The Peterson case makes me wonder about liberty and justice.

[xequals]

Has anyone stopped to consider that there wasn't any evidence to convict him of the crime he was accused of ?

Sadly, the truth is, he may as well have been convicted and executed on Larry King Live. Nobody seems to care about facts and evidence anymore, it might get in the way of our entertainment.

Why should we care, you may ask ? Peterson was a bad guy, after all. "Fry the sucker," right ?

We as a nation -- right, left and center -- have forgotten what this country was supposed to stand for.

It was not the job of the jurors to judge whether Peterson was a bad husband or not. It wasn't even their job to use "common sense" with regards to whether he killed his wife or not. It is not their job to go on TV afterwards and profess how much they feel for Lacy, and how they can't stand Scott, with a glimmer of joy in their eyes as they hand him over to The State for execution.

It was the job of the jury to judge the evidence The State presented - and nothing more. The burden of proof should've been on The State to prove whether Peterson was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt; it was not his job to prove he was innocent.

More and more of these high profile cases are being turned into entertainment, where the finger wagging feminists and fist pounding moralists and everyone in-between get to have their say from their moral high ground, eagerly dispensing their society-remaking agenda on the 24 hour cable news outlets, with little or no regard for the CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS of the accused.

Does the average nose-picking American even stop to think, "What if I was sitting in Peterson's seat ? What if I was sitting in the defendant's chair, with all the power of The State staring back at me? " No. Instead everyone is so quick to align themselves with The State. Why ? Because they childishly and selfishly think to themselves, "That could never happen to me, I'm a good person. The State only goes after the bad people."

America has only come this far because our founding fathers deeply believed in liberty, and imagined THEMSELVES sitting in that defendant's chair.

As a libertarian, I fear what our society has become. I fear the left and right wing moralists. I fear the media. I fear the power the people have so cowardly and foolishly traded away to The State --MUCH more than I fear one man accused of a crime, no matter how heinous the details of that crime.

[ObaMania]

1. I just wouldn't have wanted that..

.. one red-headed juror freak gal judging me.

[ohioliberal]

2. Really! she was frightful

[momzno1]

4. She was scary

but what was even more frightening was how all three of them couldn't come up with anything substantial for reasons to convict and sentence him to death. "uhhh, it was everything, you know?" spoken with seemingly feigned solemnity... I don't know if Peterson was guilty, but this media charade is sickening.
Plus, I totally oppose the death penalty.

[ScreamingMeemie]

7. That and the fact that they didn't feel he showed enough emotion led

them to recommend the death penalty. Amazing. I hope I am never accused of a crime in this new America.

[Bunny]

12. His lack of emotion was used as an aggravating factor in the penalty phase

of his trial. They were not allowed to use it in the guilt phase, but were allowed to consider it in the penalty phase. Just as they would have been allowed to use remorse as a mitigating factor in the penalty phase. In addition, his demeanor was viewed by them as inappropriate when he did show emotion. For example, his laughing, smiling, etc. at times when it did not seem proper.

I don't believe this is new in America, either.

[tx_dem41]

8. Because of her appearance?

Granted, I have not seen any interviews of jurors (thankfully). Just wondering what your statement is based on.

[ObaMania]

70. Appearance, disposition, and the horribly lame answers she gave..

.. to the reporters questions.

I have my own opinions about this person, but to avoid being flamed, I'll keep 'em to myself. Suffice it to say that I don't think that she was qualified to be a juror and probably should have been excused during jury selection.

[H2O Man]

3. There was plenty of evidence.

I'm not a fan of the criminal justice system, but I think that when you say that there was no evidence, it indicates you did not understand the prosecution's case. There was plenty of evidence.

[The Stranger]

34. No eyewitness, no murder weapon, no DNA.

What did I miss?

[Bunny]

39. Ever hear of circumstantial evidence?

Apparently that's what you missed?

[The Stranger]

44. I think that is the point.

Circumstances can be used to convict any number of people, especially when there is bloodlust in the street, and someone has to be found. Clear and convincing evidence pointing to this person committing this crime seems to be missing.

[Bunny]

46. I don't think so. Read up on this some more.

Unless you are going to maintain that the standard for conviction can only be irrefutable videotaped testimony and confession, that is. In which case, a lot of murderers are going to go free.

[The Stranger]

59. Conviction is not necessarily the question.

The burden of proof for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt. However, when deciding to impose the death penalty, the decision -- if not the burden of proof -- is different.

[Bunny]

61. I won't argue with you on that.

I disagree with the death penalty, so I think he should have been LWOP'ped.

[H2O Man]

64. Really?

Quote the law that makes this distinction.

[MostlyLurks]

73. H2O Man:

During the penalty phase, a lot of the talking heads kept mentioning "lingering doubt" as a reason the jury may have tipped to LWOP. Is this an actual legal standard for DP cases (i.e. you can only vote for LWOP if you have "lingering doubt") or was it just them spouting off their own personal view as to how the deliberations might work? I was confused by that.

