Ineffective Counsel.

[TuscanDreams]

Mark Geragos has been pointed to as one reason it was easy for Scott to be convicted. However, I don't know that cause rises to the legal aspect of ineffective counsel.

What do you think of the idea of ineffective counsel? Did Mark Geragos help convict Scott Peterson?

[Beebee]

I think Scott's lawyers will argue ineffective counsel, along with many other things. As for Geragos-- he admitted in court he did not prepare for a penaly phase, because he wasn't expecting one. When a lawyer admits they are not prepared, they are admitting ineffective counsel.
This is JMO- but I think Geragos said that on purpose, because he does believe Scott is innocent. I imagine blowing a case like Scott's haunts him. I think he very much wants to see a successful appeal, even if they drag him through the mud.

By the way, good morning I see I'm not the only early riser

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

Mark Geragos has been pointed to as one reason it was easy for Scott to be convicted. However, I don't know that cause rises to the legal aspect of ineffective counsel.

What do you think of the idea of ineffective counsel? Did Mark Geragos help convict Scott Peterson?

No, Geragos did not help convict Scott.
Not a case of ineffective counsel. Geragos had no defense.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Miss Bootsie

No, Geragos did not help convict Scott.
Not a case of ineffective counsel. Geragos had no defense.

Oh... now I start to feel sorry for the guy...

The Donnie defense... the tan van... the "wait for it!" Friday teasers, the flops on Monday mornings when his baloon went pffffft, the sheer creativity he had to come up with to defend a two-bit philanderer-turned-murderer... that must have been taxing, in more ways than one. IMO, of course.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Beebee

I think Scott's lawyers will argue ineffective counsel, along with many other things. As for Geragos-- he admitted in court he did not prepare for a penaly phase, because he wasn't expecting one. When a lawyer admits they are not prepared, they are admitting ineffective counsel.
This is JMO- but I think Geragos said that on purpose, because he does believe Scott is innocent. I imagine blowing a case like Scott's haunts him. I think he very much wants to see a successful appeal, even if they drag him through the mud.

By the way, good morning I see I'm not the only early riser

May I remind you that Geragos was not present in court for Scott's sentencing. Once Scott was found guilty, Geragos washed his hands.

I don't really think it had anything to do with Scott's case - just that Geragos was moving on. Defendants to defend, cases to test, people to see and do lunch with.

JMO.

[enlightenme]

Ineffective counsel? Geragos? But, but, but, I thought he "turned every prosecution witness into a defense witness"?

I thought he supposedly impeached almost everyone?

Say it ain't so! I'd hate for Geragos' stellar reputation to be tarnished!!



Yes, I do saracism with my morning coffee daily, sorry!

[accordn2me]

The Trial -- Guilt Phase: 14 Witnesses for Defendant's Case in Chief

In Alphabetical Order by Surname

Bertalotto, Kevin / DA Investigator / Oct 20 & 21
Buehler, Jon / MPD / Oct 25
Cavallero, James Anthony / Britz Fertilizer / Oct 18
Cordova, Ricardo / Neighbor & Judge / Oct 21
Gebler, Steven Howard / CTL Engineer / Oct 18
Grogan, Craig / MPD / Oct 25
Hicks, Michael / MPD Tactical Patrol / Oct 25 & 26
Jensen, Carl / Private Investigator / Oct 18
Laffer, Martin G. / CPA / Oct 18 & 19
March, Charles Michael / Gyn-Infertility-Reproduction / Oct 21
Peterson, Jacqueline / Scott's Mother / Oct 25
Peterson, Lee / Scott's Dad / Oct 25
Phillips, Timothy / East Bay Reg Park / Oct 19, 20
Seitz, Ronald / Dog Handler / Oct 20

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

Ineffective counsel? Geragos? But, but, but, I thought he "turned every prosecution witness into a defense witness"?

I thought he supposedly impeached almost everyone?

Say it ain't so! I'd hate for Geragos' stellar reputation to be tarnished!!



Yes, I do saracism with my morning coffee daily, sorry!

Well then - we have something in common. I like sarcasm with my coffee too.

Good Morning everyone! Its beautiful outside today!

