Tuesday, January 31, 2012

Extension of time granted, again

Scott's direct appeal attorney filed the 7th request for extension of time on January 26, and it was granted yesterday.  

PEOPLE v. PETERSON (SCOTT)
Case: S132449, Supreme Court of California

Date (YYYY-MM-DD):                      2012-01-30
Event Description:                           Extension of time granted
Notes: 
On application of appellant and good cause appearing, it is ordered that the time to serve and file appellant's opening brief is extended to and including April 2, 2012. 

4 comments:

tees said...

I don't understand this! The 7th request for an extension? Why is it taking so long and what is the problem? I seriously don't understand the reason why they need more time!

tees said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marlene Newell said...

Tees, the current delay is that the trial record, which consists of all the transcripts, exhibits, motions and other court documents from the preliminary, pre-trials, and trial has not yet been perfected. Both sides have to be sure that every jot and tittle that needs to be included is included, and is accurate. Why this has taken so long, when everyone and his dog knew it would be necessary the moment the jury came in with the death penalty is beyond me, but it has taken this long and we still don't know how much longer it is going to take. By perfecting the record, I also include the time it takes for the CA Supreme Court to review the 'perfected record' and be satisified for itself that it is complete, and that sometimes in and of itself takes weeks to months, depending how long the record is, and this one is mighty long. Then, the clock will start counting a certain number of days before the Defense will have to file its first brief. I don't know what that time period is, but I'll check and post it with the article.

So, these extensions of time are simply because the record has not yet been perfected. I don't understand why it's necessary for the Defense to even file these requests for extension, as State law does not require them to file the first brief until after the record is perfected. Perhaps they could if they wanted to, but that would be a really stupid thing to do.

Burkey said...

It may be the defense attys are making the formal requests so that they'll be reflected in the record, and as such communicated to inquiring minds like our own.

There's so much wrong with this case that it seems more prudent to double-dot the i's and cross the T's with an eagle eye....all of which does take an enormous amount of time. After all, it's five point five long months of courtroom
clu$T3rFv(k.....a lot to cover.