[H2O Man]

78. It's a tactic

used by attorneys. To be honest, I think it is a good one. I'm 100% against the death penalty, even in the case the the lowest of criminals. But there are other people sentenced to death, including those who are found guilty by a jury that is doing the best they can, but who are mistaken. Clearly, once a person is executed, the issues that could be appealed become meaningless.

Yet this is just as true as when there is an "eye witness" to a crime. An eye witness is considered the most powerful of direct evidence by the public. Yet a good attorney can confuse an honest eye witness on the stand, and the most honest of eye witnesses do make mistakes.

I have a friend who was convicted on the "eye witness" testimony of two people. He served 19 years in prison before evidence came to light that proved beyond any doubt that he was not only "not guilty," but was actually innocent. Two crooked police officers convinced two easily lead witnesses to swear they saw something they didn't see; and even an honest DA can base a case on the planted lies of crooked police. It happens.

The jury that found my friend guilty could have sentenced him to death. What was interesting was that despite the eye winess testimony, there was enough circumstantial evidence that raised doubt that that jury gave a triple-life sentence. And as mentioned, this was over-turned.

19 minutes is to long to serve when you are innocent. 19 years is unimagineable, though it happens. But the death penalty removes any chance of an appeal.

[The Stranger]

83. The standard for sentencing someone to death is left to the states

(as set forth in their statutes), so it is not uniform across the country, but it also must comply with the U.S. Constitution.

[H2O Man]

89. The "standards"

are simply having a death penalty vs not having one, and defining what crimes are considered "capital." Some states take age and issues such as mental illness/retardation into account. But it is not somehow a different trial with different rules.

Your statement about the constitution is accurate only in reference to the extent that it refers to the brief period that the death penalty was deemed unconstitutional in the 1970s. Some objections that were raised in that slightly more progressive time included the fact that blacks and American Indians were statistically far more likely to receive the death penalty than whites, for the same crimes. People were also concerned that the methods of killing were cruel.

Many DUers will remember Gary Gilmore and the return of executions. "Progressive" states like Texas have done away with arguments about some groups being killed more often by simply killing more people. And lethal injection has made the event kinder and gentler.

But there is not a bar that a state law has that is raised higher for death penalty cases. If there were, innocent folks would not end up on death row. But they do.

We are a violent and hateful nation. Our prison system is a disgrace. The death penalty is the bar that shows how low we have gone.

[LostinVA]

40. Tons of Circumstantial Evidence

I posted something about this in LBN from my legal Aid lawyer relative: judges and lawyers (defense AND state) consider circumstantial evidence much more powerful and reliable than direct evidence... if there is enough of it that fits correctly. There was in this case. I've been studying this case for well over a year. No, I'm not a lawyer, but I'm also not stupid.

And, I watched the jurors' press conference yesterday,a nd found them sincere, honest, and not the least bit "scary." They had just sentenced a man to death 30 minutes before, after six months of their life was taken away by this circus. For the record, the redhead stated during juror questioning that it would take extreme circumstances for her to sentence someone to the death penalty. The jurors said MANY MANY times yesterday that there was not one thing that caused them to convict Peterson... it was many, many pieces of a puzzle fitting together. They stated his demeanor didn't help him.

For the record, I am 100% anti-penalty. But, you can be a Liberal and think Scott Peterson is guilty.

[H2O Man]

58. What you are missing

is an understanding of how the legal system works. If it were geared to meet your concepts, everyone who murders someone in private and disposes of the body for as long as significant deterioration takes is home free. Your statement on DNA shows a total lack of understanding: just for fun, what DNA evidence would you expect? Something that proves beyond a doubt that Scott lived in his house? That Laci lived there?

[The Stranger]

60. See post above regarding the distinction between conviction

and imposing the death penalty.

[H2O Man]

68. I did.

The OP wrote "Has anyone stopped to consider that there wasn't any evidence to convict him of the crime he was accused of?"

I responded by saying that there was plenty of evidence proving his guilt.

You responded that there wasn't any that you were aware of, and mentioned DNA evidence.

I asked what DNA evidence you think there could possibly be? You respond by changing it to an issue of the death penalty.

The death penalty is not distinct by law from other forms of punishment. It does not require any different level of proof that includes the forms of evidence you think are lacking.

I am opposed to the death penalty in any case. But Scott was convicted for a crime that he committed beyond a reasonable doubt. No case requires proof beyond "any doubt." That level simply does not exist in the context of the court system.

[The Stranger]

84. I don't think that this is true:

The death penalty is not distinct by law from other forms of punishment. It does not require any different level of proof that includes the forms of evidence you think are lacking.

The states generally require a separate decision from the jury to impose death and have capital murder statutes that differentiate it from simple first degree murder.

[The Stranger]

85. Regarding the "crime he was accused of",

DNA, eyewitness or murder weapon would distinguish him from others that would possibly have circumstantial evidence against them.

