Of course; but in that case, what’s a spouse alive in another city, more or less?
And the “He wanted to be with Frei” was the prosecution’s theory, invented and imposed by them. I don’t believe it for other reasons, for example, the fact that Frei had a child of her own, and several people had come forward saying that Scott was not looking forward to being a father, and had “Hoped for infertility.”
Half your stuff, plus child support.
But when doing so about a convicted person, they have the benefit of knowing that the judge ruled that the prosecution had adduced sufficient evidence, and the jurors, who did see all of the evidence at trial, were persuaded by that evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was guilty.
When we are not jurors, we all have our own individual standards of proof. Some people–on both sides–take their own feelings and conclusions very seriously, despite not knowing all of the evidence, nor having been instructed on the elements of the offenses. On top of that, seeing someone testify is different from reading a transcript. And being in the jury box where you can see how the defendant reacts to evidence at the trial is another piece of information only those present at the trial get.
True, I agree. The jurors know far more than someone watching a video then reading a biased article.
But, it is well known that the more horrific the crime, the more the jury wants to find someone guilty.
Not that I’m an expert but I have never heard that before. Do you have cites?
I cant find a cite after some searching, but I remember being told that. What makes you doubt it?
It doesn’t make sense to me but I’ll believe it if I see evidence. You said it was well known.
To people I have talked to, ADAs, Lawyers, etc. But I did have issues finding a cite, so maybe? Lots of things are well known that arent really true.
I don’t know if you’ll accept a data point of one, but it’s at least somewhat true in my experience. I’ve seen innocent people sent to prison for crimes they didn’t commit because jurors or prosecutors were too emotional around determining the true facts of a case.
In one case, a man who was 5’4" tall and weighed 135 pounds soaking wet was convicted and sentenced to a very lengthy prison sentence for the attempted rape of a woman who initially described her attacker at “at least 6 feet tall, 210 pounds and muscular.” He happened to be in the vicinity of the crime and was scooped up by law enforcement in a general dragnet of the area. The victim subsequently identified him as her attacker. There was no DNA. Wha…?
In another case, a fellow who made his living as a property caretaker and was deaf was coerced into making a confession to a particularly horrible attempted child rape case. Without a deaf interpreter present. The prosecution’s case was further bolstered by the fact that the 4-year-old child suffered from spinal meningitis – which the caretaker also had.
The public defender begged the caretaker to take a plea deal, but he would not, insisting on his innocence.
At the eleventh hour as jury selection was underway, the public defender brought proof to the prosecution that the strain of meningitis suffered by the child was different than the strain of the caretaker. It was all that saved the caretaker from a conviction. The prosecutors would have happily convicted this innocent man had the meningitis evidence not been dispositive. The case was too hot and they needed to convict someone.
As a footnote, there was someone else who it was later determined to be a carrier of the same strain of meningitis from which the child suffered: Mom’s new boyfriend, who was a convicted child molester.
Damn, that false confession sure was tasty, though!
https://today.duke.edu/2018/10/severity-crime-increases-jury’s-belief-guilt
https://kkcomcon.com/OJRU/ROJR0806.htm
Seems like in studies, mock juries can be influenced by how gruesome a crime is.
Thank you.
Thanks!
I want to make it clear that I personally think Scott Peterson is guilty and the conviction is correct. But I support the Innocence Project and their work. If further review is warranted – and it appears that it may be – I don’t consider that to ever be a bad thing.
As a matter of law evidence of gruesome acts can be excluded at trial as well as any evidence that a judge finds is more prejudicial than probative. This is generally known as Rule 403 however each state may have it’s own version of this law.
I don’t think that Rule 403 tends to keep a jury from understanding or seeing how gruesome a crime was though. I think generally it is used in those circumstances to prevent the prosecution from offering an excessive number of gruesome photos, or from using an enormous enlargement of something especially gruesome when there isn’t really a need for it. But if a crime itself has gruesome facts or images, those would almost certainly be provided to the jury. They are typically highly relevant to issues at trial.
The prosecution has to prove all of the elements of the crime, even if the defendant is not particularly contesting one or more of them.
I was a juror for a murder trial, and some of the photos was slightly redacted to make them less gruesome.
It is based on the principle that a jury will be more likely to return a guilty verdict for more horrific crimes. The state is not allowed to exaggerate the gruesome nature of a crime.
In the case of the Amber Frey testimony that I think might be a problem is that according to reports she was allowed to testify about much more than her affair with Petersen than the dates, places, and the things he told her, some of which can be shown to be lies. Those are matters related to his honesty and faithfulness to his wife, but nothing he told her or any of their activities was relevant to the death of Lacy Petersen. The reports at the time indicated she was able to testify about her feelings after learning of his possible involvement in a crime from new reports and the police. I have never seen a transcript of her testimony though, news reports may not be accurate. I think I’ll try to find that transcript.
I believe the Peterson jury was probably a big problem. There were some dismissals and public opinion probably swayed them.
Gruesome photos, show boating by the defense team and prosecutors didn’t help.
But I still believe Peterson’s guilty.
A new trial is not gonna change it.
It’s a waste of time and the few resources the Innocence Project people have. They could be better served to help a really innocent person get out and not some murdering jerk get out on a technicality.
Yes, I’m very familiar. I think you may believe that it keeps out more than it actually does. I’m saying that the prosecution isn’t out of luck to prove the crime because the crime was especially gruesome. They don’t get to exaggerate, but they do almost certainly get to show it accurately.
She probably had lots of relevant testimony beyond the basic facts of their affair. I’m interested to see what examples you can point to from the transcript.
And, sometimes a witness will testify to something that is not allowed in according to the rules of evidence. But the defense has to object if they want to keep it out. Sometimes a lawyer makes a mistake, sometimes there are reasons for the defense to not object. If there was no objection, then it was typically not error to let it in.
It’s hard to tell who is a “murdering jerk” and who is “really innocent” without looking closely, which is what they’re doing. I don’t believe they are searching for a “technicality,” but actual evidence of innocence. (it’s right in their name). If they don’t come up with anything, then they’ll presumably move on to another case. I have to assume that despite their successful track record, some of the individual cases they investigate turn out to be legitimate convictions.
As I’ve said before, “technicality” is a much-misused word. It often means something along the lines of “we all know he’s guilty, but the court let him off on some legal point I don’t like.”
If someone is convicted because of a legal error, and then put away for life, that is a miscarriage of justice.