Originally Posted by TuscanDreams

Mark Geragos has been pointed to as one reason it was easy for Scott to be convicted. However, I don't know that cause rises to the legal aspect of ineffective counsel.

What do you think of the idea of ineffective counsel? Did Mark Geragos help convict Scott Peterson?

I believe, given the little he had to work with, that Mark Geragos did a great job cross-examining the Pros' witnesses, but failed miserably in his own minimal CIC. Personally, I feel he should have rested following the Pros' case.

Despite having Drs Wecht and Lee waiting at the hotel, to be called as Def witnesses, Geragos didn't call them. I suspect he knew they would not support Dr March's theory, after it fell flat on its face.

I have always felt MG intentionally defied Judge Delucchi's order to submit the penalty phase witness list. He quipped he wouldn't do so because he wasn't anticipating a guilty verdict. He was forewarned about the consequences to his client. Although MG nevertheless defied the order, Judge Delucchi afforded him the extra time to prepare and submit penalty phase witnesses, following the guilt phase and SP's conviction.

During a private interview with Larry King, following Scott's incarceration, Geragos said he wouldn't feel badly if an appeal was filed on the basis of ineffective counsel. I believe MG knew, all along, he was waging a losing battle. Prior to representing Scott Peterson he made a good case for the Pros, knowing Scott Peterson's own words, caught on tape and film, along with his inordinate behaviors and choices, compounded by the bodies of Laci and Conner washing ashore within a mile of each other in the same area he went trolling on the day Laci disappeared, would surely convict Scott Peterson.

IMO

[TuscanDreams]

My personal opinion of Mark Geragos is that he was a really bad choice for an attorney in a death penalty case. However, that doesn't rise to the legal spector for ineffective counsel, IMO.

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by Hey Paula

I believe, given the little he had to work with, that Mark Geragos did a great job cross-examining the Pros' witnesses, but failed miserably in his own minimal CIC. Personally, I feel he should have rested following the Pros' case.

Despite having Drs Wecht and Lee waiting at the hotel, to be called as Def witnesses, Geragos didn't call them. I suspect he knew they would not support Dr March's theory, after it fell flat on its face.

I have always felt MG intentionally defied Judge Delucchi's order to submit the penalty phase witness list. He quipped he wouldn't do so because he wasn't anticipating a guilty verdict. He was forewarned about the consequences to his client. Although MG nevertheless defied the order, Judge Delucchi afforded him the extra time to prepare and submit penalty phase witnesses, following the guilt phase and SP's conviction.

During a private interview with Larry King, following Scott's incarceration, Geragos said he wouldn't feel badly if an appeal was filed on the basis of ineffective counsel. I believe MG knew, all along, he was waging a losing battle. Prior to representing Scott Peterson he made a good case for the Pros, knowing Scott Peterson's own words, caught on tape and film, along with his inordinate behaviors and choices, compounded by the bodies of Laci and Conner washing ashore within a mile of each other in the same area he went trolling on the day Laci disappeared, would surely convict Scott Peterson.

IMO

I agree with you on all of this. I would like to add that prior to representing Scott, Geragos also said "this man is a sociopath if he did this crime". It has long been my opinion that Geragos has no doubt that Scott is a sociopath and knew a proper mitigation investigation would confirm this is so. Since Scott's "IMAGE" is something to protect for a possible future successful appeal/re-trial, Geragos wasn't interested in attempting to mitigate Scott's sentence with factual evidence about his serious personality disorder, IMO. And, once he was convicted, I have long believed his team felt the death sentence was the preferred outcome ( Scott safer on Death Row, free/automatic appeals all the way up to the Supremes)

[TuscanDreams]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

I agree with you on all of this. I would like to add that prior to representing Scott, Geragos also said "this man is a sociopath if he did this crime". It has long been my opinion that Geragos has no doubt that Scott is a sociopath and knew a proper mitigation investigation would confirm this is so. Since Scott's "IMAGE" is something to protect for a possible future successful appeal/re-trial, Geragos wasn't interested in attempting to mitigate Scott's sentence with factual evidence about his serious personality disorder, IMO. And, once he was convicted, I have long believed his team felt the death sentence was the preferred outcome ( Scott safer on Death Row, free/automatic appeals all the way up to the Supremes)

The most unethical situation I've ever seen in my entire life regarding criminal justice is Mark Geragos taking the case of Scott Peterson. MG went before tons of cameras, with his sunglasses on, to maintain Scott was innocent. This is the same attorney who appeared on talk shows stating that Scott was stupid, a sociopath, etc.