As far as whether or not he should be put to death, the lack of this type of evidence may be particularly compelling against such a penalty, although may be admissible and may support a conviction.

[ladjf]

5. While the circumstantial evidence suggests that Peterson

committed the crime, it was never pr oven conclusively that he did it.
The law is that the death penalty can only be given when there is no doubt.

America is turning into something very mean and quickly. What is happening to us? and what is causing this trend towards cruelty and blood lust?

[xequals]

67. I'm morally neutrally and not concerned with meanness vs kindness

as much as I am with liberty vs oppression.

What scares me deeply is the mentality of the average American who is willing to hand over his/her rights for convenience, selfishness or just plain stupidity.

[ladjf]

90. That mistake is a matter of one not getting the entire picture.

Things that seem OK in the short term are terrible decisions when viewed long range. (environmental degradation, for instance)

[LARED]

6. What I find amazing

is that he got a death penalty recommendation from the jury on a circumstantial evidence case.

Getting convicted on circumstantial evidence is a bit troubling to me, but I can live with it because if it wasn't possible to convict on circumstantial evidence, getting away with a crime would be way to easy.

[Solitaire]

9. I felt like you, until...

I heard this one thing.

Evidently, (and I may have my times incorrect, but the time -span- is correct), Peterson left his house at 9:50 a.m. The dog was found without his leash at 10:00 a.m. That means that Laci would have had to have changed her clothes, been killed and taken away from her house within 10 minutes.

A very pregnant woman does not change her clothes very quickly. I just don't think it's possible.

And, Peterson screwed himself on this one, because he is the one who noted Martha Stewart talking about meringue on her show. The TV station pegged the time of this, I believe, at 9:48 a.m.

If you can explain that away, then I'm listening.

:)

[cybildisobedience]

10. excellent post

I've been thinking along the same lines -- what, exactly, did Scott Peterson do to this country that we're all supposed to hate him and clamor for his execution?
Granted, creep, awful husband -- and possibly murderer, although that's been far from proven beyond a doubt.
But this whole trial has become entertainment -- diversion fodder for the masses -- and no one is looking at the big picture.

You raise some excellent points.

[LostinVA]

48. I Don't Hate Him

But I believe he's guilty. Death penalty case? No. Life in prison forever? Yes. And, the odds are very much stacked in his favor that that's what will happen.

Remember his wife was killed, and a fetus a month away from birth. And, only Laci's murder was first degree murder, so there was saneness in the jury room.

[Sara Beverley]

11. I believe he is guilty but NOT PROVEN quilty. A travesty of the justice

system and I don't even like the guy. It had nothing to do with evidence but everything to do with personality.

[Bunny]

13. There was plenty of evidence, it was all circumstantial.

Conviction on circumstantial evidence is permitted in America. Perhaps the death penalty should not be given on purely circumstantial convictions, but that doesn't mean he was convicted without evidence.

[RUDUing2]

25. yes, but there are two types of circumstantial evidence...

WEAK circumstantial and STRONG circumstantial..and this case was made up of extremely weak circumstantial..

[Bunny]

43. I would question that it's WEAK, but it's evidence nonetheless.

I do believe that Peterson did this. I do not think the death penalty was appropriate given the circumstances, but I am not troubled by his conviction.

[LostinVA]

47. Seriously, Do You Know the Evidence?

I am NOT trying to be contrarian here, and I think Peterson should have gotten life w/out parole. But the evidence was NOT weak, it is being cited as one of the strongest circumstantial murder cases in California history. Bruno Hauptmann was convicted with BAD circumstantial evidence. Not in this case.

And, there WAS direct eyewitness testimony -- Peterson's. He very much helped convict himself.

[Bunny]

51. Are you asking me this question?

If so, I don't understand. I don't believe that it was weak either.

[LostinVA]

54. Sorry!

I meant to post it under another post. I 100% agree with you, Bunny!

[RUDUing2]

62. I disagree...I admit the prosecution is *hyping* that it was strong..

but it just wasn't..

No blood evidence in the house...no blood evidence in the vehicles...no blood evidence in the boat...no solid evidence that he was at the marina that day...no murder weapon...no crime scene...couldnt find the other anchors...prosecutions star tracking dog failed a tracking test...

check out: http://www.findlaci2003.us/scott-case-synopsis.html
(lays out the case and the lack of strong evidence very well)

[LostinVA]

72. There WAS Some of This Evidence

Peterson himself said he was at the marina that day... he had the parking receipt, and told people he went fishing 9after he told them several other stories, such as he was golfing). So, his own words put him at the marina.

Physical evidence of Laci's WAS found in the boat.

Also, you don't need any of this if you have enough circumstantial, non-physical evidence. But the DA had this in spades. the cement, the tide charts, the buying/hiding of the boat in secret, the myriad of lies he told about that day, lies he ADMITTED were lies. etc. There are literally thousands of these pieces.

