Police once theorized Laci Peterson was poisoned

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by amber

What should they convict with? How about the "boys will be boys" penalty? just kidding, i know what you mean.... But the death penalty is what we've got, isn't it? I mean, if he's guilty, he should just be convicted, and I don't think the jury should be dissuaded from convicting just cause he'll get a death penalty...
Amber

As I said earlier in the thread...manslaughter perhaps?

[amber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

As I said earlier in the thread...manslaughter perhaps?

but i thought it was stated in an earlier thread that the prosecution asked for 1st degree? CAN he get manslaughter? (forgive my ignorance) Also, i don't think he should get manslaughter, that's too light...
AMber

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by amber

but i thought it was stated in an earlier thread that the prosecution asked for 1st degree? CAN he get manslaughter? (forgive my ignorance) Also, i don't think he should get manslaughter, that's too light...
AMber

No. What I'm saying is they should have charged him with manslaughter at the outset because the burden of proof is less than capitol murder. Doesn't matter now.

[amber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

No. What I'm saying is they should have charged him with manslaughter at the outset because the burden of proof is less than capitol murder. Doesn't matter now.

right. so what do you think they should do now?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by amber

right. so what do you think they should do now?

There's nothing they can do now.

[amber]

Originally Posted by gldstwmn

There's nothing they can do now.

no, i mean, since he still has to be found guilty or innocent, but there's the death penalty, what do you think should happen?

[gldstwmn]

Originally Posted by amber

no, i mean, since he still has to be found guilty or innocent, but there's the death penalty, what do you think should happen?

I think he will be acquitted.

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

You're not my teacher, or the boss of me!!! I haven't even done my real homework yet, now i have to look that up, too? Is this tough love? anyways, ok, whatever.
AMber

No I am not your teacher and no love, tough or otherwise, was implied.

I was just noting how everytime you get called on something you ask for someone to look it up for you. Well, I think you should look it up yourself. But, if you do not want to - so be it.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

No I am not your teacher and no love, tough or otherwise, was implied.

I was just noting how everytime you get called on something you ask for someone to look it up for you. Well, I think you should look it up yourself. But, if you do not want to - so be it.

Gaw, i don't mind, i was just kidding. I ask people because i figure they know already, not cause i want them to go out of their way to look it up for me and since i thought you were a lawyer, i thought you already knew. and that would facilitate conversation, because then I, too, would know. Sorry, i didn't mean to bother you
Amber

[strandinthewind]

Originally Posted by amber

Gaw, i don't mind, i was just kidding. I ask people because i figure they know already, not cause i want them to go out of their way to look it up for me and since i thought you were a lawyer, i thought you already knew. and that would facilitate conversation, because then I, too, would know. Sorry, i didn't mean to bother you
Amber

no harm no foul

Interestingly, although the criminal laws are different in just about all states, the general rules usually apply in all state criminal trials because U.S. Const. due process. the right to a fair trial, etc. must apply in criminal cases in all states (at least in theory). So, my point was it is wrong to convict a person unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually committed the crime with which they are charged. Juries cannot just make up the elements of a crime.

If that were to be allowed, it would be chaos.

Take this hypo. - Mr. A hates abortion and is a strict Christian fundamentalist He thinks abortion is the murder of an innocent fetus. He also thinks a wife should obey her husband and never raise a hand to him. Mr. A is a juror in a trial where the defendant is on trial for killing her husband. The facts in evidence are the woman had an abortion without telling her husband, who raped her thus causing the pregnancy. When he tried it again to punish her for the abortion, she alleges she killed him in self defense, which the facts in general support, but it all comes down to her word only. Mr. A, the juror in this case, does not really care about all of this what he considers to be extraneous evidence. All he can see is the fact that this woman had an abortion and her convition in this case would serve as punishment for that murder, no matter that she was probably NOT guilty in the eyes of the law for killing her husband that in his opinion she should never have disobeyed, even though the state's law does not hold the disobeyance of a spouse to be a crime. Is it correct for this man to avenge the death of the fetus and right the wrong of spousal disobeyance by misapplying the law? After all, Mr. A is convinced that in his opinion the killing of the husband can never be justified and this woman killed her child as well - no matter what any silly law says.

Although the facts in the Peterson case are not nearly as black and white as the hypo. aboive, it is the same principle. Is is okay to disregard the elements of the crime with which the defendant is charged to satisfy a personal felling of "well, he probably is guilty of something, so although the prosecution cannot carry its burden and show beyond a reasonable doubt that this defendant committed THIS exact crime, which they brought, I am gonna convict him of it anyway because that is how I personally feel" I submit if we allow that to be the status quo, no one will get a fair trial.

