May 1, 2025 • 9 mins
Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal joined the program Thursday to discuss legal cases in the news, including an attempt to toss out Scott Peterson's murder conviction.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal joins the program. Now, as we chew
on some legal issues in the news, we remember Scott
Peterson and he is now back in the news. He was,
of course, convicted for murdering his unborn son and wife
over twenty years ago. Peterson now wants his murder conviction
(00:23):
in California to be tossed. Something about substantial new evidence. Jeremy,
what's going on here?
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Right? Scott Peterson is back from two thousand and four
convicted really brutal homicide. As you just kind of talked
about there, Todd, what's kind of the headline to me
in this is not necessarily what they're claiming. It's that
(00:52):
the Innocence Project of Los Angeles is behind it. And
in criminal defense world, the innocence project is the old standard.
They are very very protective of their brand, of their
image of who they are and what they do, and
they don't pick clunker cases, they don't pick loser cases.
(01:13):
So the fact that they're getting all in behind Scott
Peterson is pretty interesting. They're not pointing to some really
really new things, but they're pointing to the weakness of
the overall case against Scott that it was basically built circumstantially.
Mark Geragos, Scott Peterson's lawyer, basically said Scott got convicted
(01:35):
of being weird, and he got convicted of acting very
very very very very very bizarrely after her murder. But
they're pointing us to a handful of new things that
they kind of want testing done on. But yeah, the
bizarre plot keeps going here.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah, that is strange, and as you mentioned, for that
organization to get on board, maybe lends credence to his claims.
But Jeremy, I gotta figure this route is pretty hard
to plow this ground to get a conviction overturned.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Right in America, you get your day in court. You
do not get your day in court until you win.
That's not the law. So there does have to be
some finality to any type of a conviction. What Scott
Peterson is pointing to is and this is not new.
They say they may have some new information about it,
(02:29):
But what they're saying is that there was a burglary
in the neighborhood and this was known at the time
of the first trial. However, Scott Peterson's claiming we have
evidence that that burglary was on the same date and
it was like literally right across the street from where
Lacy would have been what would have been and would
(02:50):
have been maybe walking the dog. And the prosecution claimed
that that burglary happened two or three days later. I
think the new evidence suggests that the burglary was in
fact the same day. There's a van that was burned
out about a block or so from from the Peterson home,
(03:12):
and they want a lot of that tested. But like
I was, like we were talking about port Todd, you
don't get your day in court until you win. You
got to show the judge how there's a nexus there.
You can't just you can't just say well, we want
everything tested everywhere. That's just too much.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Well that's going to be fascinating to follow as time
goes on, we'll see what becomes of that possible appeal
there or overturning of that conviction. Other case to talk about,
federal authorities have arrested in Wisconsin judge and a former
New Mexico judge in two separate cases. Of course, they
(03:49):
are shielding illegal immigrants from being arrested, and in one case,
the judge in New Mexico, the supposed alleged gang member
was living in his house. What the hell is going on, Jeremy.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Yeah, he had two really really different scenarios here. One
one in New Mexico is kind of what you think
of when you think of, you know, what are these
people thinking here? The other was obviously a little more
of a kind of a political statement. The one in
New Mexico. It's a real bizarre story. But essentially he
had these people living in a back house, he and
(04:30):
his wife this and he was a former magistrate, which
is kind of a low level guy, and he was
in trouble with the state of New Mexico and sounds
like they had already thrown him off the bench before this.
But he's housing these people in the back there. He
knows that they're not documented, but he claims that they
were waiting on asylum hearings. So, but what happened was
(04:54):
the long and the short end of it is he
admitted the federal agents that he hit a cell phone
with a hammer and to try to get rid of
some evidence. And that's just never going to be good
for you. Which when you're a magistrate, it's your job
to warn people about their miranda rights and you tell
them to shut up and not talk to the authorities,
and then he goes and admits to hitting a cell
(05:15):
phone with the hammer, So I mean, man, you can't
fix that. So that that's the one in New Mexico.
That one's crazy enough.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Yeah, both of them are really strange. Of course, the
one in Milwaukee, the judge basically snuck the guy out
the back door, and she's now been barred from practicing
at least temporarily there in Wisconsin, and her fate doesn't
appear to be all that good either.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Really, this one's a lot more legally intricate. This terms
on something that is called an administrative warrant. This one,
you know, Todd, I will nerd out on the law,
as you well know. And it took me, it took
me a long time, yes today, to kind of research
(06:01):
this and actually talk to some of my immigration lawyer
friends on this. And an administrative warrant is basically an
internal memoranda that you have at the at ice. It's
permission from your boss to go and arrest somebody. It
is not an arrest warrant that you get signed by
a judge where you are directed to do something. So
(06:23):
the issue is going to turn on so they come
to her courtroom. I guess they claim to have this
administrative warrant. I think this judge says an administrative warrant
is not good enough, and she tells the person without citizenship, hey,
go out that door. So it's a little more chinsey.
