DEATH SENTENCE IS REQUIRED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

ERRORS RELATING TO THE GUILT PHASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

V. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR AND
VIOLATED MR. PETERSON’S STATE AND FEDERAL
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY FORCING HIM TO TRIAL IN A
COMMUNITY WHERE 96% OF THE JURY VENIRE HAD BEEN
EXPOSED TO MASSIVE PRETRIAL PUBLICITY ABOUT THE CASE
AND NEARLY HALF OF ALL PROSPECTIVE JURORS HAD ALREADY
CONCLUDED HE WAS GUILTY OF CAPITAL MURDER . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148


VI. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR, AND
VIOLATED MR. PETERSON’S FIFTH AND EIGHTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS, BY ADMITTING DOG SCENT IDENTIFICATION EVIDENCE
THAT PROVIDED CRITICAL FACTUAL SUPPORT FOR THE STATE’S
THEORY OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

VII. THE TRIAL COURT CREATED AN UNCONSTITUTIONAL
PRESUMPTION, AND LIGHTENED THE STATE’S BURDEN OF PROOF
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, BY TELLING THE JURY IT
COULD INFER MR. PETERSON WAS GUILTY OF MURDER BASED
ON (1) THE DOG TRACKING EVIDENCE AND (2) ANY EVIDENCE
WHICH SUPPORTS THE ACCURACY IF THAT EVIDENCE . . . . . . . . . . . 239

VIII. THE ERROR IN INSTRUCTING THE JURY WITH CALJIC NUMBER
2.16, PERMITTING THE JURY TO CONVICT IF IT FOUND THAT THE
DOG TRACKING EVIDENCE WAS CORROBORATED BY OTHER
EVIDENCE, WAS COMPOUNDED BY THE COURT’S FAILURE TO
INFORM THE JURY THAT IT COULD RELY ON THE DOG TRACKING
EVIDENCE TO ACQUIT, AS WELL AS TO CONVICT . . . . .

IX. THE TRIAL COURT VIOLATED BOTH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW
BY ADMITTING EXPERT “SCIENTIFIC” EVIDENCE, BASED ON
WHERE CONNER’S BODY WAS FOUND, TO INFER THAT CONNER
WAS PLACED IN THE WATER WHERE MR. PETERSON HAD BEEN
FISHING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266

X. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL ERROR, AND
VIOLATED MR. PETERSON’S FIFTH AND SIXTH AMENDMENT
RIGHTS, IN (1) EXCLUDING CRITICAL DEFENSE EVIDENCE
UNDERCUTTING THE STATE’S THEORY OF THE CASE, (2)
REFUSING TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO EXAMINE EVIDENCE
ABSENT THE PRESENCE OF STATE PROSECUTORS AND (3)
REFUSING TO GRANT A MISTRIAL AFTER THE JURY ITSELF
PERFORMED AN EXPERIMENT DURING DELIBERATIONS . . . . . . . . . 297

XI. THE PROSECUTOR COMMITTED PREJUDICIAL MISCONDUCT
AND VIOLATED DUE PROCESS BY URGING THE JURY TO REJECT
THE DEFENSE THEORY AND CONVICT MR. PETERSON OF FIRST
DEGREE MURDER BECAUSE DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT
PRESENT DEMONSTRATIVE EVIDENCE SHOWING THE
INSTABILITY OF MR. PETERSON’S BOAT WHEN, IN FACT, THE
TRIAL COURT HAD EXCLUDED THIS VERY EVIDENCE AT THE
PROSECUTOR’S OWN REQUEST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343

XII. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN DISCHARGING JUROR 5 FOR
DISCUSSING THE CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE COURT’S
ADMONITION BUT THEN REFUSING TO DISMISS OTHER JURORS
AND ALTERNATES WHO ADMITTED THEY TOO HAD DISCUSSED
THE CASE IN VIOLATION OF THE IDENTICAL ADMONITION . . . . . . . 351

