After ten months, the preliminary hearing in the case of Scott Peterson, accused of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and the couple's unborn child, begins today.

Voluminous court filings have provided glimpses of the evidence that defense attorneys will try to prevent prosecutors from presenting: DNA analysis of Mrs. Peterson's hair found on pliers in Mr. Peterson's boat, bloodhounds used to pick up the scent of Mrs. Peterson in the boat or at a storage warehouse that her husband rented, and wiretaps and global-positioning systems used to monitor and track Mr. Peterson.

The prosecution is expected to unveil previously undisclosed evidence today. But, the question is, will it merely relate to Scott Peterson's character or will it link him to the crime?

Yes, there is some circumstantial evidence: He was a bad husband, had a mistress -- which may have given him a motive -- but what evidence do you have that links him to the crime?" asked [Ruth] Jones, the criminal law professor. "What evidence do you have that links him to the date, time and place and perhaps manner of the killing?"

We're not expecting fireworks. Given the relaxed evidentiary rules and resulting prevalence of hearsay at preliminary hearings, as well as the ultra-low burden of proof (probable cause is like "Is there a reason to believe?") the case will be bound over. The defense can be considered successful if it shows some significant inconsistencies in the prosecution's evidence and testimony of its star witnesses, and leaves the media and public wondering, "Is that all there is?"

This was posted in the comments section to an earlier piece we wrote on Tommy Chong, who is now serving his federal prison sentence. We verified the information through the Bureau of Prisons lnmate Locator webpage.

Anyone wishing to write to tommy chong may do so through this address:
Address letters to:

Thomas Kin Chong
07798-068
Taft CI
UNIT A, #4B
PO Box 7001
1500 Cadet Road
Taft, CA 93268

send him your love and let him know you care and that we are doing all we can. Thanks AMERICA

You might also want to send him some magazine subscriptions. He's not scheduled for release until July, 2004, and last time we checked, federal prisons don't allow inmates to receive hardcover books.

This was posted in the comments section to an earlier piece we wrote on Tommy Chong, who is now serving his federal prison sentence. We verified the information through the Bureau of Prisons lnmate Locator webpage.

Anyone wishing to write to tommy chong may do so through this address:
Address letters to:

Thomas Kin Chong
07798-068
Taft CI
UNIT A, #4B
PO Box 7001
1500 Cadet Road
Taft, CA 93268

send him your love and let him know you care and that we are doing all we can. Thanks AMERICA

You might also want to send him some magazine subscriptions. He's not scheduled for release until July, 2004, and last time we checked, federal prisons don't allow inmates to receive hardcover books.

F. Lee Bailey won an unexpected victory in Florida this week. A judge overturned a $9 million verdict against him. The Court also ordered the Government to pay Bailey's legal fees.

[Bailey] got into trouble with the government in 1998 while defending television infomercial pitchman William McCorkle and his wife, Chantal, on fraud charges. At the time, the McCorkles transferred $2 million to Bailey and other attorneys for their legal defense. After the government claimed the money should be forfeited to the U.S., Bailey sought to keep it by filing a claim to a superior title, according to court records.

...The judge tossed the summary judgment in favor of the government, finding that Bailey was "entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the government's claims of conversion and civil theft." She also set aside the punitive damages as "unwarranted by the evidence."

Bailey was disbarred in 2001 over his handling of money in the case of a major drug defendant.

F. Lee Bailey won an unexpected victory in Florida this week. A judge overturned a $9 million verdict against him. The Court also ordered the Government to pay Bailey's legal fees.

[Bailey] got into trouble with the government in 1998 while defending television infomercial pitchman William McCorkle and his wife, Chantal, on fraud charges. At the time, the McCorkles transferred $2 million to Bailey and other attorneys for their legal defense. After the government claimed the money should be forfeited to the U.S., Bailey sought to keep it by filing a claim to a superior title, according to court records.

...The judge tossed the summary judgment in favor of the government, finding that Bailey was "entitled to judgment as a matter of law on the government's claims of conversion and civil theft." She also set aside the punitive damages as "unwarranted by the evidence."

Bailey was disbarred in 2001 over his handling of money in the case of a major drug defendant.

Bad news for Walmart. A federal raid of 61 of its stores resulted in the arrest of 250 undocumented workers who worked at the stores--mostly on cleaning crews.

The arrested workers were employed by contractors (or subcontractors, the article seems to use the terms interchangeably) who supplied cleaning crews to Walmart. They were not direct employees of Walmart.

Authorities said Wal-Mart and its executives, and not the cleaning subcontractors, are the focus of the latest probe. "They are looking to see if Wal-Mart was involved -- did they have knowledge of the contractors' practices and turn a blind eye to it?" said a law enforcement official who asked not to be identified. "How far up does it go?"