One brick doesn't make a wall, but five thousand do. I hope he does something good with his life the next 40+ years in prison.

[RUDUing2]

80. the only physical evidence of lacey on the boat was some of her hair on a

wrench that had came from their house...no way to know when or how the hair got on the wrench...so he lied about his affair and actions...doesn't mean it was because he killed her...could have been cause he knew it would look bad and he didn't want people to know he had cheated on his pregnant wife..

the prosecution claimed that his buying the boat was a secret...SP said Lacey knew about it...no way to prove which claim was true...but unless the Prosecution could prove that she didn't (impossible to do) then the jury has to accept she did...SP doesn't have to prove his claims are true..the prosecution has to prove they are not true...

[Bunny]

74. Perhaps she didn't bleed. Not all manner of death entails bleeding. n/t

[LostinVA]

77. She could have been

strangled, smothered. Who knows? Scott Peterson. But, how she was killed isn't needed for conviction. Plus, alot of cases use intruder DNA to prove the murderer was in the house. But, if you believe Peterson did it, the murderer LIVED in the house!

[LostinVA]

45. Thank You!

Circumstantial evidence IS evidence. From dictionary.law.com:

Circumstantial evidence
n. evidence in a trial which is not directly from an eyewitness or participant and requires some reasoning to prove a fact. There is a public perception that such evidence is weak ("all they have is circumstantial evidence"), but the probable conclusion from the circumstances may be so strong that there can be little doubt as to a vital fact ("beyond a reasonable doubt" in a criminal case, and "a preponderance of the evidence" in a civil case). Particularly in criminal cases, "eyewitness" ("I saw Frankie shoot Johnny") type evidence is often lacking and may be unreliable, so circumstantial evidence becomes essential. Prior threats to the victim, fingerprints found at the scene of the crime, ownership of the murder weapon, and the accused being seen in the neighborhood, certainly point to the suspect as being the killer, but each bit of evidence is circumstantial.

[quaoar]

14. I was a reporter for many years

I covered many criminal trials, many murder trials.

I have seen defendants convicted on the flimsiest of evidence. I have seen dangerous thugs walk. I have interviewed judges who should have been removed from office and disbarred and other judges who took courageous stands for equality and justice. I have interviewed Death Row inmates who should have been shown mercy and others who were just a waste of good oxygen.

I have watched lawyers whose incompetence was breathtaking and others with whom I would trust my life if I were ever charged with a serious crime.

But for the vast majority of defendants and the public at large, the system seems to work itself out. It's sort of like a hot dog factory -- you don't want to watch how it's done.

[naryaquid]

15. .....Guess what?....I agree with you regarding the Peterson case,

..I don't think the prosecution's case was strong enough...certainly for the death penalty...However, I'm a also a serious feminist (perhaps not of the "finger-waving" variety)

...I don't think this case was indicative of any particular national ill...One could look at the O.J. case, and that of William Kennedy Smith (now enduring his fifth "false" accusation of assault)and come to the opposite conclusion.

Don't use this as an excuse to dump on feminists or what you rather sneer at as "the average nose-picking" American".

[utahgirl]

16. I have to wonder

I see someone almost every few weeks is ( http://www.innocenceproject.org) exonerated by DNA evidence. It seems to me that you can't possibly argue for a death sentence without absolute proof. I think he murdered her, but I don't think he should be sentenced to death.

I'm ambivalent about the death penalty anyway. I'm a liberal so I should never think the death penalty is right, but somehow I'd like to be the one to push the button for those responsible for the terrorist attack on the school in Beslan and the one responsible for the terrorist invasion of Iraq.

utahgirl

[Solitaire]

17. I agree with you, utahgirl...

Charles Manson and his cronies should have gotten the death penalty, among a few.

I think that the death penalty should not be given on circumstantial evidence only. Lock them up for life, if need be. No parole.

I'm not sure though that this is all circumstantial. See my post above. She couldn't have been killed by someone else within 10 minutes. At least, I can't think of a way.

[LostinVA]

50. Manson DID Get the Death Penalty

As did Patricia Krenwrinkel and Susan Atkins.

Just an FYI.

[Solitaire]

66. then why are they up for parole, every 4 years?? n/t

[Strelnikov_]

69. Supreme Court Overturned The Death Penalty Nationwide In 70's

Existing sentences changed to life (retried?).

[LostinVA]

75. They Weren't retried

Everyone on death row in CA had their sentences changed to life in prison. It's one reason none of them will ever get out of prison, even though everyone involved says Krenwrinkel is 100% rehabilitated and sincerely remorseful. Plus, the crimes were just so over-the-top horrible and pointless...

[RUDUing2]

82. that is what the prosecution claimed in the Sam Shepard murder case as

well...it isn't the defenses job to prove innocence..it is the prosecutions job to prove guilt...and it appears to many people believe the opposite...

