ceebeegee | (no subject)

Are you near a radio?
I'm dying to know what the verdict is.
I think the man's guilty as sin, but that's just me.

Why was there such a holdup before? What was it that gave them doubt?

They had to replace two jurors during deliberations,w hich meant they had to start deliberating all over again, I'm very interested to know why. Since they technically started deliberations from point zero again today (the second juror was tossed on Wednesday, I believe), they reached a guilty verdict very quickly. My guess is that the holdouts were being unreasonable--not sure what the legal standard for that is but I've heard jurors accused of that before, when they can't quantify their argument for a particular verdict.

One juror was tossed for doing research on the case in violation of the jury instructions (since they are only supposed to consider the evidence that was presented at trial and admitted properly). The judge has not released the reason for dismissing the foreman, who had degrees in law and medicine.

Any deliberation that contained a disqualified juror is deemed tainted, and the new juror would not have been present for it. As such, it was necessary to start deliberations over with each new juror that was brought in. It would not have had anything to do with a holdout juror- if a unanimous verdict is necessary and there is a holdout, a mistrial would have been declared and the case would be tried again.

Oh, I know all that. My guess had to do with why the second juror was tossed, not why they reached a verdict so quickly. Although when they reach a new verdict so quickly with the third round of deliberations, it's certainly reasonable to assume most of the the old jurors have pretty much decided on a verdict, regardless of whether they're supposed to start at point zero every time they begin again.

GUILTY!

First degree on both. Now the penalty phase- death penalty or life without parole.

My guess is that he will receive a sentence of life without parole.

AP says second degree on the second count.

Originally, Yahoo! news said first degree on both, and Court TV made a similar announcement. They have since changed their stories to state second degree on the second count.

I wish the judge had allowed TV cameras, but I can understand why not. I would just love to have some gratifying footage of Scott's face when he heard the verdict, to wipe out the footage in my head of OJ's triumphant smirk, and the cries of the Goldman family in the background.

That's true. CNN had the same thing.

Yeah, I doubt they'll kill him.
When was the last California went for the death penalty, anyway?

It's been used 10 times since 1976, but not in the past two years. So far, that's the best I can do.

Given the circumstances, I wouldn't be surprised if they do sentence him to death.

Damn, that is one interesting chart. I liked the Texas/Virginia comparison to all the other states. We Virginians take a certain grim pride in that. Oklahoma's quite a little execution factory as well.

But I thought Maryland had issued a moratorium on the death penalty? Yet there was one listed for this year.

Even more interesting to me is Ohio: 15 since 1976, but 7 of them were this year. Crank up the juice, boys, it's time to get busy!

Break out the flip-flops, it's getting hot!

The ten:

January 29, 2002- Stephen Wayne Anderson
March 27, 2001- Robert Lee Massie
March 15, 2000- Darrell Young Elk Rich
May 4, 1999- Manual Babbit
Febuary 9, 1999- Jaturun Siripongs
July 14, 1998- Thomas Martin Thompson
May 3, 1996- Keith (Danny) Williams
February 23, 1996- Willliam Bonin
August 24, 1993- David Mason
April 21, 1992- Robert Alton Harris

Of those, the names Stephen Wayne Anderson, Robert Lee Massie, David Mason and Robert Alton Harris are all familiar to me.

Why is it that so many murderers seem to be known by all three names?

I've wondered that many times myself. James Earl Ray, John Wayne Gacy, Lee Harvey Oswald, Mark David Chapman--offhand, I can only think of Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer who don't follow this rule.

Perhaps it's done to avoid tarnishing the names of the thousands of Stephen Andersons or Robert Harrises who lead normal, law-abiding lives. Most ordinary people don't often use their middle names.

Yes, middle names are more unique identifiers than just first and last names. I think it also has a lot to do with the name that the prosecution uses to charge the criminal, ie the name on the indictment.

Actually, 1/29/2002, Stephen Wayne Anderson.

All 10 in California since 1976 have happened since 1992.

It ain't Texas, but they're not exactly squeamish about the death penalty there, either.

Oh, but they are squeamish... they don't have another one scheduled yet.

The next convict who is about to run out of appeals is Kevin Cooper, who is expected to be executed sometime in 2005. The state gives 60 to 90 days notice before the execution is to take place.

They probably have a higher standard for applying the death penalty than a lot of states. Still, I think the premeditated murder of his wife and unborn son just days before Christmas in order to clear the way for the woman he'd been screwing on the side is sufficiently evil to sway a California jury to light him up.

The last execution in California occurred on January 29, 2002. The dead man was Stephen Wayne Anderson, who fatally shot an 81-year-old San Bernardino County woman during a burglary and then fixed himself some noodles in her kitchen and sat down to watch TV in her home in 1980.

Hah! Beat you to it.

22 years from crime to execution? You'd think he'd have had the decency to die of natural causes in the interim.

Yes, but my facts are far more accurate than yours. :)

He became an accomplished poet and playwright in those 22 years, and even authored a short story before he was executed. One of his plays was performed Off-Broadway.

Lovely. Doesn't redeem him in the least, and I can still regret that he had enough time to achieve fame.

I know. He became a model citizen BECAUSE he was sentenced to death, not because he had any desire to do so on his own.

Prior to the murder for which he was executed, he had escaped from Utah State Prison on November 24, 1979. He had been incarcerated there for one count of aggravated burglary in 1971 and three counts of aggravated burglary in 1973. During his tenure, he murdered an inmate, assaulted another inmate, and assaulted a correctional officer. Moreover, he admitted to six other contract killings in Las Vegas, Nevada.

And here is a sample of his poetry.

Model citizen, indeed. And oh, what a "poet."

However, his victim's daughters believed the hardened criminal had changed within the controlled confines of prison, finding a poetic voice and remorse for his crimes, and did not want him to die.

Oh, I forgot to mention, he was 26 years old at the time he committed the murder. Unless he had some medical problem, death by natural causes would have been unlikely.

Say What?!!

No wonder they fried his ass!
Uh-uh. You rob this poor little old lady, then kill her, then decide to stick around, eat her food and watch her TV?

Yeah, you need to die.

He was caught at her house when the neighbor alerted the police after he was awakened by barking dogs and saw Anderson through the victim's window. He even confessed to the murder.

When executed, he did not have any final words. His final meal consisted of two (2) grilled cheese sandwiches (American cheese); one (1) pint of cottage cheese (plain, no fruit); hominy/corn mixture (regular hominy, regular corn); one (1) piece of peach pie; one (1) pint of chocolate chip ice cream; and Radishes. I am sure that his victim did not eat as well as he did before she died.

This is interesting--from a Washington Post web chat:

Washington, D.C.: Do you feel that the Petersen family has been vilified in this case? I can't fathom why else his family was booed as they left the courthouse.

If that really happened, that is really uncool. They're not responsible for his actions. It's not like they're out there smearing the victim--they're just supporting him (even if he doesn't deserve it).

And this:

Washington, D.C.: How does the jury foreman get selected/appointed? Did the other jury members request that he be removed?

Jeralyn Merritt: The jury elects its foreman. If a juror violates the judge's instructions, they can call it to the attention of the Judge, which is what happened here.

That may be true in California but not everywhere. We sure didn't elect our foreman when I served.

okay, that's just wrong.
That's wrong.
His family is not responsible for him. He's a grown man.
And they did nothing to counter Laci Peterson's memory or her family. There was no cause for what people did to them.

Unfortunately, they're probably used to it by now.

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

Re: Breaking News

no subject

no subject