Motion for New Trial, Judgment, Sentencing & Victim Impact Statements

March 16, 2005

JUDGE: All right. This the case of People vs. Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel, Mr. Peterson (sic). The matter is on today for sentencing. Before we get to that part and I invite comments from counsel, we have some bookkeeping matters we have to take care of. First of all is the matter of certifying the record, and the court's going to order pages 21765 to 21770 certified. And with respect to today's proceedings, I'm going to give, at least as far as today's proceedings go, I'm going to give counsel until Monday, March 28th, to request any corrections to the transcript of today's proceedings. If any corrections are requested, the reporter will have until Monday, April 4th, to effect the changes necessary and to forward the same to counsel, and the transcript will be deemed certified as of that date. If no corrections are requested, the transcript will be deemed certified as of March 28th, 2005. Okay. Also, since the last court date, the court's received many, many letters, pro and con, and what I'm going to do is I'm going to order those to be filed as I did last time, lodged with the court with the same order. And I'll ask the clerk to give them, start, I think it was 53.

CLERK: 53 A, B and C. Three envelopes. (Court's Exhibits 53 A, B and C marked for identification and sealed as the court finds there is no less restrictive means to achieve protection of the overriding issues as described under Section 243.1 of the California Rules of Court.)

JUDGE: Of course after, if this is the end of this, any other mail will be returned to sender. Okay. The first issue here I think we have to deal with this morning is the issue of the subpoena to Gloria Allred the court had in front of it. And did you want to argue that, Mr. Geragos?

GERAGOS: I'm sorry, what did you say, Judge?

JUDGE: This was the subpoena that was issued to Ms. Allred to appear here in court today. And I have here the objections to the subpoena.

GERAGOS: I've got three subpoenas that are out, and the proofs that are out as well. And I'd submit it.

JUDGE: All right.

GERAGOS: You want me to file the proofs with the court?

JUDGE: Yeah, will you, please?

GERAGOS: Sure.

JUDGE: All right. The court's read and considered the objections to the subpoena by Mr. John West, the attorney for Ms. Allred, and the court is going to quash the subpoena. Number one, it's improperly issued because it doesn't comply with 1330 of the Penal Code, and I do believe that it does get into the attorney/client privilege. So for those reasons I'm going to quash the subpoenas requested by Mr. Geragos. Okay. We're prepared to proceed now. And, Mr. Geragos, do you want to start?

GERAGOS: May I have just one moment, your Honor?

JUDGE: Sure. This has to do with the motion for new trial.

GERAGOS: Right. If I could have one moment.

JUDGE: Mm-hmm.

GERAGOS: The court, I think I filed also with Marylin, in connection with the motion for new trial, a declaration from Lori Friedman, which would have been from Fox News. Does the court have that?

JUDGE: Yes. You were kind enough to give me a copy before we began this morning, and I've seen that. And that also may be filed, and we'll mark that, want that marked as a defense exhibit or court exhibit? Well, why don't we mark it as part of your motion.

GERAGOS: Why don't you mark it as part of the motion.

JUDGE: We'll make this part of the motion for new trial.

GERAGOS: Okay.

JUDGE: And this will be the declaration of Lori Friedman. And I believe, Mr. Geragos, you had a disc, too.

GERAGOS: I've got two discs that I gave to the clerk.

JUDGE: All right. You gave that to the clerk. We'll make that as part of the record.

GERAGOS: I also had a declaration from Justin Falconer, which I believe I also filed with the court.

JUDGE: Yes. And I'll order that filed. You advised me of that, too.

GERAGOS: I think the two issues, I mean obviously the court's reviewed the motion. It's lengthy.

JUDGE: Yes, I have.

GERAGOS: The two issues that were brought up by the prosecution that I think need clarification. One is this issue of Aponte and Aponte's looking at or hearing this phone call and then making a phone call to Modesto PD. Mr. Harris's position in the opposition is that all they had to do was, or all we had to do out of the 10,000 tips is then contact him, that they disclosed whatever exculpatory information it is. That is not the standard, number one. Number two, the fact of the matter is, as a practical matter, we did not realize the significance of that name until probably two weeks before the end of the trial when they turned over, as the court may remember, a interview with an inmate at the Stanislaus County Jail. When they turned over the interview with the inmate, we recessed for a day, we went over, Mr. Harris went over, interviewed that gentleman, I'll just call him Mr. R., in the Stanislaus County Jail. Once we interviewed that gentleman, he's the one who told us and made the connection such that we went back and re-interviewed Lieutenant Aponte. What is not in the motion, the opposition, anywhere, is who is the detective who called Lieutenant Aponte. Where are the notes about that phone call? Where are the notes about the interview with the inmate?

This inmate is in custody, in Norco. He makes a phone call, or at first he's heard and he hears in the yard, or he's overheard in the yard, saying that, that Todd confronts Laci Peterson in regards to the burglary. He then is on a phone call and is picked up on a taped phone call. Lieutenant Aponte, who is the head of their investigation division at the Department of Corrections, thinks that that is so significant, in January, that he saves that tape and he's got a tape-recorded statement or a tape recording of the phone call that's saved somewhere. Instead, and then he makes a phone call to Modesto. He has a distinct memory of Modesto either getting that taped phone call, or calling up there and/or at the very least calling of there and interviewing this person. Interestingly, after Modesto calls up and interviewed this person, he's then heard on the phone again, a second time, calling his mother, and telling his mother tell, I won't give the exact name of the other person, but Tell X to shut the fuck up, he doesn't know who he's dealing with in regards to saying these things over the phone. He's then confronted again. Now, none of this stuff becomes, you can't connect the dots on any of this until we get Mr. R, who is in custody, who they interview, with one week left in this trial, turn over the discovery, and we run out, interview this gentleman, and find out that yes, in fact, the gentleman who's in custody, and his brother, are people who were connected to Todd, who was the burglar across the street. Now, fast-forward, it's been exactly two years. So we no longer have the tape, because they've now done, and I continually am talking,

JUDGE: The tape's gone.

