An entry on the Scott Peterson: Truth Be Told Facebook page illuminates what may be...a tiny corner of Judge Alfred Delucci's opinion, several weeks into the trial.
*Remember that media reports (television interviews with Peterson) were used as evidence by prosecutors in this case, which would imply that they were taken as reliable and objective.*
__________________________
CBS News reported: "Juror No. 5, an airport screener, was taped saying what sounded like "could lose today" to Rocha on Thursday. It was unclear what he meant, or whether Rocha responded."
USA Today and San Mateo Daily Journal reported: "Juror No. 5, an airport screener, was taped Thursday saying, "Could lose today," to Brent Rocha. It was unclear what the juror meant, or whether Rocha responded beyond flashing a brief smile."
The Modesto Bee reported: "The judge in Scott Peterson's trial wants to see a recording of a brief hallway exchange between a juror and Peterson's brother-in-law. Juror No. 5, who regularly greets Peterson and defense attorney Mark Geragos with nods and raised eyebrows, said something to Brent Rocha on Thursday as they passed through security screening at the Redwood City courthouse entrance.
The remark was unintelligible except for words that sounded like "lose today" at the end."
KRCA reported: "The actions of a juror in Scott Peterson's double-murder trial were being scrutinized Friday after pool video footage caught him chatting and laughing with Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson's brother, as the two passed through a courthouse metal detector.The interaction between the two occurred Thursday. It was unclear exactly what juror No. 5 said to Rocha, or whether Rocha responded beyond flashing a brief smile.On the tape, it sounds like the juror told Rocha "It looks like we may lose today."
The San Francisco Gate reported:"The juror, an airport screener, was seen on a media pool camera chatting briefly with Brent Rocha, Laci Peterson's brother, as they passed through a metal detector. "Could lose today,'' the man, identified as Juror No. 5, reportedly said to Rocha, who smiled in response."
After the hearing, Judge Delucchi responded in the courtroom with this statement-
Delucchi: "I regret to say that the media account of what took place is inaccurate."
Monday, January 2, 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why did Judge Delucchi in his decision to dismiss Justin Falconer take Guinasso's word over that of the other jurors?
ReplyDeleteModesto Bee article March 15, 2005:
Portions of closed-door exchanges during Scott Peterson's trial, recorded in the chamber of Judge Alfred Delucchi, became public Monday with the release of documents on Peterson's request for a new trial. Excerpts from the in-chambers discussions:
Referring to Justin falconer:
DELUCCHI: "I'm of the opinion that this guy is, in fact, a loose cannon in there, No. 1. And, No. 2, I think talking to him about Jesus is not going to make much difference because this guy describes himself as a loose cannon. And apparently he's proud that he is a loose cannon."
DEFENSE ATTORNEY MARK GERAGOS: "That's because (a TV anchor) was calling him a loose cannon on Court TV and on talk radio. The guy's got to have an ego."
DELUCCHI: "I know. Speaking of egos …"
GERAGOS: "This is such a bad path to do down."
DELUCCHI: "OK, but I'm going to go down there. That's why I get paid the big bucks, OK? So I think talking to this guy is not going to do any good. He's like a bull in a china shop in there. … I have evidence. I have the testimony of (juror John Guinasso) and I'm more inclined to believe (him) than I am to believe (Falconer)."
GERAGOS: "(Guinasso) is a head case."
DELUCCHI: "My opinion, if I leave this guy (Falconer) in there, I'm leaving a cancer in that jury room."
(Delucchi dismissed Falconer.)
He also said this about Gregory Jackson: (from Defense Motion For A New Trial) p.59: http://www.pwc-sii.com/CourtDocs/Docs/022505Def.htm
ReplyDeleteGeragos wrote:
"The Court examined the new foreman, Juror Number 6, and falsely stated that Juror 5 had characterized himself as a "cancer in that jury room." Juror Number 6 claimed ignorance:
"The Court: Okay. Now Number 5 is having some problems. He's expressed the opinion that he should be excused because he feels that he is a cancer in that jury room. Can you explain what's been going on with Juror Number 5?"
...Of course, Gregory Jackson never said he felt he was a cancer in the jury room. That's the gerbils in Delucci's brain. What Jackson did say:
The Court: As you sit there now, do you feel, if you were to continue to deliberate in this case, that you could be a fair and impartial juror in this case?
Juror 5: No.
The Court: If you deliberated further, do you feel you would be able to follow the jury's instructions and reach a just verdict in this case?
Juror 5: No.
The Court: Okay. We'll put you back outside. One other question. Can you
59
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
give me the reason for that, why you feel that way?
Juror 5: When I took the oath, I understood it to mean that I needed to be able to weigh both sides fairly, openly. And given what's transpired, my individual ability to do that I think has been compromised to a degree that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict, the verdict that might, I don't know, produce the best book. I'm not going to speak to the media. I don't ever want to personally profit from this case in any way, directly or indirectly. I think I'm going to get on an airplane if you grant relief, literally.... But, your Honor, I did my level best.
Juror 5 (Gregory Jackson): As I say, there have been comments made to me personally that -- that have made me reflect on whether or not my safety is at issue here. (Defense Motion For New Trial)
ReplyDeleteThis is what Jackson tells Delucchi. Delucchi essentially ignores this, blames Jackson for the problems in the jury room, and dismisses him.
Over and over again Delucchi showed he was senile. A competent judge would have dismissed the case because the prosecution CIC had, at the end, no evidence of guilt. I have no doubt that the prosecution hand picked Delucchi knowing he was senile. This is also why they objected to the first judge chosen - they knew he was competent to sit on the case and that they wouldn't get away with the rubbish they put on.
ReplyDelete