Scott Peterson's appeal

[attorneywan2be]

I started this thread so we can discuss issues related to the appeal..

I'll start with Greta's show where she stated that the conviction will most likely be reversed because of the boat experiment..other talking heads agreed....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLyyBwa141Q

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

I started this thread so we can discuss issues related to the appeal..

I'll start with Greta's show where she stated that the conviction will most likely be reversed because of the boat experiment..other talking heads agreed....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLyyBwa141Q

Gloria Allred disagreed. Bernie Grimm & Ted Williams agreed.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

Gloria Allred disagreed. Bernie Grimm & Ted Williams agreed.

Exactly!!... 3 attorneys agreed that Scott will most likely win his appeal because of the boat experiment...

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

Exactly!!... 3 attorneys agreed that Scott will most likely win his appeal because of the boat experiment...

Three agreed, one disagreed.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

Three agreed, one disagreed.

Exactly!!!! you have already said that and we both agreed...LOL

But I think you want to talk about the one that disagreed..!

Ok...IMO, Gloria Allread is biased simply because she was involved in this case..she represented Amber...but Greta..Bernie..and Ted were not involved at all in this case..so I would definitely give more weight to their opinion...

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

Exactly!!!! you have already said that and we both agreed...LOL

But I think you want to talk about the one that disagreed..!

Ok...IMO, Gloria Allread is biased simply because she was involved in this case..she represented Amber...but Greta..Bernie..and Ted were not involved at all in this case..so I would definitely give more weight to their opinion...

I don't give any weight to any of their opinions on this ( including Allred's opinion) I would be interested in the opinion of a former Appellate court judge, though.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

I don't give any weight to any of their opinions on this ( including Allred's opinion) I would be interested in the opinion of a former Appellate court judge, though.

Judge Napolitano of Fox News said the same thing Greta said..!..I don't have a link to it..but I heard it on TV..he is a former Superior Court judge..he once taught constitutional law and jurisprudence at a law school..he also said that the removal of 2 jurors during deliberations will be a very powerful appeal issue...

[attorneywan2be]

IMO, judge Delucchi erred when he allowed the prosecution to introduce to the jury a demonstration that didn't replicate the event in question according to their theory..on the other hand, he didn't allow the defense to present their boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the same conditions of the event in question...

A living person who helped herself getting into the toolbox..getting into the boat..who was able to bend her legs.. arms...etc..etc..in addition, the similarity as to the height and weight is not enough, there would be differences as to the body proportions...frame size..etc..

VS.

Laci's dead body possibly with Rigor Mortis setting in and one person supposedly carrying/lifting her body that weighted 153 lbs and making it fit into the toolbox and then into the boat...

In addition, the prosecution didn't replicate their own theory....how about the 5 anchors?!..where are those anchors in their demonstration?.. they had Kim Fulbright in the boat and no anchors attached..

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

IMO, judge Delucchi erred when he allowed the prosecution to introduce to the jury a demonstration that didn't replicate the event in question according to their theory..on the other hand, he didn't allow the defense to present their boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the same conditions of the event in question...(snipped the part I didn't read)......

Do you think it would have been an error on JD's part if he would have allowed the defense to present their experiment (in addition to the prosecution's)?

[cookiewench]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

IMO, judge Delucchi erred when he allowed the prosecution to introduce to the jury a demonstration that didn't replicate the event in question according to their theory..on the other hand, he didn't allow the defense to present their boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the same conditions of the event in question...

In addition, the prosecution didn't replicate their own theory....how about the 5 anchors?!..where are those anchors in their demonstration?.. they had Kim Fulbright in the boat and no anchors attached..

And just what was the prosecution's theory that this demonstration didn't fit?

How do you know when Scott put Laci in the toolbox? How do you know that rigor mortis would have set in before he did? How do you know how strong Scott was?

How do you know he didn't thorough tape her up (which I believe he did), before he took her from the house (or, immediately took her to the warehouse and taped her up).

Why would anyone think that he attached anchors before he got to the bay? That doesn't even make sense. Why would someone carry a body around that was dragging anchors when they didn't need to?

The prosecution wanted to show that a woman of Laci's size could fit into the toolbox and boat.

Which....they did. And rightly so.