GERAGOS: The tape's gone. They can't find it at Norco and they don't know what happened to it. We don't have any evidence of it, and I've got Aponte who still has a distinct memory of this happening, of hearing it, a trained law enforcement officer who is their head of investigations who thought it was significant enough that he kept calling Modesto to say Look, you've got to do something, or somebody needs to do something. We don't have the tape now. We've got, and mind you, I don't get into the case until May, some four months later, so I've got no way at the time to say Give me a copy of that tape. Aponte's memory is that Modesto does have a copy of the tape, that they came up and got it. Nothing, absolutely nothing in the opposition to the motion to dismiss discloses who the detective was, where his notes are, and why nowhere in the 43000 pages of discovery any of this about further investigation is recorded. That is under that component of 1118, or 1181. Secondly, as to the boat, the, what the,

JUDGE: The experiment with the boat, or the alleged experiment with the boat,

GERAGOS: Yes.

JUDGE:, or the, or the,

GERAGOS: Well, it's, I'll just,

JUDGE:, not permitting, not permitting your experiment in.

GERAGOS: Exactly. The two flip sides. The, the issue, significantly, is that the court did not permit our experiment into evidence. Three separate witnesses, the court did permit this jury, and most of this jury is here, to hear from a manufacturer who got in, who came out here, who had never tested the boat. When I asked him specifically, in front of this jury here, Did you ever or could you put 400 pounds on the side to see if that, the boat would hold up, he said No, we haven't tested that. I said Do you have an opinion as to whether it would? He said he wasn't sure. He couldn't conclusively state. I specifically asked Dodge Hendee, in front of this jury who is sitting here, Did you go out and do this experiment? Dodge Hendee said We discussed it. In fact, I think his exact words are Well, I said when are we going to do it? Never, never, they never did it. We asked Detective Grogan, Did you ever do an experiment with the boat? Never, he says We discussed it; they never did it. We went out and did the experiment with the boat. We have that experiment. We could have shown it to this jury. The, you excluded it for reasons that I think are infirm, because I believe that all of the grounds that you stated go to weight as opposed to admissibility. But that error is compounded clearly when the jury asked for another view, because when they asked for another view, and that was why I've now got the declaration of the custodian of records from Fox News, that it was clear that an experiment was done. You said at the time, I objected immediately. Mr. Harris, who was standing next to you, objected immediately when this was going on. I believe his exact words to you in the underground garage is You can't let this happen. I turned to my client immediately and said I'm going over to the judge, I don't understand what's going on here. I run over, tell you, You cannot let this experiment go on. You make a, do an admonition. I don't think the admonition is good enough, but clearly, from a statement of the juror, that has now been supplied to the court, there was an experiment that was conducted in that boat. You give an admonition. The admonition's not good enough. We've got an experiment. There's a case right on point where the prosecution was allowed to put in an experiment. The same arguments that were made by the prosecution here in opposition to allowing in the boat experiment are the exact same arguments that the defense made in that case in opposition to the prosecution putting in their boat experiment. The court of appeal ruled no, that should come in. That, that issue alone is significant enough to give this court the power and the, I believe compel this court to grant the motion for new trial. Those two issues, taken in combination, notwithstanding any of the other juror issues, but just the boat issue alone, is significant enough for this court, or some higher court, to, to, court of review, to grant a new trial in this matter. I urge this court to do it. I don't think that there's any reason, when you take the information of Aponte, when you combine it with the boat experiment, when you combine it with the experiment that was conducted by the jury, by the exclusion of our evidence, you put all those together, I think that that compels a motion for new trials. I'll submit it.

JUDGE: Okay. What about all these other grounds that you have submitted? You want to submit that on,

GERAGOS: I'll submit it on those grounds.

JUDGE: Okay. Do you want to be heard on those issues? The particular issues that have been brought up by Mr. Geragos. Let's start out with this information that was developed from the inmate at the Department of Corrections.

D. HARRIS: As to the newly discovered evidence, first of all, as we pointed out in our particular motion, the defense has presented no evidence to the court on that. There's a declaration from counsel which talks about what they did to go talk to the intimate in Modesto, which then references reports from an individual that's perfectly capable of testifying and writing a declaration, but chose not to. And there's possibly a reason for that, based on his testimony during trial. What we have is we have the lieutenant who does submit a declaration that's been provided to the court, and that's the only evidence before the court on that particular issue. And he says that MPD, as far as he can recall, does not have that particular tape. And he says that MPD called the inmate who said he didn't have any information.

So counsel keeps referring to outside kind of rumors and innuendoes, as we pointed out, which doesn't have anything to do with the facts. The rumors and innuendoes are what they're guessing, but the facts are what the court has before it with the lieutenant's declaration. The inmate told the detective who called there that there was, he had no information. So the fact that he said he has no information means there's nothing, that there's nothing there. Again, counsel wants to say that Well, MPD had this information, the prosecution had this information and we didn't know about it until before; but, again, that's somewhat disingenuous because if you look at the exact tip, it specifically mentions Mr. Todd, the burglar of the Medina house. And as the court will go back and recall, Mrs. Medina testified, and during her cross-examination we started getting into the burglary and about what the burglars were doing. We heard from a number of witnesses about Mr. Todd throughout the trial. So this other name of this third party, as counsel refers to him as X, Todd was there. That was the focus that they argued to the jury, that he was somehow involved with this. His name was in that tip when it was provided to them in 2003. As we pointed out, we're in the constitutionally or statutorily required to go through the discovery, find things that might be helpful to them in whatever theory that they might come up with and say Here, try this. We turned it over to them. That's the end of our obligation. Period. And that's the law. The facts speak for itself as to that particular point. Now, the second issue that he's talking about is the boat. I think the court again, going through that he's saying there's a flip side about the jury's view of the boat and their experiment; two separate completely different issues. As the court is aware from our response, the court had ruled based on that plywood platform that was put in the boat that raised the stability. It changed the boat. So it was not the same boat. It wasn't even substantially similar, when you change, had that modification for no reason. Which was never explained. So the court did not err in keeping out that particular demonstration, because it would have just misled the jury. It should be excluded under 352 because it wasn't substantially similar. Counsel keeps wanting to refer to the jury view as being an experiment. Even if we were to assume or concede, which we don't, that it was an experiment, as case law says, there's nothing wrong with that as long as it's within what the fields of evidence was that the jury had before them. Counsel submits a declaration from someone from Fox. We haven't had a chance to look at that. We didn't get a chance to look at the videos, but I'm assuming that it deals with the, the part of the transcript that they had attached from, from whatever the Fox show was with the juror.

GERAGOS: It does.

