— I could not care less about Scott Peterson. I think it was decided at a Court TV company meeting: “We need a huge case … our ratings are sinking …” and that one came along, and boom. Now we have to hear about it every single day. I don’t care about it. I am sorry for Laci, I’m sorry for the unborn child, I’m sorry for her parents, but I don’t care about the trial.
— If and when I DO think about the trial, I am sure that Scott Peterson killed her. Er … I don’t know, when a guy dyes his hair and tries to flee to Mexico carrying $10,000 in cash in his pocket … it’s a bit of a clue that he might not be on the level.
— HOWEVER – here is the sickness:
I mean it when I say I do not care about that man. I do not care about the juror dismissed because of such and such and so and so. I do not care about the talking-legal-heads on the television, yammering on and on and on, so PSYCHED that this poor woman was murdered, because it means their jobs are secure. I do not care about Amber Frey. I do not care, Sam I am.
— But: the media bombardment has been so out of control, so IN MY F***ING FACE (for example: I did not receive a “CNN Breaking News” email about the death of Arafat, but I DID receive a CNN Breaking News email about the juror being dismissed from the Peterson case – I think I need to discontinue that service, what do you think??) Anyway – I have been unable (despite all of my efforts) to tune out Scott Peterson’s sorry life. It doesn’t matter that I have apathy towards him, it doesn’t matter that I have interest in SO MANY OTHER THINGS HAPPENING RIGHT NOW … Against my will, I have been informed about Scott Peterson.
— And so when I just saw the news that the jury had reached a verdict, and it would be announced at 4 pm today, I felt an involuntary jolt of excitement and anticipation.
— This is a sickness.
— I did not ask to be involved in Scott Peterson’s life. I have RESISTED the pull of the case. I do not follow it. And yet – all along – information has still somehow filtered through. This is what is extraordinary to me. Even more extraordinary because I don’t have a television. And STILL – I am aware of the bare bones of what is going on in that case.
— I resent it.
— And yet still. I am excited to hear the verdict at 4 p.m.
— I wish I wasn’t excited. By being excited, I feel like the media has won.
— Only 40 more minutes …
Well, if this jury reached a verdict in less than a day, I’m not sure it’s too good for the prosecution.
See, the fact that I even know how short a time they deliberated for is amazing to me – because I have been deliberately trying to not pay attention because I find the whole thing tedious.
And yet … wow. Stuff gets through.
We shall see, we shall see. That guy seems guilty as sin to me. Just a gut feeling.
…not that I really care, unless he doesn’t fry.
I don’t care either.
I swear. I don’t.
I only care insomuch as I hate seeing a guilty man go free. But I do hate the media for pimping an insignificant case to the extent that they have.
What with the war, Islamic terror, disease, famine and creationism running rampant.
People are murdered every day, and there are trials every day. And yet – only one or two make it up into the national consciousness.
Anyone who knows anything about this, or has any theories, please answer:
What is the process, you think, that helped make THIS case as opposed to any other murder case national news?
Is it like the “shark attack” bombardment in the summer of 2001? Or …
Is it really that Court TV sits down every quarter and says: “Okay, we have to have at least TWO cases this year that take up the majority of our air time …”
Media analysts? Zeitgeist-experts? Any ideas?
Dude, you’re only saying this because you obviously missed the compelling TV movie of the week starring Dean Cain. I’m literally on the edge of my seat waiting for the verdict, because I’m pretty sure the outcome will have a profound effect on the rest of my life.
There’s no turning back now.
As to why this case and not others, I have very little idea. But when it’s not a celebrity case, I think the more high-profile cases often involve someon being missing before they’re know to be dead, and the media attention that results from trying to find a missing person. But obviously that doesn’t explain it all.
The jury reaching a verdict means it’s over…maybe. But it’s only really over if they acquit. If they convict on murder one, there’s the penalty phase to come; whether it’s murder one or murder two, there are years of appeals to look forward to (and plenty of grounds for reversal and thus possibly even for another trial). Ugh…fucking lawyers. ;-)
1. Attractive white victim
2. Seemingly creepy husband
3. Protracted disappearance
The media loves missing people stories, especially when the missing person is cute and white. It offers the possibility for a happy ending complete with a tearful reunion and subsequent interviews on their news magazine shows. The fact that she was pregnant made it even more tempting.