XIII. THE TRIAL COURT’S FAILURE TO CONDUCT AN ADEQUATE
HEARING IN DETERMINING WHETHER JUROR 8 DISCUSSED THE
CASE WITH A NONJUROR REQUIRES REMAND . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386

ERRORS RELATING TO THE PENALTY PHASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
398

XIV. THE TRIAL COURT COMMITTED REVERSIBLE ERROR, AND
VIOLATED MR. PETERSON’S RIGHTS UNDER THE FIFTH, SIXTH,
EIGHTH AND FOURTEENTH AMENDMENTS, WHEN IT REFUSED TO
SEAT A NEW PENALTY PHASE JURY AFTER THE JURORS WHO
CONVICTED MR. PETERSON OF MURDER WERE APPLAUDED BY
WILDLY CHEERING MOBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 398

XV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN PRECLUDING MR. PETERSON FROM
PRESENTING RELEVANT MITIGATING EVIDENCE WHICH COULD
HAVE SERVED AS A BASIS FOR A SENTENCE LESS THAN DEATH . . 410

XVI. BECAUSE THE CALIFORNIA CAPITAL SENTENCING SCHEME IS
UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN NUMEROUS RESPECTS, MR. PETERSON’S
DEATH SENTENCE MUST BE REVERSED . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424

[LACurry]

I found that point on dismissing all those potential jurors amazing....but it sure was long. I had never thought of that!

I am surprised there was not error mentioned in dismissing the lawyer/doctor just because he requested it.

Of course, the dogs and the boat experiment were a given...I just wish there had been more info.

I knew nothing about the juror talking freely about the trial....not surprised though, wasn't he the one that instigated the dismissal of the dr/lawyer. It never fails, the one protesting against others the loudest is often the one the guiltiest....I think they do it to make everyone believe they are perfect.

Not sure how this will be responded to and decided though. My husband is a former trial attorney, I cannot wait to get his take on it.

[LACurry]

i'm only on page 226 - had a hard time getting through the jury process also. what they are arguing makes sense; i just don't remember any of that from the trial at all.

i'm on the amazing wonder dog, trimble, who can scent from east to west and back again

Ha ha ha....that was interesting....but so unfortunate to have been admitted

[marlene]

I am disappointed that Devore wasn't included as an expert that didn't meet the kelly-frye standards.

I'm a bit confused on why Gino was afraid to testify about what juror 8 told him. I don't think he broke any law, so what was he afraid of?

I'm sure all the talk shows are trying to get Gino or Guinasso to talk. If anyone sees them on, please tape it, or get the transcript.

[jane]

I am disappointed that Devore wasn't included as an expert that didn't meet the kelly-frye standards.

I'm a bit confused on why Gino was afraid to testify about what juror 8 told him. I don't think he broke any law, so what was he afraid of?

I'm sure all the talk shows are trying to get Gino or Guinasso to talk. If anyone sees them on, please tape it, or get the transcript.

I think Gino the bartender was afraid of Guinasso and/or his union buddies.

[LACurry]

I am disappointed that Devore wasn't included as an expert that didn't meet the kelly-frye standards.

I'm a bit confused on why Gino was afraid to testify about what juror 8 told him. I don't think he broke any law, so what was he afraid of?

I'm sure all the talk shows are trying to get Gino or Guinasso to talk. If anyone sees them on, please tape it, or get the transcript.

Marlene, I didn't find Devore believable. I don't think there was any error with him as there was those others. He presented his "facts" and then the defense witness attempted to do the same. Or, maybe there was no objection by Geragos? Am I correct in my opinion that if Geragos didn't raise the proper objection, it can't be included at this stage?

[LACurry]

Oh, good question as to why Gino wouldn't talk. Wouldnt the matter have resulted in contempt had this very serious issue been addressed properly? So many of these things happened....so many lies told and never addressed.

[LACurry]

Oh, just thought of another one I was sure would have made the brief...the intercepted phone calls between SLP and his attorneys. I thought for sure there was error there....or would that come up in the Habeas? I am still confused on the whole process. I need to review your post about it, Marlene. I keep reading it and it never sticks with me.