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.

[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.

Thanks, Marlene. Personally, I don't understand the reason he put the first part of the statement in there. It serves no purpose in my opinion. I think if he would have entered only the qualifier it would have been just fine. Or, it could have been written like this:

"Mr. Peterson 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."

[LACurry]

Just an update, I still have not found the one case where Delucchi was reversed. This is really beginning to bother me. I believe in the Stanley case there was a remand, and they took 2 years off his sentence. But, the law site had stated "reversal" so, I will continue looking, when I get time.

One thing that I am noticing is that in all of Delucchi's cases that are appealed, they seem to raise jury issues, although each one of those cases they potential jurors were handled in a slightly different manner. I am puzzled by those actions, considering the time that Delucchi has been a Judge. What it might be suggesting is that those juror issues are not exactly clear to either the Justices or to the Trial Judge. Of course, the Justices have not ruled in favor of the appellant on any of those arguments in Delucchi's cases, so I am not sure if that argument is very strong or not. I want to believe it is a strong argument because in this case, he ONLY considered what their answers were on the questionnaire and didn't even offer them up for voire dire. It even seems to me that it is as if that was an intentional act, the other cases of his were years previous and I would be almost certain that man knew the law in respect to potential jurors. Very odd indeed.

[LACurry]

Well, today I have been reading through the rest of the appeals where Judge Delucchi was the Trial Judge. I am amazed at how well the man knew the law regarding the jury selection process. In not one of these was he reversed, all for various reasons, of course.

The main question I am left with...does anyone think it possible that a Trial Judge would choose a jury selection process that he KNEW was not permitted to begin with, only to preserve a case on appeal because he felt reasonably sure, because of pretrial publicity and the like, that the defendant would not be able to secure a fair trial? Has anyone ever heard of a Judge doing such a thing? Of course, he is no longer here to question or provide an answer. But if one reads his previous trial records or the appeals that followed them, I am absolutely certain this man knew the law inside and out on that issue.

Sounds crazy, I know!

[Kyle]

Well, today I have been reading through the rest of the appeals where Judge Delucchi was the Trial Judge. I am amazed at how well the man knew the law regarding the jury selection process. In not one of these was he reversed, all for various reasons, of course.

The main question I am left with...does anyone think it possible that a Trial Judge would choose a jury selection process that he KNEW was not permitted to begin with, only to preserve a case on appeal because he felt reasonably sure, because of pretrial publicity and the like, that the defendant would not be able to secure a fair trial? Has anyone ever heard of a Judge doing such a thing? Of course, he is no longer here to question or provide an answer. But if one reads his previous trial records or the appeals that followed them, I am absolutely certain this man knew the law inside and out on that issue.

Sounds crazy, I know!

Not to me, and not to the Petersons. It's the picture on the Front Page of their website. It's been a long time, but when it happened, I remember thinking that the old guy new exactly what he was doing.

[marlene]

LACurry and Kyle, I'd have to say it's not reasonable to assume Delucchi did that. I say so because of his statements in the sentencing, which I posted on the death penalty issues thread. I was there that day -- his words sounded even worse as he spoke them than they appear just from reading them.

I think he did NOT want a hung jury, and he didn't want to declare a mistrial -- I think he just wanted to be the one that heard the Scott Peterson trial and convicted and sentenced him. There's really no other explanation for a man of such expertise to make the glaring mistakes he made.

[LACurry]

LACurry and Kyle, I'd have to say it's not reasonable to assume Delucchi did that. I say so because of his statements in the sentencing, which I posted on the death penalty issues thread. I was there that day -- his words sounded even worse as he spoke them than they appear just from reading them.

I think he did NOT want a hung jury, and he didn't want to declare a mistrial -- I think he just wanted to be the one that heard the Scott Peterson trial and convicted and sentenced him. There's really no other explanation for a man of such expertise to make the glaring mistakes he made.

I hear you, Marlene...and parts of me agree with you. As my husband said, the prosecution would have objected to Delucchi's manner of excluding jurors for fear of a mistrial themselves. But, from what I have read, they didn't. In fact, they made a remark in defense of Delucchi in noting the choice of one juror and listed a couple of points that defended his choice.

As far as being reasonable, it is a fact that nothing in this case has been reasonable, from the very minute the police arrived on the scene on the day Laci disappeared. So, as un-reasonable as it might sound, something (and it wasn't the law) made Delucchi behave in that manner. Perhaps he felt that Scott was guilty from the get-go and just wanted to assure a conviction. Either way, it's odd.....very odd.

[LACurry]

In reading the brief more carefully, I noted that it was stated that the fishing license Scott had purchased on the 20th was in the Big 5 bag with the lures on the front seat of the truck. Does anyone know if there was testimony as to whether or not those lures or the bag itself was taken in the boat with Scott?

I know here if you fish and get caught without a license on your person, it means an annoying fine. If it were left in the truck, then it would seem that Scott would be taking a HUGE risk to not have that license on his person while he was in the waters in the boat.

[marlene]

No fishing license would be needed just to boat. I do believe they were both left in the truck, but I'd have to check to be sure. That was one of the points in the brief, wasn't it, that he had lures in his fishing tackle box, so still could have fished anyway.

I do think Scott seems pretty distracted that day -- he piddles away at the warehouse, barely leaving himself enough time to actually get the boat in the water, and as it is, he takes too long and misses picking up the basket for Amy. If I had to venture a guess, I'd say that he told Laci about Amber before the last date he had with her, and Laci didn't know about that date, and it's troubling him. And with Amber being so 'needy' -- I think he really wondered how he would get himself out of that mess. Just conjecture, of course.

[marlene]

maybe Delucchi was getting senile. or maybe he already knew this would be his last case and he wanted it to be the case of the century. But to intentionally set the case up for a reversal on appeal is totally cold and heartless -- to play with a man's life like that and to play with the emotions of the others involved. That would be unforgivable for him to do that.

[LACurry]

Yes Marlene, the topic of the tackle box and other lures was mentioned in the appeal. If he was fishing, that is a totally legit statement the appeal has made concerning the fact that he had an entire collection of lures in the tackle box in the boat and did not need the bag of lures left in the truck.

If, however, he falsely made a claim that he was fishing, to provide an excuse of sorts, when he was actually there to dump a body, without the license on his person (not sure exactly what the law is there in California though), it seems to me that that would have been taking a HUGE risk. It would seem to me that he would have been more careful to make sure the license was on his person in that case. Here, the DNR goes up to everyone and anyone fishing on such bodies of water to check and verify that everyone fishing is licensed. It is annoying but I do understand why they do it. If you do not have a license on your person, you receive an automatic fine. There is no option to say it is in your truck or anything. Granted, the fine is not that large but, if one were actually in the water to dump a body, it would seem odd to open yourself up to any such scrutiny under any circumstances in broad daylight...fishing or not.