Oct. 12 TEXAS: Up Close: Death Row inmate's possible innocence may not save him----Once convicted, innocence becomes a mere footnote. A class of journalism students at the University of St. Thomas, working on behalf of the Innocence Project, believes it has found another innocent man on Texas death row. But even if true, innocence alone will not save Anthony Graves. Inside the razor wire, within sight of the guard towers, the state of Texas has gathered a cast of convicted thieves, robbers and rapists -- none of whom is guilty. Just ask them. Anthony Graves used to ignore those jailhouse claims, but not anymore. "When someone says 'I'm innocent', I listen, because I know what happened to me," he says. There is a class at the University of St. Thomas called The Innocence Project. Twice a week, journalism students gather to brainstorm their cases. They are on a search for the innocent among the incarcerated. It was in this class, a little more than a year ago, that Anthony Graves' case file was first introduced. The students had copies of the state's habeas proceedings. They also had press accounts of Anthony's case. The deeper they dug, the better his case looked. "I've read every piece of paper on this case," says Meghan Foley, "No one placed him at the scene of the crime. There's no physical evidence on Anthony. No one saw him there." She is part of a team that took on Graves' case. It was a gruesome, sensational murder. 6 people, including 4 children, were either shot, stabbed or beaten with a hammer. The house was then set on fire. Things like that just didn't happen in a town like Somerville. "I think Mr. Sebesta wanted to get a conviction," says professor Nicole Casa-Rez. The former attorney says District Attorney Charles Sebesta was under some pressure, though she says it doesn't excuse what he did. "There was plenty of evidence that Anthony did not do it, but he didn't want to hear it," she says. 4 years ago, Sebesta told CBS news, "I'm comfortable with it. And I have to live with it." Robert Carter had confessed to the murders, but investigators believed he had to have an accomplice, and suspected his wife, Cookie. In later depositions and letters Carter admitted that he had named Anthony Graves in exchange for Sebesta's promise to ignore Cookie. For those who believe that even killers on death row tell the truth just before their own executions, consider that in his final words, Carter said Anthony Graves had nothing to do with the murders. In fact, Carter said over and over again, as he had in his deposition, that Graves was innocent. Carter told CBS that nobody had forced him to make the statement. But Graves understands that once convicted, innocence becomes a mere footnote. "It doesn't matter how much evidence there is that I'm innocent. If they don't prove my constitutional rights were violated, they're gonna execute me," Graves says. That will be decided by what a federal judge thinks of Sebesta's conduct during the trial. In particular, when Graves' girlfriend Yolanda Mathis was called to testify. "Yolanda was my key alibi witness, because she was with me all night," Graves says. Sebesta theorized if she was with Graves, then she had to be at the scene of the crime. So he threatened to indict her, too. "She got so frightened, she refused to even come in the courtroom," says Graves. "It was just a scare tactic, and it worked at the time," says Foley, "I can't fathom how this man's been in jail for 10 years." Anthony Graves' only hope now is that his civil rights were violated -- because mere innocence will schedule him to die. A federal district judge in Galveston will decide whether Graves' civil rights were violated in the course of the trial. Former District Attorney Charles Sebesta told the court last week that he believes he provided all relevant information to defense attorneys during the trial. He also says he still believes graves is guilty. (source: KHOU News) *********************** ---- female may face death penalty Accused Mother Pregnant There are new revelations in a family tragedy. Kimberly Marie Castillo is accused of choking her 18-month-old son to death, biting him at least 14 times. Monday, a tiny casket carried the body of the little boy allegedly killed by his mother. It was an emotional day for those attending the funeral services for little Jerry Galindo. Sources with Child Protective Services (CPS) now say the 20-year-old Castillo is four months pregnant -- and in jail. They're investigating to see if 2 surviving children may safely return to the custody of other family members. Right now a 10-month-old and a three-year-old are in foster care. A previous investigation of Castillo - in March - did not produce sufficient evidence to take