Professor Richard Hasen offered commentary on legal issues surrounding the San Diego mayoral election in several stories and an op-ed piece.
To the San Diego Union Tribune, in a story on December 19th, Hasen remarked on the likelihood that mayoral candidate Donna Frye would prevail: "It's always difficult to contest an election. I would say she has a chance. A good chance is probably going too far."
In an op-ed essay run by the San Diego Union-Tribune on December 17th, Hasen observes that the contested mayoral election will likely be decided by the courts, and calls for reforms that make it less likely that courts will need to intervene in the future.
Hasen noted, to the Los Angeles Times on December 15th, "The question is how much knowledge of the process can you require on the part of voters? Are you going to disenfranchise people who didn't follow the rules?"
In a story run on December 8th by Copley News Service covering a court decision in a dispute over the San Diego mayoral election, Hasen was asked about the likelihood of the case being heard by the Supreme Court. Hasen responded, "I think that would be very unlikely, given the holding in the ruling here."
On the legal issues surrounding the legitimacy write-in ballots, Hasen asked, "Do you side with the technical compliance with the rules, or with the will of the voters?" in the San Diego Union Tribune on November 18th.
Professor Laurie Levenson provided extensive analysis on the Scott Peterson murder trial.
Levenson was quoted by the Christian Science Monitor on December 15th in a story in the role emotion played in the jury's deliberations in the case: "The drama of the courtroom and how you evaluate it is important. That has always been a part of the equation, but I've never heard it articulated as clearly as by this jury...This case highlights it."
After Peterson was found guilty and sentenced to death, the San Francisco Chronicle asked Levenson about the impact of this on defense attorney Mark Geragos' career. Levenson responded: "It's a body blow, but not a knockout. Some people will see him and think at first, 'He lost the Peterson case.' But he'll still be in demand." The story ran on December 14th.
On ABC's "World News Tonight with Peter Jennings" on December 14th, Levenson commented on Peterson's death sentence: "There is a silver lining, actually, in getting the death penalty. This way, the defense gets to go straight to the California Supreme Court to hear their appeal. Ironically, Scott Peterson is probably safer on death row for the time being because inmates don't like other prisoners who have killed women and children."
While the jury was still deliberating on Peterson's penalty, Levenson told the Chicago Tribune on December 13th, "It was a good sign for Peterson that they didn't come back immediately." It makes a lot of sense to me that frankly they wanted to take the weekend ... Because I think in the amount of time they've deliberated, about the only thing they've been able to do is hear each other out."
To the Los Angeles Times on December 5th, Levenson noted that the penalty phase of a capital punishment case is "the biggest burden the legal system can put on any lawyer."
Levenson, in the Los Angeles Times on November 30th, analyzed Peterson's attempt to delay the penalty phase of the trial, "(T)he jury must have felt very antagonistically when they came back with that verdict. It can't hurt. The further you go into the holiday period, the more forgiving jurors can be.
In a story on whether Peterson would take the stand during the penalty phase of the trial in the Los Angeles Times on November 26th, Levenson said, "It's Peterson's decision, but there are many problems with him taking the witness stand. If he did that, the prosecution would tear into him with a vengeance."
On November 23rd, Levenson was quoted in USA Today on a defense motion to move the trial out of Redwood City and pick a new jury, "There's only an outside chance. Ordinarily these matters are left to the broad discretion of the trial judge. The court is reluctant to interfere in mid-trial. And this Supreme Court has not been overly sympathetic to death-penalty defendants."
To Newsweek on November 22nd, Levenson considered why the Peterson case garnered so much media and audience attention, saying, "This became a morality play in which people could reaffirm their own good values by supporting the victims. People were holding their breath to see if the system would get it right."
Also on November 22nd, USA Today included this comment from Levenson on whether Scott Peterson would take the stand during his trial, "His life's on the line. He may want to take the stand and say, 'Look, I really didn't do it, and even if you think I did, you really need to know the other side of me.' "
In the Oakland Tribune on November 18th, Levenson was quoted on why Scott Peterson's attorney Mark Geragos might be petitioning the court for a change in venue: "He wants in the record people cheering and the media coverage after the verdict. That would not ordinarily be part of the record without another motion. He's saying the court underestimated the prejudicial impact of trying a case in this venue. It's one thing to make an error in the guilt phase, and you certainly don't want to compound the error when a man's life is at stake."