You see...I *believe* SP killed Lacey...but I don't believe the prosecution proved he did...and no matter what my personal beliefs are..they don't matter..based on the (lack of) evidence and the lack of proof provided by the prosecution this case should have resulted in an verdict of not guilty..instead it appears the prosecution managed to get a guilty conviction based on SP being an asshole who cheated on his pregnant wife, so therefore he must have murdered her too....

[M155Y_A1CH]

18. The burden of proof ....

has quietly shifted.
The accused must now prove a negative to avoid prosecution.
Good luck to anyone charged with anything these days!

[MostlyLurks]

19. Most evidence is circumstantial.

I think there's a misperception about what constitutes "circumstantial evidence". People seem to think of it as anything that relies on "connect the dots" logic or circuitous connections between people and events. In reality, circumstantial evidence forms the huge majority of evidence in most cases.

Technically speaking, fingerprints are circumstantial evidence. DNA (i.e. semen on clothing, etc) is circumstantial. Even the skulls found in Jeffrey Dahmer's fridge were circumstantial. Just about anything they do on any given episode of CSI is circumstantial (except for the inevitable full confession of the suspect under the withering logic of the investigators).

There isn't much, in fact, that isn't circumstantial: only direct eyewitness testimony and stuff like video evidence showing a crime in progress. If you ask most experienced criminal lawyers and police, they'll take good circumstantial evidence over eyewitness testimoy 90% of the time because eyewitnesses are notoriously easy to "debunk" and discredit.

Certainly, there are degrees of "strength" where circumstantial evidence is concerned. DNA and fingerprints are generally solid evidence (though some experts dispute even that) while stuff like, I don't know, a suspect's pattern of movement before and after a crime are less so.

I think it's an important distinction to make - if you doubt "circumstantial evidence" in general, you're calling into question a lot of valid scientific techniques. The intellectual discounting of circumstantial evidence on its face isn't a good idea. I mean, if we only ever convicted on direct, non-circumstantial evidence, a lot of crimes would go unpunished.

This, however, isn't ta say anything about the Peterson case. I haven't followed it enough to know any of the specifics, but I'm generally against the death penalty except in the most extreme cases of obvious, undeniable guilt. From what I know, this doesn't come close.

[ProfessorGAC]

21. Huh?

I just called a criminal lawyer i know (also teaches criminal law classes). He said that almost everything you describe is PHYSICAL evidence, not circumstantial, and this guy has, as a prosecutor and a defense attorney, been in court for HUNDREDS of trials.

So, i believe we have a monumental difference of opinion.
The Professor

[MostlyLurks]

22. Physical evidence can be circumstantial.

Generally speaking, circumstantial evidence is anything that requires a logical assumption in order to "connect" perpetrator to crime. Physical evidence often falls into this category. As I said, physical evidence is exceedingly strong as circumstantial evidence goes, but it is circumstantial by definition.

For example, if you find a suspect's fingerprint on a gun, this does not directly indicate that the suspect *had* to have perpetrated the crime in question. It is simply a very strong physical link and indicator of probablity. But it is circumstantial: we found the fingerprint on the gun, the fingerprint belongs to suspect X, ergo suspect X committed the crime.

Now, there are loads of ways X's fingerprints could have gotten on the gun: he sold it to somebody, he stumbled across the crime scene after-the-fact and handled the gun, etc. So while the fingerprints are extremely indicative of what probably happened, they are not a dead-solid confirmation of what did happen. Thet's circumstantial evidence.

I have no doubt that your lawyer friend made a different distinction because physical evidence is SO strong in many cases as to extend beyond any reasonable doubt and in his mind, this makes it less-than circumstantial. So he's essentially acquiescing to the mindset that "circumstantial evidence" is any evidence that seems, on the surface, weak or tenuous. It's probably because of his experience that he's had to do that because he's had to categorize evidence based on its "palatibility" to a jury. But that's not the same method used to classify evidence generally speaking in strict legal terms.

No less an authority that the DOJ agrees with me:
"circumstantial evidence: All evidence except eyewitness testimony."
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/eousa/kidspage/glossary.html

Mostly.

On Edit: Given that the DOJ page above is for kids, here's a few more, with a little more meat to them:
http://www.lectlaw.com/def/c342.htm
http://dictionary.law.com/ (enter "circumstantial evidence" in the Legal Term search box - it's a particularly good coverage of the idea)

[ProfessorGAC]

26. Fair Enough

But, that seems to end up providing a definition so broad as to be useless. There is, therefore, nothing that would NOT be circumstantial, including eyewitnesses, and admissions of guilt.

Any definition that broad is not really defining anything.
The Professor

[MostlyLurks]

28. Take a look at the other two links I provided on edit.

The definition specifically states that eyewitness testimony is NOT circumstantial. Basically, anything that does not DIRECTLY tie a suspect to a crime is circumstantial: if you must make a logical leap, no matter how small, to connect act A to person B, it's circumstantial.

