PDA

View Full Version : Jury recommends death for Peterson


Doctor Manhattan
12-13-2004, 09:53 PM
REDWOOD CITY, California (CNN) -- A jury recommended Monday that Scott Peterson, the former fertilizer salesman whose case grabbed national headlines, be sentenced to death for killing his wife.

The announcement of a jury decision came on the third day of jury deliberations over the sentence.

Earlier Monday, jurors asked to see autopsy photographs of Peterson's 27-year-old wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.

The jury of six men and six women also asked San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi if they could see photographs of the shore of San Francisco Bay where the bodies were found separately in April 2003.

The jury requested the last known photograph of Laci Peterson, taken about a week before was reported missing on Christmas Eve 2002, and for Laci's original medical file. She was eight months pregnant at the time. (Timeline)

The jury deliberated longer in the sentencing phase -- about 11 to 11 1/2 hours -- than they did when they reached the guilty verdicts, which took just over seven hours.

The same jury that decided Peterson's sentence convicted him of first-degree murder November 12 in her death and of second-degree murder in the death of Conner. (Full story)

Peterson, 32, faced either the death penalty or life in prison without parole for killing his wife, Laci, and 15 years to life in prison in Conner's death.

During the guilt or innocence phase of the trial, jurors agreed with prosecutors' contention that Peterson strangled or smothered Laci and dumped her body into San Francisco Bay.

Jurors, who were sequestered during deliberations, had to unanimously agree on a death sentence.

At formal sentencing, set for February 25, Delucchi may override a recommendation of death and sentence Peterson to life in prison without parole, but he cannot override a decision of life in prison without parole.

The panel received the case last Thursday after instructions from Judge Delucchi and closing arguments from prosecutors and defense attorneys.

Calling Peterson "the worst kind of monster," prosecutor David Harris urged jurors Thursday to recommend that Peterson die for killing his wife.

Peterson's attorneys begged jurors to spare his life.

"Nobody feels ... that if Scott Peterson was a good golfer, that if Scott Peterson was a Cub Scout, that eases the murder of Laci and Conner," defense attorney Mark Geragos said.

"As I indicated to you, I'm not second-guessing any of your decisions. What we're saying is, that this is a life that has value."

Defense attorney Pat Harris told the jury Peterson "has a lot of good in him" and would be a good candidate to help others in prison.

"There's an opportunity to make something out of a life that has essentially gone wrong, a chance to see that others benefit from the positive part of Scott Peterson, some chance for him to do some good for the rest of his life," Harris said.

Prosecutors said the motive was Peterson's desire to live life as a freewheeling bachelor, unencumbered by a wife and child.

During the trial, jurors heard hours of taped telephone conversations between Peterson and his mistress, massage therapist Amber Frey.

During the penalty phase, Peterson's friends and relatives took the stand to plead for his life, calling him a kind person who could benefit others in prison.

Peterson's mother cried on the stand Wednesday as she begged jurors to spare her son's life.

"We would lose a whole family," Jackie Peterson testified. It "would be like they never existed ... such a waste, irreversible."

Prosecutor David Harris urged jurors to reject the argument that life in prison without parole would be worse punishment than death.

"If you have life, he gets to sit in a cell, read a book, write letters; he gets to have life," he said. "All the things that Laci and Conner would love to do, all the things that Laci's family would love to be able to share with Laci and Conner."

He noted that while others were praying for the safe return of Laci and her baby, "the man who knew where they were laughed and lied. ... He is the worst kind of monster."

California law prohibits jurors from considering the emotional effect on defendants' families when deciding on a sentence, and Delucchi instructed jurors not to allow sympathy to be a factor.

Still, CNN legal analyst Kendall Coffey said it would be difficult for jurors to ignore the level of emotion displayed by Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, or by Sharon Rocha, Laci's mother.

"That's the law, but the jury has 12 human beings on it," said Coffey, a former U.S. attorney.

Todd
12-13-2004, 09:57 PM
It was bad enough that they found Scott Peterson guilty even though there was absolutley no physical evidence to prove his guilt. Reasonable doubt means that the jury must find him not guilty, and in this gase. there was a huge shadow of doubt. To make matters worse, they just sentenced him to death. There's no DNA evidence or a confession to link him 100% to the murders. The only evidence they had was circumstansial....Scott did this, so it must mean he killed her. Bullshit. Now, the jury has chosen to put someone to death who is quite possibly innocent. The legal system has completley failed to do its job in this case, and its shit like this that makes me ashamed to be an american

Paul
12-13-2004, 09:59 PM
Newsflash : There Is No Constitution

They say you have freedom of speech, but can you really say anything and not get in trouble?