D. HARRIS: So assuming,

GERAGOS: The DVD that was filed with this court is the video portion of the transcript that's previously been filed.

D. HARRIS: So assuming that that is, and we'll accept counsel's representation, as we pointed out in our response again, the Evidence Code prohibits that kind of third-hand attack on a jury's mental state for evidence. And it ignores the law. Because the law says that they have a chance to manipulate and use, to examine pieces of evidence that are admitted. And there's no dispute the boat was admitted into evidence. There is no dispute the jury view was authorized and agreed to. So since it was in evidence, if we think about it this way, if that was a really big gun from another murder case, nobody would ever say they're not allowed to pick up the gun. This is a big boat. They're allowed to use that boat in the fields of evidence that were presented in the court. And counsel indicated, we had the boat engineer come and talk about it, the tests that they performed on it. He didn't mention the previous boat owner, but we did in our response, who specifically testified about two people getting in the boat and being able to walk to one side of the boat. So what the jurors did is nothing different than the evidence that they heard in this case. And he also failed to address the two court, two cases that this court had used before to rule on why there was no problem. And again, it hasn't been addressed because there is no way to address it because the law allows what happened. So even with the arguments that counsel makes today, there's no change from our position what's in the paperwork. We would ask the Court to deny each and every one of these parts of the motion.

GERAGOS: Judge, can I respond to the one issue?

JUDGE: Go ahead. Go ahead.

GERAGOS: How, I'm at a loss, how do we know that this gentleman who was interviewed, the one that Aponte refers to, how do we know that there was no information? Because there's nothing about it. They have not identified who the detective was. They haven't identified what the conversation was, when it was, or anything else. So how do we know that there's no information?   All there is is the tip. The declaration by Grogan doesn't inform us as to who or what it was. In fact, they never mentioned it. So the idea that somehow we called; there was no information. They're, they're saying that that's from Aponte. They can't identify, and for whatever reasons have never identified, who it is from Modesto that made that call, or from the DA's office.

JUDGE: Neither can Aponte.

GERAGOS: Mm-hmm?

JUDGE: Neither can Aponte.

D. HARRIS: Judge, briefly to respond to that.

JUDGE: Yes.

D. HARRIS: If the court reads through Aponte's declaration, he specifically said he monitored that phone call between that inmate and that detective.

JUDGE: Yes, that's what he said.

D. HARRIS: So the evidence before the court is there is nothing.

GERAGOS: Where is the detective's notes?

JUDGE: All right. Is there anything else that counsel for either side wants to comment? Because when I begin making my ruling, I'm not going to invite comments from either side because it's a lengthy process here. Is the matter submitted now,

GERAGOS: Submitted.

JUDGE:, so I can rule accordingly?

GERAGOS: Submitted.

D. HARRIS: Submitted.

JUDGE: Okay. First of all, on the issue of the exculpatory evidence, there's a real issue whether or not this fact was newly discovered evidence, as far as I can tell. Apparently there is an affidavit showing that, by one of the representatives of the district attorney's office that said that that information was turned over and it was Bates stamped number 15311 and it was provided to the defense on May 14, 2003. So the argument can certainly be made that the, this information was, indeed, turned over to the defense. It may not have become significant until later on in the trial, however, it was apparently in the possession of the defense. This, so the court is going to be, taking the position that this was, indeed, turned over. Now, let's, assuming arguendo that the, that this is newly discovered evidence. Let's assuming that that's the case. What we've here is this conversation of, of this inmate, I'm not going to identify who it is, that somebody told him, and they believed this Todd had told him, that he had confronted, or Laci Peterson had confronted these burglars during the course of this burglary that took place at the Medina residence. The court's not too impressed by that evidence. I don't think it has much credibility or value to it. And the reason being is that there is evidence in this trial that the dog, McKenzie, was recovered at 10:14 or 10:18, I don't remember exactly what happened, and the Medinas didn't leave until after 10:30 in the morning. So the burglary must have occurred after the Medinas left their residence, and by that time Laci Peterson, under one interpretation of the evidence, was already missing. So the court is of the opinion, and also when, when this particular informant, I'll call him, was approached, from reading these affidavits, he, all of a sudden he decided he wasn't going to cooperate. And you have to understand where this place is coming from. This is an inmate at the Department of Corrections, and the, we have a real issue there about the trustworthiness. So I don't think that, that information, even if it's newly discovered, is not worthy of belief. And I don't think it would affect the outcome of this trial. At all. Because, for the reasons I already stated. One other thing. The court, in making this ruling, the court can only base its decision on evidence before the court, not what might have developed. The only evidence that's before the court is what has been repeated by both sides, that, that Laci Peterson had confronted these burglars, period. So for the reasons I've stated, as far as I'm concerned, that, a different result would not have been probable in this case because the court is of the opinion that that information is basically untrustworthy.