the boy out of the home in time to save his life. CPS sources say that's something the public may be able to help with in future similar scenarios. Aaron Reed of CPS says, "You know by the time CPS gets involved in something like this all too frequently a child has already been hurt or in this case the child died and we need all the help we can get." Castillo is charged with capital murder under recent guidelines protecting children under the age of 6. She could get the death penalty if convicted. CPS says friends, family members, church members and neighbors can save lives by calling authorities. (source: KZ-TV) *********************** Jury shown a picture of bodies, blood----Defendant's lawyer warns of testimony A Nueces County prosecutor presented a photograph of 2 bullet-riddled corpses and blood-splattered walls to a jury Monday on the 1st day of a capital murder trial. Prosecutor James Sales opened his case in Judge Jose Longoria's court in the trial of Joe David Padron, 28, who faces the death penalty. Padron is accused of the gang-related killing of Jesus Omar Gonzalez and John Commisky, both 19, on Nov. 12, 2002, in the 2900 block of Mary Street. The 2 were shot with an assault rifle and a 9 mm pistol while sleeping in the house of a friend's grandmother, Sales said in the moments before he entered a picture of dead bodies into evidence. Padron said in a jailhouse telephone call about 6 months ago that he did not kill Gonzalez and Commisky. "The public has been misled," Padron said at the time. "We had nothing to do with that." Padron and Martin Robles, 25, were arrested in November and charged with capital murder. Robles already has been tried, convicted and sentenced to death. In the opening of the Padron case, Sales said testimony will reveal the shooting happened because Gonzalez and Commisky were dealing crack on the turf of a rival gang, one of which Padron and Robles were said to have been members. Sales also told jurors to expect testimony from an informant who heard Robles and Padron talk in jail about their role in the killings. Defense lawyer Doug Tinker told jurors the snitch's testimony should not carry much weight. "The only witnesses that say anything about Joe David Padron are crooks and liars," Tinker said and added that informants testify only to get reductions in their own sentences. Padron wore a suit and took notes during Monday's proceeding. He has been in the Nueces County Jail since the shooting 2 years ago because of lawyers' scheduling problems and difficulty choosing a jury. ********************** 2 enter not guilty pleas in shooting----Police look for 3rd suspect Cristina Chavez and Angela Cruz Rodriguez pleaded not guilty to capital murder on Monday in connection with allegations they took part in this past July's shooting death of a convenience store clerk who was robbed of $1.25, officials said. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Chavez, 23, and Rodriguez, 30, along with John Henry Ramirez, 20. The three were indicted last week on capital murder charges in connection with the July 19 death of Pablo Castro at a Times Market in the 1900 block of Baldwin Boulevard, First Assistant District Attorney Mark Skurka said. Police continued on Monday to look for Ramirez, who has been on the lam since the shooting, Corpus Christi Police Cmdr. Mike Walsh said. "The search is consisting of leads that are continuing to come in through Metrocom, Crime Stoppers and folks calling in with possible sightings," Walsh said. A grand jury also indicted the 3 for a possible role in 2 aggravated robberies of women at 2 Whataburger restaurants after police were called to the convenience store, attorneys said. About 10 minutes after police were called to the Times Market on Baldwin, a woman was reportedly robbed at knifepoint while sitting in a drive-through. A few minutes later another woman was reportedly robbed. Rodriguez's attorney, Richard Rogers, said no trial dates have been set. Chavez and Rodriguez remained in jail Monday in lieu of $1 million bonds each. (source for both: Corpus Christi Caller-Times) *********************** Accused robber guilty in slayings of clerk, officer----Prosecutors seek the death penalty for Elijah Joubert A man accused of plotting the robbery of a check cashing store that ended in the fatal shooting of a store clerk and a Houston police officer was convicted Monday of capital murder. