by TChris

As TalkLeft reported in March, Scott Peterson's lawyer received a tip that a potential juror in Peterson's trial was pretending to be open-minded while telling others outside the courtroom that she thought Peterson was "guilty as hell" and that she would lie to get on the jury so that Peterson would "get what was due to him."

"She said that she was trying as hard as she could to pass the test and not appear biased," said the tipster, whose name was redacted from [a signed declaration in] the court file. "She also said she would try to become 'in charge,' which I interpreted as being the foreperson of the jury."

The tipster also said the woman had spoken of Peterson's attorney [Mark Geragos], who is also representing Michael Jackson in his child-molestation case, saying, "Anyone who defends a wife-killer and a child molester deserves to lose."

Ouch! Not only does she think Peterson is guilty despite hearing not a word of testimony, she thinks Peterson deserves to lose because her lawyer defends other presumptively innocent clients.

Although the woman denied making the statements, prosecutors conducted an investigation and ultimately agreed that she should not be allowed to serve as a juror. The judge dismissed the woman on Tuesday. Geragos has suggested that prosecutors should consider charging the woman with perjury, but "San Mateo District Attorney Jim Fox said Tuesday his office was not pursuing the case and noted that during his 21-year tenure, a juror had never faced perjury charges." So committing perjury for the purpose of assisting the state in securing convictions isn't a crime worth pursuing?