Ichiblog

Having only conducted one trial myself, and having watched a handful more, my experience in trial matters is certainly limited, but my impression of the Scott Peterson verdict after reading this is that it was fairly decided, despite what TalkLeft might say. The jurors seemed to have taken their roles very seriously, especially those who did not make it until the end. "Greg Jackson, the original foreperson on the jury, asked to be let off the panel because he thought public sentiment may have influenced his decisions." The juror that was dismissed from the deadlocked jury also seemed distrought: "dismissed juror, Fran Gorman, actually broke down in the jury room . . . because she was angry at herself for breaking the rules against individual research on the case."

Again, in my limited experience, juries are quite thoughtful generally, although some individual jurors may not be the brightest bulbs. There is no reason to expect this jury did not carry out their duty (and will not continue to do so in the penalty phase) with the utmost care and mindfullness that a man's life hangs in the balance. Certainly it is difficult to reconcile the guity verdict with the months of second-guessing and media skepicism. After all, didn't we hear on a daily basis how huge holes were blown in the prosecution's case? So how could they possibly have found him guilty?

Only the people that watched the trial from beginning to end and were able to weigh the evidence in their own minds can properly give an answer on guilt. From the piecemeal accounts, I haven't heard anything yet that would lead me to doubt this verdict is sound. I recommend that we all have faith in the system, and hope now for a just punishment. To me, I don't see how this jury could give him anything but death, but we'll see. Juries are surprising creatures.