Vampire
12-13-2004, 10:02 PM
Life in prison would have been better.

Doctor Manhattan
12-13-2004, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Todd@Dec 13 2004, 03:57 PM
It was bad enough that they found Scott Peterson guilty even though there was absolutley no physical evidence to prove his guilt. Reasonable doubt means that the jury must find him not guilty, and in this gase. there was a huge shadow of doubt. To make matters worse, they just sentenced him to death. There's no DNA evidence or a confession to link him 100% to the murders. The only evidence they had was circumstansial....Scott did this, so it must mean he killed her. Bullshit. Now, the jury has chosen to put someone to death who is quite possibly innocent. The legal system has completley failed to do its job in this case, and its shit like this that makes me ashamed to be an american
Echoed.

I think Life without Parole would have been way better, seeing as how there was no physical evidence to prove it.

Although, the story about her body washing up where he fishes is... well, fishy.

Friskey™
12-14-2004, 01:34 AM
*does a jig* Fuck yeah, he deserves death!

Odaton
12-14-2004, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by Twitch Fiorentino@Dec 14 2004, 01:34 AM
*does a jig* Fuck yeah, he deserves death!
:x

User Name
12-14-2004, 02:07 AM
Originally posted by Todd@Dec 13 2004, 02:57 PM
It was bad enough that they found Scott Peterson guilty even though there was absolutley no physical evidence to prove his guilt. Reasonable doubt means that the jury must find him not guilty, and in this gase. there was a huge shadow of doubt. To make matters worse, they just sentenced him to death. There's no DNA evidence or a confession to link him 100% to the murders. The only evidence they had was circumstansial....Scott did this, so it must mean he killed her. Bullshit. Now, the jury has chosen to put someone to death who is quite possibly innocent. The legal system has completley failed to do its job in this case, and its shit like this that makes me ashamed to be an american
Another echo from here. The American Judicial System needs amendments, badly.

lofton0788
12-14-2004, 02:14 AM
HE deserves it

Sylar
12-14-2004, 02:16 AM
I heard about this earlier. People are so fucked up, He might not have even done this but yeah, lets kill him for something we have no proof he did. We don't know he did it but since we can't find out who did, He's dying. Way to go American legal system. :rolleyes:

Todd
12-14-2004, 02:38 AM
Those of you who said he deserves it, can you not read?

There is not a shred of physical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. In order for someone to be convicted of any crime, the jury must decide if the prosecution has proved 100% without doubt that the defendant is guilty. The prosecution proved that they can pull circumstansial evidence out of their ass to wrongly accuse someone, and the jury bought it. The entire Peterson case has made a mockery of the US legal system. There was no evidence to prove Peterson is guilty, yet they sentence him to death. There was DNA evidence against OJ proving he was a murderer, but he was found not guilty. Until the prosecution can do its job properly, Peterson doesn't deserve to spend another day in jail.

Anthony.
12-14-2004, 02:50 AM
Death penality is wrong in any case, anyway.

Leslie
12-14-2004, 02:51 AM
The official sentencing isn't until February 25, so this may be overruled. Judge Delucchi has the discretion under California law to disregard the jury’s recommendation.

Doctor Manhattan
12-14-2004, 02:55 AM
He can only reduce the sentence though, so even then it'd be Life without parole, which is what I wanted, but if Scott is indeed innocent, it's still a fucking travesty.

Vampire
12-14-2004, 03:00 AM
Originally posted by Leslie@Dec 13 2004, 06:51 PM
The official sentencing isn't until February 25, so this may be overruled. Judge Delucchi has the discretion under California law to disregard the jury’s recommendation.
Plus he's not gonna be executed for another 93402348234 years.

Omar
12-14-2004, 04:03 AM
I'm against the death penalty, life in prison would be much better. And while there was no hard evidence, the fact that Peterson showed little emotion during his trial and apparently didn't seem to concerned when his wife went missing is a bit odd. Also, I may be mistaken, but didn't he also abuse her?

Kate
12-14-2004, 05:27 AM
Originally posted by Todd@Dec 13 2004, 08:38 PM
Those of you who said he deserves it, can you not read?

There is not a shred of physical evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did it. In order for someone to be convicted of any crime, the jury must decide if the prosecution has proved 100% without doubt that the defendant is guilty. The prosecution proved that they can pull circumstansial evidence out of their ass to wrongly accuse someone, and the jury bought it. The entire Peterson case has made a mockery of the US legal system. There was no evidence to prove Peterson is guilty, yet they sentence him to death. There was DNA evidence against OJ proving he was a murderer, but he was found not guilty. Until the prosecution can do its job properly, Peterson doesn't deserve to spend another day in jail.
Echo...echo...echo...