[enlightenme]

Originally Posted by attorneywan2be

IMO, judge Delucchi erred when he allowed the prosecution to introduce to the jury a demonstration that didn't replicate the event in question according to their theory..on the other hand, he didn't allow the defense to present their boat experiment citing that the experiment didn't replicate the same conditions of the event in question...
<<snipped>>

That's not the ONLY reason Judge D. gave for not allowing Geragos' boat experiment.

Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood. Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th. So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury, and I was of the opinion, and it's in the record, that there wasn't a significant foundation for the admission of that experiment and give that to the jury. There is the issue here about instructing on second degree murder. The court will rely on the law on that issue. I've already given, gave my, I already gave my reasoning as to excluding the boat experiment.

I'd say that he gave very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

That's not the ONLY reason Judge D. gave for not allowing Geragos' boat experiment.

Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood. Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th. So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury, and I was of the opinion, and it's in the record, that there wasn't a significant foundation for the admission of that experiment and give that to the jury. There is the issue here about instructing on second degree murder. The court will rely on the law on that issue. I've already given, gave my, I already gave my reasoning as to excluding the boat experiment.

I'd say that he gave very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment.

If these are very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment - shouldn't the same reasoning have been applied for allowing the jurors to get into the boat and attempt to rock it - to check the "stability" and "bouyancy" while it was on a trailer?

VAN SUSTEREN: Why did you want to get in the boat?

BERATLIS: Because there were questions about the stability of the boat that when we listened to the experts, I don't think those questions were answered in our minds. We needed to have a little bit more to that. And I climbed in the boat.

You know, to look, like everybody was saying, at pictures, didn't mean much to us. And not being able to get in the boat originally for some — we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets. And we didn't know what we could do. And then when we got to the deliberation, we said, you know, Can we go and look at the boat? Can we physically get inside the boat? And then when the judge agreed to it and he asked, I believe, the rest of the — you know, the defense and the prosecution, and they said OK, we did it, you know?

It was a matter of just getting an idea of the boat. Looking at it in a picture didn't speak much.

VAN SUSTEREN: Greg, the description the judge gave in court is that you got in it and you rocked back and forth or I think jumped up and down. How would you describe what was done in that boat?

BERATLIS: We tried rocking it. One of them was standing — one person was standing up, and another person was kneeling. I was the person kneeling. And we were trying to show what was the buoyancy. And then we were also directed that realize the boat was not in the water and that the situation, the reaction would be different. And we took that into account. We understood that. We acknowledged that.

The first part bolded above = experiment. Beratlis admits his questions about the stability of the boat weren't answer by the experts that testified at trial - and he was going to check it out for himself.

The underlined part - he admits the first time they viewed the boat - they were told "hands off".

I really don't know what Delucchi was thinking - allowing them to get inside the boat.

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

I really don't know what Delucchi was thinking - allowing them to get inside the boat.

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peters...harge_ctv.html
Shortly after the jury returned to its deliberations, defense attorney Mark Geragos requested a mistrial, saying that "rocking the boat" constituted an experiment. Jurors are prohibited from carrying out their own experiments.

"When I say rocking, I mean rocking," Geragos complained to the judge, noting that one of the panelists was hopping on one foot.

The judge denied the motion. He said that jurors were allowed to "closely observe and even manipulate" evidence during their deliberations. The jurors' actions, he said, "could work for the prosecution's benefit, could work for the defense's benefit."

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

If these are very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment - shouldn't the same reasoning have been applied for allowing the jurors to get into the boat and attempt to rock it - to check the "stability" and "bouyancy" while it was on a trailer?



The first part bolded above = experiment. Beratlis admits his questions about the stability of the boat weren't answer by the experts that testified at trial - and he was going to check it out for himself.

The underlined part - he admits the first time they viewed the boat - they were told "hands off".

I really don't know what Delucchi was thinking - allowing them to get inside the boat.

Tell me one more time....what was wrong with allowing the jurors inside the boat?

[JustMyOpinion]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

The underlined part - he admits the first time they viewed the boat - they were told "hands off".

.

He said: "we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets
Where did he say "they were told hands-off"? TIA

[cookiewench]

Nothing, A2me.

Jurors routinely handle evidence: touch it, hold it, whatever.

The jurors knew that the boat wasn't in water when they got into it.

They weren't the idiots that Geragos was hoping they would be when he tried to show his bogus boat experiment.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

He said: "we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets
Where did he say "they were told hands-off"? TIA

I interpret this as being told hands off:

And not being able to get in the boat originally for some

He could have said - and not having gotten in the boat the first time.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

Tell me one more time....what was wrong with allowing the jurors inside the boat?