There is the, I'm going to just touch on some of these things. The, there was the issue that was raised about whether the denial of the second change of venue was proper. The court's already ruled on that. And the record's replete with the court's reasons for that. The removal of Jason (sic) Falconer, again that's also, there is a, the court's relying on the record. That sets forth court's reasons for removing Mr. Falconer. The court feels that at that time the court was indeed justified in removing Mr. Falconer from the jury. With respect to the doctor who was removed from the, from the jury, the record is clear that, and it took place in chambers. I've reviewed the record, and the doctor did represent to the court that he could no longer be a fair and impartial juror, and he said he could not follow the court's instructions. For whatever reason. I believe probably his motivation was he was sick, he wanted, he was sick and tired of serving on this jury and wanted to get off this jury. There certainly is good cause to remove the doctor as the foreperson during the deliberations. And I might also point out during the time that no vote had been taken. They had been in there three or four or five days, whatever it is, and there hadn't even been a vote taken. So the court cannot be accused of trying to job this jury because I don't know if it was eleven to one, ten to two, whatever it was, because no votes had been taken. This issue about the boat. The, as pointed out, the, David Weber of Lowell Aluminum Boat Group testified about the boat's stability. Bruce Peterson, the former owner of the boat, testified about being able to have two adults stand on one side without capsizing the goings, and Angelo Cuanang, a professional fisherman, testified that a hundred fifty pound fish with weights attached could be dumped out of a small boat without capsizing it. The general rule is that jurors may engage in experiments which amount to no more than a careful examination of the evidence which was presented to the court. The jury had this information in front of them when they went down to examine this boat. I like to use the example of supposing that boat was in the jury room. The boat was in evidence. There's no reason, there's no, there would be no way of telling if the jurors decided to get in the boat, rock it back and forth. And what's further significant in this case is that the boat was on a trailer and it was not on the water, so any significance or any experiment or any conclusions that could have been reached would have been minuscule compared to the evidence that this jury had already heard. And I'm of the opinion that, based upon what happened there, that that was not, indeed, an, an experiment. Okay. And then there is an issue about the jury's finding of guilt, whether or not that was appropriate. The jury has found, the court is of the opinion that the jury's finding was supported by credible evidence. Getting back to this experiment for just, not the experiment but the, the court's refusal to permit the experiment proposed by Mr. Geragos about the boat. At the time, and the record is clear on this, I looked at the experiment of the, of Raffi in this boat, attempting to dispose of this hundred fifty pound weight, and I did point out that this boat had this plywood in the bottom of it. And I don't know how that would affect the stability of the boat, but there was plywood. Mr. Geragos was prepared to present to the court the testimony that, on that particular date that that's, the place where the experiment was conducted was in the general area where there was some testimony where the body would have been dumped in order to cover that particular part. You can't, you couldn't recreate the way the Bay was on December the 24th. So there was these issues here about, and the other thing is it's, it's, well, it's, it should be common sense that you don't stand up in a boat with a hundred and fifty pound weight and put your legs astride the boat and attempt to dump the weight over the side. You just don't do that in a boat because the boat's, boats are not that stable. And so that's not the way you would do it. And, in any event, I was of the opinion that, based upon what I saw, that this boat experiment that Mr. Geragos was proposing would have misled the jury, and I was of the opinion, and it's in the record, that there wasn't a significant foundation for the admission of that experiment and give that to the jury. There is the issue here about instructing on second degree murder. The court will rely on the law on that issue. I've already given, gave my, I already gave my reasoning as to excluding the boat experiment. The issue with the wiretap, there's, the record is replete with the reasons and why that was admitted. And also, I believe the Amber Frey tapes were properly admitted.

The dog track evidence I believe was properly admitted also. I gave the reasons. I referred to the Malgren case and all the other cases that were represented. There was some testimony that was raised by Mr. Geragos about Ms. Anderson, whether or not she was certified, and whatever weight the jury wanted to put on that testimony. The adult programming, as I pointed out, was not to show the defendant was had bad character and didn't expect to have his wife come back and that's why he subscribed to adult programs. And in denying the death, a non-death qualified jury, the law is clear on that. So, for all those reasons, I think that the court relied on the record, and the court will go with the record in this case.

So the court's going to deny the motion for a new trial for the reasons I stated. Now, in this matter, then, the court has read and considered the defense motion for a new trial. I considered the oral arguments, and, as I indicated, the motion for new trial will be, will be denied.

The court now is going to go through the weighing process pursuant to 190.4, and in this case the defendant was convicted by a jury verdict of a felony as alleged in Count 1 of the Information, to wit, murder, a violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code in that on or about the 24th day of December 2002 he murdered Laci Denise Peterson. The jury further fixed the degree of murder as that of the first degree. The defendant was further convicted by a jury verdict of a felony as alleged in Count 2 of the Information, to wit, murder, a violation of Section 187 of the Penal Code, in that on or about the 24th day of December 2002 he murdered Baby Conner Peterson, a fetus. The jury further found that the special circumstance as alleged, that is that the defendant committed more than one murder in the first or second degree in this proceeding is a special circumstance within the meaning of Penal Code Section 190.2(a)(3) to be true. The jury verdict in the guilt phase was returned on November the 12th, 2004. Thereafter on November 22nd, 2004, the penalty phase of the trial was begun before the same jury. On December 13, 2004 the jury rendered the following verdict: The People of the State of California versus Scott Lee Peterson: We, the jury, in the above entitled cause, fix the penalty at death. Dated September 13, 2004, signed by Foreperson, Juror number 6. The statutes of the State of California, under which this case was tried, provide that the defendant shall be deemed to have made an application for modification of said verdict. Penal Code Section 190.4(e) provides that in every case in which the trier of fact has returned a verdict imposing the death penalty, the defendant is deemed to have made an application for the modification of the verdict under Penal Code Section 1181.7. In this case, counsel for the defense has indeed filed a motion for a new trial, which has already been denied.

In conducting a hearing as to Penal Code Section 190.4(e), the court must review the evidence, consider, take into account and be guided by the mitigating and aggravating circumstances referred to in Section 190.3 of the Penal Code and make a determination as to whether the jury's findings that the aggravating circumstances are so substantial, when compared to the mitigating circumstances, are contrary to the law or to the evidence presented. The court has specifically not considered the probation report in ruling on the application for modification pursuant to 190.4 of the Penal Code and 1181.7 of the Penal Code. The court is only considering the evidence presented to the jury in this trial. It is the law of this state that the trial judge is required to make an independent determination whether imposition of the death penalty upon a defendant is appropriate in light of the relevant evidence and any applicable law.

The trial judge has the duty to review the evidence to determine whether, in his independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the jury verdict. If he decides it does not, the court has the power to reduce the penalty to life in prison without the possibility of parole. In determining whether, in his independent judgment, the weight of the evidence supports the verdict, the judge is required to assess the credibility of the witnesses, determine the probative force of the testimony, and to weigh the evidence. Further, the court shall set forth its reasons for its ruling on the application and direct that they be entered into the court's minutes.

In this case the court has reviewed the presence and absence of each aggravating and mitigating factor listed in Penal Code Section 190.3 and specifically agrees that the jury's finding that the circumstances in aggravation are so substantial, when compared to the circumstances in mitigation, that it's supported by the weight of the evidence; it is not contrary to the law. Further, the court finds that the evidence supporting the truth of the special circumstance that the defendant committed more than one murder in the first or second degree has been overwhelmingly, overwhelming and proven beyond a reasonable doubt and that the jury's assessment that the evidence in aggravation is so substantial, when compared to the evidence in mitigation, so as to support the selection of the death penalty as the appropriate penalty is supported by the weight of the evidence.