If he’d just gone nuts and butchered her in the house and was caught the next day, no one would have cared.
It also probably has something to do with the photogenic (and pregnant) nature of the murdered woman.
Like – she’s not some toothless meth-whore living in a shack.
There was a TV movie with *the* Dean Cain? How did I miss it? I wonder if Netflix has it.
Bill – you and I are clearly psychic.
Emily –
I did not see the TV movie of the week.
I adore Dean Cain.
I am beginning to feel the pull of history. What will the verdict be, dear Lord, what will the verdict be????
Ooo! Ooo! Something I know about!
If I haven’t mentioned it before, I work for a judge, and I can tell you one thing, as sick as you (and the rest of America, including moi) are of this case, that courthouse is 1,000 times sicker. I read a blog on CourtTV’s website and they were making comments about the judge’s clerk’s WARDROBE and her DEMEANOR. The judge’s CLERK rated a mention to these people.
That’s ME, dang it, and if my boss ever had a case like this I would totally freak. “I saw Lisa had on green cordouroy pants on today. What do you think that means? And she looked a little bitchy. Do you think that’s PMS? Does that mean the judge will be in a bad mood too?”
Is this what our country has come to? I think it’s horrible what happened, and if he’s guilty I think he should be put away, but really, why do we care? Because Laci was cute and white and pregnant? Minority women are murdered all the time, why aren’t we seeing 24/7 coverage of the search for them.
These media vultures have made our justice system a joke. It’s hard enough to get people to serve on jury duty; if they think they might be chosen for a case that draws publicity they either a) run like hell because who wants every gesture dissected for its relevance or their private lives delved into, or 2) try like hell to STAY on the jury because maybe somebody like that odious woman Nancy Grace might want to interview them, or maybe they could write a book.
Ack. I hate this. But wait. . .it’s 2:59 CST. Gotta go turn on the radio! ;)
This could be a turning point in history, we will think of our lives in Pre-Verdict and Post-Verdict terms.
I’m surprised no one has called it “The Trial of the Century”.
The trial of Bruno Hauptmann’s got NOTHIN’ on this one, baby!!
Sacco and Vanzetti? Pshaw. That trial can’t hold a candle to THIS ONE!!
Rosenbergs? Who cares. Ethel wasn’t cute.
Lisa –
Thank you VERY much for your inside perspective.
And I like best your last couple sentences:
“Hate this. Okay, have to go tune in now!!”
We all have been infected with the sickness.
WHERE THE HELL IS THE VERDICT?? I NEED TO KNOW.
Dude, it’s 4:06. They promised me an answer at 4 PM. To quote Eric Cartman, I am seriously getting pissed off.
It is truly a sickness. Just the other day my court reporter said, “I hate all these drug cases. Why can’t we get a good murder or something?” And I said, “Really. This crap is boring.”
Yeah, we’re evil people.
(It’s 3:09! What is the DEAL?)
Let’s just hope there’s not rioting, like after the Rodney King verdict.
Daaaaang, they found him guilty.
Now we have the whole penalty phase, which means more testimony and YET ANOTHER deliberation.
There is no relief. . .
GUILTY!!
Siobhan – where the heck did you come from?? You can comment? That is so funny that you just appeared and screamed GUILTY onto my blog. She’s back!
First degree for Laci, second degree for the poor unborn child.
i am temping today! hence following along! i should do that more often, just shout “GUILTY!” and see what happens. Scott got BUSTED, man.
I love you, Siobhan.
Ha!
Now suddenly I’m all invested in Scott Peterson and how much I despise him. The media saturation has worked its magic.
The split verdict makes no sense to me. Under the common-law doctrine of transferred intent, if someone else besides the intended victim dies during your commission of a murder, the same degree of intent should carry over. Perhaps California has modified this; otherwise, there’s no explanation besides the jury disregarding the law.
sheila, i have been able to avoid this case pretty well. better than i could avoid bennifer anyway.
thank god he’s guilty. for me oj wasn’t about race, it was about a man not being called on viciously abusing, controlling and murdering a woman. no one seemed to give a flying fuck in the dark about that aspect of the case.
i’m glad they did this time.
personally the media spectacle that gnawed its way into my brain and ate me up inside was susan smith. that one drove me NUTS. i thought she should’ve gotten the death penalty.
i think scott should definitely get the death penalty. if he doesn’t, i don’t know who should.
how do you pronounce siobhan?