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty for Elijah Dwayne Joubert, 24, who is 1 of 3 men charged in the April 3, 2003, killings at the Ace America Check Cashing store in the 5700 block of the South Loop East. Joubert showed no emotion as state District Judge Mark Kent Ellis read the guilty verdict. Prosecutors said Joubert pulled the trigger in the fatal shooting of the store clerk, 27-year-old Alfredia Jones. Joubert and 2 other men planned the robbery, demanded money from the store's safe, then fatally shot Jones and police officer Charles Clark, who was responding to the report of a robbery. "These people killed to eliminate the chance of getting caught. That is one of the most horrible things a person can do," Assistant District Attorney Tommy LaFon told jurors Monday. Prosecutors said another man charged in the killings, Alfred Dewayne Brown, shot Clark, who was 45. Brown's capital murder trial is later this year. Jurors deliberated for one hour before returning the capital murder conviction. The trial's penalty phase begins this morning, when jurors will determine whether Joubert should receive a life sentence or the death penalty. A key witness at the 5-day trial was Joubert's co-defendant, 22-year-old Dashan Glaspie, who has pleaded guilty to aggravated robbery in a deal that will limit his sentence to 30 years if he testified against Joubert and Brown. Glaspie told jurors that Joubert planned the robbery and encouraged him and Brown to participate. Joubert held the clerk at gunpoint as she opened the safe, then shot her after realizing that she had contacted police, Glaspie said. Defense attorneys Allen Isbell and Jerome Godinich said Glaspie was the shooter who killed the woman, suggesting Joubert was coerced into participating in the robbery. One defense witness, LaMarcus Colar, testified he heard Glaspie admit to shooting the woman while speaking on a mobile phone after the killings. (source: Houston Chronicle) ************************** ALDRICH EXECUTION TUESDAY FOR DEATH OF NICOLAS WEST A Tyler man is scheduled to be executed Tuesday and will be the 2nd co-defendant put to death for kidnapping, robbing and murdering a gay man nearly 11 years ago. Donald Loren Aldrich, 39, will be the 3rd Texas inmate executed in 8 days and the 16th this year. He is set to die for the 1993 capital murder of Nicolas West, a 23-year-old Tyler medical records clerk. Judge Cynthia Stevens Kent, of the 114th District Court, issued a warrant for his death Sept. 7 after learning that Aldrich had exhausted all of his state and federal appeals. The federal proceedings were completed in San Antonio in June, in which an order was issued to lift the defendant's stay of execution. When Aldrich appealed the decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals 5th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court denied all relief, she said. Aldrich, who was tran-sported for the court proceeding from a prison in Livingston, was represented by his trial attorney, Bill Wright, and his appellate attorney, Jared Tyler. Aldrich is a plaintiff in a civil rights lawsuit against the Texas Depart-ment of Crim-inal Justice about the manner in which he is to be executed. Judge Kent said the civil matter was not a "legal reason at bar" to delay the execution. The Attorney General's Office asked Michael West, Smith County assistant district attorney, to inform the court of a 1983 lawsuit Aldrich is involved in that could result in the defendant's receiving another stay of execution if the date was set before the civil trial in February, he said. But Judge Kent said she did not see how it would legally be appropriate for the courts to grant a stay because of a non-related civil matter. She entered the death warrant to be carried out at any time after 6 p.m. Tuesday, at which time Aldrich will be put to death by intravenous lethal injection. Former state District Judge Diane DeVasto set a 1998 execution date for Aldrich before he received a stay. He was convicted and sentenced to die for the 1993 abduction, robbery and slaying of Nicolas West, whose partially nude body was found at a clay pit near Noonday. The inmate is one of three Tyler men convicted in the slaying. West had been abducted from Tyler's Bergfeld Park and forced to drive to the remote clay pit, where he was shot as many as 12 times with 2 different guns. Aldrich was tried and convicted in a 1994 trial, which was held in Kerrville on a change of venue. Co-defendant Henry Earl Dunn Jr. of Tyler was executed in February of 2003. A 3rd defendant, David Ray McMillan, was convicted of aggravated robbery and kidnapping and received a life sentence. Former prosecutors who tried the case described Aldrich as a "cold-blooded executioner" and the leader of a loose-knit group, the "CB gang," that preyed on gays. West was gay. The capital murder case of the former restaurant manager, who uses the handles 'Sundance" and "Pappy," was the first Smith County homicide to be reported to the state as a hate crime under new Texas law, although the classification