Final Argument for the People

Final Argument for the People

Penalty Phase: By David Harris

December 9, 2004

DAVID HARRIS: Two years ago today the defendant, Scott Peterson, bought a boat and told Amber Frey that his wife was lost. Today is the two-year anniversary of Laci becoming lost. Today is the two-year anniversary of Scott's monstrous plan to take his wife, murder her, and dump her body in the bay. Today is the two-year anniversary of that. The plan was for his wife's body to be dumped in the bay and a watery grave and never to be found. Never to be laid to rest.

The ripples from that water have spread far and wide, and they have spread to us, and that's why we're here today. We are here to decide what is the just, is the appropriate punishment for Scott Peterson for the murder of his wife and son, a decision that you all agreed that you could do.

Before I start talking about the instructions, I want to talk about your task here. Let's face it. That is a very hard decision. You have a tough job in front of you. But when you think about this tough job that you have to do, let's be clear about one thing. Death is worse than life. So if you hear an argument that life is far worse, it's not. Because if you have life, and the defendant gets to sit in a cell. He's alive. He gets to read books. He gets to write letters. He gets to have letters.

He gets to read books along with people on the outside, all things that Laci and Conner would have loved to have. All things that Laci's family would love to be able to share with Laci and Conner. So when we start from that point, remember death is the worse punishment. It is worse than life.

The instruction that you see up there, weighing the various circumstances, those are instructions the judge has read once. He's going to read them to you again. You determine under the relevant evidence which penalty is justified and appropriate by considering the totality of the aggravating circumstances with the totality of the mitigating circumstances.

There is a scale up there, because it's a symbol. It's a symbol of the weighing process that you are going to be going through. It's a weighing process of you deciding. Talk to you a little bit more about that in a few minutes.

The balance. The balance of good and the bad. This weighing process. It's not a mechanical process. It's not. You put one thing on the one side and one thing on the other, whichever is the heavier one is the one with the most numbers. It's a matter that you get to decide.

So before we start talking about that weighing process, let's go through what are the things that you put on to the scale.

As you see. Step out of the way. It's a problem with the podium being here kind of blocking the view.

Aggravating factor is any fact, condition, or event attending the commission of a crime, which increases its severity or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, which is above and beyond the elements of the crime itself.

What makes this crime bad? That goes on one side of the scale that you are asked to weigh. What goes on the other side of the scale is mitigating circumstances. Let me read that to you real quick.

A mitigating circumstance is any fact, condition, or event which does not constitute a justification or excuse for the crime in question, but may be considered as an extenuating circumstance in determining the appropriateness of the death penalty.

These are the two sides of the scale, so when you start weighing, remember clearly this balance.

Now, the next slide I show you, which is another part of the instructions, you are free to assign whatever moral or sympathetic value you deem to be appropriate for each and all of the factors that you are permitted to consider. That means you, as individuals, can look at the evidence, remember everything from the guilt phase, and weigh it in this particular case, and with that weighing process make the appropriate determination the determination.

These are the instructions the judge is going to give you. It's the law. It's what you have to do.

Let's talk about what these factors are you get to weigh as aggravating and mitigating circumstances. The one that I talked to you about in the opening statement, which is circumstances of the crime, it's also referred to as Factor (a). That's anything that involves the crime for which the defendant is here; in this particular case, the two murders. That is an aggravating circumstance. We'll talk more about that. But remember, Factor (a), the circumstances of the crime, goes on one side of the scale.

Factor (b), the presence or absence of other activity, criminal activity. Talked about that. That's a mitigating factor, because there is none in this particular case.

Factor (c), any prior felony convictions. Again, that's on the mitigating side. You heard that there is no record. We will get into the other factors.

As the judge will tell you, (d), which is whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance. That one is not applicable. There is no evidence before you.

(e), whether or not the victim was a participant in the defendant's homicidal conduct, or consented to the homicidal act. Again, that one is not applicable.

(f), whether there was a moral justification or extenuation of the conduct. That one is not applicable either.