Geragos thought this was a great career move for him- and that didn't work out so well. Most of his peers think he's a jerk- I've even heard attorneys that know him who call him "Hollywood Mark" because he wears his sunglasses in court.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by Lili007

May I remind you that Geragos was not present in court for Scott's sentencing. Once Scott was found guilty, Geragos washed his hands.

I don't really think it had anything to do with Scott's case - just that Geragos was moving on. Defendants to defend, cases to test, people to see and do lunch with.

JMO.

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

I don't buy the excuses or explanations Geragos has given. He could have managed a private plane flight back to Modesto, IMO. And, this was the crucial deliberation phase in a death-penalty case that had taken months to try, if Geragos was too bored or too busy to stay close in the event of a verdict, he had no business representing this client, IMO.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

I don't buy the excuses or explanations Geragos has given. He could have managed a private plane flight back to Modesto, IMO. And, this was the crucial deliberation phase in a death-penalty case that had taken months to try, if Geragos was too bored or too busy to stay close in the event of a verdict, he had no business representing this client, IMO.

Maybe Scott's daddy wasn't expecting it either. Was anyone in court for Scott that day?

Personally, I don't think it's terrible if no one was. It's not like they could run over and console him....even if he would have been emotional....

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

Think about it, Geragos has said numerous times - since the Peterson family paid him hundreds of thousands of, if not a million, dollars to represent Scott - he believes Scott is innocent.

[Radio Flyer]

By the thread title, I thought this was going to be a discussion of the legal aspects of ineffective assitance of counel. Instead it's a Geragos bashfest

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

I don't care what his reasons were! Neither does the court. He's THE defense counsel, paid $1million upfront to defend Scott.

He didn't think the jury was going to be swift with their verdict? Well, tough!

That's HIS problem! He's not paid a million bucks to go take care of another case, when his murder case is in the CRUCIAL phase.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by Radio Flyer

By the thread title, I thought this was going to be a discussion of the legal aspects of ineffective assitance of counel. Instead it's a Geragos bashfest

Geragos WAS "the Counsel".

If the shoe fits.

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Maybe Scott's daddy wasn't expecting it either. Was anyone in court for Scott that day?

Personally, I don't think it's terrible if no one was. It's not like they could run over and console him....even if he would have been emotional....

Jackie Peterson was present for the verdict, but my feeling about Geragos and his role differs from my expectations of Scott's family members. This was the verdict Geragos helped earn for his client, standing up to face it with him was an essential part of his professional job, IMO. I don't care if his ego was bruised and he couldn't enter that courtroom with his typical arrogant, boastful, bullying swagger! Stand up next to your client & take the defeat! Your client is now facing a LWOP or death sentence, represent HIM.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

Jackie Peterson was present for the verdict, but my feeling about Geragos and his role differs from my expectations of Scott's family members. This was the verdict Geragos helped earn for his client, standing up to face it with him was an essential part of his professional job, IMO. I don't care if his ego was bruised and he couldn't enter that courtroom with his typical arrogant, boastful, bullying swagger! Stand up next to your client & take the defeat! Your client is now facing a LWOP or death sentence, represent HIM.

I totally agree.

[Lili007]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

There were several reasons for that - Geragos talked about it on LKL. One of the reasons was that NO ONE - not even Judge Delucchi expected this jury to come back with a verdict as quickly as they did - after just being told that they need to start deliberations all over again.

Geragos washed his hands of it? That's why he has said numerous times - since the verdict and subsequent death sentence that he believes Scott is innocent?

THINK about it, please. What does it hurt if Geragos just apololgised? Does that hurt him, his image,his family? It's just too ridiculous for words.

JMO

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Think about it, Geragos has said numerous times - since the Peterson family paid him hundreds of thousands of, if not a million, dollars to represent Scott - he believes Scott is innocent.

