Stages of the Criminal Trial "Scott Peterson" Voir Dire This stage is an examination of potential jurors to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Ideally, voir dire will result in an impartial jury for the trial of the accused. On March 4, 2004 jury selection began for the trial of Scott Peterson. Nearly 100 potential jurors began answering questionnaires about their views on the death penalty and their opinions on extramarital affairs. The nearly 30-page questionnaire given to prospective jurors also included questions as whether they read Field and Stream, what stickers grace their car bumpers and whether they have lost a child. On April 14, 2004 Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed an unidentified Redwood City woman after a brief meeting in his chambers. Defense attorney Mark Geragos two weeks early had accused the retired secretary of bragging to her friends on a bus trip to Reno, Nevada, that she has "passed the test" to get on Peterson's jury and that Peterson was "guilty as hell" and would "get what's due him." May 28, 2004 six men and six women were selected for Scott Peterson's murder trial all said they would be willing to sentence him to death if they convict him of killing his wife and the couple's fetus. Opening Statements In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence. The Presentation of the Prosecution's Case
Scott Peterson had his preliminary hearing on April 17, 2003. Superior Court Judge Al Girolami ordered Scott Peterson to stand trial on two counts of murder. Peterson’s arraignment quickly followed. Peterson was arraigned on April 21, 2003. The Prosecution charged him with the following: Count I: On or about and between December 23, 2002 and December 24, 2002, the defendant did commit a felony, Murder, violation of Section 187 of the California Penal Code; the defendant did willfully, unlawfully, and feloniously and with malice aforethought murder Laci Denise Peterson, a human being. Special Allegation charges were made in conjunction with the felony murder charge of Laci Denise Peterson. It is further alleged as to Count 1, MURDER that the defendant acted intentionally, deliberately and with premeditation. Enhancement: TERMINATION OF PREGNANCY. During the commission of the murder of Laci Denise Peterson, the defendant, with the knowledge that Laci Denise Peterson was pregnant, did inflict injury on Laci Denise Peterson resulting in the termination of her pregnancy, a violation of Section 12022.
Two aggravating factors in the state of California that may have been met for the death penalty imposition in the Scott Peterson trial could be (1) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree, and/or (2) The defendant intentionally killed the victim by means of lying in wait. Mitigating factors that could be used to convince the jury to convict Scott Peterson of a lesser charge might be (1) the absence of prior felony convictions, (2) the absence of a history of violence by the
Smith, William (1997) “Useful or Just Plain Unfair? The Debate Over Peremptories; Lawyers, Judges Spllit Over the Value of Jury Selection Method” The Legal Intelligencer, April 23: pg 1.
As one of the seven jury deliberations documented and recorded in the ABC News television series In the Jury Room the discussions of the jurors were able to be seen throughout the United States. A transcript was also created by ABC News for the public as well. The emotions and interactions of the jurors were now capable of being portrayed to anyone interested in the interworkings of jury deliberations. The first task,...
Evidence, clear and simple is what the official male dominated investigation is looking for when they come to the Wright’s home following the strangulation of Mr. John Wright. If it does not pertain to the normal evidence of a crime scene or spell out murder for them they are utterly disinterested. Mrs. Wright
All jurors in this particular case participated and took an active role, yet J1, J4, J7, J8, J12 were the most vocal. J1, J4, J7, and J8 had very strong personalities and naturally appeared to want to be active in the deliberations. J2 appeared to have a strong personality as well, but soon made their mind up about the situation. J1 and J7 as will be discussed later on appear to be the most similar and often support and defend each other throughout the jury deliberation. J12 was active merely because she had to out of self-defense. J12 was the only juror that did not agree with the majority’s conclusions about Ducic and constantly had to defend herself and provide rebuttals with little support from the other jurors. Nevertheless, it appears jurors with strong opinions on the case participate more in the ...
...dent by trial that Matthews was the victim (Travis Hayes). A confidence statement signed at the initial procedure would have shown that the eyewitness had the same misgivings about the description of the suspect matching Matthews that his lawyers had during the trial.