I am actually giddy with evil delight that the vile…I mean evil (strange, same letters..)coward of a man will burn, I SAY BURN!
I didn’t give that case much of a thought, except when it was being crammed down my throat…until they found the bodies…then it became more real…too real to ignore…
i don’t get how the baby could be second-degree. he didn’t know laci was pregnant? he didn’t know killing her would kill the kid? how could he not have had the same degree of intent?
Beth:
Susan Smith and her lovely spectacle was just a few miles down the road from me here in SC. Some people had sympathy for her…WHAT?! Are you kidding!? To watch your kids drown, die…too horrible to bear…on that note…must go hug mine!
I don’t really get the split verdict either.
2nd degree means … “Ooops, while I was killing THIS person on purpose I accidentally killed THIS person over here”???
Dave J: Please explain.
The whole Susan Smith thing just makes my blood run cold. Her … calculating-ness, her crocodile tears …
Horrible.
Court case? Oh, did I miss something? Honestly, I’m really sick of the media this side of the atlantic!
From what I just read on CourtTV, he was charged only with 2nd degree murder in the case of the baby, and 1st degree with Laci. I couldn’t find an explanation for why.
CA law is wonky. Our law here in AR allows a judge to give what they call a “dynamite instruction” in a case where the jury is deadlocked. It basically says the evidence ain’t gonna get no better and another jury ain’t gonna be smarter, so get back on it there and decide. (I translated it into Arkansan.)
But on Dan Abrams the other day, some lawyer chick from Cali said that that instruction is not only frowned upon in CA, it is ILLEGAL to give it.
Just goes to show you how different each state is.
peteb:
You are so lucky. I don’t even WANT to be interested in this case … and yet … I have to. Because I get CNN Breaking News emails every time a juror scratches their ass.
what drove me nuts about SS was that she killed the kids not because she was destitute or desperate or didn’t have anywhere to turn with them (not that that would have made it any less despicable) but because SHE DIDN’T WANT HER BOYFRIEND TO DUMP HER.
the other thing that absolutely makes me want to lie down on the ground and scream about her is that THE KIDS’ FATHER WAS STILL IN THEIR LIVES. she could just have easily have given up custody if she didn’t want them anymore.
although, if i’d been given a choice, i’d happily be raising those kids myself right now if that would’ve stopped her.
i tell you, that case REALLY got to me.
I remember, Beth, seeing a woman in the town who was interviewed following the revelation of what Susan Smith did …I’ll never forget this woman. She was a big fat black woman, and she was crying, with a crumpled bunch of Kleenex in her hand, and she kept saying, “I would have taken those kids … I have 3 of my own … but I would have taken those kids!”
It was horrible.
It’s that feeling of being manipulated into “caring” about something that I find so abhorrent, like in a movie when suddenly you’re sobbing and it’s not from being truly moved by a performance or the writing but because you’re a knee-jerk, lizard-brain Pavlov’s dog who “cares” when some base emotional buzzer is buzzed. It’s in that moment when I feel caught, one of a thundering herd of buffalo, all traveling in the same direction, no choice in the matter, no way to escape the herd and its destiny. “Good night, you kings of New England, you Princes of Vermont.” Boo-hoo-hoo, and I am just an animal having a sentimental reaction to a buzzer buzzed. Sheila, you might want to put together one of your great lists — manipulative movie moments. Maybe if we’re all lucky, it’ll include Dean Cain getting the lethal injection, eh? Peterson II: Countdown to the Aftermath.
In regards to Dean Cain:
To say something completely trivial and inappropriate:
I never really got over the canceling of Lois and Clark. I never really recovered from it. It left a hole that has never been filled.
I am dead serious.
I quickly searched the California Penal Code and the case law, and I found no possible legal basis for the split verdict.
