And, since Cardozo insists he is not representing Scott Peterson, does this mean that mean Scott has no attorney-client privilege with respect to his conversations with Cardoza and that the prosecution can now subpoena Cardoza? One former prosecutor thinks so.

Does Cardoza thinks he now qualifies as defense expert along the lines of Henry Lee or Cyril Wecht who were called in to consult but not retained as a member of the team? Does that term even apply to a lawyer who is called in to help prepare a client for cross-examination?

Cardoza acnowledges he was brought in by Geragos to conduct a "mock cross-examination" of Peterson. It's done all the time. There's nothing wrong with it. But how does Cardoza continue to pass himself off as an uninterested, unbiased commentator on the case?

According to a reporter (not lawyer) on Fox News last night, Cardoza reportedly has a pre-existing friendship with the Judge--and gets a special seat in the courtroom. All the other reporters and analysts get their seats by lottery each day. Cardoza's is always there. Did he clear his role with the Judge first...ensuring he wouldn't be gagged or subpoenaed?

Will the networks and other media outlets want to use Cardoza any more? Or will he now be viewed as in the defense camp? The commentators on Greta's Fox show last night were unananimous in their belief that Cardozo should be gagged, that Scott has no attorney client privilege with respect to any comments he made to Cardoza, and that Cardoza has lost his commenting credibility. Are they right, or just expressing sour grapes because they weren't chosen by Geragos?

The San Francisco Chronicle today reports:

Several media outlets, including The Chronicle, said they would no longer use Cardoza as a legal analyst on the Peterson case.

There's a big difference between being a commenting as an analyst and as a player in the case. I'm just surprised Cardozo crossed the line.