The Brief

[LACurry]

The brief includes this observation: "Mr. Peterson recognizes that in light of the deferential standards of appellate review, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have convicted on a malice murder theory. Thus, he is not raising a sufficiency of the evidence argument in this brief. But the fact of the matter is that the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial and depended almost entirely on inferences which were strongly disputed during trial." See p. 250.

I cringed when I read that statement in the brief. Maybe I am reading it wrong but to me he is saying that Scott believes they had the evidence to convict and sentence him to death. I strongly disagree on that point, if that is indeed what he is saying.

I read the brief the other day, now I need to go back and re-read the brief and study it thoroughly.

[marlene]

mschulter, I created the subforum for you. When you click on Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court, you will find the forum listed above the list of topics. You should be able to start new topics. If you can't, let me know and I'll check your permissions.

[marlene]

The brief includes this observation: "Mr. Peterson recognizes that in light of the deferential standards of appellate review, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have convicted on a malice murder theory. Thus, he is not raising a sufficiency of the evidence argument in this brief. But the fact of the matter is that the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial and depended almost entirely on inferences which were strongly disputed during trial." See p. 250.

I cringed when I read that statement in the brief. Maybe I am reading it wrong but to me he is saying that Scott believes they had the evidence to convict and sentence him to death. I strongly disagree on that point, if that is indeed what he is saying.

I read the brief the other day, now I need to go back and re-read the brief and study it thoroughly.

[b]But the fact of the matter is that the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial and depended almost entirely on inferences which were strongly disputed during trial.[/b] That's the qualifier.

And then to add, two of the main inferences -- resulting from the dog evidence and the Cheng testimony -- should have never been admitted. But still, where the bodies were found is strong circumstantial evidence all on its own, but I've already noted the reasons why it is seriously diminished and how much of that wasn't even presented at trial.

[mschulter]

The brief includes this observation: "Mr. Peterson recognizes that in light of the deferential standards of appellate review, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have convicted on a malice murder theory. Thus, he is not raising a sufficiency of the evidence argument in this brief. But the fact of the matter is that the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial and depended almost entirely on inferences which were strongly disputed during trial." See p. 250.

I cringed when I read that statement in the brief. Maybe I am reading it wrong but to me he is saying that Scott believes they had the evidence to convict and sentence him to death. I strongly disagree on that point, if that is indeed what he is saying.

I read the brief the other day, now I need to go back and re-read the brief and study it thoroughly.

There is another statement near the beginning of the brief also
worthy of notice: "It is probably fair to say that there are not
many cases in the history of California where the state obtained
a guilty verdict and death sentence for murder absent evidence of
how, where or when the murder occurred. Nevertheless, Mr. Peterson
does not dispute that there may be situations where a death verdict
is warranted despite the absence of such evidence. But at the
very least, a verdict under such circumstances raises a legitimate
question as to how a jury could arrive at such a result." See p. 2.

[mschulter]

mschulter, I created the subforum for you. When you click on Direct Appeal to the Supreme Court, you will find the forum listed above the list of topics. You should be able to start new topics. If you can't, let me know and I'll check your permissions.

Please let me give my warmest thanks! I'll post there this afternoon if all goes well, and emphasize that while the death penalty is a very controversial issue in itself from various sides, my purpose is specifically to focus on the death penalty aspects of the Scott Peterson case.

[marlene]

You are very welcome. I am still a proponent of the death penalty. Although I am concerned about how little evidence is required for many people to convict in capital cases, I am just as concerned that if the DP is done away with, people will forget all about how easy it is to convict in ALL cases -- and LWOP is the death penalty -- you don't ever get out, the state just waits for you to die, and you don't get automatic appeals as you do for DP in CA. So, it is even harder to prove innocence in LWOP cases, and in cases of less than life sentences. We can't lose sight of how costly wrongful convictions are, regardless of the crime committed and the length of the sentence.

There are, I believe 4 general categories of wrongfully convicted:

1) established criminals, who if they didn't commit this particular crime, committed some other crime(s) they got away with, so it all comes out in the wash.

2) petty criminals -- drug users, petty theft, etc., generally seen as undesirable characters and a drain on society. It's hard for people to feel sorry for these people. If they didn't commit this particular crime, they probably have, or most certainly will some day, commit some other crimes they will get away with, so it all comes out in the wash.

3) factually innocent -- but with one or more character flaws, such as adultery, that makes it difficult for the general public to sympathize with them. Most people do not see themselves as potentially in this category as they do not see their character flaws as significant enough to turn the public against them.

4) truly innocent -- no serious character flaws, really no reason why anyone should think them capable of such a crime. Most people see themselves in this category, and they honestly don't think it can ever happen to them. They think they would cooperate with the police and their cooperation would immediately eliminate them as a suspect. These types of wrongful convictions truly are rare. That's why nearly no one fears it happening to them.

[mschulter]

Dear Marlene,

Thank you for sharing your views in some areas where, as a newcomer to this forum, I'll look for guidance in keeping a balance between the specific focus on Scott Peterson and the broader issues his case raises.