2nd degree murder is not unintentional. Murder two is typically the statutory adoption of the common-law crime of murder (unlawful malicious killing of another human being): it’s murder one that is a pure statutory creation, i.e., “common-law murder” PLUS one or more of some statutory list of factors (the one being charged here being premeditation). This is a generalization and states vary, but murder two requires “malice,” which may be either intent or “wanton disregard/indifference,” i.e., engaging in an act where death was a highly forseeable consequence.
Transferred intent is a common-law doctrine meant to prevent defendants, both criminal and civil, from getting a windfall by harming the “wrong” people. As a straightforward example, if I plan to shoot and kill you, and then the bullet goes through your head and kills a bystander, whether you live or die, I’m guilty of murder one on the bystander: the degree of culpability is “transferred” to the other crime. If you die, it’s murder one for both; if you live, it’s murder one for the bystander and attempted murder for you.
Since the jury found Peterson guilty of murder one for Laci, it should have found him guilty of murder one for the child, since the deaths both resulted from the same act. Whether he was born or unborn is irrelevant under the California homicide statute; indeed, a defendant need not even know a woman is pregnant in order for transferred intent to make such a defendant guilty to the same degree for the murder of her unborn child.
DaveJ:
Forgive the ignorance. What do you mean by “common-law doctrine”. It seems important.
The media here has it’s own little pet subjects too, Sheila. But from this distance, and I may very well be wrong on this, it seems that part of the attraction for the media coverage is the obvious guilt of the accused.. it’s as if they wanted to generate as much interest as possible in a case where they could, just about, guarantee a guilty verdict.. almost as if they wanted to validate the justice system itself..
This guy just seemed so guilty from the get-go. Fleeing to the border with a bunch of cash and a disguise, no less … I mean, it was like: the Amateur Murder Hour.
DaveJ:
I am trying, believe me I am trying, but I do not understand the paragraph that starts “2nd degree murder is not unintentional”. I understand all the rest of it, but not that one.
Excellent post, dave J, but it was the prosecutor (via the grand jury) who decided to charge murder 2 for the unborn child. Those sort of charging decisions are often quite lacking in logic, except for the logic of “winnable” and “from-the-jury’s-perspective” as considered by prosecutors. The jury should probably find Peterson not guilty of murder 2 for the child (in the sense that he’s guilty of murder 1), but that’s not an option unless presented in that manner to the jury.
What I mean by common-law doctrine is that it was developed by the courts in England, rather than being created by statute. The actual definitions of crimes themselves are purely statutory in every state whose law I’m familiar with, but older general principles of law still endure side-by-side with them, guiding their application. Transferred intent, for example, is just as a valid with respect to tort law as criminal law, although less meaningful when you’re talking about unintentional torts (negligence and strict liability).
Does that help? Please let me know if I’m not making sense.
Bill Mcabe made a comment about “creationism running rampant”…you are soooo right!!! Scares the Hell out of me..its the last stronghold of the seperation between church and state…im so sick and tired of being polite and validating people’s religious beliefs…when those same people are ferociously moving to mock mine and take away my rights..im sorry…im going to say it..sorry Sheila if it causes a melee of religious backlash..Creationism???? DUMB!!!!!!! I know this is a rant..but its Bill’s fault he prompted it!!! Aaargh..ok…im calm now…i also tried to ignore this trial..same with the JonBenet circus…it a losing battle!
Here’s another stupid-ass question.
Please define the difference between first and second degree murder.
Sheila, putting aside the transferred intent doctrine for a moment, you could say that Peterson “really really” wanted to kill his wife. That’s murder 2. That he premeditated it makes it murder 1. The prosecutor probably thought that he could persuade the jury that Peterson “really really” wanted to kill the baby (murder 2), but that his premeditation was all about Laci, not the baby.
Oh God, Jon Benet. I just felt a shiver of exhaustion at the mere mention of the name.
Bill is a tireless mocker of creationists, MJF. You are in safe hands here.
Okay, sorry, I’m trying to get clear.
If I go in to rob a convenience store – my only intent is to rob the store, get some money, etc. If in the process, I kill the store-owner … is that murder 2?
I know this is remedial.
I could tell you the entire history of the regionial theatre movement in the US but this? No idea.
