Well that does make sense.

If he isn't defending the mother-and-baby-killing scum of the earth pro bono (free), betcha the family just mortgaged themselves to the eyeballs for a set price, and the shyster gets extra publicity. You don't see many high-profile death penalty cases pop up, so ambitious attorneys looking for a little publicity salivate over the case, just so's they can say 'yea, my firm defended Scott Peterson from a date with the gurney at San Quentin'.

Perfect place for Peterson's execution... Placerville, California... otherwise known in its early days as 'Hangtown'!

This makes me mad that he's already getting special treatment.

He should have to wear the same thing any other person has to wear when going to hearings.. why does he get to wear regular clothes? I know that's really trivial, but it still bothers me :(

It actually isn't special treatment... During the arraignment phase and other pre-trial motions, generally the defendant will wear only jail-issue jumpsuits while in the courtroom; during the trial itself the defendant will wear normal street clothes. Remember he is 'innocent until proven guilty' -- by him wearing an orange jumper during the trial could prejudice the jury. Once the trial day is over, the defendant changes back into prison garb outside the courtroom for the trip back to his cell.

Um, there *are* attorneys who take cases pro bono just because it's considered to be a *good thing to do* and of course the publicity is an added benefit.

As an attorney, I'm personally offended by your reference to attorneys as "shysters" for taking cases that generate publicity. Is there something inherently wrong with that? IMHO, there is not.

I am so tired of hearing people refer to attorneys as though we are animals -- words like "salivate" paint us as rabid wolves just waiting to sink our fangs into juicy, unsuspecting people just to get money and/or fame. Please. Most of us are just trying to do our jobs and make a living.

I also find it interesting that in your next post, you take a moment to remind us that Peterson is "innocent until proven guilty." Why then do you feel the need to suggest a place for his execution and call him the mother-and-baby killing scum of the earth? He has not been conviced of anything.

There are so many of you who are quick to judge and execute based on so little information. I hope that if I am ever accused of a crime, none of you are on my jury.

sorry 'bout that valkyrie... my apologies. The facts surrounding this crime so far just gets me riled up.

Scott Peterson might have signed over the rights to his story to the attorney in lieu of payment. I think that is an arrangement that other clients (such as Amy Fisher) in high profile cases have made in the past.

Did anyone read the new People magazine article on this case? I didn't know this, but apparently when the cops caught him, he was 30 miles from the Mexico border (but he *does* live in Cali, so, so what?). The bad part is that he had $10,000 cash and his brother ID on him. Sketchy.

I see.. I thought the news said the judge granted him permission to wear street clothes during the arraignment phase.. :confused:

Thanks! I'm sorry too -- I was in a bad mood when I responded. :)

So what do you all think about it now that the prelim hearing is over. Watched the reports on Fox News...they are all in Modesto following the hearing. Found it wierd to hear that Scott waived his rights to a speedy trial. Found it doubly weird that Geragos is making all these statements to the media about the killer (ie. not scott) Anyways...thinking that I am going to have to start once again paying more attention as this is curious and definately going to watch the interview tonight with Laci's family with Greta on Fox.

Other thoughts?

As the Taco Bell ad would say, it sounds like he was "trying to make a run for the border", and no, I don't think it was for a chimichanga!

Sounds pretty suspect to me.....hmmmmmmmm

I think we should just end this discussion since a satanic cult really killed Laci :rolleyes:
Yeah, whatever. I really hope the defense can come up with something better than that.

Are you SERIOUS?????? :rolleyes:

Dang, those pesky satanic cults are always up to no good!

The hearing a few weeks ago was not the preliminary hearing. It was an arraignment. In California State court the arraignment is a very short proceeding where the charges are read and you plead; A prelim is like a mini trial where they put on the key witnesses including officers and probably the coroner (unless the defense stipulates to the coroner's report).

In CA you very rarely see a murder trial where someone doesn't waive his rights b/c otherwise they have to prepare for the preliminary hearing in 10 days and the trial within 60. They rarely get the arraignment done within 10 and the evidence within 60.

Geragos was counsel for a defendant in a 55 defendant case I worked on at the DA's office. He is a good defense attorney. Remember he doesn't need to prove that someone else did it, he just need to make sure there is a reasonable doubt in the mind of the jurors.

LD