And this is *exactly* my point. A lot of people dismiss "circumstantial evidence" as worthless without ever realizing that circumstantial evidence is the sum total of many very strong cases. It's all circumstantial and this is why I posted my original topic in the thread.

"Circumstantial evidence" itself is NOT an indicator of a weak case, and it cannot be used as a blanket explanation for one's belief in a suspect's innocence. Weak circumstantial evidence, yes.

Is it a big deal in the real world? No, because we all know what we're talking about when we discuss "circumstantial evidence". It's just an odd pet peeve of mine that it's discussed in broad terms as if there's some sort of *legal* distinction.

As some others have posted in this very thread, I'm against the death penalty in all but the most egregious cases. But to say that it should only be used in cases with direct evidence just won't work. By that logic, we could not have sentenced Bundy or Dahmer to death because neither was ever caught in the act by an eyewitness. And this disctinction comes largely as a result of not understanding the difference between the legal and vernacular use of the term "circumstantial evidence". And that's why I brought it up: if you say you (not you personally but the larger "you" meaning anyone) want to base DP cases solely on direct/non-circumstantial evidence, you're really creating a GIGANTIC loophole through which almost every case will pass.

[ProfessorGAC]

29. You're Making MY Point!

If the definition is that broad, than everything MUST be due to circumstances. Eyewitness testimony would be circumstantial due to the circumstances needed for someone to be at the right place at the right time to see the event.

The definition you provided by DOJ is sufficiently broad to make the second links useless. That's my point. You have one link with a definition so broad as to need other links to better define. If one needs to define a definition, the original definition is worthless.

I compeltely understand where you coming from, but it's a semantic nightmare and there is no way i could agree to the definitions you provided. Sorry, but on this one, my mind is made up. The very concept of circumstantiality is violated by this definition. It not only fails the logic test, but is in contradiction to the standard definition of the term.
The Professor

[MostlyLurks]

31. Well, OK then

I did not provide and create the definitions - I am merely pointing them out. You can choose not to accept them if you want, but you're not discounting the theory of some ignoramus on a ridiculous bulletin board - you're discounting accepted legal theory/definition. I think maybe you're getting too wrapped up in the use of the word "circumstantial". A better term would be "indirect" evidence, which better encapsulates the concept.

The DOJ page is for kids - I think that's why it's written in such a broad brush. You really should see the other pages - they go into far more detail.

[ProfessorGAC]

33. I Understood That!

No offense, intended. I am disagreeing with the DOJ and your other cites. The definition is simply too broad to have any significance, and once again, when one needs to define the definition, it makes my point.

The "indirect" term is, indeed, a good one. But, it's impossible for me to get too wrapped up in the term "circumstantial". That's because my whole point was that this term exists outside the purely legal world, and the definitions you provided violate the concept on which word is based.

My whole debate was rooted in the semantic disconnect. If that wasn't what i was hung up on, i wouldn't be hung up at all! But, i do like your idea of indirect evidence. That makes a WHOLE LOT more sense than defining everything as circumstantial and then claiming that everything isn't everything. And, with that, i think we have reached common ground!
The Professor

[Kingshakabobo]

30. Considering all the reports one hears about how unreliable

eyewitness testimony can be I would rather convict someone on circumstantial evidence. I would rather the prosecutors theory have to make "sense" rather than rely on someone pointing a finger at some poor slob in a line up just because the witness felt compelled to pick their "suspect" or get coached to pick the guy the police "know" is the criminal. Also, physical evidence can be manipulated, planted or doctored. I have had the displeasure of knowing a few cops that bragged about lying on the stand and fabricating evidence.



I always think of Iraq as the biggest "frame job" ever. The administration "knew" Saddam had WMDs and built their case around their belief and figured they would get the true evidence after the fact just like so many cops have been caught red-handed with DNA. Well, the DNA or real evidence proved them to be liars.

[MostlyLurks]

38. And, when you come right down to it...

It's much easier to fabricate eyewitness testimony than it is to fabricate physical evidence. All you have to do is lie to screw with eyewitness testimony. At least with physical evidence, there's a chain of people that have to either be privy to or ignorant of the lie/fabrication. And you have to get all the physical facts to "match up" to the lie, etc.

As you said, the eyewitless testimony of Powell, Chalabi, Rice, Cheney/Satan. etc. was very easily cocked up by virtue of the fact that they're liars. They're now finding that it's much harder to bang out some good physical evidence.

[LostinVA]

56. Appeals

Per my Legal Aid relative, most wrongful convictions are from DIRECT EVIDENCE being wrong or fraudulent. ie, a woman is raped, picks the guy out of the line-up, testifies against him. Guess what? Later they find out it's not true! His lawyer found out the DA had a store receipt saying he was at a Best Buy at the time of the rape.

he said prosecutors love eyewitnesses, defense lawyers don't... because they can be wrong.

[LostinVA]

53. Mostly Lurks Is Right

Fingerprints, etc. are circumstantial evidence.... PHYSICAL circumstantial evidence. There's direct and circumstantial evidence. dictionary.law.com is a good resource.