Whether or not the defendant acted under extreme duress, or under the substantial domination of another person. Again not applicable.

Whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or was he impaired as a result of the mental disease or defect or effects of intoxication. Again, it's not applicable. There is no evidence.

The age of the defendant at the time of the crime. You decide if that's mitigating or not.

Whether or not the defendant was an accomplice to the offense, or his participation in the commission of the offense was relatively minor. Again, that one is not applicable.

The last factor, kind of a catchall factor, is referred to as Factor (k). And that's any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime, even though it's not a legal excuse for the crime, and any sympathetic or other aspects of the defendant's character, or anything that serves as basis for less than death.

Those are the legal factors that you are going to be asked to look at.

Now, when we talk about putting them on the opposite side of the scale, remember the absence of a mitigating factor, one that's not applicable, does not make it a mitigating factor. Again, whether it's mitigating or aggravating, which side of the scale do they go on.

Now, talking about legal stuff at this point in time. I want to talk about one other thing. Normally at this point in time I wouldn't be talking about the defense side of the case. But, as the judge told you yesterday, I only get one opportunity to talk to you. This is it. So I get to stand up, and I get to tell you what the defense has shown and how it relates to this particular case, because I don't get to get back up and say here is what they argued, here is what it means.

This is the last time you are going to hear from me. The last time you are going to hear me talk about this particular case, so I want to spend a few minutes. I want to go through and talk about what it was that the defense has shown us.

Let's talk about the 39 witnesses that we heard from the defense. 39 witnesses. Those 39 witnesses pretty much all said the same thing. The man who sits here, this convicted double murderer, he's not -- this is not the Scott I know.

What they described for you, we heard from the elementary school principal, his high school vice principal, his golf coaches, relatives, assorted cast of characters, family and friends. They all pretty much said the same thing. They remember him as a young man. They remember him as this person. They remember him as a good golfer, sincere, respectful. They remember him for doing the deeds that he did when he was young.

They remember him coming from a loving home of privilege. That he loved to drive. That he was even tempered. He never lost his cool. That he enjoyed spending his parents' money, and that he had all nice toys, from those witnesses.

It's a lot like Lee's story. Remember when Lee Peterson testified? When he was young and poor, and his mother would clean houses, and he would go over to one particular house where there was a young boy who had a cowboy costume? That's the Scott Peterson these people painted a picture for you.

Some witnesses came in and they described him as an adult. Scott Peterson as an adult. What did they tell you? He's a good golfer. He's a good salesman. I want you to think about that story, the salesman, golfer, where they came together with the witness -- I believe his name was Mr. Beardsley -- where he talked about Scott coming to a golf tournament. And Scott played in that golf tournament. He won. He donated his money to the pot. So that was a charitable thing to do. Or was it kind of like the Scott that we know? He's trying to make sales. He's trying to make a good in to this area. I mean that's what Mr. Beardsley was saying. And if all of these farmers and sales people thought he was a ringer, came down to beat them and took their money, do you think he would ever get a sale from them in the future?

One other thing that Mr. Beardsley said. Truer words were never spoken. Scott Peterson was a person who had a plan, and he acted on it. He executed it.

These witnesses also describe this Scott Peterson, the adult, being thoughtful, smart. In fact, a lot of witnesses said he was intelligent. Maybe intelligent enough to think that he could get away with something there. He was a matchmaker. You heard that from his friend Miss Galloway. They described their relationship. And when you listen to that, what she described, it sounded a lot like the relationship that Scott had with Shawn Sibley, the woman who ultimately set him up with Amber Frey.

One thing they also said, he was absolutely honest. They painted a picture of Scott being pretty much perfect, and when he met Laci they were the perfect couple, that they completed each other. That they were both full of life and loving. And loving.

But, unfortunately, they didn't know what you know. They didn't know the other side of Scott Peterson. They didn't know the side of Scott Peterson that you know, who isn't honest, who isn't loving, who isn't kind.

