marlene wrote:LACurry wrote:mschulter wrote: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."