In terms of credibility, this court agrees with the jury that the witnesses for the People were credible and believable. Penal Code Section 190.4 directs the judge to state on the record its reasons for its findings and its reasons for its ruling on this application and direct that they be entered into the court's minutes. The court has examined and reviewed all the evidence that was presented to the jury both in the guilt phase and in the penalty phase and, in making its determination as to the appropriate penalty, the court has examined the exhibits admitted into evidence, considered and taken into account the daily transcript of the proceedings, both in the guilty and in the penalty phase, the special circumstance issue, and the question of aggravating and mitigation circumstances concerning the selection of the appropriate penalty. The court has also reviewed its own personal notes relating to the evidence received as to both the guilt and penalty phase of the trial.

From the evidence submitted at the guilt phase of the trial, the court is satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, is guilty of murder of the first degree as alleged in Count 1 of the Information, and the court is satisfied that the defendant is guilty of murder of the second degree as found by the jury in Count 2 of the Information, and that the special circumstance alleged therein is true beyond a reasonable doubt. The court has reviewed and independently taken into account and is guided by the following factors in aggravation and mitigation: The court has reviewed the circumstances of the crimes for which the defendant has been convicted and the existence of the special circumstance found to have been true by the jury, and the court independently finds and agrees with the jury that the circumstances surrounding the first degree murder of Dennis, of Laci Denise Peterson and Baby Conner Peterson were cruel, uncaring, heartless and callous. The court also finds that this murder, and the killing of Baby Conner Peterson, betrayed a trust between the defendant and the defendant's wife, Laci, who was bearing the defendant's son, Conner. The young boy Conner wasn't even permitted to take a breath of air on this earth.

The court has further examined the evidence offered in the penalty phase by defendant and independently finds beyond a reasonable doubt there were no circumstances presented which extenuates the gravity of the crimes, whether or not it be a legal excuse. The court has reviewed and considered the testimony of the defendant's family members and other defense witnesses and has taken into consideration the fact that the defendant was a product of a loving, caring family and was well liked, was a hard worker, respected by his friends and relatives, has above average intelligence and is a productive member of society. The court is further aware that the defendant has no prior criminal record of any kind. However, the court does not independently find that these circumstances presented in mitigation extenuate the seriousness and gravity of the crimes.

The court further independently finds that the defendant's background is not a moral justification or an extenuating factor for his conduct. The court has also independently taken into consideration the age of the defendant at the time of the crimes and find that this is not a mitigating factor. The court has further taken into consideration any other circumstances which could extenuate the gravity of the crime, even though it not a legal excuse for the crime, and any sympathetic or other aspect of the defendant's character that the defendant has offered as a base for a sentence less than death whether or not related to the offense for which he is on trial, and finds that there are none which extenuates the gravity of the crime or mitigates the offenses accordingly and by independent review. The court further finds in evaluating the evidence in the penalty phase, in addition to the circumstances of the crimes for which the defendant was convicted, and considering the existence of the special circumstances found to be true and in consideration of the evidence offered by the defense in mitigation, that there are no factors in mitigation which will extenuate and mitigate the gravity of the crimes committed. Considering all of the evidence, and by independent review, the court's assessment is that the factors in aggravation are so substantial, when compared to the factors in mitigation, that death is warranted and not life without the possibility of protocol. Therefore, the automatic motion for said modification of the verdict of death is denied. The court further orders a transcript be made of the court's reason for denying the automatic motion for modification of the jury's verdict of death and the reasons thereafter be entered on the court's minutes. Now, if there are any members of the victim's family who wishes to address the court, this is the time.

D. HARRIS: Yes, your Honor, there are several members that wish to. And the first one would be Brent Rocha.

JUDGE: Brent Rocha. Mr. Rocha, you can speak from the lectern there. And keep your voice up so we can all hear you, okay? There's no microphone there I noticed. Maybe that would reach there.

BRENT ROCHA: Okay. It's difficult, Scott, to get up here and speak to you of what you've done, you know. It's not an easy thing to do, to actually confront the killer of Laci. I mean everything that you have put us through and our family, your family; I mean you just can't even begin to understand what's gone on behind the scenes. You've been sheltered in your jail cell. You just, you have no idea of what we've gone through. Laci and Conner are the true victims here, but you've also caused a lot of other people a significant amount of pain. It's also difficult to be up here to talk to you because I don't know how much you understand, or how much you comprehend, what emotional level you have, or how much feeling you can have, but I'm going to do it anyway, even though it may not, it might bounce right off of you. Maybe this act of your arrogance and confidence is a coping mechanism, but at some point in time you're going to have to face reality for what you've done. Of course I wonder, like everyone else, why you chose to kill. Surely now that you have been convicted and are as soon to be sentenced to death, I would hope that you regret the choices that you made. Maybe you don't. But what I don't understand is how do you not know that's not right to take someone else's life? Why did you have to kill? I mean, did you really hate Laci and Conner that much? Or did you dislike yourself?

You know, we all wonder why you did this because I think, for the most part, we all loved you like a member of the family. And like your family and my family, maybe all the members of your family, we were just shocked that you could have done what you've done. Although you've committed this crime, you still go on as if nothing's happened, joke and laugh behind the scenes in your jail cell. The only thing that I could say that we saw something negative about you is you thought you were better than everyone else. Even when Rose and I would come down and visit you and Laci, you always had this arrogance about you or you thought you were more entitled to more privileges. I never would have thought that would have led to murder or anything like that. But I wonder, I mean, why did you feel you were better than everyone else? As you said it yourself, you thought you were smarter than 70 percent of the other population, members of the population. I don't know, is it because your parents gave you money, you had a good golf game? I can't really think of what else you might be better at, other than those two things, but my personal take is that you just used the persona of a rich kid to make yourself feel better. I mean, you never really got a chance to know yourself and let people like you for who you are other than for your money.

JACKIE PETERSON: Brent, that isn't true at all.

BRENT ROCHA: It had to be for selfish reasons that you killed Laci and Conner. You did it so your life would not be changed, your persona of the rich kid would still be intact. You knew you were living beyond your means. You didn't have the mental strength to support your family. Your dual life would have been over if Conner came into the picture. We sat in the pool, your pool, in the summer of 2002, and you talked to me about not doing good in your job, turning 30 years old, got a baby on the way. I mean, you were down. I mean, it was quite obvious. I testified to that, and you shook your head as if I was lying.

LEE PETERSON: You're a liar.

BRENT ROCHA: I know what the truth is, and you're denying that.