The court system includes the judges, jury, prosecutors and defense attorneys. The Attorneys convince the suspects to take plea bargains, the judges are sometimes unfair in the decisions they make, and the prosecutors overlook exculpatory evidence. Picking cotton shows in detail some common errors of the court system. During Ronald Cotton 's first trial, His Attorney, Phil Moseley, tried to bring a memory expert to testify on the unreliability of memory but the judge denied his request. After Ronald 's case was overturned by the supreme court, he got a new trial in another court which had even more problems and bias. First, there was racial prejudice during the jury selection. “Four black people from the community got called in for jury duty. The judge himself dismissed one of them and then Mr turner made sure none of the rest sat on my jury” Ronald cotton stated. Because he was black, the four jurors were dismissed and he was left with an all white jury and two white Alternates. Second, the judge “Held something called a “voir dire” hearing, which Phil explained meant he would have to put up all the evidence about Poole in front of the Judge, but not the Jury”(129). Also, Ronald Cotton 's defense attorney explained to the judge the parallelism between Bobby Poole 's case and the rape Ronald Cotton was charged with. Despite the weak physical evidence against Ronald Cotton, the
Initial jury selection is done at random within certain territorial confines. Once the jury pool is selected, it undergoes questioning by both attorneys and the judge and empanelled before the trial to ensure a jury “of one’s peers”. However, attorneys on both sides hold jurisdiction to discard the preliminary members in order to further benefit their standpoint. The questions asked range from across the spectrum and are used as a strategic ta...
The criminal trial process is able to reflect the moral and ethical standards of society to a great extent. For the law to be effective, the criminal trial process must reflect what is accepted by society to be a breach of moral and ethical conduct and the extent to which protections are granted to the victims, the offenders and the community. For these reasons, the criminal trial process is effectively able to achieve this in the areas of the adversary system, the system of appeals, legal aid and the jury system.
The topic of capital punishment has been the subject of debate for many years as it should be on the minds of society. A society that seek to found justice for the victim who lost their lives at the hand of another human beings. The critics of capital punishment would argue that the government has over reached it authority and have sought to judge in God stead. However, the advocates of capital punishment will argue that many nations whether modern or ancient has used capital punishment as a method of justice.
Scott Peterson was an educated man from California Polytechnic State University where he graduated with a B.A. in Agricultural Business. He was married to his wife Laci Peterson who was also pregnant with their unborn son. In December of 2002 Laci Peterson went missing in the Modesto, California area where she shared a home with Scott. Once the investigation of Scott’s missing wife started authorities began to suspect Scott as a suspect in her disappearance. In April of 2003 a fetus and a female torso that was missing hands, feet, and a head were found on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay area was where Scott was boating the day of Laci’s disappearance. The body was later identified as Laci Peterson and the fetus as Laci and Scott’s unborn son. Scott was also arrested in the month of April shortly after the discovery of Laci and their son’s body and was later sentenced to the death penalty. Over the course of this paper I will cover the whole event of the disappearance of Laci Peterson, relating it to a sociological theory, the impact the event had on our society and how the media had influence over this national event.
This has been likened to the process of presenting evidence in a legal argument by a lawyer to a judge or jury in order to arrive at a decision of conviction or acquittal. Usually, such argument consists of numerous fragments of evidence, individually incomplete but collectively sufficient to convince the jury in arriving at a decision. The decision will be hinged on the strength, completeness and relevance of the evidence, the organisation and persuasion of the attorney’s reasoning, and the personal feelings of those rendering judgement.
Both the federal government and states have authority to prosecute for criminal behavior in the United States. Each has their own criminal statutes, court systems, prosecutors, and police agencies to help deter crime. These criminal statutes control how suspects are investigated charged and tried. The court system institutes rules and policies that consist of their own structures and procedures within each state. Prosecutors are the most powerful and influential representatives of the court system. Sometimes a case can begin in a lower court then work its way up to a higher court depending on the crime. The law enforcers are made up of small town police officials and go all the way up to large federal agencies.
To evaluate and analyze a case involving the competency to stand trial (CST), we can refer back to a 1960 Supreme Court decision in the Dusky vs. U.S. CST is the determination of whether a defendant or individual is mentally fit or capable of participating in legal proceedings or to stand trial. “CST serve to safeguard the accuracy of criminal adjudications, guarantee a fair trial, preserve the dignity and integrity of legal processes, and ensure that the defendant knows why he is being punished if he is found guilt” (Felthous, 2011).