[xequals]

37. I don't at all doubt the validity of circumstantial evidence,

and certainly I can't judge based on evidence only the jurors were presented with.

However, there is nothing the jurors have said to indicate they were presented with anything beyond flimsly circumstantial evidence.

What troubles me most is the way the trial was conducted in the media, the mentality of the average entertainment/virtual reality obsessed American, and most of all, what the jurors said afterwards, who seemed much less concerned with the burden of The State and the rights of the accused, than with their own personal views and with making themselves sound morally superior/self-righteous on TV. They are so certain that in their lifetimes they will never wind up in the defendant's chair. If they do, they better hope the jury doesn't show them the same type of "justice" they showed Scott Peterson.

[MostlyLurks]

41. I agree with all that.

I was just putting in my two cents (or less, depending on your opinion of it) on the idea that "circumstantial evidence" was inherantly flawed. There were a few posts that were beginning to run with the idea that circumstantial evidence = poor evidence and I just wanted to opine in the opposite, for balance. That's all.

As I said, I paid little to no attention to this case at any point, so I have no idea what the evidence was/wasn't or did/didn't prove.

You're right when you cast doubt on the juror's ability to rationally present their reasons for their sentence. I think sentencing somebody to death places a huge, lasting burden on a person's conscience. My guess would be that this weight naturally leads a person to try to justify their decision on moral/spiritual grounds simply because facts can be later proven/disproven/cast in doubt, etc. But if you use a moral/religious scale as your guide, that basically never changes. So it gives some measure of clarity and certainty to those who condemn another to death - allows them to reason internally and subjectively rather than objectively, in the open, where they might later be proven wrong.

And finally, in my own defense, I object to the lumping of reality obsessed people in with trial-obssessed people. I love reality TV, don't have a bit of use for the CourtTV culture. ;)

[xequals]

52. I wasn't referring specifically to those who watch the reality genre of TV

but to the vast majority of Americans who seem to be living in "virtual reality"... who don't seem to see the line between what is objective (facts, the real world) and what is subjective (personal opinions, entertainment, infotainment).

[MostlyLurks]

65. And I wasn't really upset. No offense taken. :^)

[SoCalDem]

20. I hate the tabloidization of trials..

I wish there was SOME way to just keep it with the court system, and NOT make it into a media circus.. I know it's not possible, but once they have a suspect and he/she is headed for court, I wish they could just "do their job", and tell us after the fact.. The tainting of jury pools by media, and the cross-trying the case on TV is hurting the justice system..

Courts were meant to be "open" from the standpoint that anyone in the community could drop in and see what was going on, but I am sure that the founders did not intend for it to become "entertainment" for the masses..


OJ proved that the public has a celebrity-bloodlust, and that they could "sell soap" at the expense of a grieving family.

I hate it:(

[Iris]

23. I was sickened when I heard the crowd outside cheered.

It's like being back in the dark ages or something.

I don't believe in the death penalty, but if it must be given, it should be a very solemn occasion - not a celebration.

[RUDUing2]

24. I agree...this case had only WEAK circumstantial evidence that SP

committed the crime...I can kindof understand convicting on STRONG circumstantial evidence..but this case was so weak it never should have even went to trial..

SP was convicted of beng a jerk and an adulterer...he is basically being put to death by puritans for having an affair while his wife was pregnant.

People need to wake up and be very scared. If a white middle class good looking educated white man can get the death penalty based on the (lack) of evidence in this case..then anyone of us could have the same thing happen to us if we are unlucky enough to be in the wrong situation at the wrong time..Guilt or innocence of the crime doesn't seem to matter anymore..it is all about moral outrage...and vigilante justice..but then what should we expected w/a wannabe cowboy leading the *moral* way...

[LostinVA]

76. The Jurors

I honestly found the jurors yesterday to be very honest, sincere people who wrestled with this decision of guilt, and then death. You could see the emotions in their faces, and hear it in their voices. especially Richelle Nice, the "freak" who some people up thread were insulting. She might not be much of a public speaker, and 30 minutes earlier she had condemned someone to death. During jury questioning, she was very ambivalent about the DP, and the defense tagged her as one of "their" jurors, and was excited when she was no longer an alternate. She was seen as someone who would hang the jury.

I just dislike hearing the jurors slammed so much on DU. We don't know these people, or what was in their hearts. I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt that they did their best, and stayed away from all media. Distilling their five months of work and week of penalty deliberations into "sound bites" does bother me. I've been on a jury, and giving someone three months in jail tore ME up.

To reiterate: Peterson does not deserve the DP.

[ScaRBama]

27. You ever notice....

it's always the trials of the wealthier that the media focus on. Look at the thousands of cases of missing and murdered adults and children in the USA. The people with money can drag a trial on for months and months,but the average Joe would've been on death row after a week.
Then again if the family doesn't have much pull in a community the case can grow cold very quickly and it will be lucky if the murder is ever solved.
The law of the land has never been equal for everyone.