If the jurors are not allowed to watch a video because the conditions are not the same - and a platform might affect bouyancy - and this may mislead them......how can getting into a boat on a trailer to check bouyancy and stability NOT mislead them?

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

If these are very good, valid reasons for disallowing the boat experiment - shouldn't the same reasoning have been applied for allowing the jurors to get into the boat and attempt to rock it - to check the "stability" and "bouyancy" while it was on a trailer?



The first part bolded above = experiment. Beratlis admits his questions about the stability of the boat weren't answer by the experts that testified at trial - and he was going to check it out for himself.

The underlined part - he admits the first time they viewed the boat - they were told "hands off".

I really don't know what Delucchi was thinking - allowing them to get inside the boat.

Where in the quote does Beratlis admit the first time they viewed the boat- they were told "hands off"

And not being able to get in the boat originally for some — we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets.

Do you honestly believe the Juror's were instructed that they couldn't even touch the boat?
If a Juror in the same situation, I would wait for permission before I touched the boat as well.

This quote from Beratlis means a great deal.

And then we were also directed that realize the boat was not in the water and that the situation, the reaction would be different. And we took that into account. We understood that. We acknowledged that.

It's common sense to most people that you can't replicate conditions on water by stepping or rocking a boat on land.

You can't read the minds of the Jurors to determine exactly what they had in mind.

Why do you think the Jurors jumped up and down in the boat?
Do you think they thought Scott may have jumped up and down in the boat and they were trying to duplicate what they thought he did?
Seems to me they were simply trying to determine if the boat was sound.


Stepping inside the boat is a lot different than the test the defense requested to conduct.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by enlightenme

That's not the ONLY reason Judge D. gave for not allowing Geragos' boat experiment.

[color="SeaGreen"][b]Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood.

The prosecution told the jury that 5 anchors were made..Dr. Cheng's testimony was based on the theory that Laci's body was weighted down by attaching 5 anchors to her body...yet The judge allowed the prosecution to use a demonstration that didn't include 5 anchors...the judge should have wondered if the absence of anchors made it possible for the body to fit in the boat as opposed to a body with 5 anchors attached.. just like he did when he wondered if the plywood at the bottom would have affected the stability of the boat when he ruled on the defense boat experiment..

Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th.

How would a living person trying to fit herself into a toolbox and into a boat by scrunching herself up recreate the event on Dec 24th as presented by the prosecution?? an event that entailed a dead body with possible Rigor mortis that needed to be carried and needed to be manipulated by one person in order to make it fit in the toolbox/boat..??

So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury,

Again, isn't also misleading to tell the jury that it was a possible for Scott to have put Laci's dead body in the toolbox and in the boat by using a living person that climbed into the toolbox/boat without being carried by anyone..adjusted her body accordingly to fit into the toolbox and the boat..

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by JustMyOpinion

http://www.courttv.com/trials/peters...harge_ctv.html
Shortly after the jury returned to its deliberations, defense attorney Mark Geragos requested a mistrial, saying that "rocking the boat" constituted an experiment. Jurors are prohibited from carrying out their own experiments.

"When I say rocking, I mean rocking," Geragos complained to the judge, noting that one of the panelists was hopping on one foot.

The judge denied the motion. He said that jurors were allowed to "closely observe and even manipulate" evidence during their deliberations. The jurors' actions, he said, "could work for the prosecution's benefit, could work for the defense's benefit."

lol, I had to laugh at Geragos remark in the quote you posted.

Geragos:
"When I say rocking, I mean rocking," Geragos complained to the judge, noting that one of the panelists was hopping on one foot.

How do you even begin to rock a boat on a trailer hopping on one foot.
Now, someone might hop on one foot trying to determine how sound the bottom of a boat is.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by Miss Bootsie

Seems to me they were simply trying to determine if the boat was sound.


snipped

and how do you check a water vehicles 'soundness' on a trailer parked on concrete?

what, if it feels safe tied to a trailer,parked in a garage it must be safe in the bay?

but you're right, they sure did try to test the soundness of the boat..... problem is they weren't given the right tools and surrounding to make that judgment... if they wanted to test the soundness the boat should have been placed in water before they got in it...

