Should juror #5 in the Scott Peterson case be dismissed?

[N.Bailey]

For those not familiar with the story, this was copied from one site. I'm sure there are tons of sites however, if anyone wants/needs more information.

http://abclocal.go.com/kgo/news/peterson/061804ap_nw_ peterson_trial.html

<B>Juror No. 5, an airport screener, said to Brent Rocha on Thursday, "could lose today." It was unclear what he meant or whether Rocha responded beyond flashing a brief smile.

The same juror has been seen almost daily giving a nod and a slight smile to the defense table as he passes by on the way to the jury box.

He was seen earlier this week tapping a podium as he passed by defense lawyer Mark Geragos, who simply smiled and looked away.

It was not immediately clear whether the court would find the actions inappropriate or whether either the defense or prosecution would challenge them.

The footage was aired on national television and several networks brought in legal experts to speculate on its potential impact on the case.

Several said such interaction is not unusual.

"Assuming it was just social conversation, it's being blown way out of proportion," David Graeven of Trial Behavior Consulting told The Associated Press.

Judge Alfred A. Delucchi has instructed jurors daily not talk about the case with anyone outside of the jury room. But his admonition does not necessarily cover conversations about other topics.

Graeven said the judge will likely question the juror about what was said and determine whether to replace him with one of the six alternates.
</b>

I feel this juror should be replaced with one of the 6 alternates Monday morning. I feel this is way out of line. What's your opinion?

 

[yourtravelpro]

ITA! Something just doesn't seem right about it. Definitely should be replaced.

 

[Stepharoonie!]

 

[IandGsmom]

Yes that juror should be replaced now. The family should have known better also. I would think they really want to get to the bottom of this. What a sad, sad case this is.
I just am so facinated though. I live about 30-45 away so that case is in the news every day for the littlest things

 

[faithinkarma]

It was not immediately clear whether the court would find the actions inappropriate or whether either the defense or prosecution would challenge them.

I think I will leave it to the judge. Either you believe in the court system or you don't, and I do, so I have to let it run its course, and not make judgements based on what a journalist writes. The judge's goal is justice, the journalist's goal is very different.

 

[jennyanydots]

Even if he's not doing anything wrong, he's giving an appearance of it. He should go.

 

[faithinkarma]

But suppose, just suppose, he did absolutely nothing wrong ( not saying he didn't, just supposing here ) should he be dismissed because of the way a journalist perceived his actions? Doesn't that give the journalist way too much power over the system?

 

[tonyswife]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I think I will leave it to the judge. Either you believe in the court system or you don't, and I do, so I have to let it run its course, and not make judgements based on what a journalist writes. The judge's goal is justice, the journalist's goal is very different.

Obviously it will be left to the judge. We are free to make "judgements" based on the information we have, none of us are in any way involved in the case, what possible difference does it make? I'm quite sure the judge will not take the journalist's agenda into consideration but instead look at the video and judge accordingly.

From what I've seen, the juror should go. He appears to be looking to intereact with the "players" But, maybe I shouldn;t make that "judgement"?

 

[preshi]

He should be removed. The defense will do anything to try to get this whole thing tossed out of court on a technicality. Everyone needs to be super careful so they dont get that chance!

 

[jennyanydots]

Exactly. Don't give anyone an excsue here, do everything by the book. With such media scrutiny the judge should be protecting all the parties by making sure nothing even gives the appearance of impropriety here.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by IandGsmom
Yes that juror should be replaced now. The family should have known better also. I would think they really want to get to the bottom of this. What a sad, sad case this is.
I just am so facinated though. I live about 30-45 away so that case is in the news every day for the littlest things

I too am very fascinated with this case. What do you mean when you say, the family should have known better?

 

[faithinkarma]

Originally posted by jennyanydots
Exactly. Don't give anyone an excsue here, do everything by the book. With such media scrutiny the judge should be protecting all the parties by making sure nothing even gives the appearance of impropriety here.

I don't disagree at all...I just personally feel that, not being in the courtroom myself, and not having any legal expertise, I was not prepared to make a call on this one......but that I did trust the judge to do the right thing.

 

[IandGsmom]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I too am very fascinated with this case. What do you mean when you say, the family should have known better?

If they want the fairest trail to make sure there is no cause for appeal, etc, then any family member should not have tried to speak with on any level to any juror. How could any family member think that was ok? How could the juror? This is such a high profile case that any anthill will be made a mountain. Just my 2 cents. I am not a lawyer or in the legal profession at all. It just doesn't look good.

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by IandGsmom
If they want the fairest trail to make sure there is no cause for appeal, etc, then any family member should not have tried to speak with on any level to any juror. How could any family member think that was ok? How could the juror? This is such a high profile case that any anthill will be made a mountain. Just my 2 cents. I am not a lawyer or in the legal profession at all. It just doesn't look good.

I didn't take anything that I have heard to mean that Brent Rocha tried to communicate with this juror. I thought they both just happened to be in the same area, this juror said what he did, Brent perhaps smiled (maybe?) and that was the end of it. Did I miss something?

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by faithinkarma
I don't disagree at all...I just personally feel that, not being in the courtroom myself, and not having any legal expertise, I was not prepared to make a call on this one......but that I did trust the judge to do the right thing.

We're not in Iraq either, but we all state our opinions about the war.

 

[IandGsmom]

Originally posted by N.Bailey
I didn't take anything that I have heard to mean that Brent Rocha tried to communicate with this juror. I thought they both just happened to be in the same area, this juror said what he did, Brent perhaps smiled (maybe?) and that was the end of it. Did I miss something?

I don't know if they were in the same area or not. I thought the report I heard was that it went beyond a smile. The report from the link above says
"A court official has asked for a copy of video footage showing a juror in Scott Peterson's trial speaking to Laci Peterson's brother as they passed through a courthouse metal detector."

 

[N.Bailey]

Originally posted by IandGsmom
I don't know if they were in the same area or not. I thought the report I heard was that it went beyond a smile. The report from the link above says
"A court official has asked for a copy of video footage showing a juror in Scott Peterson's trial speaking to Laci Peterson's brother as they passed through a courthouse metal detector."

I saw the video, but I didn't see anything that would suggest that Laci's brother tried to communicate with this juror. It's certainly interesting though, and I'll pay that particular attention when I hear more. I do not think this family wants any grounds for a mistrial either.