Big news in the Laci Peterson case as you all know. Juror #5 is accused of talking with the murdered woman's relative. The juror allegedly did this mingling despite the fact that the judge warned the jurors to stay clear of talking about the case to anyone, or at least associating with others not on the jury.

Questions for debate:

1.)Is this a case of gross wrong-doing or simply ignorance on the part of the juror?

2.)Should this juror have stayed on?

3.)Can Scott Peterson get a fair trial in light of the saturated media coverage?

1.)Is this a case of gross wrong-doing or simply ignorance on the part of the juror?

I vote "neither". Without more information, I think what probably happened was a chance encounter as you're standing in the only security line to get into the courthouse. Unless they have completely separate lines to get through security, you're going to end up with these chance encounters. I've had to ride up in elevators with people who were suing me; doesn't mean anything nefarious happened. Just means that we were both late for court and only one elevator was working. It happens.

2.)Should this juror have stayed on?

Unless there's some evidence that the juror said something showing clear bias in the case, then there's no reason to dump the juror. Even the defense attorney agrees with this decision.

3.)Can Scott Peterson get a fair trial in light of the saturated media coverage?

That is the most important question and worthy of a whole topic in itself.

I think the answer is "yes". Psychologically, many Americans dig the underdog. While some folks are piling on, there will be lots of other folks who will try harder to defend. Given the amount of ink/air play time for the run-up to the trial, I'd say that there's going to be enough folks out there that could end up on the jury that would be biased to finding out the truth instead of just what's being reported in the media.

1.)Is this a case of gross wrong-doing or simply ignorance on the part of the juror?

Probably stupidity.

2.)Should this juror have stayed on?

No. Not only must a trial be fair, it must appear fair. There is a problem with implied bias with this witness now. As a judge I would have booted the juror because it endangers the case for no real reason. There are pleanty of alternates and why risk having to do this all again because of something so dumb.[U]

3.)Can Scott Peterson get a fair trial in light of the saturated media coverage?

It certainly won't get any better. The publicity cuts both ways. To get people who have heard or followed the case you have to get people who are generally not pro prosecution. I think it is a wash.

J

Stupid juror has been removed.

Juror Removed From Scott Peterson Trial



Well, that resolves the first two questions. Good thing there's the third one.