I think you can say it's she didn't hit a hand,
(06:45):
she didn't hit a cell phone with a hammer. She's
got that going for her, you know. So that one,
to me is going to be a little more fascinating
to see kind of how that one plays out because
you're arguing about some really eagle minutia.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
All right, let's move to another case. Then in Missouri,
apparently a thirteen year old boy made a quote unquote
rifle out of doctor pepper cans and got suspended from school.
This is like the pointing a finger gun at somebody
and somebody got all offended. What's going on here?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Close? Yeah? Close? This is the twenty first century todd
what's happening? And it's not just in Missouri, it's everywhere.
I deal a lot with this in my practice, where
somebody is at school and they make a claim my
dad has a gun or I'm going to bring a
gun to school or whatever things that eleven year olds
say when they're upset. And what happens is that the
(07:45):
authorities don't know how to react. They they all everybody's
nightmare is that they're going to be on the front
page of the news the next day. If I was
the one that ignored all of these telltale signs, You've
got the shooter in Michigan, the crumbly shooters, you've got
the shooter in Appalachi, Georgia. In those cases, and in
(08:09):
the one in Michigan, the kid actually threw a picture
of a gun, and now, in high insight, it's like,
oh my gosh, how could we miss these morning signs?
You get? And look, there's no question here that the
authorities acted unreasonably and just sort of took it too
far by suspending this kid. But these authorities are really man,
(08:33):
they're lost in their underwear, todd They just don't they
they're a bureaucrats. They're bureaucrats, and they just act out
of fear. They just don't know who to fear more,
so they stick it to the little guy and they
got sued for it.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
That's Jeremy Rosenthal, attorney, chewing on some legal cases in
the news. Jeremy, we always appreciate you checking in with us.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I have a great morning, Todd, thanks for visiting.
Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal joins the program. Now, as we chew
on some legal issues in the news, we remember Scott
Peterson and he is now back in the news. He was,
of course, convicted for murdering his unborn son and wife
over twenty years ago. Peterson now wants his murder conviction
(00:23):
in California to be tossed. Something about substantial new evidence. Jeremy,
what's going on here?
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Right? Scott Peterson is back from two thousand and four
convicted really brutal homicide. As you just kind of talked
about there, Todd, what's kind of the headline to me
in this is not necessarily what they're claiming. It's that
(00:52):
the Innocence Project of Los Angeles is behind it. And
in criminal defense world, the innocence project is the old standard.
They are very very protective of their brand, of their
image of who they are and what they do, and
they don't pick clunker cases, they don't pick loser cases.
(01:13):
So the fact that they're getting all in behind Scott
Peterson is pretty interesting. They're not pointing to some really
really new things, but they're pointing to the weakness of
the overall case against Scott that it was basically built circumstantially.
Mark Geragos, Scott Peterson's lawyer, basically said Scott got convicted
(01:35):
of being weird, and he got convicted of acting very
very very very very very bizarrely after her murder. But
they're pointing us to a handful of new things that
they kind of want testing done on. But yeah, the
bizarre plot keeps going here.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah, that is strange, and as you mentioned, for that
organization to get on board, maybe lends credence to his claims.
But Jeremy, I gotta figure this route is pretty hard
to plow this ground to get a conviction overturned.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Right in America, you get your day in court. You
do not get your day in court until you win.
That's not the law. So there does have to be
some finality to any type of a conviction. What Scott
Peterson is pointing to is and this is not new.
They say they may have some new information about it,
(02:29):
But what they're saying is that there was a burglary
in the neighborhood and this was known at the time
of the first trial. However, Scott Peterson's claiming we have
evidence that that burglary was on the same date and
it was like literally right across the street from where
Lacy would have been what would have been and would
(02:50):
have been maybe walking the dog. And the prosecution claimed
that that burglary happened two or three days later. I
think the new evidence suggests that the burglary was in
fact the same day. There's a van that was burned
out about a block or so from from the Peterson home,
(03:12):
and they want a lot of that tested. But like
I was, like we were talking about port Todd, you
don't get your day in court until you win. You
got to show the judge how there's a nexus there.