was not a factor in his trial. Aldrich, in a videotaped confession, told police he was involved in the killing because he had been raped by a gay cousin when he was 9 years old. (source: Tyler Morning Telegraph) USA: The Missing Issue----The falling salience of crime as a political issue has undoubtedly reduced the power of the death penalty as an issue. One of the lessons the Democratic party learned in the 1980s was that it could not run candidates at the national level who opposed capital punishment. The lesson sank in after the 1988 presidential debates, in which Michael Dukakis was asked whether he would favor it if someone raped and murdered his wife. He said no, with the same emotion he would have shown in response to a question about farm price supports. The exchange entered the lore of campaign mistakes. In the 3 following presidential elections, the Democrats nominated candidates who favored the death penalty.But for the 1st time in 16 years, they have nominated an opponent. John Kerry used to oppose the death penalty altogether; now he opposes it, with an exception for terrorists. Yet the issue has been largely absent from the campaign. One reason it hasn't figured more prominently may be that the political class has a dated perception of public-opinion trends on the issue. During the late 1990s, the drop in public support for the death penalty was widely noted. In the Gallup poll, support dropped by 15 points between September 1994 and May 2001. In 2000, the issue was to some extent used against Republicans. Democrats portrayed Bush as too bloodthirsty in his approach to capital punishment as the governor of Texas, thus making Gore out to be a moderate supporter of the death penalty. Yet even at the time, the death penalty was still fairly popular. That May 2001 poll found 65 % of the public saying that they favored "the death penalty for a person convicted of murder." What's more, support has been rising since September 11. Gallup's May 2004 poll showed 71 % support and 26 % opposition. Asked whether the death penalty was imposed "too often," "not often enough," or "about the right amount," 48 % of respondents to that poll said not often enough (while 25 % said the right amount and 23 % said too often). While my colleague Byron York has written about the recent increases, almost nobody else has. The falling salience of crime as a political issue has undoubtedly reduced the power of the death penalty as an issue. But I suspect that for many voters, a candidate's opposition to it is still a sign that he is too liberal and out of step with their values. Raising the issue might, of course, conflict with the Bush campaign's desire to court Catholics. But Catholic voters are, for better or worse, not with the Catholic hierarchy on the issue: That May 2004 poll found them to be slightly more pro-death penalty than the public at large. (They favored it 75-22 %. 50 % of Catholics thought that the penalty is imposed too infrequently, and only 20 % that it is imposed too often.) It could be that Republicans are not using the death-penalty issue because it is seen as more of a state issue than a presidential one. I'm not sure that voters make that distinction. But even if they did, there are federal issues here. States' practices are constrained by the federal courts, and there have been some signs of renewed activism on the question from the liberal justices on the Supreme Court. And Washington politicians can, to some extent, make issues where they will. Senators Jon Kyl and Orrin Hatch have introduced a bill to expedite the federal review of states' death-penalty sentences in cases involving the murder of police officers. A real presidential push for that bill would, presumably, yield another Kerry flip-flop. Will Bush make the death penalty an issue in the last weeks of the campaign? If not, we will have to grant Bill Clinton another political triumph: On his watch, the death penalty stopped being an issue that kills Democrats. (source: Ramesh Ponnuru, National Review) ****************** High Court Gets Passionate Plea from 48 Nations When the justices of the Supreme Court debate the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty tomorrow, the governments of 48 countries will be among those asking them to strike it down. America stands "virtually alone" in carrying out the executions of murderers who were 17 and 18 years old at the time they committed the crime, states a brief to the court from the European Union and other countries including Canada, Mexico, and Iceland. But the extent to which international opinion is relevant to the interpretation of the American Constitution is itself a hotly debated issue before the court. The question is part of a