JUDGE: Excuse me. If there's any, I don't care who you are, if you interrupt the proceedings, you're going to be removed from the courtroom, all right? You're welcome to be here. I have your letter, I'm going to make it part of the probation report. I will not tolerate anybody calling out in the audience, I don't care who you are. So be advised, the next one who opens their mouth is going to be removed from the courtroom. Period. Go ahead.

BRENT ROCHA: Between you and me you know it was the truth. We were in that pool together. We know what took place.

(Lee Peterson exits courtroom)

BRENT ROCHA: I told you at that time money wasn't everything, there was so much more to life. And I can tell you, Scott, my two sons have brought me more joy than I could ever imagine. You will never know how great your life could have been if you had let things happen the way they should have happened. There was also a time in 1999 where you cried about the way you were raised. Right after my grandmother's funeral, you cried to Laci and you cried to Rose. There's issues there, Scott, I mean with you and your parents. I don't know what they are, but they're still no justification for the actions you've taken. You're evil and you still have the readiness to commit evil. Death is the appropriate punishment for your crime, and I knew that immediately, when Laci was missing, that you were responsible. On January 4th, 2003 I went and bought a gun. I already knew at that point in time you were guilty. I chose not to kill you myself for one reason: So you would have to sweat it out and not take the easy way out. I'm grateful I made the right decision. You have shown no remorse for your actions. It's just hard to believe that you can carry on with life as if you didn't commit this crime, and it's, it's not comprehendible to me. You slept in the same bed with Laci for two weeks, knowing that you were going to kill her. You ate the food that she cooked, knowing that you were going to kill her. You asked her brother to go golfing, you let her sister cut her hair, you toasted her mother about what a wonderful daughter she had, knowing the whole time you were going to kill, you were planning to kill Laci. I mean, you don't have any compassion? What happened? I mean, were you depressed? Were you, did you panic? Were you scared? Were you angry? I mean why?

(Jackie Peterson leaves courtroom)

BRENT ROCHA: You know, our lives are consumed with this murder. You've ruined our lives. Every time I come over to the Bay Area what I think is Oh, my sister's head is probably rolling around the bottom of the Bay. Do you even give any thought to what you've done? I mean, you made it, my mother has been through hell. You made a mess of her life. The torture; you'll just never understand what, what you've caused. Okay, Scott. My last couple thoughts. Since I probably will never speak to you again, this is why I'm here saying what I want you to know. You chose to kill a woman who was five foot tall and pregnant. I mean, you're over six foot. Are you proud of your accomplishment? You pulled off your task? How does it feel to be a baby killer?

You're so far from the perfect rich kid persona that was so important to you. I don't know where your anger came from, but you are truly a loser: You lost your golf scholarship at college, you ruined your marriage, you spent all of the money that your parents gave you, you opened a business that failed, and you couldn't handle selling your fertilizer. You should take a look at why this, why it was that you were not able to succeed in life. Everything was handed to you so you didn't have to develop the skills to be a successful adult. I think that the anger you displayed towards Laci and Conner should have been turned towards yourself. It wasn't their fault you weren't succeeding; it was your own.

For my final comment I just wanted you to know that it feels good knowing that you don't want to be in jail. You did not want to be convicted of this crime. In the beginning of the trial you shuffled through papers and you even provided your counsel with responses, trying to work your way out of this mess. You even shook your head, I already did that point. Past it now. You have manipulated and embarrassed your parents. You should see how pathetic your mom looks moving out all of your personal belonging from your house without her oxygen tank. It's really a sad thing you've put our mothers through. During this trial you were diligently fighting for your life. It was somewhat gratifying to see the noose tightening around your neck and to hear that you were vomiting in your cell before the verdict came in. You weren't a guy that didn't care anymore or that just gave up. You were just a spoiled child that only cared about yourself. Scott, you are really a delusional liar and are so disconnected from reality, you probably still think you're going to get off. You're probably sitting there right now thinking you're going get off on appeal, I bet. It may take 25 years before you're executed, and maybe then you will see the reality of your life. By the way, when you walk to that execution room, take a look out the window. You'll see Brooks Island, and then you can know that Laci and Conner have come to get you and take you away. Thank you, your Honor.

JUDGE: Thank you. I'm going to ask the rest of the speakers, with the exception of Mrs. Rocha, to be a little briefer because we've got a long way to go here.

D. HARRIS: Next will be Rose Rocha.

JUDGE: Rose Rocha.

ROSE ROCHA: When I look at Laci's picture, I still can't believe that we'll never see her again. It seems as if the next time we go to Modesto she'll be there with a big smile and welcoming personality. I keep asking Brent When is it going to sink in, but I don't think it ever really will. At the time of this tragedy Laci was entering one of the most wonderful phases of her life, a time that she had been waiting for for so long. She was finally going to be a mother. She was so excited. Conner would have been two months older than my youngest son. And to think that you, Scott, asked to touch my pregnant stomach just days after you killed Laci and Baby Conner, that disgusts me. As I watch my son grow, I can't help to think that Conner should be doing the same things right now. Conner should be saying words, making animal sounds and giving hugs and kisses, and Laci should be experiencing all these things with him. She never had the opportunity to do that. She never had the opportunity to have her son look into her eyes and to hear him say Mommy, or have him run to her with his arms open when he sees her come into a room. And Baby Conner, he was never able to see the face of the person that he heard talking while he was in Laci's womb, the person that loved him so much, even though she hadn't met him yet. And one person decided to take that all away from them because of his own selfish reasons. You didn't think about your wife that you had spent the past five years with or of your own son, who was your blood. He could have brought you a joy so great that you could never imagine, if you just would have given him a chance. You only thought about yourself. No one made you do what you did. You chose to do it on your own, and now you have to be held accountable. I hope that while you're in your cell, Scott, waiting for the day of your execution, you stop thinking about yourself for one minute and you start reflecting on what you've done. I know that Laci is with Conner right now and she'll be with him forever. And that's one thing you weren't able to take away from them. One day I'll have to explain to my children that they had an Aunty Laci and a cousin Conner, but they're not with us because a mean, evil person took them away from us; and, Scott, you're that evil person. And you're going to pay what you, for what you have done, not only in this life, but for eternity.

D. HARRIS: The next family member is Amy Rocha.

JUDGE: Amy Rocha.