You can't just you can't just say well, we want
everything tested everywhere. That's just too much.
Speaker 1 (03:28):
Well that's going to be fascinating to follow as time
goes on, we'll see what becomes of that possible appeal
there or overturning of that conviction. Other case to talk about,
federal authorities have arrested in Wisconsin judge and a former
New Mexico judge in two separate cases. Of course, they
(03:49):
are shielding illegal immigrants from being arrested, and in one case,
the judge in New Mexico, the supposed alleged gang member
was living in his house. What the hell is going on, Jeremy.
Speaker 2 (04:05):
Yeah, he had two really really different scenarios here. One
one in New Mexico is kind of what you think
of when you think of, you know, what are these
people thinking here? The other was obviously a little more
of a kind of a political statement. The one in
New Mexico. It's a real bizarre story. But essentially he
had these people living in a back house, he and
(04:30):
his wife this and he was a former magistrate, which
is kind of a low level guy, and he was
in trouble with the state of New Mexico and sounds
like they had already thrown him off the bench before this.
But he's housing these people in the back there. He
knows that they're not documented, but he claims that they
were waiting on asylum hearings. So, but what happened was
(04:54):
the long and the short end of it is he
admitted the federal agents that he hit a cell phone
with a hammer and to try to get rid of
some evidence. And that's just never going to be good
for you. Which when you're a magistrate, it's your job
to warn people about their miranda rights and you tell
them to shut up and not talk to the authorities,
and then he goes and admits to hitting a cell
(05:15):
phone with the hammer, So I mean, man, you can't
fix that. So that that's the one in New Mexico.
That one's crazy enough.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
Yeah, both of them are really strange. Of course, the
one in Milwaukee, the judge basically snuck the guy out
the back door, and she's now been barred from practicing
at least temporarily there in Wisconsin, and her fate doesn't
appear to be all that good either.
Speaker 2 (05:40):
Really, this one's a lot more legally intricate. This terms
on something that is called an administrative warrant. This one,
you know, Todd, I will nerd out on the law,
as you well know. And it took me, it took
me a long time, yes today, to kind of research
(06:01):
this and actually talk to some of my immigration lawyer
friends on this. And an administrative warrant is basically an
internal memoranda that you have at the at ice. It's
permission from your boss to go and arrest somebody. It
is not an arrest warrant that you get signed by
a judge where you are directed to do something. So
(06:23):
the issue is going to turn on so they come
to her courtroom. I guess they claim to have this
administrative warrant. I think this judge says an administrative warrant
is not good enough, and she tells the person without citizenship, hey,
go out that door. So it's a little more chinsey.
I think you can say it's she didn't hit a hand,
(06:45):
she didn't hit a cell phone with a hammer. She's
got that going for her, you know. So that one,
to me is going to be a little more fascinating
to see kind of how that one plays out because
you're arguing about some really eagle minutia.
Speaker 1 (07:01):
All right, let's move to another case. Then in Missouri,
apparently a thirteen year old boy made a quote unquote
rifle out of doctor pepper cans and got suspended from school.
This is like the pointing a finger gun at somebody
and somebody got all offended. What's going on here?
Speaker 2 (07:21):
Close? Yeah? Close? This is the twenty first century todd
what's happening? And it's not just in Missouri, it's everywhere.
I deal a lot with this in my practice, where
somebody is at school and they make a claim my
dad has a gun or I'm going to bring a
gun to school or whatever things that eleven year olds
say when they're upset. And what happens is that the
(07:45):
authorities don't know how to react. They they all everybody's
nightmare is that they're going to be on the front
page of the news the next day. If I was
the one that ignored all of these telltale signs, You've
got the shooter in Michigan, the crumbly shooters, you've got
the shooter in Appalachi, Georgia. In those cases, and in
(08:09):
the one in Michigan, the kid actually threw a picture
of a gun, and now, in high insight, it's like,
oh my gosh, how could we miss these morning signs?
You get? And look, there's no question here that the
authorities acted unreasonably and just sort of took it too
far by suspending this kid. But these authorities are really man,
(08:33):
they're lost in their underwear, todd They just don't they
they're a bureaucrats. They're bureaucrats, and they just act out
of fear. They just don't know who to fear more,
so they stick it to the little guy and they
got sued for it.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
That's Jeremy Rosenthal, attorney, chewing on some legal cases in
the news. Jeremy, we always appreciate you checking in with us.
Speaker 2 (08:56):
I have a great morning, Todd, thanks for visiting.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!