broader battle over America's acceptance of international laws, treaties, and institutions that was highlighted in the runup to the Iraq war, in the treatment of prisoners in the fight against terrorism, and in the visions of the nation's place in the world outlined by the presidential candidates. Tomorrow the court will grapple with the Eighth Amendment, which bars "cruel and unusual punishments" but does not provide criteria for identifying such practices. The Supreme Court has said the list includes punishments considered cruel and unusual in 1789 when the Bill of Rights was adopted, and also draws its meaning "from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society." The question is, which society? Lawyers for convicted murderer Christopher Simmons, who was 17 when he killed a woman he had robbed, argue that "a world-wide revulsion against the execution of juveniles" confirms what they say is a national consensus that the death penalty for 17- and 18-year-olds is "cruel and unusual." Lawyers for the state of Missouri, where Simmons had been on death row, argue that the court must consider only whether the punishment serves a purpose, whether it is proportional to the gravity of the crime, and whether state legislatures and American juries continue to apply it. "In ascertaining the standard of decency of American society, courts should look to the political attitudes of our society, not of societies from around the globe," their brief states. In 1993, then 17-year-old Simmons, who is now 28, broke into the home of Shirley Crook and robbed her with the help of 2 teenage accomplices. When the victim recognized him from an earlier car accident, the youths gagged and bound her and drowned her in a river. Simmons later confessed to the murder and was convicted for first-degree murder and sentenced to death. In 2003, the Missouri Supreme Court set aside his death sentence and re-sentenced him to life in prison without the possibility of parole. State prosecutors appealed the court's decision. Human rights advocates see the Simmons case as a chance to open more fully the door to international norms that the court nudged open in 2002, when it reversed its own precedent and struck down the death penalty for people with mental retardation in a case known as Atkins. The court noted that the practice was banned in other countries. The Missouri court relied on that reversal to strike down Simmons's death sentence, finding both a national and international consensus against the practice. Dozens of groups have filed passionate briefs on both sides of the debate, ranging from Nobel laureates to psychiatric organizations and religious figures like the Dalai Lama. Simmons's lawyers claim the court has historically allowed foreign opinions and practices to inform the definition of "cruel and unusual," a phrase that was taken directly from the English Declaration of Rights of 1688 and represented a principle that can be traced back to the Magna Carta. "The basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment is nothing less than the dignity of man," states a 1958 ruling holding unconstitutional the stripping of army deserters of their citizenship. In 1977, the court also said the climate of international opinion is "not irrelevant" to whether a punishment was cruel and unusual. However, foreign practices have generally been relegated to footnotes in the court's decisions. American reluctance to give weight to international opinion is something human-rights lawyers would like to see changed. "It is a broader issue about how the courts look to sources outside the United States and the executive branch looks to and honors treaty obligations, and the evolving views in the world community, and our respect for them," said the author of the E.U.'s brief and a professor of law at the American University's Washington College of Law, Richard Wilson. There has been "incredible damage to the U.S. image in the world because of our unwillingness to look to international standards and to say, we know best and we will decide what is appropriate," he said, citing the prison abus es at Abu Ghraib, and the coalition building in the war in Iraq. But advocates of a historically grounded interpretation of the Constitution say the practices of other nations should "not be legally relevant" to the understanding of the Eight Amendment. "That is not a plausible way to interpret the Constitution. ...I see it as a huge threat to interpreting the Constitution according to its original meaning," said a professor of law at Northwestern University School of Law, John McGinnis. Other countries have different legal systems and historical experiences, may have weaker due process protections, or may ban the