tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post7091710863310225626..comments2023-08-24T10:28:18.911-05:00Comments on Justice for Scott Peterson: No Evidence of a Clean-upMarlene Newellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08776470021880189163noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-64739063896170107002011-01-17T12:53:43.242-06:002011-01-17T12:53:43.242-06:00"ineffective assistance of counsel is a valid..."ineffective assistance of counsel is a valid issue in an appeal"<br /><br />any killer who loses in court can say "my lawyer did not get em off, therefore, he was inneffective."Bruce Dombrowskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18122581506381770566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-75632370182616048382009-03-28T14:00:00.000-05:002009-03-28T14:00:00.000-05:00This comment fell through the cracks -- i.e., I di...This comment fell through the cracks -- i.e., I didn't receive email notification of it. My spam filter may have gotten hold of it.<BR/><BR/>Yes, regrettably, it takes a very long time for the appeals process to get moving, much less to get to the point of briefs filed and hearings held.<BR/><BR/>Regarding polygraphs, he did consent to take one, then Brocchini showed he couldn't be trusted. He again consented to take one, in Fresno, but Brocchini reared his ugly head again and convinced Scott he had been setup. So, you can blame Brocchini for both instances.<BR/><BR/>The American Public fell prey to the myth that it's a simple thing to correct a wrongful conviction. It is not. Not only is it very time consuming, especially for capital cases, but is very costly.<BR/><BR/>Why do you need an appellate court to tell you the evidence presented on SII is valid? Make your own judgment. Discounting valid evidence because an appeals court hasn't ruled on it is foolish, to say the least. Think for yourself.<BR/><BR/>Regarding evidence Geragos didn't present. Not all of the evidence on SII was discovered before the trial concluded. Also, when significant new evidence was made known (Mr. R and the Aponte tip), Judge Delucchi refused to give it any weight because it didn't agree with a single piece of evidence -- not the body of evidence, but a single piece of evidence, so blame Delucchi for not calling a mistrial.<BR/><BR/>SII does have a number of issues with the way Geragos handled Scott's defense. Some of it comes from the value of hindsight, but we do believe there are some issues that he should have investigated further before he even let the case go to trial. <BR/><BR/>That's why ineffective assistance of counsel is a valid issue in an appeal, and why a wrongly convicted person should never have the trial attorney(s) file the appeals. <BR/><BR/>As for discussion, this blog is not intended for discussion, just for brief comments. Any dissenting comment that is respectful will get posted.Marlene Newellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776470021880189163noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-25143283688974021312008-11-04T01:09:00.000-06:002008-11-04T01:09:00.000-06:00I have noticed that you only post comments from ot...I have noticed that you only post comments from other bloggers when they agree with your views.<BR/>Dont you subscribe to open discussion and debate from both points of view?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4083330089081355373.post-10922729748315625412008-11-01T23:54:00.000-05:002008-11-01T23:54:00.000-05:00If Scott is really innocent, then please answer th...If Scott is really innocent, then please answer these questions:<BR/>1) Why did Garagos bail out on him and walk away from the case once Scott was convicted?<BR/>2) 5 years later, and still no appeal nor has any false conviction suit been opened. Surely if the evidence points to Scott being innocent, then why has no-one stepped up from the legal profession and done something to prove Scott's innocence? And if someone has, then when will this happen as 5 years is far too long to have to do this.<BR/>3)I have also read all the blogs, books etc detailing numerous facts which apparently, "the jury never got to hear" - if indeed there were these facts which could prove Scott innocent, then how could a top lawyer such as Garagos not demand that these facts be presented and heard by the jury at the time? Seems incredible that a lawyer fighting for the life of his client, would just sit back and do nothing. Even the Judge would have the right to insist new evidence be made known, if he felt it credible. I just do not understand this one bit!<BR/>4) Why did SCott not take a polygraph, both then or even now??? The excuse that polygraphs are not always accurate is a load of bull. If I was accused of murder, I would take my chance and do a polygraph if I knew I was innocent;Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com