On November 15th in the Chicago Sun-Times, Levenson remarked on what life on death row might be like for Scott Peterson, "It will be a hard time for him. Initially, he may be segregated. But life segregation can be difficult. It's more likely he'll end up in general population. He's going to have to learn how to survive. As far as the inmates are concerned, he's a wife killer and a baby killer."
When the jury found Scott Peterson guilty, Levenson commented on the public's positive reactions to The New York Times on November 13th, noting that it could be a '''O.J. hangover'-people all thought O.J. did it, and the jury came back with a not-guilty verdict.'' She added that this time, perhaps the public felt that ''the justice system has been righted.''
While the jury was deliberating, Levenson, in the New York Daily News on November 13th, questioned whether Scott Peterson would be found guilty: "He doesn't look like a defendant. He's not someone with a criminal record . . . He has a steady job."
When the jury returned with
a guilty verdict, Levenson was a guest on CNN's "Wolf Blitzer Reports"
on November 12th. Asked about her reaction to the verdict, Levenson responded,
"I think the most surprising thing about it, Wolf, was the split verdict,
the first degree on Laci and the second degree on Conner. But, frankly,
we didn't know what to expect from this jury. My reaction, it wasn't so
much poring over the evidence that had them come to a verdict. It was
a gut check. They talked to each other and they had this firm conviction
that he was guilty and they were willing to say it together."
Levenson appeared on "The Early Show" on CBS on November 12th to comment
on the removal of a second juror, noting, "You wonder whether there was
a coup going on in this jury, because they had a new foreperson and the
old one's out."
Also on November 12th, Levenson was quoted in the Los Angeles Times on the level of media attention received by the trial: "This case wants to be another O.J., in that it tries to generate as much publicity as it can. In a post-O.J. world, some trials don't just occur inside the courtroom-there are spin artists inside, as well as outside."
Levenson was a guest during a segment on the removal of the second juror on "The Early Show" on CBS on November 11th, commenting, "It's not unusual to have problems with jurors, but it is unusual to have the jury foreperson excused, to have jurors back-to-back excused."
To the Chicago Tribune on November 11th, Levenson said, "I think all the strange happenings with the jury can be attributed to the fact that they're in a pressure cooker. They know there will be a great deal of scrutiny no matter what decision they make."
Asked again about the second juror's removal, by the New York Daily News on November 11th, Levenson responded, "They still could come together if the new foreman sees himself as one of 12.not a boss. There have been clashes. The fact that he is a firefighter and probably doesn't panic easily may be helpful."
Asked to comment when the first juror was removed in the Scott Peterson trial, Levenson said to USA Today on November 10th, "I don't think anything about this means a mistrial is more likely."
Professor Stan Goldman was quoted in several stories on the Scott Peterson case.
In the December 27th issue of People magazine, Goldman considered the verdict: "The jury was thoughtful and apparently reached a decision based on the evidence. The system worked."
In the Washington Post on December 14th, Goldman commented on likely appeals, noting that the Peterson case was "an appellate lawyer's petri dish."
To the Los Angeles Times on December 14th in a story on what went wrong for defense attorney Mark Geragos, Goldman said, "Mark didn't get a jury that was exactly his cup of tea, and I don't think he knew how quite to handle them."
Asked about Peterson's death sentence on "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox on December 13th, Goldman responded, "I personally think and thought from the beginning of deliberations that the weakest part of the prosecution case-I thought they had a very strong case for the fact he killed her. I thought if you actually sat through the trial, the weakest part of their case was the premeditation, the fact that he planned it. And without that planning, they don't get murder in the first degree. And without murder in the first degree, they don't get the death penalty."
On "The O'Reilly Factor," on December 10th, Goldman was asked whether a jury must be unanimous when deciding on the death penalty. Goldman said, "They're going to have to come back unanimously either to execute him or to come back with life. If they come back hung, in effect, it's always possible under California law you could empanel a new jury. But I don't think anybody wants that because literally if you empanel a new jury, you'd have to retry this case, let the jurors basically know, what the facts were in some respects. It wouldn't take five months, but it would take a while."