death penalty altogether, he said. And while Europeans may embrace more liberal interpretations of some rights, they take a narrower view of the rights of property and free speech, he said. To date, America has followed its own path on the juvenile death penalty. In 1989, the United Nations adopted the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which bars capital punishment for those under 18. Only the United States and Somalia did not ratify it. Of the other countries believed to have executed young people in the past decade, only in America is the practice still legal. China, Pakistan, Nigeria, Yemen, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo have either banned the practice or commuted sentences. Saudi Arabia has denied reports that it executed a juvenile in 1992. In January, Iran executed a man for a crime he committed as a 17-year-old. Iran has legislation pending that would ban the practice, but it is uncertain whether it will be enacted. International arguments aside, the lawyers for Simmons argue they can win the case on domestic law alone. As part of their argument, they contend there is an evolving consensus in this country against the juvenile death penalty. Among the 38 states that have the death penalty, 18 prohibit the execution of juveniles. They also point to a recent study by a Columbia University law professor, Jeffrey Fagan, and researched by Valerie West, which found a statistically significant decline in the use of the death penalty by judges and juries in the states where it is still legal. "We see a decline in the use of juvenile death sentences virtually to zero, and that decline exceeds any other possible explanatory factor - greater than decline in homicide arrests and the decline in the murder rate," Mr. Fagan said. Missouri disputes the results. Mr. Nixon argues the trend is not in a consistent direction, because various states have passed legislation to officially make juvenile death sentences legal, with some setting legal age thresholds lower than state precedents. They also note that Mr. Fagan's study does not account for choices by prosecutors not to seek the death penalty. But Mr. Fagan said that could reflect "a judgment that judges and juries won't convict" if death is the penalty, or because they themselves oppose the use of the death penalty. (source: The New York Sun) SOUTH CAROLINA----new death sentence Officer's killer is sentenced to death----Bryant's attorney plans to appeal James Nathaniel Bryant III's sentence for killing Horry County police Cpl. Dennis Lyden is death - again. It took a jury 1=BD hours Saturday to recommend a death sentence for Bryant. Circuit Court Judge Paula Thomas sentenced him and added 20 years for armed robbery. A separate jury convicted Bryant on both charges in 2001, but the S.C. Supreme Court reversed that conviction after ruling Bryant was denied a fair trial, and returned the case to Horry County. Thomas said Bryant would be returned immediately to death row at Lieber Correctional Institution in Ridgeville. He had been held in Georgetown County Detention Center since the reversal of his 1st conviction. "Praise the Lord," Bryant said after the verdict. He had told jurors before their decision that he was a changed man and doing God's work in prison. I pray that the victim's family will be comforted," he said. Lyden's widow, Maryann Lyden, declined comment after the verdict. Bryant's family also declined to comment. "Nobody is happy about anything that happened," said Lyden's brother, Patrick Lyden. The nearly 2-week trial led to a verdict Horry County Police Chief Johnny Morgan called just and shows "our justice system really works." Lyden is the 1st Horry County police officer killed on duty. He was beaten severely, then shot once in the head after making a traffic stop on Bryant early June 5, 2000, on S.C. 544. Bryant's lawyer, Paul Archer of Pawleys Island, said he accepted the verdict and wasn't surprised, because the jury saw evidence "[Bryant] beat [Lyden] and didn't have to shoot him." Photos of Lyden's body likely helped jurors choose a death sentence, said Robert Johnston, Bryant's other lawyer. Prosecutor Walter Bailey punctuated his closing arguments with two of the photos - one of Lyden before the beating and the other of his bloodied face and head. Johnston asked jurors to consider changes in Bryant's life since the crime, the love he shares with his family and his behavior in prison, and choose a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. Bryant didn't take the witness stand, which would have subjected him to cross-examination by the prosecutor. Instead, he spoke directly to jurors and offered apologies to the Lyden family and his own. Taking responsibility for