The Brief

[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.

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?

I do believe Geragos objected to Devore as an expert witness based on the fact that he was using a sonogram in a new and unusual way -- that's what was junk science about his testimony. He put a bone removed from a baby into a fish bowl and did a sonogram, and then compared that to measurements of bones in a living baby inside a mother's womb to draw his conclusions. That had never before, and has never since, been done. That kind of science is not allowed in a courtroom, especially in a death penalty case.

Also, when the brief talked about Devore in the opening part, it did not mention that he disagreed with all of Galloway's measurements. I thought that should have also been mentioned.

[jane]

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.

LA, ask your husband to evaluate the points made by the appellate attorneys regarding legal error.

The brief discusses various errors regarding the dog evidence from pages 179-265. What do you think they missed?

[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.

LA, ask your husband to evaluate the points made by the appellate attorneys regarding legal error.

The brief discusses various errors regarding the dog evidence from pages 179-265. What do you think they missed?

I do intend to ask him. He is out if town this weekend but maybe I can get him to review it next week, early. I will report back when he does. I don't think they omitted info regarding the dogs, particularly. I just really thought dismissing the dr/lawyer was an error and thought that a few other things (as I outlined in previous posts) could have been errors...but, I am no lawyer. I used to type briefs for my husband though and many of the cases cited were familiar to me, but that's as far as it goes with my knowledge.

The one thing I was so happy that was in there is that the time frame cited by the prosecution....my husband would read articles I would print from the fantastic work here and that is the first error my husband mentioned, years ago. He said the prosecution was wrong to imply that Laci could not have been harmed after SLP left and after Servas put the dog back in the yard. He said it was ridiculous....and in thinking about it, he's right.

[LACurry]

I have to add that my husband and I also discussed the request denied for a change of venue the second time, as is outlined thoroughly under the errors. At that time he believed that was a moot point because he did not believe the courts hold to those publicity standards as they used to, because of the Internet and the Nancy Grace's of the world, which he believes makes it impossible to hold to those standards. I am a big fan of the Sheppard case and think it still applies, maybe even more now than before. It will be interesting to see if my hubby agrees, now, when he reads for himself how it was written in the brief. I will go on record and say I believe that will help Scott win a new trial.

Whoops, sorry for the duplicate. I do not see where I can delete.

[marlene]

One thing about the 2nd change of venue request, LA was a much, much bigger county and thus a much, much bigger jury pool to select from. Also, and this should have ben brought out in the appeal, San Mateo County, because it is at the Bay, had a close identity to the crime, too, because they were found in the Bay. That's also why I though having any of the Bay counties as a choice for the trial was a really poor decision.

[News247]

Regarding the jurors dismissed who stated they were opposed to the DP - IIRC, Delucchi (sp? been so long to remember!) handled numerous DP cases during his career. I wonder if this same argument was brought up by others during their appeal process, and if Delucchis' rulings were upheld?

The way Mr. Gardner has it all spelled out is very convincing (to me, anyway).

[News247]

One thing about the 2nd change of venue request, LA was a much, much bigger county and thus a much, much bigger jury pool to select from. Also, and this should have ben brought out in the appeal, San Mateo County, because it is at the Bay, had a close identity to the crime, too, because they were found in the Bay. That's also why I though having any of the Bay counties as a choice for the trial was a really poor decision.

I agree! Not sure why they even bothered to move it

[marlene]

News247, the rationale given for keeping in it one of the Bay area counties was to limit the costs to the prosecution and the inconvenience for the Rocha family and all of the witnesses coming from Modesto. I think the prosecution could have kept its own costs down by not calling so many irrelevant witnesses.

[LACurry]

Regarding the jurors dismissed who stated they were opposed to the DP - IIRC, Delucchi (sp? been so long to remember!) handled numerous DP cases during his career. I wonder if this same argument was brought up by others during their appeal process, and if Delucchis' rulings were upheld?

The way Mr. Gardner has it all spelled out is very convincing (to me, anyway).

Found this article ... Let's just say Delucchi's record is pretty good

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/THE-PETERSON-TRIAL-Profile-Trial-judge-no-2826196.php#page-2

In addition to his personal attributes, Delucchi has shown a remarkable skill for getting it right on the law. Of the seven published appeals-court decisions involving Delucchi's cases, none reverses his rulings.

"He takes some pride in not having been reversed much, and he has been known to mention that," Cole says with a chuckle.

[marlene]

Regarding the jurors dismissed who stated they were opposed to the DP - IIRC, Delucchi (sp? been so long to remember!) handled numerous DP cases during his career. I wonder if this same argument was brought up by others during their appeal process, and if Delucchis' rulings were upheld?

The way Mr. Gardner has it all spelled out is very convincing (to me, anyway).

Found this article ... Let's just say Delucchi's record is pretty good

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/THE-PETERSON-TRIAL-Profile-Trial-judge-no-2826196.php#page-2

In addition to his personal attributes, Delucchi has shown a remarkable skill for getting it right on the law. Of the seven published appeals-court decisions involving Delucchi's cases, none reverses his rulings.

"He takes some pride in not having been reversed much, and he has been known to mention that," Cole says with a chuckle.

Well, he's overdue, isn't he.