All through final arguments Thursday in Scott Peterson’s bid for a model new trial, Select Anne-Christine Massullo peppered the attorneys with questions that challenged their claims.
It was a preview of how she may interpret the proof when she decides whether or not or to not uphold or overturn Peterson’s convictions for killing his partner Laci and their unborn son Conner in 2002.
Massullo moreover cited a jury instruction about how jurors must resolve whether or not or not a witness is credible. The instruction says they should ponder that people usually honestly neglect points or make errors about what they keep in mind.
The crux of the juror misconduct declare by Peterson that will lead to a model new trial is whether or not or not juror Richelle Good is an honest and credible specific particular person.
Good didn’t disclose on her jury questionnaire in 2004 that she’d been the sufferer of in opposition to the legislation and social gathering in a lawsuit.
Peterson’s attorneys alleged Good, juror 7 in Peterson’s 2004 trial, lied with a goal to serve on his jury so she would possibly punish him for killing his son. They’re saying she was biased in opposition to Peterson on account of she, like Laci, was the sufferer of crimes whereas she was pregnant and that she took a selected curiosity in Conner, who she gave the nickname “little man.”
A 23-page questionnaire
Stanislaus County prosecutor Dave Harris talked about all through his final arguments Thursday that the questionnaire was 23 pages and contained larger than 100 multiple-part questions.
“She examined that when she stuffed it out, she did the simplest that she would possibly,” Harris talked about. “So what we have proper right here … is a person who stuffed out the questionnaire who made a variety of errors … nonetheless being incorrect would not basically make it false or make her a wild.”
He gave plenty of examples of situations she improperly stuffed out varieties and talked about repeatedly, “Ms. Good simply is not wonderful at filling out varieties.”
All through the March listening to, Good was questioned on the stand about an incident whereby she was threatened by her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend whereas she was pregnant and one different time when that boyfriend was arrested for house violence after a fight that she testified was “perhaps” about him dishonest on her.
Whereas she was listed as a sufferer in police tales related to every incidents, Good talked about she under no circumstances thought-about herself a sufferer and testified, “As soon as I stuffed out that questionnaire — honestly and actually — nothing of this crossed my ideas.”
Select Massullo requested Peterson’s authorized skilled Cliff Gardner about Good’s notion of victimhood. “Her life experiences are very fully completely different out of your experiences and possibly my experience, agreed?” she requested, to which Gardner replied that he did.
Massullo moreover questioned Gardner in regards to the responsibility of the attorneys to ask follow-up inquiries to potential jurors in regards to the options to the questions that “are crafted by attorneys.”
“Would not it not be very important for the attorneys to clarify?” she requested, saying Peterson’s trial authorized skilled Mark Geragos under no circumstances did.
Good has talked about she didn’t know the restraining order she obtained in opposition to her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend was a form of lawsuit and didn’t ponder a lawsuit she later filed in opposition to the ex-girlfriend for misplaced wages on account of she lastly dropped it.
Inside the 2001 incident alongside along with her boyfriend, Good examined she was the aggressor and he or she hit him, not the other method spherical. He known as police and he or she refused to cooperate with officers as soon as they confirmed up.
Good has talked about what she expert alongside along with her boyfriend and his ex-girlfriend was nothing akin to being murdered.
Juror thought-about points ‘minor indignities’
In a declaration filed with the courtroom, Good described the state of affairs with the ex-girlfriend as “minor indignities,” saying she had been in a lot of fights sooner than and under no circumstances known as police.
Nonetheless Peterson’s attorneys degree out that she did identify the police in 2000 when the ex-girlfriend sprayed her boyfriend with mace, slashed his tires, broke down the doorway door after which stalked Good.
“By Ms. Good’s private definition, then, these had been one thing nonetheless minor indignities for which she ‘didn’t need the police,’” the short-term reads.
Harris talked about that no proof of bias or intentional omission of information was launched on the evidentiary listening to. He talked about Good was a good witness who denied every accusation and was believable and trustworthy.
“Her explanations had been constant along with her character and completely inexpensive. She was unshakable in her notion that she had completed nothing incorrect … the earlier had merely under no circumstances crossed her ideas,” Harris talked about in a courtroom doc. “It was Petitioner’s obligation to indicate his claims and by no means merely work together inside the character assassination of Ms. Good.”
Peterson’s attorneys say prosecutors’ assertion that she is a good witness, “is made not by relying on the report, nonetheless by ignoring it nearly solely.”
In her petition for a restraining order in opposition to the ex-girlfriend, Good wrote that she feared for the lifetime of her unborn youngster nonetheless all through her testimony in March she talked about that was not true, considerably she was “being spiteful.”
Good each lied beneath oath inside the 2000 petition or in the middle of the evidentiary listening to in March, Peterson’s attorneys talked about.
Gardner talked about all through Thursday’s listening to that “stark inconsistency” between Good’s testimony in March and completely different statements she made in courtroom paperwork or on the time of the incident “that is instantly associated to her credibility.”
“Good’s testimony not solely significantly departed from the documentary proof, nonetheless these departures appear to have been surgically directed to areas on which Mr. Peterson relied in making his juror misconduct declare,” he talked about in a courtroom doc.
Select Massullo questioned Gardner about completely different inconsistent statements Good gave on her questionnaire, like about her education. Gardner agreed with Massullo that there have been inconsistencies that Geragos was acutely aware of nonetheless didn’t question on the time of jury alternative and chosen Good to stay.
Massullo delved further into the jury questionnaire and requested Gardner about actually considered one of Good’s options that hadn’t however been talked about in courtroom.
Lawyer Geragos didn’t adjust to up
To a question about whether or not or not she would possibly put apart any preexisting attitudes and base the case on the proof launched, Good checked ‘no,’ however Geragos didn’t question her about this, Massullo talked about.
“Your complete motive for these questions is for the attorneys to try these options rigorously and adjust to up,” Massullo talked about.
Gardner agreed, calling it “astonishing” nonetheless pivoted saying, “It seems fully per the idea she had some predetermined biased inside the case.” He talked about he believes that if a trial lawyer had been to not deal with a question like that he might want to have assumed it was a mistake.
Every attorneys accomplished their arguments by quoting Shakespeare.
Harris talked about, “Don’t cast away an honest man for a villain’s accusation.”
“I think about she holds the oath cheaply,” Gardner talked about, referring to Good.
Both facet have until Sept. 16 to submit submit listening to briefs, after which Massullo could have 90 days to problem her alternative.
Erin Tracy covers felony justice and breaking info. She began engaged on the Modesto Bee in 2010 and beforehand labored at papers in Woodland and Eureka. She is a graduate of Humboldt State Faculty.