Now, one of the other things to think about when you look at these two pictures up there is to see this behavior, what Scott Peterson did. Remember what Galloway said? That Scott always had flowers. We heard from a couple of other witnesses too. Remember how he set up this wonderful table for Sharon Rocha with all the flowers? The same behavior. The same planning. That same gentle kindness that they described, that he did for Amber Frey that first night with the roses and champagne and strawberries.

These individuals that testified for Scott, let's go through them just real briefly.

Aaron Fritz, for example. You will remember him. He was the one that was, what would Scott do? The friend of his from elementary school, junior high, that kind of transition period. Known him for that time period. Friends with Scott.

Didn't know anything about Amber. Didn't know anything about Scott cheating on his wife, because he didn't know the real Scott. His other friend that came in, Shelly Reiman, same thing. She was telling you about Scott saying in December, oh, I'm happy to have a baby; where, at the same time, he's telling Amber Frey, I don't want kids. Yours is enough for me. I want a vasectomy. That whole public and private Scott.

You have heard from these tapes throughout the trial what the real Scott is. That he's a manipulator. That he's a liar. That these witnesses that came in, they are just more of his victims, more victims of Scott. Some of these witnesses, they came in and they told us about some of the family background and his character traits.

The family was stoic. They didn't cry. They didn't wear their emotions out on their sleeve, I think is what Galloway said. Scott was only

He didn't know how to handle the situation. Those are the kind of things that they heard.

But once Amber Frey came out in the public, and Scott wanted this to be about himself again, what did Scott do? What did Scott do?

He played the part of a grieving husband. The great manipulator. The great fraud. Turned on the tears to play the part of a grieving husband.

So these 39 witnesses that came before you and basically asked mercy for that man, don't even know who they are talking about. To show you behind the scenes what he was doing shortly after this last phone call that was captured with one of the defense witnesses that they had on behalf of Scott.

Janey Peterson. So we go from Scott, this grieving husband -- you have heard this tape before -- to the not-so-grieving Scott Peterson.

Not the caring, compassionate, gentle, grieving husband Scott. I play this one, because it sets up the next tape, which is a reminder to you how Scott Peterson lied and manipulated the people during the time that Laci was missing. That's a circumstance of the crime for you to consider.

Now, remember this is a phone call to someone that worked at the Volunteer Center.

Need to get those signs. Somebody who is out there looking for his wife. I have been in grief counseling. Man who lies to people who are trying to help. That's how private Scott Is. He lies, he fools, he manipulates. He's not a person that deserves your sympathy.

Now, speaking of the people that were out there looking. Remember this? Candlelight vigil? New Year's Eve? Look at that picture. Brent Rocha described it. That's the defendant's mother up there on the stage. He couldn't get up there, but he let his sick mother go up and ask the community for support, asked for help finding his wife, while he was down in the audience. How did he repay his own mother?

He laughed. He laughed at his own mother. He laughed at the people that were helping him. He laughed at everyone. When you look at that scale, when you balance these things, there is no mitigating factor big enough, heavy enough, powerful enough to take these things away. Even with all of that, his family and his mother asked for -- asked for your sympathy, begged for his life.

As the judge will instruct you, sympathy for a defendant's family is not a matter that a capital jury can consider in mitigation. It's not something that comes into play unless -- family members may offer testimony of the impact of an execution on them if, by so doing, they illuminate some positive quality of the defendant's background or character. So when you think about all of these 39 witnesses, many of them not family members, and you think about what they told you about how hard this would be on them, did it illuminate any positive character trait of the defendant? No. You have heard over and over again, well, if you execute him, it will kill Lee. It will kill Jackie. It will kill Janey.

Here is -- the person responsible is right there. Right there. That's the one that's responsible.

The law says you have to follow the instructions. So all that stuff about what it would mean to Lee and Jackie you can't consider, because there is no redeeming value to a man that laughs at his mother.