If they are not going after the subcontractors, does that mean the feds gave them immunity in exchange for incriminating testimony and evidence against WalMart? Is this just another case of purchased testimony? If so, we say take it with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile, the undocumented workers, who occupy the lowest rung on this totem pole, are facing deportation proceedings.

Bad news for Walmart. A federal raid of 61 of its stores resulted in the arrest of 250 undocumented workers who worked at the stores--mostly on cleaning crews.

The arrested workers were employed by contractors (or subcontractors, the article seems to use the terms interchangeably) who supplied cleaning crews to Walmart. They were not direct employees of Walmart.

Authorities said Wal-Mart and its executives, and not the cleaning subcontractors, are the focus of the latest probe. "They are looking to see if Wal-Mart was involved -- did they have knowledge of the contractors' practices and turn a blind eye to it?" said a law enforcement official who asked not to be identified. "How far up does it go?"

If they are not going after the subcontractors, does that mean the feds gave them immunity in exchange for incriminating testimony and evidence against WalMart? Is this just another case of purchased testimony? If so, we say take it with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile, the undocumented workers, who occupy the lowest rung on this totem pole, are facing deportation proceedings.

From the transcript of the bench conference in the trial of sniper suspect John Muhammad on whether he wants his lawyers back:

Judge: I believe that you can competently represent yourself in the sense that you are intelligent enough to represent yourself. I think that you have a grasp enough so that you can represent yourself, and I think you've actually been making some points. I think even you yourself have to contrast your ability to question and make decisions with the ability of Mr. Greenspun and Mr. Shapiro. I've seen them in court. I think that they are more effective -- and I think you'll have to agree -- to try this. They've got fifty-some years of experience between the two of them. This is the first opportunity we've had. I wanted you to think again about whether you want to continue to represent yourself.

From the transcript of the bench conference in the trial of sniper suspect John Muhammad on whether he wants his lawyers back:

Judge: I believe that you can competently represent yourself in the sense that you are intelligent enough to represent yourself. I think that you have a grasp enough so that you can represent yourself, and I think you've actually been making some points. I think even you yourself have to contrast your ability to question and make decisions with the ability of Mr. Greenspun and Mr. Shapiro. I've seen them in court. I think that they are more effective -- and I think you'll have to agree -- to try this. They've got fifty-some years of experience between the two of them. This is the first opportunity we've had. I wanted you to think again about whether you want to continue to represent yourself.

Accused sniper suspect John Muhammad has ended his stint as his own lawyer and his standby counsel (who are also his original lawyers) have taken over. Smart move by Mr. Muhammad.

His self representation may have helped him in terms of humanizing him before the jury. They at least got a sense of him. Hopefully, it will be harder for them to vote for death now. This Washington Post article explores this theory and asks whether Muhammad's move was calculated to curry favor with the jury.

All in all, we think he stands a way better chance with his lawyers. At least now he can preserve trial errors for appeal. He has excellent counsel and they are right back in the swing of things.

Real time blogging coverage from Virginia Pilot is
here.

Update: So what's the verdict on his two days of self-representation? Not as bad as you would think. Check out "Muhammad Stumbles, but Stars As Own Attorney."

Accused sniper suspect John Muhammad has ended his stint as his own lawyer and his standby counsel (who are also his original lawyers) have taken over. Smart move by Mr. Muhammad.

His self representation may have helped him in terms of humanizing him before the jury. They at least got a sense of him. Hopefully, it will be harder for them to vote for death now. This Washington Post article explores this theory and asks whether Muhammad's move was calculated to curry favor with the jury.

All in all, we think he stands a way better chance with his lawyers. At least now he can preserve trial errors for appeal. He has excellent counsel and they are right back in the swing of things.

Real time blogging coverage from Virginia Pilot is
here.

Update: So what's the verdict on his two days of self-representation? Not as bad as you would think. Check out "Muhammad Stumbles, but Stars As Own Attorney."

A court ruling over competing claims to convicted rapist Andrew Luster's forfeited $1 million bail yesterday divided the funds among Luster, his victims and the county. None went to Duane "Dog" Chapman, the bounty hunter who capture him.

Unfair. The Judge awarded $165,000 in costs related to Luster's capture to those who failed to capture him. Dog did the dirty work. He should have had his costs reimbursed as well.

Brodie reissued what he had awarded county agencies in August -- about $165,000 for costs accrued trying to capture Luster. The Ventura County Sheriff's Department collected about $86,200 for time spent by five detectives and costs for monitoring cell phones and towing Luster's abandoned car.

The county Probation Agency was given about $9,400 for labor costs and an electric ankle monitoring device attached to Luster that was never returned. The District Attorney's Office will get just over $65,500 for investigative costs.

The victims and the state owe a debt of gratitude to Dog. We think they should chip in and reimburse Dog for the costs he expended from his own funds.

[comments now closed]