Stevie, that would explain it, then: the DA never charged Peterson with murder one for the unborn child? I wasn’t awre of that (thank God I haven’t followed this too closely). Well, then I think you could still argue murder two independently, without having to rely on transferred intent. The logic would be: the premeditation required for murder one applied only to Laci, and the actual act demonstrated “malicious indifference” (murder two) toward the child.
There are 5 conversations going on right now – Hope you all can keep up.
MJF: Speaking of Jon Benet – did you see that HORRIFIC documentary on HBO about little beauty queens like her, and that whole culture? I think it’s called LIttle Dolls, or Perfect Dolls?
It made my blood run COLD.
Dave J:
“Malicious indifference” is the understatement of the decade!
Yes, Dave J, you got it.
But – the baby was inside Laci. The baby was part of Laci. If you kill Laci, you kill the baby. Plain and simple.
“If I go in to rob a convenience store – my only intent is to rob the store, get some money, etc. If in the process, I kill the store-owner … is that murder 2?”
Actually, that’s probably murder one. Not because of transferred intent, but because of the felony-murder rule, another common-law doctrine adopted by statute. If you kill someone, even unintentionally, in the process of committing another felony, that’s murder. In every state whose law I’m familiar with, and I think under the Model Penal Code, robbery along with a list of other felonies get you murder one rather than murder two for felony-murder.
As a non-expert this may not be accurate, Sheila, but I’d say if you brought the gun with you and shot the store-owner it would be murder 1.. maybe if it went off in a struggle that might not apply.. but if you struggled with the store-owner who had the gun and it went off then it would be murder 2?
Sorry, I’m just working out my confusion out loud.
How can you separate the charges – killing Laci or killing the baby? It’s not like killing a bystander …
If you kill Laci, then the baby automatically will die.
Okay, so give me a 2nd degree murder scenario then. I need examples. Visual aids, if possible.
Sheila, you had premeditation to rob the convenience store. Then you committed a murder. You “really really” wanted to kill the guy (murder 2) because he was gonna call the cops and you were going to lose your freedom. The murder becomes murder 1 not because you premeditated it (you didn’t) but because the murder occurred during the commission of a felony (robbing the store). In this case, that’s the thing from the superbad list that turns the murder 2 into murder 1.
Am I over-simplifying when I say that it is premeditation then, that is really the big difference??
I suppose I am over-simplifying. It’s not a black and white question, I guess, and there are too many exceptions.
Doh! I need to watch more NYPD Blue.
Of course my answer may have been correct here… possibly.
Premeditation is just one of the items on the “extras” list that turns murder2 into murder1. As Dave J said, another item on the “extras” list is if you’re in the process of committing a felony when the murder occurs.
PeterB, you’re right, it’s murder1, but not because you premeditated to bring the gun with you, but because you were committing a felony when you killed the clerk.
Peteb:
I think you are correct – about it being Murder 1 if it’s in the process of committing a felony – At least judging from Stevie’s last comment.
There was a trial?
Premeditation is ONE of the big differences. It was the difference charged with respect to Scott Peterson. MAYBE it would help to post part of the California murder statutes. Here’s the provision on the relevant distinction, the first paragraph of California Penal Code § 189:
What if I pick up an ax and hurl it at my husband’s head? I mean to kill him. I hate him. But then he ducks. And the maid’s head get chopped in two. I didn’t even know she was standing there. She was hiding in the doorway.
What is that?
(Besides a really fucked-up story, I mean.)
Sheila, here’s an example of murder 2: I really really want to kill this person, so I think about how to do it, and when I’m clear of any illegal substance, take my legally registered gun over to his house, knock on the door, he answers, I say coolly, “I’m going to kill you,” then I draw the gun and shoot him once in the chest. He drops to the floor, dead at once. I put the gun back in my pocket, then get in my licensed, registered car, on which I have insurance, and drive legally home.
I think it’s kind of ironic that the post about how insignificant this trial is in the scheme of things has earned more comments than any other post in the last few days…
That depends: there aren’t enough facts in your hypo to say. The degree of culpability for the death of the maid would be the same as the degree that would have been charged if you’d succeeded in killing your husband. It might be murder one if you’d been planning to do that, murder two if it was it was intentional but not premeditated, voluntary manslaughter if you can prove you were sufficiently provoked, or nothing if it was in self-defense.