Commenting in the November 29th issue of People on what life in prison might be like for Peterson, Goldman said, "He's a high-profile baby killer. You draw your own conclusions as to what's going to happen to him if he's mixed in with the general prison population."
In the November 15th issue of People magazine, on whether the prosecution or defense in the Scott Peterson case made a more compelling closing statement, Goldman responded, "Emotionally the prosecution is carrying the day. On the minutiae the defense is. When they get back into the jury room to deliberate this, what's going to stick with them more?"
Also on November 15th, to the San Jose Mercury News, Goldman analyzed the poor showing of a defense witness: "It was a complete and total meltdown. In a sense, he destroyed the defense case." On defense attorney Geragos' connection with the jury: "After a certain while a big personality starts to grate on you, especially if you're not from L.A."
In an article in November 11th 's Washington Post on the removal of jurors in Scott Peterson case, Goldman was quoted: "This clearly shortens the fuses and the amount of time jurors are going to be willing to deliberate. They don't want to spend another weekend in their hotel away from their families. You can only stand being sent to your room for so long."
In People 's November 8th issue, Goldman said, "Once you're convinced that Scott did it, which I think a fair number of the jurors are, they're not buying anything the defense says."
On November 3rd, Goldman was cited by the Contra Costa Times on the closing statements: "The prosecution's argument was very emotional from a guy who's normally filled with just minutia. And the defense argument was filled with minutia from a guy who's normally emotional. Mark Geragos let us down today."
In The Argus (Fremont, CA) on November 1 st, Goldman commented on the flustered performance of one of the defense witnesses: "(That) was a real danger point for the defense. Jurors were rolling their eyes."
In a story on a bad day for the defense that ran on October 22 nd in the Daily Review (Hayward, CA), Goldman noted, "There were moments today that reminded me of Chernobyl."
On October 21 st, Goldman appeared on "On the Record with Greta Van Susteren" on Fox, saying, "The fact the defense hasn't brought on eyewitnesses to testify that Laci was seen the morning, for example, that she allegedly disappeared, that is something that the defense was probably going to put on, and I think the jury may have expected them to put on. And their failure to do so could have negative consequences."
People magazine, in their October 11th issue, cited Goldman: "There are going to be some battles in that jury room. Some people are going to see this guy as obviously guilty, and some are going to see this as a case in which the prosecution has put on nothing that really connects him to it."
In the San Jose Mercury News, also on October 11th, Goldman was asked about the police surveillance Scott Peterson was under after his wife's body was discovered. He responded: "There was no one in the country who was more watched, other than George Bush."
Professor Jeffrey Atik commented in a story on NPR's "Morning Edition" on December 14th on a settlement against Unocal for human rights abuses in Myanmar. Asked about the 1789 statute that allows U.S. citizens to file civil claims on behalf of torture and abuse victims abroad, Atik said, "Indeed, it's more viable than ever because here the defendant was a large U.S. corporation with tremendous assets, and while we don't yet know how much was paid in this settlement, this in all likelihood will be the greatest monetary recovery yet in human rights litigation."
Visiting Professor Eve Hill, director of the Western Law Center for Disability Rights, was quoted in an article in the Los Angeles Times on December 11th on a judge labeling a wheelchair-bound man a "vexatious litigant" for filing over 400 lawsuits under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Hill was quoted, "To label someone a vexatious litigant because he has a disability, and these restaurants are out of compliance, really discourages someone from enforcing their rights."
Adjunct Professor Vicki Michel commented to the Whittier Daily News on December 6th on how funding for stem-cell research in California might affect research in other states: "I don't think there's going to be this tremendous brain drain from the rest of the country. I don't think that somebody is going to leave Wisconsin to come to California just because this money is here."
Professor Georgene Vairo was featured in multiple stories on the Catholic Diocese of Orange County's settlement with sexual abuse claimants.
In the Los Angeles Times on December 3rd, Vairo noted the importance of this settlement to future claims, saying, "It's like a market is being established for [clergy abuse] settlements, and the price can go up or down."
Also on December 3rd, Vairo commented on the settlement on stories that ran on radio stations KNX and KPCC in Los Angeles.
On Cardinal Mahoney's knowledge of the abuse, Vairo said in the November 22nd edition of the Los Angeles Times, "Just by virtue of his position, he had or should have had some information on these matters."