Scott Peterson Trial Verdict

[Adam Y.]

Oddly enough I find it ironic how quickly a verdict was reached after the lady juror was removed....if Mark Gerigos doesn't appeal the case on grounds of juror misconduct or some kind of conspiracy reasoning, I will be very shocked (let alone most verdicts are appealed anyway...). Basically with the timing of that, it wouldn't shock me to see the verdict of the case overturned if that would happen. Although from what has been made public it does look like Scott Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child, we'll never know for sure...there's a lot that isn't made public to the average follower of cases that stays inside, so from the lack of knowing what goes on inside the courtroom, I don't see how anyone can take sides...but don't mind me, I'm just an armchair lawyer, like 99.9999999999999999999% of America in this case...

Wrong. They found a verdict after the lawyer/doctor was released not the lady.

Originally Posted by Adam Y.

Wrong. They found a verdict after the lawyer/doctor was released not the lady.

The lawyer/doctor was the 2nd juror released in 2 days, but the attention went to the lady because she wouldn't talk over the case with any of the other jurors, she had her decision, and obviously it wasn't what the rest of them had come up with....which was guilty. There is still no reason (from what ive heard and read) why the 2nd juror was removed.

[MikeDubreuil]

CNN.com

Originally Posted by CNN Article Dated 11-12-2004

On Wednesday, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed the foreman, a man in his mid-40s who has medical and law degrees. The judge did not disclose his reasoning...
The action came a day after the removal of another juror who apparently did her own research on the case, violating the judge's order to consider only evidence presented at trial.

I don't understand how a juror can be dismissed with no reason

[VGMasterShadow]

Well, another case laid to rest. This is good news for Laci's family, and lets hope that they can go on the rest of their lives after this tragedy.

[Greg Ross]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

CNN.com

I don't understand how a juror can be dismissed with no reason

I agree that a juror shouldn't be dismissed without reason, but that's not what the article says. It says "The judge did not disclose his reasoning." You're not suggesting, are you, that the judge should be required to disclose his reasons to the media? I don't think I need to know all the jurors' personal affairs which might result in them being dismissed from a jury.

[MikeDubreuil]

Originally Posted by gwross

I agree that a juror shouldn't be dismissed without reason, but that's not what the article says. It says "The judge did not disclose his reasoning." You're not suggesting, are you, that the judge should be required to disclose his reasons to the media? I don't think I need to know all the jurors' personal affairs which might result in them being dismissed from a jury.

Absolutely, there's only one condition where a judge should not disclose the reason for letting a juror go and that is that if the reason would violate the juror's personal privacy. For instance, if a juror has to leave due to a death in the familly the judge should tell the media, "the juror was dismissed by request do to personal matters."

Who knows...the male juror could have been dismissed because he was the only one who thought Mr. Peterson was innocent, and that was the reason he was dismissed- to avoid a hung jury.

I have been involved in matters of the legal system where if what was happening behind the scenes got media coverage there would be a public outcry. That is why I am for as much open coverage as reasonably possible.

[David Kelly]

Originally Posted by MikeDubreuil

Absolutely, there's only one condition where a judge should not disclose the reason for letting a juror go and that is that if the reason would violate the juror's personal privacy. For instance, if a juror has to leave due to a death in the familly the judge should tell the media, "the juror was dismissed by request do to personal matters."

Who knows...the male juror could have been dismissed because he was the only one who thought Mr. Peterson was innocent, and that was the reason he was dismissed- to avoid a hung jury.

I have been involved in matters of the legal system where if what was happening behind the scenes got media coverage there would be a public outcry. That is why I am for as much open coverage as reasonably possible.

It sounds like another conspiracy...