Geragos made these comments long after the Petersons ceased being his clients.

Geragos gained nothing by saying Scott is innocent. In fact, it makes Geragos look more incompetent - that he had a client that was innocent - and his defense got him sentenced to death.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by Lili007

THINK about it, please. What does it hurt if Geragos just apololgised? Does that hurt him, his image,his family? It's just too ridiculous for words.

JMO

Who said Geragos apologized? Maybe you should go back and re-read the discussion.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by Lili007

I don't care what his reasons were! Neither does the court. He's THE defense counsel, paid $1million upfront to defend Scott.

He didn't think the jury was going to be swift with their verdict? Well, tough!

That's HIS problem! He's not paid a million bucks to go take care of another case, when his murder case is in the CRUCIAL phase.

I'll explain in more detail....

A juror was replaced on Wednesday. The entire jury was told they had to start deliberations ALL OVER AGAIN. There was no court Thursday - so no deliberations Thursday. The jury was going to be released EARLY Friday. Geragos consulted with Delucchi whether it was okay for him to go to L.A. for another case - Delucchi told him go - no way this jury will be back with a verdict. Because they shouldn't have been.

Lee not being present only confirms what Geragos said. If anyone expected these jurors to come back with a verdict after just a few hours of "new deliberations" after MONTHS of testimony - Lee would have been there for his son.

Delucchi may have been willing to postpone the reading of the verdict for Geragos to get back in time (which Geragos wanted to do) - but the lynch mob outside the courthouse was a security threat - and Delucchi wouldn't do it. So you can basically thank those G's outside the courthouse - some of whom were wearing disgusting/offensive t-shirts - for Geragos and Lee not being there when the verdict was read.

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

I'll explain in more detail....


Delucchi may have been willing to postpone the reading of the verdict for Geragos to get back in time (which Geragos wanted to do) - but the lynch mob outside the courthouse was a security threat - and Delucchi wouldn't do it. So you can basically thank those G's outside the courthouse - some of whom were wearing disgusting/offensive t-shirts - for Geragos and Lee not being there when the verdict was read.

I wasn't aware Delucchi was asked to postpone and refused. Can you link to a statement from Geragos where he claimed this? I didn't see a "lynch mob" outside the courtroom, but I did see a large crowd gathered awaiting the reading of the verdict, and I agree it posed a challenge to security for a large crowd to stay assembled there over a long period of time. I cannot see blaming the public for Geragos's unwillingness to stick around which resulted in HIS absence in court during reading of the verdict.IMO, if Geragos was too busy or too bored to stay nearby during jury deliberations at the end of this extraordinary & long death penalty case, perhaps he ought to have declined reprentation from the outset, ( especially since he had earlier opined Scott might be a sociopath and that State wouldn't have any trouble convicting him!)

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

I'll explain in more detail....

A juror was replaced on Wednesday. The entire jury was told they had to start deliberations ALL OVER AGAIN. There was no court Thursday - so no deliberations Thursday. The jury was going to be released EARLY Friday. Geragos consulted with Delucchi whether it was okay for him to go to L.A. for another case - Delucchi told him go - no way this jury will be back with a verdict. Because they shouldn't have been.

Lee not being present only confirms what Geragos said. If anyone expected these jurors to come back with a verdict after just a few hours of "new deliberations" after MONTHS of testimony - Lee would have been there for his son.

Delucchi may have been willing to postpone the reading of the verdict for Geragos to get back in time (which Geragos wanted to do) - but the lynch mob outside the courthouse was a security threat - and Delucchi wouldn't do it. So you can basically thank those G's outside the courthouse - some of whom were wearing disgusting/offensive t-shirts - for Geragos and Lee not being there when the verdict was read.

The crowd outside was not a lynch mob and certainly posed no security threat, IMO! One of the big reasons people were assembled outside of the courtroom is that they were piping the verdict on speakers outside.

If the trial had been televised, the "lynch mob", as you call them, most likely would have been sitting in their comfy living rooms for the verdict.

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

I'll explain in more detail....