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by Miss Bootsie

lol, I had to laugh at Geragos remark in the quote you posted.



How do you even begin to rock a boat on a trailer hopping on one foot.
Now, someone might hop on one foot trying to determine how sound the bottom of a boat is.

And people do experiments all the time....

PM

[ekg]

Originally Posted by accordn2me

And people do experiments all the time....

PM

yes, but jurors aren't allowed to.

Shortly after the jury returned to its deliberations, defense attorney Mark Geragos requested a mistrial, saying that "rocking the boat" constituted an experiment. Jurors are prohibited from carrying out their own experiments.

Juror 7 was removed for doing her own investigations...

jurors can manipulate the evidence.... but they can't investigate or experiment with evidence to form their opinions...

[cookiewench]

It is only a few internet posters who've decided to call it an "experiment".

That doesn't make it one.

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

I interpret this as being told hands off:



He could have said - and not having gotten in the boat the first time.

What does this mean to you?

And we didn't know what we could do.

If the Jurors had been instructed, "hands off", they would have known what they could or could not do.

[accordn2me]

Originally Posted by cookiewench

It is only a few internet posters who've decided to call it an "experiment".

That doesn't make it one.

Good point, cookiewench! It was a "manipulation" in my opinion.

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by ekg

and how do you check a water vehicles 'soundness' on a trailer parked on concrete?

what, if it feels safe tied to a trailer,parked in a garage it must be safe in the bay?

but you're right, they sure did try to test the soundness of the boat..... problem is they weren't given the right tools and surrounding to make that judgment... if they wanted to test the soundness the boat should have been placed in water before they got in it...

It's not necessary to test a boat in the water to determine how structurally sound it is.
Example: A weak spot in the floor can be determined without taking the boat out in the water.
How structurally strong the floor is can be determined without taking a boat in the water.

I really hope you are not of the opinion that most people buying a used boat, don't step in and check it out.
If you wait until you take the boat out in the water, you may be in trouble.

I believe you must put a boat in the water to determine how it handles, but not to determine how structurally sound it is.

I think it would be impossible for the Jurors to get a feel for the size of the boat by looking in from the outside.

I think that good old common sense factor will play into an appellate Court's decision on the issue of the Jurors stepping in the boat.

[deputydi]

Originally Posted by ekg

<snip>Juror 7 was removed for doing her own investigations...

Juror #7 was removed for doing her own investigation ON HER OWN TIME using things that were not in evidence. That is not allowed. There is absolutely no comparison there.

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Juror #7 was removed for doing her own investigation ON HER OWN TIME using things that were not in evidence. That is not allowed. There is absolutely no comparison there.

Good call! Not to mention, as Judge D said, could work better for the defense. Think if the jurors got in the boat, determined there's no way Scott could have dumped Laci in the bay from that boat, and acquitted Scott on that basis alone, we'd be seeing the same cries of foul on the "experiment"?

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by ekg

yes, but jurors aren't allowed to.



Juror 7 was removed for doing her own investigations...

jurors can manipulate the evidence.... but they can't investigate or experiment with evidence to form their opinions...

I don't think it can be called an experiment, because the Juror's were more than aware they could not duplicate the conditions of the boat being in the water - by stepping into the boat on a trailer and jumping up and down.
Everyone is aware, just as you and I are, that conditions on the water cannot be duplicated on a boat sitting on a trailer on land. This is knowledge that most adult human beings have.

As I said in a prior post, I think the common sense factor will weigh heavily on the Appellate Court's opinion of whether the Juror's performed an experiment.

[thinkaboutit]

Originally Posted by frydaddy

Good call! Not to mention, as Judge D said, could work better for the defense. Think if the jurors got in the boat, determined there's no way Scott could have dumped Laci in the bay from that boat, and acquitted Scott on that basis alone, we'd be seeing the same cries of foul on the "experiment"?

I think we would - from the prosecution.

[frydaddy]

Originally Posted by thinkaboutit

I think we would - from the prosecution.

Do they post here too?

[Miss Bootsie]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Juror #7 was removed for doing her own investigation ON HER OWN TIME using things that were not in evidence. That is not allowed. There is absolutely no comparison there.

You are right. There is no comparison.

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Juror #7 was removed for doing her own investigation ON HER OWN TIME using things that were not in evidence. That is not allowed. There is absolutely no comparison there.