In the peterson case, however, there is strong circumstantial evidence that SP did this crime. But, I am unsure if that is enough for a conviction in the eyes of the law. Thus, if the jurors convict on less than what the statute requires and this man is put to death, then his blood is on their hands because they put a man to death on a personal opinion even though the man did nt commit the crime changed. To me, that is horrible and that reasoning taken in the abtract and applied as above is scary to say the least i mean we would be back to people convicting black people wrongly accused by white people, etc.

[amber]

Originally Posted by strandinthewind

no harm no foul

So, my point was it is wrong to convict a person unless the prosecution proves beyond a reasonable doubt that they actually committed the crime with which they are charged. Juries cannot just make up the elements of a crime.

In the peterson case, however, there is strong circumstantial evidence that SP did this crime. But, I am unsure if that is enough for a conviction in the eyes of the law.

ok, your example and stuff - obviously. I thought that all the circumstantial evidence would remove a reasonable doubt from the jury's mind. probably not so. while they won't have a hard time proving bad intent, the have had hard time proving bad act. Then i just found this in last year's book "The proof must be so conclusive and complete that all reasonable doubts regarding the facts are removed from jurors minds. One study showed that judges equate 'behyond a reasonable dourt' with a median probability of approximately 8.8 out of 10. Jurors averaged approximately 8.6 out of 10" I thought i remembered my prof saying something about a preponderance of circumstantial evidence sometimes being persuasive enough to convict, but i can't remember exactly what he said...I'm not sure that the proof is going to be "so conclusive and complete" that they'll be able to convict. But i think they might convict. However, they ARE supposed to proveActus reus. and they really haven't.

[greatdarkwing]

The thing about this case that drives me so up the wall, is that I have yet to enter Law School, and I could have put up a better case than the prosecution did!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, everything the prosecution woould say, Gerragos would drive a truck right through their argument. They oversaturated the court with "Scott is a cheater. Scott lies" REALLY?! I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN!!!! PLEASE, TELL ME ABOUT IT EVERYDAY FOR 50 DAYS! Honestly. Not only that, but every piece of physical evidence practically had a sign on it that says "drive through me, Gerragos".

Now, after saying that, the prosecution has picked up a lot of steam these past few weeks. It alll started after the whole "cement" issue came into play. (Between you and me...if they end up finding those cement blocks in the ocean, that is the direct tie they need. HOWEVER, those cement blocks are so heavy, they are probably buried a fot into the silt.) The fact that he lied about this cement is very peculiar, and allot of you will agree. If he didnt use it on his driveway, LIKE HE SAID HE DID, Where did the cement go? No, this is not physical evidence, but the prosecution could not answer that question, and that plays a huge part in the prosecution's theory.

The I.D. is suspicious because of obvious reasons, and that needs no further explanation (He was attempting to make a run for it...everyone knows it).

Now, after saying all this, in the end I do feel there are enough circumstantial links to connect him with the disappearance, but direct evdence is also needed, and we have no evidence of that.

~Alex

[amber]

Originally Posted by greatdarkwing

The thing about this case that drives me so up the wall, is that I have yet to enter Law School, and I could have put up a better case than the prosecution did!!!!!!!!!!!

Honestly, everything the prosecution woould say, Gerragos would drive a truck right through their argument. They oversaturated the court with "Scott is a cheater. Scott lies" REALLY?! I NEVER WOULD HAVE KNOWN!!!! PLEASE, TELL ME ABOUT IT EVERYDAY FOR 50 DAYS! Honestly. Not only that, but every piece of physical evidence practically had a sign on it that says "drive through me, Gerragos".

Now, after saying that, the prosecution has picked up a lot of steam these past few weeks. It alll started after the whole "cement" issue came into play. (Between you and me...if they end up finding those cement blocks in the ocean, that is the direct tie they need. HOWEVER, those cement blocks are so heavy, they are probably buried a fot into the silt.) The fact that he lied about this cement is very peculiar, and allot of you will agree. If he didnt use it on his driveway, LIKE HE SAID HE DID, Where did the cement go? No, this is not physical evidence, but the prosecution could not answer that question, and that plays a huge part in the prosecution's theory.

The I.D. is suspicious because of obvious reasons, and that needs no further explanation (He was attempting to make a run for it...everyone knows it).

Now, after saying all this, in the end I do feel there are enough circumstantial links to connect him with the disappearance, but direct evdence is also needed, and we have no evidence of that.

~Alex

Yup, good points.