Comments: This Is My First, and Hopefully My Last, Post on Scott Peterson

What do you expect? He has an idiot for a client that was caught near the border with facial hair, highlights, and a wad of cash in the trunk. What would you argue? Uh, he didn't do it. On a side note, when are reporters going to start peppering J. Kerry with questions about the double homicide. Apparently he fought legislation that would make it a double-murder when a pregnant woman was murdered. I will be holding my breath.

Posted by: David at February 11, 2004 at 12:50 AM

I agree with David. Some arguments are better than others of course, but you throw 'em all at the judge to see which ones stick (this is California, after all). While you don't want to lose your credibility with the judge, making a stretch to exclude damning evidence against your client is par for the course. Indeed, it's expected. Not to at least try would make it appear that you're not giving it your best effort.

I'm not a trial lawyer, and have only appeared in court a few times on preliminary matters in patent infringement suits, but I too have had to make a less than convincing argument to exclude evidence, because, frankly, there was nothing else to go with and the evidence was just too prejudicial to my client's case to let pass uncontested.

Posted by: Lawrence at February 11, 2004 at 09:33 AM


But of course, the grounds that he is asking for the evidence to be thrown out it no longer grounded. It used to be based on what was known as the FRYE test, which is, for a piece of scientific evidence to be admitted, it needed to be generally accepted within the scientific community. That's right out... you need an expert and the jury to believe them.

No Silicon Implant Lawsuits if the Frye test was still in place.

Hopeless. Under any reasonable standard. We'll see.

Posted by: Leo at February 12, 2004 at 06:05 AM