A juror was replaced on Wednesday. The entire jury was told they had to start deliberations ALL OVER AGAIN. There was no court Thursday - so no deliberations Thursday. The jury was going to be released EARLY Friday. Geragos consulted with Delucchi whether it was okay for him to go to L.A. for another case - Delucchi told him go - no way this jury will be back with a verdict. Because they shouldn't have been.

Lee not being present only confirms what Geragos said. If anyone expected these jurors to come back with a verdict after just a few hours of "new deliberations" after MONTHS of testimony - Lee would have been there for his son.

Delucchi may have been willing to postpone the reading of the verdict for Geragos to get back in time (which Geragos wanted to do) - but the lynch mob outside the courthouse was a security threat - and Delucchi wouldn't do it. So you can basically thank those G's outside the courthouse - some of whom were wearing disgusting/offensive t-shirts - for Geragos and Lee not being there when the verdict was read.

Hi TAI!

If a straw poll was taken when the replaced juror who, as an alternate juror, heard the same testimony as the others, entered deliberations, and they were unanimous in their guilty verdict, what further points were there to discuss/deliberate?

I hadn't read/heard about Geragos discussing leaving for LA with Judge Delucchi, and am surprised to read your post that he agreed it was the right thing for MG to do. At such a crucial stage of the trial, I think it was presumptuous, on the part of all parties concerned, to agree to travel away from the court because they believed the verdict would be delayed.

IMO

[accordn2me]

"Please try to remember that the burden of proof is not on us to prove Scott innocent, but rather for the state to prove him guilty."


That statement was true before the verdict, correct? The state met that burden. Now that Scott was found guilty, the burden of proof has shifted, has it not?

Should there be a second trial, I certainly hope the sentiments that I've read lately from some who believe wholeheartedly in Scott's innocence doesn't leak into the defense strategy. As my mentor once wisely posted, "There is no such thing as "proof by repeated assertion." Better get some warm bodies inside the witness box to back up those ideas, theories, promises and beliefs.

[A_seeker]

[quote=accordn2me;8836194]"Please try to remember that the burden of proof is not on us to prove Scott innocent, but rather for the state to prove him guilty."


That statement was true before the verdict, correct? The state met that burden. Now that Scott was found guilty, the burden of proof has shifted, has it not?

QUOTE]

Excellent point...
Thank you!

[A_seeker]

Would someone please help me figure out what I am doing wrong? When I quote an entire post, it works fine, but when I "snip" it's not working right. I've never had this problem on other message boards. I'm obviously overlooking some simple thing I should be doing. I feel my IQ dwindling as I type....please help!

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by A_seeker

Would someone please help me figure out what I am doing wrong? When I quote an entire post, it works fine, but when I "snip" it's not working right. I've never had this problem on other message boards. I'm obviously overlooking some simple thing I should be doing. I feel my IQ dwindling as I type....please help!

You have to make sure this part is at the beginning:

Originally Posted by A_seeker

and this part is at the end:

of the words you want quoted.

let's see if this works.....

[One2Snoop]

Originally Posted by A_seeker

Would someone please help me figure out what I am doing wrong? When I quote an entire post, it works fine, but when I "snip" it's not working right. I've never had this problem on other message boards. I'm obviously overlooking some simple thing I should be doing. I feel my IQ dwindling as I type....please help!

If you look in your post, when you snipped it you also took the "end quote" off. It should look like this
[ /quote] (I put a space in the example so it doesn't mess up your quoted post above)

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by A_seeker

Would someone please help me figure out what I am doing wrong? When I quote an entire post, it works fine, but when I "snip" it's not working right. I've never had this problem on other message boards. I'm obviously overlooking some simple thing I should be doing. I feel my IQ dwindling as I type....please help!

nope..you can't see what i mean...

the first thing in [brackets] and the last the last [/brackets] with word QUOTE instead of brackets have to be there....

does that make sense?

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by adnoid

Wow.

If so many people can figure this out and answer so fast, why do some people STILL think Scott registered his boat?

Did the state know they had the burden of proving the boat was not registered? Did they care to meet such a burden?

[Anne2719]

Originally Posted by adnoid

Wow.

If so many people can figure this out and answer so fast, why do some people STILL think Scott registered his boat?