One other thing. Many of those witnesses they got up here and, you know, they sat on the witness stand, and they kind of looked you in the eye and they said you are wrong. He's innocent. He's not guilty. You have to ask yourself, why are they doing that? Why are these witnesses doing that? Are they trying to make you doubt your resolve in this case? Do you think maybe they are trying to make you feel guilty?

Don't feel guilty for doing your job. Don't feel guilty for doing the right thing. Don't feel guilty for him. They are trying to create some lingering doubt. Don't let them. You did the right thing. Now is time to do the right thing again. Don't be manipulated.

One of the other things, since I don't get to get up here again and respond, another argument that's kind of common besides this lingering doubt is, well, he's not the worst of the worst. Think about that for a second.

Well, first of all, the instructions that you will get from the judge will tell you not to make comparisons to others. Again, you will get an argument that you don't need to compare him to others. And when you start thinking about whether Scott Peterson deserves the death penalty, ask yourself this. When the man carries out murder of his pregnant wife and unborn child, can you think of a more heinous crime? Would it be more heinous if he was a stranger? No.

Scott Peterson is the worst of the worst, because he's the kind of person that lures you in, the kind of person that you trust, that can manipulate and fool. No one ever sees it coming. The circumstance of the crime, that trust that was violated.

Let's talk about that now. Let's talk about 116 days. Think about 116 days. An eternity of not knowing. 39 defense witnesses can never take away what you heard from Sharon Rocha. 39 defense witnesses will never touch her pain. 39 defense witnesses can never take away what she endured for 116 days. They will never repair that loss that she felt, because the trust that she had was taken away, because there was a monster in her midst.

A picture is worth a thousand words. You look at that picture, and you look at Sharon Rocha, and you remember that picture when you think about her testimony from this witness stand about what she went through. Not being able to sleep because she was afraid that she would miss a phone call from Laci, on the first day, the fifth day, the tenth day.

Remember what she said about being scared and frightened for Laci, because it was cold that night, and she wanted a blanket for Laci, because she knew that she would be cold.

116 days of grieving, anguish, torment. Imagine what these families were going through, in the entire time someone was at that vigil who knew the answer. One that was this one, that was kind, gentle, honest, sincere, good golfer, fun loving. What was Scott doing?

When everyone else grieved, when everyone else hoped, prayed for the return of Laci and Conner, the man who knew where they were laughed and lied. That's not a man that's deserving of your sympathy. He is the worst kind of monster, and he takes away from his victims.

Remember the victims. There is a famous quote from a book. When one person kills another, there is an immediate revulsion at the nature of the crime. But in a time so short as to seem indecent to the members of the personal family, the dead person ceases to exist as an identifiable figure. To those individuals in the community of good will and empathy, warmth and compassion, only one of the key actors in that drama remains with whom to commiserate -- and that is always the criminal. The dead person ceases to be part of everyday reality, ceases to exist. She is only a figure in a historic event. We inevitably turn away from the past toward the ongoing reality. And the ongoing reality is the criminal; trapped, anxious, now helpless, isolated, often badgered and bewildered. He usurps the compassion that is justly his victim's due. He steals his victim's moral constituency along with her life.

Remember Laci and Conner. Remember when you look at the life that was, the life that was taken, and the life of Conner that never got to be. When you look at the smile, when you look at the love between a mother and a daughter, when you imagine Laci's wanting a baby, never having the chance. When you look at the family, remember each and every day that was taken away from them. Remember the victims.

Remember graduations that will never come, smiles that will never be shared, gatherings, Christmases. Remember each and every one of those that will never, ever be the same.

Remember Laci. Remember who she was, the people that loved her, the big brother who misses her, celebrations that can never be shared. The students that grieve at her loss, or couldn't sleep because they couldn't find her either. Holidays, all of these things, all of this. All of these things. Friendship, birthdays ripped away by an evil man.