the crime, he said, "On June 5, 2000, I was a man in rebellion against everything, even our Creator. But today I'm with God. I know peace. God wants me to go forth, even in an earthly place of punishment." Johnston said the Bryant's conviction would be appealed. (source: The Sun News) CALIFORNIA: Defense to begin case in Peterson trial Scott Peterson's fate appears to have been sealed when the bodies of his pregnant wife and fetus washed up separately not far from where he says he was on a solo fishing trip in San Francisco Bay. That alibi has been the most damning evidence against him in his murder trial. Some legal experts say the defense could still win by proving one single fact: that the fetus was born alive long after Laci was reported missing. That would mean Peterson most likely couldn't have killed them because police watched his every move in the weeks after Laci disappeared on Christmas Eve 2002. The defense was to begin its case Tuesday. Evidence about the age of the fetus could either set the 31-year-old former fertilizer salesman free - or send him to his death. But given how decomposed the bodies were after months in the water, that's going to be extremely difficult to prove. Authorities could not determine a cause or time of death for either victim, and prosecution experts also couldn't agree on how the fetus was separated from its mother's body. They also couldn't exactly pinpoint the age of the fetus. In his opening statement more than four months ago, defense lawyer Mark Geragos made a bold promise: Defense experts, he said, would testify the fetus was older than it would have been had it died on Dec. 24 when Laci Peterson disappeared. He also told jurors the umbilical cord was cut in such a way that it must have been removed from her body while still living. Prosecutors claimed the fetus was expelled from Laci's decaying corpse after it was sunk in San Francisco Bay by her cheating husband. Dr. Brian Peterson, who performed the autopsy on the fetus, a boy the couple planned to name Conner, testified there was no evidence Laci had given birth before her death. But later, appearing to contradict himself, he said the fetus appeared to be full term. Geragos implied the fetus could have been physically removed from a tear in the top of Laci's uterus, from where Dr. Peterson said it was eventually expelled. "I couldn't say yes or no," Dr. Peterson replied. Alison Galloway, an anthropology professor at University of California, Santa Cruz, estimated the fetus' age to be between 33 and 38 weeks based on bone measurements. Laci Peterson was believed to be 33 weeks' pregnant when she disappeared. Geragos noted how inexact her estimate was, given the state of decomposition. "I hate to say mushy, but that was sort of the way it was and that doesn't allow you to get an accurate measurement," Galloway said of the fetus. The experts' testimony left holes that defense attorneys hope to fill when they begin their case. Prosecutors allege Peterson killed his pregnant wife on or around Christmas Eve, then dumped her into the bay. The bodies washed up about four months later, mere miles from where Peterson claims to have been fishing alone the day his wife vanished. Defense lawyers claim someone else abducted Laci and possibly held her captive while police homed in on Peterson, then crudely cut the fetus from her belly before framing her husband after learning of his widely publicized alibi. "If this baby was born alive, clearly Scott Peterson had nothing to do with this murder," Geragos told jurors. If Geragos can convince the jury the fetus was indeed at or near full term when it died, jurors likely couldn't convict Peterson for the killings. Laci's due date was roughly 6 weeks after her disappearance. "It's going to be a battle of the experts," said former prosecutor and trial observer Dean Johnson said. "It's the one fact they need to prove to win this case. Everything else becomes background." "If he can put experts on that will give some sort of credibility to that theory, that's the ballgame," added Robert Talbot, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law. "The defense's best shot is to show the baby was born later because nobody can really show that it wasn't." It will likely all come down to credibility - whose experts the jury believes and whether there is enough reasonable doubt to lean toward innocence. But what is reasonable? Webster's dictionary defines it as "fair, just, wise, sensible." But one man's sensible is another man's ridiculous. "Reasonable is the great code word in the law," Johnson said. "It's just a code word for 'do whatever makes sense.' It's supposed to be objective, but many times, it's subjective." (source: Associated Press)
