Wednesday, June 18, 2008

Peterson Civil Trial

On July 8, 2008, the civil trial against Scott
Peterson will commence. The parents of
Laci Peterson have filed a civil suit against Scott
and the Judge has ruled that instead of accepting
the criminal conviction as proof, the Rochas will
again have to prove that Scott was responsible
for the murders of Laci Rocha Peterson and
of her unborn son Connor.

I have yet to understand why he's ruled this
way. The question of his guilt was established
by a jury. He was convicted and given the
death penalty as a sentence. Those are facts.

Scott's attorney Nareg Gourjian contends that
Scott's innocence is still in question.
From the Modesto Bee: "As proof, Gourjian cites
numerous points the defense brought out when
the criminal case went to trial.

In other words, we're going to get the criminal
trial redux from the defense. Gourjian made
mention in the newscast that he'd like to see
Det. Brochinni back on the stand. Does anyone
think that the defense and the Petersons
believe that Brochinni singlehandedly convicted
Scott? Seems to me they're holding a grudge of
sorts against him. Peterson was convicted
by much more than one detective in the case IMO.

Gourjian is an associate of and works for attorney
Mark Geragos's firm. He also attended Scott's
criminal trial and even testified on the stand
regarding the extensive media coverage when
Geragos was trying to get the trial moved.

Although Gourjian stated on a news cast that it
was possible that Scott would testify, it's unlikely
that he will. Instead the deposition taken at San
Quentin (after refusing to make a deposition,
Rocha's lawyer petitioned the court to order Scott
Peterson to comply) will likely be the only way
he'll testify.

Including all 195 instances where he "took the
5th" against incriminating himself.

I suppose for those in the public who followed
this case from its beginning getting to hear
the type of questions that he refused to answer
will alone be worth having a trial for the civil suit.
I'm of the opinion that the Judge should have accepted
his conviction as a fact in the case and allowed it to
go forward without the hoopla and fanfare of
yet another defense attempt at proving Scott
didn't do the deed and was set up.