[MostlyLurks]

32. As usual, look to "The Onion" for truth.

Back when Elizabeth Smart was abducted (or maybe it was when JonBenet was killed...can't remember for sure), "The Onion" ran the most brutally honest parody I could imagine:

"Ugly Little Girl Murdered, Nation Doesn't Care".

Harsh truth.

[Minnesota_Lib]

42. Only two burning questions remain about the Peterson case in the MSM….

1.) Will they schedule his execution for prime-time viewing during a ratings sweeps week?

2.) Will there be a gala half-time show?


Then--and only then--can we all put this whole sad affair behind us and move on to the next news-dominating murder and/or kidnapping of a cute (white) female. Perhaps next they can focus in on a murdered cheerleader. The viewing public just loves dead cheerleaders.

[Name removed]

35. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MostlyLurks]

36. Not so sure that gives you high ground. What's your point? n/t

[kentuck]

49. If justice is lost....

Democracy is lost. Period. And the possibility is there.

[xequals]

57. Yes. There are few things that separate us from totalitarianism,

one of the most important being the defendant's chair.

When you look at the defendant's chair, you are looking across the great divide that separates liberty from oppression.

[radwriter0555]

55. When you have a clever crook, it doesn't always take a bloody knife to

incriminate and convict.

In some cases intent, actions, words, and motives ARE enough to convict a person of a crime they've committed.

Keep in mind, in 13 states, the number 1 cause of death among pregnant women is by murder at the hands of their spouse.

Murder is most commonly committed by family members, not strangers.

[dbfl33040]

63. stone cold GUILTY

There was OVERWHELMING evidence to convict this man. Speaking as an attorney, I wish I had all the evidence these prosecutors had! And I'd much rather have a circumstantial case than eye witness testimony anyday! IMHO, there was NO way that they couldn't convict Mr. Peterson. People are convicted on circumstantial evidence everyday! I wonder how many people that criticize the verdict are attorneys or are even educated in the law. I bet it's a vey small number.

[samtob]

71. What I found interesting during the trial

were the comments of all the legal commentators. Most of them are or were attorneys (both sides of the spectrum) and they viewed the case with different "glasses" if you will, than the general public that has no legal training.

I am a little embarrassed to admit, I followed the case, not religiously, but I did pay attention.

The attorneys reporting their observations, were picking apart the prosecution on legal terms....not the way the jury or the lay person was viewing. They were wrapped up in the technicalities, the methods, the performance of the prosecution or the defense attorneys, not the evidence presented.

During the first two months of the trial, one would come to the conclusion that the prosecution did not have a case based on the comments by the attorney commentators. Yet if one listened to the evidence submitted to the jury, one could question what trial the attorney commentators were watching.

To equate it to a different profession for example;

One carpenter and one potential home buyer could look at a newly built home. The potential buyer would look at the design and the well matched color scheme, to this person, the home is beautiful and quite possibly his dream home.

The carpenter on the other hand notices all of the imperfections from the door frame, the window frames, the poorly installed stair rail, cabinets not positioned perfectly etc. No structural problems, but no attention to details, and cheap materials.

In jury trials, the attorneys are not always the best observers to rely on..IMO

[lastliberalintexas]

81. Well, I am one

I disagree with the OP in that there was *some* evidence of guilt, though whether one thinks it is credible evidence is another story. But how you, as a supposed attorney, can claim that there was *overwhelming* evidence is beyond me.

There might be sufficient evidence to sustain the verdict on appeal, but it was in no way overwhelming. The prosecution could not even prove the cause of death for goodness sakes- rather important in a crime which requires a specific and certain mens rea. If the cause of death was poison, it was likely premeditated and intentional. If it was a blow to the head, it could have been in the heat of the moment to justify prosecution for manslaughter or murder 2. Or the cause of death may have even exonerated the husband. We just don't know. And that's just one of many issues unexplained by the prosection.

But I do know that the lack of proof as to cause of death indicates a fairly large hole in the prosecution's case, though it was apparently one that this jury was willing to overlook. But I certainly wouldn't want any of those kinds of people acting as my peers or on one of my juries.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

79. Another media lynching.

It's disgusting. Depending on who you are and what slant the media will put to your case, you could be sentenced to death or let off free and easy.

[reprobate]

86. Can we PLEASE stop discussing this trash on DU?

With all the problems we face in this formerly great nation do we have to take up board space and bandwidth on this shite?

When this is all you can think about you fall right into the MSM trap. Don't discuss this crap. Don't read this crap. If you don't show interest in sensationalism th media ratings will relect that and then maybe they'll give us some real news.

[Forkboy]

88. Why dont you let people discuss what they want?

some of us can entertain more than one idea at a time :shrug:

[Skidmore]

87. In our country today, there is no liberty and there is no justice.

Liberty is for the ideologue and justice is bought.