That is true DD..however, as far as I know, the jury is not allowed to experiment with evidence if the experiment would create a new evidentiary fact that was not introduced at the trial...in this case, Beratlis stated on Greta's show that there were questions in their minds about the stability of the boat that the experts didn't address..

Quote:

VAN SUSTEREN: Why did you want to get in the boat?

BERATLIS: Because there were questions about the stability of the boat that when we listened to the experts, I don't think those questions were answered in our minds. We needed to have a little bit more to that. And I climbed in the boat.

You know, to look, like everybody was saying, at pictures, didn't mean much to us. And not being able to get in the boat originally for some — we walked out there, we were, like, hands off, and kind of walked around with your hands in our pockets. And we didn't know what we could do. And then when we got to the deliberation, we said, you know, Can we go and look at the boat? Can we physically get inside the boat? And then when the judge agreed to it and he asked, I believe, the rest of the — you know, the defense and the prosecution, and they said OK, we did it, you know?

It was a matter of just getting an idea of the boat. Looking at it in a picture didn't speak much.

VAN SUSTEREN: Greg, the description the judge gave in court is that you got in it and you rocked back and forth or I think jumped up and down. How would you describe what was done in that boat?

BERATLIS: We tried rocking it. One of them was standing — one person was standing up, and another person was kneeling. I was the person kneeling. And we were trying to show what was the buoyancy. And then we were also directed that realize the boat was not in the water and that the situation, the reaction would be different. And we took that into account. We understood that. We acknowledged that.

[deputydi]

Jurors are permitted to examine and handle items in evidence. They had every right to ask to see the evidence (boat) in question. You can't possibly suggest that it should have been brought to them in the deliberation room. They did not conduct an independent experiment with anything not in evidence ~ in fact, I don't think it can be properly classified as an "experiment" at all. What they did was test the veracity of the defense's claim that the boat was not sturdy enough for Scott to have dumped a body from it. That is totally different than conducting independent internet research from a juror's home.

[ekg]

Originally Posted by Miss Bootsie

I don't think it can be called an experiment, because the Juror's were more than aware they could not duplicate the conditions of the boat being in the water - by stepping into the boat on a trailer and jumping up and down.
Everyone is aware, just as you and I are, that conditions on the water cannot be duplicated on a boat sitting on a trailer on land. This is knowledge that most adult human beings have.

As I said in a prior post, I think the common sense factor will weigh heavily on the Appellate Court's opinion of whether the Juror's performed an experiment.

then why did they do it?

sure they are aware of it NOW.... but how many times have you done a stupid thing only to go "Oops, I knew better than that"

the simple fact is,them getting in the boat, one kneeling down while the other rocks and jumps up and down is testing it out for something...what that something was is debatable.... but what is not debating is that they were testing it...... experimenting with it..... not manipulating,feeling,fingering or handling it...

[ekg]

Originally Posted by Miss Bootsie

You are right. There is no comparison.

sure there is...both sets were investigating....... she was doing investigation on her own..... the 'boat-rockers' were doing an investigation in front of everyone...... are jurors allowed to investigate?

besides... how did they know #7 investigated anything? B/c she told them.... well did her investigation taint them in anyway? If she was using those facts to deliberate then the whole jury was tainted at that point..

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by deputydi

Jurors are permitted to examine and handle items in evidence. They had every right to ask to see the evidence (boat) in question. You can't possibly suggest that it should have been brought to them in the deliberation room. They did not conduct an independent experiment with anything not in evidence ~ in fact, I don't think it can be properly classified as an "experiment" at all. What they did was test the veracity of the defense's claim that the boat was not sturdy enough for Scott to have dumped a body from it. That is totally different than conducting independent internet research from a juror's home.

Yes, the jury is allowed to handle evidence..my point is, they experiment with the boat which is in evidence to establish facts that were not addressed by the experts..---> "the stability of the boat"..as far as I know, that is not allowed..

[attorneywan2be]

Originally Posted by ekg

sure there is...both sets were investigating....... she was doing investigation on her own..... the 'boat-rockers' were doing an investigation in front of everyone...... are jurors allowed to investigate?

besides... how did they know #7 investigated anything? B/c she told them.... well did her investigation taint them in anyway? If she was using those facts to deliberate then the whole jury was tainted at that point..

As far as I remember..either the jurors or the foreman told the judge that she didn't share with them the results of her investigation...I'm not really positive, so I need to check it out...