jane wrote:There are lists in Appendix A and Appendix B at the end of the brief after p. 427. Do you understand the significance of the lists?
Appendix A
Question 95 on the juror questionnaire asked prospective jurors if they had formed
any “opinions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, Scott Peterson.” As of the
date of the second venue change motion, more than 400 jurors admitted to having formed
an opinion in the case.1 Of the jurors who had formed an opinion on guilt or innocence, only 1% believed Mr. Peterson was innocent while 99% (all but 5 prospective jurors)
believed he was guilty.2 Of the hundreds of prospective jurors who concluded Mr.
Peterson was guilty, 364 answered question 98, which asked whether they could set aside
the views they had already formed. Less than half of the jurors said they were willing to set aside their view that Mr. Peterson was guilty.3 More than half -- 51% -- refused to set aside their views.4
Appendix B
Question 95 on the juror questionnaire asked prospective jurors if they had formed
any “opinions about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, Scott Peterson.” After the
date of the second venue change motion, 259 jurors admitted to having formed an opinion
in the case.1 Of the jurors who had formed an opinion on guilt or innocence, only 1% believed Mr. Peterson was innocent while 99% (all but two prospective jurors) believed he was guilty.2 Of the 257 prospective jurors who concluded Mr. Peterson was guilty,
229 answered question 98, which asked whether they could set aside the views they had
already formed. Less than half of the jurors said they were willing to set aside their view that Mr. Peterson was guilty.3 More than half -- 50.2% -- refused to set aside their views.4
Yes, I believe I do. However, this could also fall into an explanation of why the judge did what he did as far as excusing the ones he felt were not able to be fair, based on their answers to the questionnaire alone. When msking the decision to exclude or not, the Judge does not have to rely on questions pertaining only to the DP, but could rely on any and all of them in making his determination. For example, if he were to find a juor that stated he opposed the death penalty, and also answered that he was very liberal in his political beliefs, I believe that would have been enough for Delucchi to exclude him...but I am not certain of that.
Another issue I question is if it would harm Scott by Geragos not using all of his challenges to particular jurors. I know they explained that in the brief but, in fact, voire dire did take place and most likely with all those not excluded by the questionnaire, at least until the jury was seated. Because Geragos did not use all his challenges, I am wondering if they can now say Scott was prejudiced. More research needed. I might be here reaching the appeal longer than anticipated...I am only on the juror issues...there are a lot more issues I need to learn about.
In reading many of these cases, I am getting a different feeling than I previously had....however this does not mean anything other than, in my personal opinion, I am beginning to wonder if this is as strong an issue as I previously had. Also, I feel that Delucchi's departure from years of Trial habit is alarming...and quite possibly telling. Although that is not something the opinion will be based on...In fact, I am 99.9% sure that fact will not even be thought of.