I think you forgot the [sarcasm] [/sarcasm] tags here. Oh wait, I think we don't have those . . . for good reason!

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

I wasn't aware Delucchi was asked to postpone and refused. Can you link to a statement from Geragos where he claimed this? I didn't see a "lynch mob" outside the courtroom, but I did see a large crowd gathered awaiting the reading of the verdict, and I agree it posed a challenge to security for a large crowd to stay assembled there over a long period of time. I cannot see blaming the public for Geragos's unwillingness to stick around which resulted in HIS absence in court during reading of the verdict.IMO, if Geragos was too busy or too bored to stay nearby during jury deliberations at the end of this extraordinary & long death penalty case, perhaps he ought to have declined reprentation from the outset, ( especially since he had earlier opined Scott might be a sociopath and that State wouldn't have any trouble convicting him!)

Like I said before - no one expected this jury to come back with a verdict on Friday. You're right - Geragos didn't say Delucchi refused - but he did say that Delucchi said the sheriff didn't want to hold onto the verdict because of the crowd outside to him, Geragos said they felt it was a public safety issue, and Geragos didn't want to ask him because of that:

KING: You think Scott Peterson didn't do this, right?

GERAGOS: I went in there, and I took that case, and I became convinced. And it is -- and I told the jury during the penalty phase. I talked from the heart to the jury. And said, look, there's no harder thing for me to do than have to sit here and beg you to spare his life, when I believe this, and that I felt, you know, as a -- as a lawyer, you cannot feel any lower than in a death penalty case to have somebody that you truly believe is innocent, to be convicted and then be sentenced to death. I mean, there is bar none, at least for me professionally, nothing worse than you can experience than that.

KING: So what was it like for your gut when they announced the verdict?

GERAGOS: Well, the biggest problem, and one of the things that I regret, is that I wasn't there. I had...

KING: Ah-hah! GERAGOS: Yeah, I had asked the judge the week before, because I had another case in L.A., and I said, the following Friday, that judge wanted me down -- the L.A. judge -- wanted me down there to do a case. And Thursday before the verdict came out was a holiday, a court holiday. So the jury was not going to deliberate. I was up there on Wednesday. And on Wednesday, we had one of the brouhahas with the jurors, and we replaced it and put in a new juror. And we did that in the afternoon.

So I talked to the judge, and he said, go down there, there's not going to be a verdict. And Judge Delucchi and I agreed, there's no way that just putting somebody in, the jury getting the instructions, you have got to start anew, not deliberating on Thursday. And then Friday, what most people don't know, is that he had already told one of the -- promised one of the other jurors that they were going to get off, and it was only going to be a half-day. Plus, in addition to that, the jury had asked that a priest be sent in, because they were sequestered. So all indication were they were going to deliberate through until the following week.

I went down there. Then out of nowhere, we get the verdict.

KING: You were shocked?

GERAGOS: Yeah, we were as shocked as you can believe. But one of the things that the judge had indicated, I said, look, I can try and get a private jet up there or scramble some way to get up there. And he had indicated, look, the sheriff does not want to hold on to this, because as you probably saw, the courthouse had become encircled with people. They were afraid from the public safety standpoint there was going to be a problem, and I wasn't going to create a public safety problem by saying, hey, hold it for me, I got to get up there.

Here's the link:

http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0701/05/lkl.01.html


You didn't see a lynch mob?....pretty close. Did you see the women with the disgusting t-shirts of Scott with his head in the noose? Even if I had agreed with the verdict, I would have been disgusted by that. I'd call it a lynch mob.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by adnoid

Their corrupt investigation showed that the boat was actually registered to The Media™, but Broccini excised it from his report.

Do you realize that you have 46 posts that say, essentially, nothing? If you're not here to contribute to the discussion - then could you please move along?

[A_seeker]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

does that make sense?

OK, I am trying again.

[A_seeker]

Originally Posted by One2Snoop

If you look in your post, when you snipped it you also took the "end quote" off. (I put a space in the example so it doesn't mess up your quoted post above)

By George I think I've got it! I didn't realize I had left a bracket off....duhhh for me. Thank ya very much!