AMY ROCHA: I never would have thought that the last time I would have got to hug Laci would have been on December 23rd, 2002, but because of you, Scott, that was the last time, the last time I even got to see her. Do you remember that night I cut your hair and I asked you what you wanted for Christmas? Why did you say all that you wanted for Christmas was the baby? You lied. You knew at that time that's not what you wanted, and you wanted just to say anything just to please me. You have broken my heart and our whole family's heart. You're a selfish and evil person. You have put our whole family through hell. You let us agonize for months about Laci, where Laci and Conner were and what had happened to them, and yet you knew the whole time. I can't believe at one time I actually thought I wanted to find someone like you, but now I pray I never do. You are a monster because of what you've done, and it frightens me to be by myself and I will never be able to live my life the same. Laci and Conner were never able to live their lives because of what you did. Now, because of you I will never get to see Laci become a mom and me be an aunt to Baby Conner. I was looking so forward to helping her and to be able to live close to you guys. I will never get to have Laci and Conner in my life because of you. You took them away from all of us. You are a coward and selfish person. Now, my holidays and our whole family's holidays will never be the same. We will never get to enjoy any holidays or birthdays again without Laci and Conner. Because of you we were never even given the chance to meet Conner, and we will never be able to see Laci and Conner grow together. Their lives were so important and you acted like they were not. I can't believe you would murder my sister and your wife and your son. You are a sick person with no heart, and you will pay for what you've done, and you deserve everything that's coming to you. The only comfort I have is knowing you will be suffering every day for the rest of your life until you die, and no punishment you receive on earth will ever compare to the punishment that God will give you once you die.

D. HARRIS: The next family member is Dennis Rocha.

DENNIS ROCHA: Scott, you're a real wonderful man, you know that? A piece of shit is what you are.

JUDGE: Mr. Rocha, I understand this is very unpleasant, but I want you to use some civility when you address the defendant.

DENNIS ROCHA: Boy, you kill your own baby and you kill Laci. Why didn't you get a divorce? You know, then you could have been with Amber and we wouldn't have to be going through all this, you know; but why? Because you're a narcissist, plus a liar, and I knew, I never did like you at the beginning because you were always so arrogant, thought you were better than everybody else; a rich boy from San Diego and we're just farm people. Laci loved you and I, and I respected her feelings, so that's why, you know, you're in love with yourself, is your problem. You planned on killing her; why did you kill your own son? Why kind of person are you?Boy, I tell you, you're going to burn in hell for this, too; I tell you, you are. You know, you're not going to lie to God. You're going to be just sitting there in your cell. No more golfing. You know you're not going to golf no more? You're not going to go to dinner. No more women. You know, your life is done for. I hope you realize that. You're going to realize it. And you're going to burn in hell for that, too. I've got no more to say to you.

JUDGE: Next.

D. HARRIS: The next family member is Ron Grantski.

RON GRANTSKI: You know, I had all kinds of things to say to you, Scott. You don't realize what a great family you had a chance to be a part of. You treated them all like a gob of shit. You are smarter than everyone else. The hardest thing I have to deal with, and there's a few of them, but this is one of them, I keep going back to New Year's Eve, the vigil in the park when everybody is crying, we're all out looking for Laci, your family, our family, friends, people all over the country, and you're on the phone telling your girlfriend that you're in Paris, Listen to the crowd cheer. That's a cold blooded no good son of a bitch. How you can call yourself that you didn't do anything, that you did nothing wrong. How your family can look at you and say you're such a great kid. Something is wrong with you and your family because that is not right. Let alone where Laci was found where you went fishing? You know you did it but you're going to torture your family and everybody else, but you're a lying chicken shit.

JUDGE: Mr. Grantski,

RON GRANTSKI: That's it.

JUDGE:, please don't use profanity.

RON GRANTSKI: Sorry.

D. HARRIS: The last family member is Sharon Rocha.

JUDGE: Mrs. Rocha.

SHARON ROCHA: There's unbelievable sadness in my heart for the loss of what was and what should have been. On December 24th, 2002 the Scott Peterson I had known for more than eight years ceased to exit. The Scott I knew was the one Laci loved. He was the center of her world, and I entrusted him with her. Scott, you made a conscious decision to murder Laci and Conner. You planned and executed their murders. Yes, you did. You decided to throw Laci and Conner away, dispose of them as though they were just a piece of garbage. You thought after a few weeks we would stop looking for Laci and we would just forget about her as though she never existed. Your arrogance led you to believe you were more intelligent than everyone else, that you would be able to manipulate the entire situation so you would never be suspected of any wrongdoing. This was easy for you to believe because you killed Laci long before you murdered her. You were wrong. Dead wrong. You aren't intelligent at all. You're stupid. You're stupid to believe you could get away with murder. You're stupid to believe murder was your only way out of marriage. You're stupid to believe that we would forget about Laci. You equated a small town with a small mind, and you were wrong.

On December 14, 2002 you told Laci you had to meet a business associate in San Francisco and would have to spend the night there. You told her you wouldn't be able to attend the Christmas party with her that evening. On December 15th, 2002 we had dinner with you and Laci at your home. I didn't know at that time that you didn't go to San Francisco, instead you attended a Christmas party with your lover and spent the night with her. You attended the Christmas party with your girlfriend while your unsuspecting seven-and-a-half month pregnant wife went to her Christmas party alone. It makes me ill knowing that, at the very time we were having dinner with you and Laci that evening, you had already set your plan in motion to murder her. There was no way for me to know December 15th, 2002 would be the last time I would ever see Laci alive. But you knew it. You're selfish, heartless, spoiled, self-centered, and you are a coward; but above all, you are an evil murderer. You murdered my beautiful Laci and her precious baby, Conner, my grandson. You murdered your own baby. You're a baby killer. Not even Satan will claim to have a part in your making. You're man-made. You're a product of the environment that you grew up in. You could have chosen to change your path and distance yourself from evil, but you didn't. You Scott, have proved that evil can lurk anywhere. You don't even have to look evil to be evil. You wanted to eliminate Laci from your life. The logical solution would have been divorce. However, typical of your selfish, cowardly way, you chose what you thought would be the easiest way out for you: You murdered her. Why? Why did you murder Laci, Scott?