My opposition to the death penalty notwithstanding, I think that the case against Scott Peterson was inconclusive. "Don't let sympathy be a factor..."

Load of bullshit, if you ask me. You show an autopsy picture of the alleged victim, that's enough to get anyone emotional.

Jila
12-14-2004, 07:53 AM
i pretty much agree with todd on this one. there was no evidence at all and if they execute him, then later on find out he didnt do it, how pissed would everyone be? if you ask me, i think there should be a law stricter law on the death penalty. instead of having a bunch of random, biased people vote on someones life, there has to be solid evidence. that would be a lot less regretable than killing someone then later finding out it wasnt them. it kind of reminds me of a man who was put in jail for maybe 20 years and then they found out he really didnt do the crime he committed. if they sentenced him to death, they would have to live with the guilt of killing an innocent person.

iamrighthereandnow
12-14-2004, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Omar@Dec 14 2004, 04:03 AM
I'm against the death penalty, life in prison would be much better. And while there was no hard evidence, the fact that Peterson showed little emotion during his trial and apparently didn't seem to concerned when his wife went missing is a bit odd. Also, I may be mistaken, but didn't he also abuse her?
i am against death penalty too for reasons that pyromaniak expressed, but for the murderes i would make prison into Hell. or some program where they would have to feel the pain of their victim and their families to the max, that's actually a torture. but to some child rape murderer, serial perverted killer, they deserve to feel what they did magnified from the point of victim. that may come with virtual reality. god knows. what is the best punishment for guys like that?= talking about people who actually did the crime, i do find it strange that Petersons emotional response was so low as omar said. but if there is no evidence to convict him, he shouldnt be sentenced guilty. for cases like these it would help if they had expert jury then random citizens who can be swayed by either persecution or defence. i think jury also would have to live with the decision to let potially guilty murderer walk the streets and do it again.

Todd
12-14-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Dec 14 2004, 01:53 AM
if you ask me, i think there should be a law stricter law on the death penalty. instead of having a bunch of random, biased people vote on someones life, there has to be solid evidence.
The people who vote have to make their decision on solid evidence. In order for someone to be convicted, there cant be any reasonable doubt, in this case their was doubt, and any decent judge and jury would see this in an appeal.

Personally, I blame the media for everything.
When Laci was missing and Scott wasn't even a suspect, the media told the country where Scott was fishing that night. If someone else killed her, that was their perfect chance to dump the body where Scott was and frame him.
Because the case got such nationwide attention, it wouldn't look good for the jury to acquit a man who most of the country thinks is guilty. By finding him guilty and sentencing him to death, it makes the jury look like heros and gives them their 15 minutes of fame. I bet if the case was a local thing in California and the rest of teh country didn't really know about it, he would have been acquitted.


Also, the fact that Scott didn't show emotion doesn't really mean a thing. Some people just don't show emotions. If he truly is innocent, I'm sure he felt sad and upset and angry at the real murderer, but some people just never physically show it.

FreeYourMind
12-14-2004, 06:16 PM
wow,


Compared to the dutch law, our punachements are really low crazy, if you get like a lifetime penalty, it's only for 20 years!!

Vampire
12-15-2004, 01:12 AM
Originally posted by PyRoMaNiaK@Dec 13 2004, 11:53 PM
i think there should be a law stricter law on the death penalty. instead of having a bunch of random, biased people vote on someones life, there has to be solid evidence.
how is a randomly selected group of people making up a jury BIASED?

Holiday
12-15-2004, 07:09 AM
Originally posted by Todd@Dec 13 2004, 09:57 PM
It was bad enough that they found Scott Peterson guilty even though there was absolutley no physical evidence to prove his guilt. Reasonable doubt means that the jury must find him not guilty, and in this gase. there was a huge shadow of doubt. To make matters worse, they just sentenced him to death. There's no DNA evidence or a confession to link him 100% to the murders. The only evidence they had was circumstansial....Scott did this, so it must mean he killed her. Bullshit. Now, the jury has chosen to put someone to death who is quite possibly innocent. The legal system has completley failed to do its job in this case, and its shit like this that makes me ashamed to be an american
I TOTALLY AGREE! it is hella f**ked up that that he was recomended for death. that is insane. the ONLY reason he was recomended is because fo how emotionally chanrged this was. it should have been put to trial way farther away from where it happened to be closer to fair.