Oh, Stevie. I completely do not understand why that example is not first-degree murder. What am I not understanding?
Thanks Sheila and Stevie
I am clearer now on how US state laws work with multiple felonies.. I’m not sure the same applies in this jurisdiction though.
I just can’t see a murder charge being brought here if you were to walk into a store without a gun, attempt to rob it and, in the course of a struggle with the store-owner, a gun they have goes off killing them.
An unlikely scenario I know, but then the law here still specifies the use of ‘reasonable’ force in the defence of the person.
Emily –
I know. Isn’t it hysterical …
Dave J:
Okay, I get what you’re saying.
My intent was to set up a scenario where someone basically gets murdered unintentionally. The maid wasn’t even supposed to be there, you see …
But I guess that doesn’t matter. Because you shouldn’t go around throwing axes at people ANYway, whether or not it is the maid’s day off.
Er, Stevie, since your hypo involves premeditation, I can’t see how that’s not murder one.
No throwing axes at people!?!
Since when?
*thud*
Pete,
What’s “defence”? Is that anything like “deplane”? ;)
I know I throw axes at people all the time. I’ve really got to stop doing that.
Of course, regardless of transferred intent, even if it was self-defense, if the maid could show that you failed to exercise reasonable care with respect to the prospect that she could have been standing there, the state could argue for criminally negligent homicide, and the maid’s estate could bring suit for her (negligent) wrongful death.
I kind of wish we all were in the same room right now. It kind of felt like it for a moment … like we were at a party – with a bunch of conversations going on.
Stevie and Dave J and Peteb discussing law … me asking questions … and then suddenly I hear Emily laughing about “deplane” across the room.
On that note – I’m off to have a beer. I need to CHILL OUT on this whole Scott Peterson thing. I haven’t given one SHITE about it … and now I am ALL ABOUT IT.
Almost, Emily, I’m always being accused of being on de fence, but I haven’t been on de plane for a while now.
And, always mindful of a possible reasonable defence rule, I only throw axes at those who throw them at me first.
If Peterson were…oh…I don’t know, let’s say, a famous football player, or….um…let’s see…….maybe a movie star or something, he’d be running free right now.
Period.
Thus is the judicial system in the United States of America.
Cheers, Sheila.
Just be thankful I spared you the obvious Tattoo jokes, Sheila!
Didn’t Herve die recently?
Alex – don’t even get me started on OJ! I was so pissed off at that whole thing that I read an entire BOOK on the damn thing called “Outrage” by Vincent Bugliosi (the guy who successfully prosecuted the entire Manson case) – He was so pissed off at what had happened that he wrote down his entire analysis of what went wrong, and how outrageous he was. NOBODY got a free pass. The defense team, the prosecutors …
It’s a really good book. It’s pretty big but he probably wrote it in one weekend. He sounds pissed off on every line.
Okay, I really am leaving now. Bass Ale calls.
Carry on.
Didn’t someone mention a beer?
Alex, in the immortal words of Chris Rock, “if O.J. drove a bus, he wouldn’t even be O.J.: he’d be Orenthal the bus-drivin’ murderer.” Also reminds me of a New Yorker cartoon set in the courtoom: “we the jury find the defendant…famous!” As someone who worked in the DA’s office in LA, that still stings.
Orenthal, the bus-drivin’ murderer —
bwahahahaha
I remember that Chris Rock bit.
Okay.
I’m really leaving now.
I cancelled that CNN breaking news thing years ago…about 6 months after sept. 11th because it was starting to give me a nervous break down. I mean how can there be BREAKING NEWS ten times a day?? I’m freaking out b/c I think it’s a terror alert, and almost always it’s something like: BLOOMBERG TO APPEAR AT LOCAL LIBRARY. Those bastards at CNN are sick.
After all my high-minded legal statements, I feel the need to say: mmmmmmm…beer. Is there anything it can’t do? ;-)
Dave J, you’re so right. And oops – I screwed up my example earlier, thanks for spotting that.
Hope you quaffed well, Sheila. Thanks again for the entertaining experience!