Peterson appeal may be helped by ruling
Bob Egelko - SFGate
Here's the relevant section from the article:
Gardner, Peterson's lawyer, said in his court filing that the 13 prospective jurors were asked in their questionnaire for their views on the death penalty and all said they opposed it.
He said they were then asked whether they had any moral or religious views that would make it impossible for them to vote for a death sentence, "regardless of the facts," and all 13 replied that they had no such views.
Gardner, Peterson's lawyer, said in his court filing that the 13 prospective jurors were asked in their questionnaire for their views on the death penalty and all said they opposed it.
He said they were then asked whether they had any moral or religious views that would make it impossible for them to vote for a death sentence, "regardless of the facts," and all 13 replied that they had no such views.
Peterson's trial lawyer, Mark Geragos, sought to question the jurors, but Superior Court Judge Albert Delucchi refused, saying their answers showed that they were firmly against capital punishment - the same conclusion Riccardi's judge had reached.
Clearly Delucchi couldn't even understand what the jurors said or what it meant - or he couldn't remember it for the brief time it took. He evidenced similar mental incompetence all through the trial.
Clearly Delucchi couldn't even understand what the jurors said or what it meant - or he couldn't remember it for the brief time it took. He evidenced similar mental incompetence all through the trial.