Mothers Days that Laci will never be able to share with her son. She'll never get to see Conner grow up. They will only be remembered in the pictures. And remember how horrible that is for Sharon, because Sharon only has these pictures to remember her grandson. So when you weigh those scales, when you balance those against each other and you think about what those 39 witnesses have told you, there is no mitigation for that. There is no good will that takes away what he did. So when you look at these pictures, that's all that's left. Don't give the sympathy that's due Laci, or Laci and Conner, to the defendant.

Public versus private Scott. That's what came together on Christmas Eve. Private Scott can no longer hide from outside scrutiny. He is no longer surrounded by people who wanted to believe.

There was that chart that we saw up here of some of the witnesses showing Scott's life. It stops on December 24th, 2002, which is poetic, because that's the day Scott Peterson forfeited his life. That's the day that his timeline stopped.

Scott Peterson was bothered. He wanted a change. He wanted out. He wanted to go back to France, or Monte Carlo. He didn't want to be tied down with a baby in Modesto. Laci was an anchor around his neck, so he put one around hers. He murdered Laci and murdered Conner. And this is from somebody who comes from a privileged, somewhat spoiled background.

Ask yourself would this crime be worse if he was poor, he was ignorant? No. This is somebody who had everything, but threw it away, because that's just who he is. He had a plan and he executed it. He deserves no less.

When the defendant sent Laci and Conner to the bottom of the bay, he made a big brother feel guilty for the rest of his life because he wasn't there to protect his sister from the person who promised to love, honor, and protect. He took away dreams. He took away memories. He took away all possibilities.

Scott Peterson, when he murdered Laci and Conner, killed more than them. He killed the spirit of those around him, around Laci. How is that defensible? How is that -- how can you lessen that?

Laci and Conner, though, will live on. They will not be destroyed in the memories of those that love them, no matter how much the defendant tried to dispose of them, treated them as garbage, dumped them in the bay, their memories will live on. It would be an insult to suggest otherwise.

Sharon made this statement when she was testifying. The defendant tried as best that he could to dispose of his wife and unborn son. He hoped that they would never be found, and in a month's time it would all be gone. He would go back to doing what he wanted to.

To return a judgment of death, each of you must be persuaded that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial in comparison with the mitigating circumstances that it warrants death instead of life without parole. That's another instruction the judge is going to give you.

Let's talk about that. What really are the mitigating factors here? What is Scott Peterson all about? That he can be pen pals from jail? That he can write teenagers letters and give them Dear Abby advice? Teach them how to have secrets from their parents? That he can have -- he can read books and discuss them with people on the outside? That he can learn how to better his chess playing? Remember, these are things that Laci and Conner can't do. Things that Sharon Rocha would love to have an opportunity to do. Remember what he said to Amber.

I can look at your picture and I can kiss it. I can feel you in my arms.

Life is not appropriate for Scott. Death is. Life is not appropriate because he can have memories. He can have photographs. He can have dreams. He can have all of the things that he took away from Laci and Conner. He can have all of the things that he robbed from that family.

He deserves death. There is no way around it. That family is reduced to remembering and looking at photographs. Shouldn't Scott's punishment be worse than theirs? Because when you think about this, I want you to think about what he did. I want you to think about his cruel, callous act, the lack of compassion, concern. 116 days of no one knowing but him, leaving his wife's body to rot at the bottom of the ocean. Leaving his son to be found as trash and debris. That is not something that should be forgiven. That is not something that should be rewarded by sparing his life. That is not something that should take away from the pain and suffering.

Sharon's words will ring out and haunt us. Laci didn't have arms to hold her baby. There is no other way around it. It's a hard choice, but it's the right choice. Someone who shows no mercy, so heartless, so cruel to his own family, deserves death.

When you weigh these factors, when you balance these scales, you will find the factors in aggravation, the circumstances of this crime versus the mitigation that the defense has offered, there is no equal. Aggravation so substantially outweighs mitigation, the only appropriate, just verdict is a verdict of death.

Don't let the defense make you feel guilty about doing the right thing. Vote for death for Scott Peterson, and remember Laci and Conner.