Personally, my feeling is that without the distraction of the death penalty, people in California will realize that LWOP is also an "ultimate punishment," and that locking up even a person with some moral flaws for the rest of their life when they didn't do the crime is a mistake worth avoiding when possible and correcting when we detect it -- as very possibly in the case of Scott Peterson. The recent Bruce Lisker case, which I learned about in 2005, is a good example: he served "only" 26 years for killing his mother, after a police detective decided to "KISS" the case ("Keep It Simple, Stupid") by ignoring another likely suspect with a violent record. It turned out that the prosecution, at best, got their facts and forensics wrong.

Of course, as you fairly observe, it's also true that there is a tendency to look more carefully for exonerating evidence or discrepancies when the sentence is death. At the same time, we have what I'd consider some bad developments in federal habeas corpus law from the viewpoint of someone wrongly convicted of a crime (capital or noncapital) which seem driven by the idea of executing someone as quickly as possible. With LWOP, you can do your sentence and appeal at the same time. Psychologically, I'd argue that the death penalty tends to create an "illusion of impunity," making it look like someone effectively serving LWOP on Death Row is "getting away with the crime" -- even when, like Scott, they might be innocent.

But I agree that this is an area where people can and do differ.

[marlene]

The Effective Death Penalty law passed by Congress was intended to limit federal appeals in capital cases as it appeared that the process was being endlessly drawn out with frivolous appeals. And in many instances, the emphasis is on the appellate process, not on the trial court process. This is where we need to correct the problems -- at the trial court level.

There's nothing wrong with circumstantial evidence, but not all circumstantial evidence is created equal. A gun and bullet and gun wound on the victim are all circumstantial evidence, but they are much weightier than an affair and buying a boat, IMO. Since the State never has to prove motive, when most of its effort is to prove motive, then we know there's a real problem with the evidence.

And there goes to the problem of having to have death-qualfied jurors -- when studies show that death qualified jurors are more likely to convict than non-death qualified jurors. It seems that people that favor the death penalty are very pro-cops and pro-DAs and think that no case would be brought to trial if it wasn't a solid case, and a lot of people quite frankly don't have any problem with admitting ALL evidence, without any standards at all. A common statement after the OJ acquittal is that the State had a lot of evidence it didn't or couldn't present. I am a notable exception to the conventional death-qualified juror attitude - I require a very high level of evidence to convict, and if I have any doubt at all, I could never convict. That goes for all crimes and potential sentences. To me, taking away a person's freedom is the most severe punishment you can hand down. oh, a lot of people think it's an easy matter to be in prison, don't have to work, get your room and board free, get to watch tv, etc., but to be confined like that would be a horrific punishment for me, and since I value my freedom so much, I'm not eager to take it away from someone else.

[LACurry]

In my opinion, our legal system needs some serious work. For example, take a known predator who has a record of molesting more than one small child in the past 5 years. To be honest, I have seen marijuana convictions of 20 years and have compared that to these predators/monsters that prey on small children and walk away with perhaps 5 years. Meanwhile, the predator is free to go about his business in 5 years, and then, many times, returning to his same sick patterns, and the little girl and the the guy that likes to smoke a joint once in awhile are sentenced by the actions of the court in following sentencing guidelines (of which there is very little adjustment ability given to the sentencing judge) for 20 years for a marijuana conviction.... or in the case of the victim of a predator, that little girl suffers for the rest of her life. It seems all backwards to me.

I am reading more and more about the exonerated people walking away from death row. To me, it seems as though these numbers of exonerations are increasing, at a very alarming rate. I suppose it is my nature to want to put an end to the death penalty in all states until we can work on fixing what is going on with sentencing and in the obvious errors in court system itself.

One thing I truly believe does not mix is the political nature of some of our elected court related positions and the political influences sneaking into our system of justice. That also seems to be getting worse,

[LACurry]

The brief includes this observation: "Mr. Peterson recognizes that in light of the deferential standards of appellate review, there was sufficient evidence from which a jury could have convicted on a malice murder theory. Thus, he is not raising a sufficiency of the evidence argument in this brief. But the fact of the matter is that the evidence against him was entirely circumstantial and depended almost entirely on inferences which were strongly disputed during trial." See p. 250.

I cringed when I read that statement in the brief. Maybe I am reading it wrong but to me he is saying that Scott believes they had the evidence to convict and sentence him to death. I strongly disagree on that point, if that is indeed what he is saying.

I read the brief the other day, now I need to go back and re-read the brief and study it thoroughly.

There is another statement near the beginning of the brief also
worthy of notice: "It is probably fair to say that there are not
many cases in the history of California where the state obtained
a guilty verdict and death sentence for murder absent evidence of
how, where or when the murder occurred. Nevertheless, Mr. Peterson
does not dispute that there may be situations where a death verdict
is warranted despite the absence of such evidence. But at the
very least, a verdict under such circumstances raises a legitimate
question as to how a jury could arrive at such a result." See p. 2.

I believe that last sentence or two is what has had me interested in this case for a very long time. I know, without a doubt, that I could never have convicted Scott or sentence him to death based on years of researching, reading, and learning all of what was presented at trial. Until I can connect what made those jurors do just that, I suppose I will continue to read and learn until it can make some sense. I think that means a lifetime because I probably won't ever understand how that could have happened, based on the evidence presented, even IF he was guilty.