Peterson Trial deja vu OJ

[QRQ 30]

I know people get hostile when OJ is mentioned however, my opinion is the same as it was 10 years ago. The juries got it right: OJ more than likely did it (civil trial) and the prosecution failed to meet their burden of proof (criminal trial). IMO the prosecution was so interested in their TV images and future contracts that they just plain blew what could have been a slam dunk case.

It now seems that in their ardor to get a conviction the prosecutors in the Peterson case are blowing it. The defense is not looking for a mis-trial that would give the prosecution a chance to start over on a better foot. I have heard some commentators say that that may be what the prosecution wants, which is the basis for the defense to move to drop the case with prejudice -- no second chance.

It seems to me that in high profile cases the attorneys attack procedures rather than evidence. What say you attorneys, real and shithouse?:munchin

[Smokin Joe]

In the Peterson case: It was pre-maturely charged, because of media coverage and political pressure.

Their entire case is circumstantial evidence. They have No cause of death, no murder weapon, no witness, and little hard evidence against him.

Dude is going to walk and should based on the piss-poor job the Detectives and District Attorney's office has done in this case.

In the O.J. case:The LAPD and the D.A.'s office blew it. As soon as they knew it was going to be a high profile case they should have double and triple checked EVERYTHING before proceeding with charges against O.J.

Just my .02 cents

[The Reaper]

I suspect that it is a lot easier for a DA's office (with salaried government employees) to prosecute a guy who has the Public Defender for an attorney than a suspect with the resources to hire the Dream Team or Michael Jackson's defense attorney.

It is almost to the point that the pre-trial prep and prosecution need to be resourced at a level commensurate with the seriousness of the crime and the client's ability to defend himself.

Otherwise, money buys innocence (or at least, freedom).

In my line of work, I would not normally send the third string players after my high value targets.

Just my .02.

TR

[Roguish Lawyer]

Originally posted by QRQ 30
It seems to me that in high profile cases the attorneys attack procedures rather than evidence. What say you attorneys, real and shithouse?:munchin

In high profile cases, defense attorneys select targets based on their personal views of what is best for the client. Different lawyers have different approaches, including varying the approach based on the circumstances of the particular case.

The range of approaches generally is from scorched earth (attack every target with everything you've got regardless of its value, just to wear down the other side) to focusing entirely on your best defense, whatever it may be. The idea with the latter strategy and those similar to it is that you don't want to lose credibility and waste resources fighting losing battles and making stupid arguments. If you can win the case by making a motion to exclude a key piece of evidence, for example, you can blow everything else off IF you are certain you will win. The problem is that you can never be sure. I always tell my clients that there never is a better than 80% chance of winning something because you have to assume a 20% chance of a judge making the wrong call on a seemingly obvious issue.

Also keep in mind that different lawyers have different skills. Some are really good at getting good settlements, others are good at pretrial battles, other are good in trial, and of course you have combinations. Good lawyers play to their own strengths.

The only thing that upsets me about the OJ case is that no one seems to be looking for the real killer. LOL :p

[QRQ 30]

Based upon what I saw on the news last night in reference to the prosecution saying an anchor was poured in a particular "jug"; I can hear it now"

"If it don't fit you gotta aquit."

On another point, I think I would advise Martha to go ahead and begin serving her sentence while continuing the appeals. She can be out before the appeal process is completed. If she loses she is done. If she wins, her record should be cleared. Her "house arrest" is at her estate which I understand is hundreds of acres.