That's an answer we'll never get, isn't it. The fact you no longer wanted Laci did not give you the right to murder her. She was not a possession to rid yourself of. How dare you murder her? She was my daughter. My baby. I always wanted her and I always will. I trusted you and you betrayed me. You betrayed Laci. You betrayed everybody. Laci loved you with all her heart, unconditionally. You lied to her over and over again when she was most vulnerable. You selfishly cheated on her and then you murdered her. You hide behind a facade and pretend to be someone you're not. I know you're nothing but an empty, hollow shell. You have no love, no feelings, no compassion, no heart, and you have no soul. You have no remorse for murdering your wife and your baby. Laci was only five feet tall. She didn't stand a chance physically against you, Scott. It was easy for you to overpower her and murder her. How did that make you feel? Were you proud of yourself? Did you feel a sense of accomplishment? Did you feel relief that they were gone?

Your selfish act of murdering Laci has caused unbearable pain and heartache. You took a beautiful life and her precious baby away from us. There's a huge hole in my heart that will never heal. I grieve every single day for Laci and Conner. I miss Laci so much. I miss having a daughter. Our friendship, our talks and our laughter. I miss making plans with her and our shopping excursions, our lunches together. I miss teasing her, hearing her giggle, watching her mature. I miss telling, miss her telling me about the plants she purchased for her yard and a new recipe she's going to try tonight. I miss hearing her talk about her baby and her plans for the future. I miss her asking me for advice or for my opinion. I miss being my daughter's mother. I'll never have the opportunity to see her become a mother. I'll never meet my grandson. I'm left only to wonder what color would his hair and his eyes be. Would he look like Laci? Would he have her long, dark eyelashes? Would he have her dimples? Would he have her upbeat personality? Would he have her laugh? What would his interests be? What kind of person would he be? Would he like school? Would he like sports? What costume would Laci have him wear for his first Halloween? Would he cry when he has his picture taken with Santa? What would be in his Easter basket?

I'll never have the opportunity to know because his father murdered him. I wasn't there to protect Laci, to protect her from you, her husband, the man she loved and thought loved her, the last person she should need to be protected from. Laci didn't know the Scott that sits in this courtroom. She would never put her life or the life of her baby in jeopardy by living with a murderer. She loved you but she didn't need you, Scott. She would have survived a divorce. I find solace in the irony that you sentenced yourself to death when you murdered Laci. You were afforded something that Laci was not: An opportunity to plead your case and an attempt to avoid a death sentence. You were given a trial, an attorney, a judge and a jury. Laci wasn't that fortunate. You took it upon yourself to be her attorney, her judge and her jury, and you took it upon yourself to be her executioner. Tell me, Scott, before you murdered Laci did you ask her if she wanted to die? Did you ask her if she wanted to live?

No, you didn't. I could ask you do you want to die? Do you want to live? But I'm not going to because I don't care what you want. I only care that you get what you deserve, and that's death. But what you didn't count on was Laci's spirit and the love for her family and her friends and her baby were more powerful than your evilness. Laci tried her best to protect her baby. She kept him inside her body right up until the very end. It's truly a miracle and I thank God that both of them were found and they'll be together again for eternity. We had to bury Laci without her arms to hold her baby and without her head to see and hear and smell and kiss her sweat little baby, Conner. There was a time I couldn't bear to look at a picture of Laci because each time I did I envisioned her this way. You have no idea what that, the thought of that does to my soul. I finally convinced myself to see her body as she was and not as she is. Now what I see when I look at her picture is her beautiful smile and her contagious giggle, her happy heart, her love of life and her great expectations of becoming a mother, her generous soul, her knowing how much I love her and knowing how much she loves me. I'm haunted every single day with visions of you murdering Laci. Did she know you were killing her? Did she look at you? Did you look at her? Did you look her in the eye, Scott, while you were killing her?

Was she alive when you put her in the Bay? Struggling to free herself from the weights you put on her? I know she was terrified, and I wasn't there to save her life. Nothing will ever undo your evil. Now it's time for you to take responsibility for murdering Laci and Conner, your son, your own flesh and blood. You deserve to be put to death as soon as possible. I want to know, Scott, what were you thinking as you were killing Laci? What do you think Laci was thinking, that you, her beloved husband, was killing her and her son? I'll tell you what I think they were thinking, and I hope these words haunt you forever: Laci was thinking, Scott, why are you killing me? What are you doing? You know how much I love you, you told me you love me too. I trusted you, I believed in you. You promised to take care of me and protect me. You are my lover, my partner, and you're my best friend. I want to be your wife and the mother of your baby. You told me you wanted that too. Scott, I want to live, I don't want to die. I don't want, I don't understand why you're killing us. Please stop. Please stop. I don't want to die. I don't want to die.

DENNIS ROCHA: You're going to die, Scott.

SHARON ROCHA: You want to know what your son was thinking while your murdered him? He said, Daddy, why are you killing mommy and me? I haven't met you yet but I love you. If you let us live long enough for me, for you to meet me, I know you'll love me too. Daddy, please, please don't kill us. I want to live. Mommy has enough love for both of us. I promise I won't take her away from you. Daddy, why are you killing us? Please, please stop. I don't want to die. We don't want to die. And now, Scott Peterson, I'm saying this to you: You deserve to burn in hell for all eternity.

DENNIS ROCHA: You'll burn in hell.

D. HARRIS: That's all.

JUDGE: All right. Can we have it quiet. Mr. Geragos, does your client wish to make any statement?

GERAGOS: May I have a moment, your Honor?

(Mr. Geragos confers with the defendant)

GERAGOS: No. No, your Honor.

JUDGE: All right.

GERAGOS: I do want to put on the record that I made a request that Mr. and Mrs. Peterson,

JUDGE: Yes.

GERAGOS:, under my understanding of the law are victims and they be allowed to address the court. You indicated to me that you were not going to grant that request.

JUDGE: Right, because the victims are the other side.

GERAGOS: I maintain they're the grandparents.

JUDGE: I understand that, but it's not their daughter that was the one who was murdered. I understand that. Okay. All right. Go on and arraign the defendant, please.

CLERK: Want him to stand or sit?

JUDGE: No, he can sit.

CLERK: Scott Lee Peterson, an Information was filed against you by the District Attorney of the County of Stanislaus on the 1st day of December, 2003, filed in San Mateo County on January 26, 2004, charging you with the crime of felonies, two wit: Murder, a violation of Section 187 of the California Penal Code, as charged in the first count of the Information, with one special circumstance clause pursuant to Section 190.2(a)(3) of the Penal Code; Murder, a violation of Section 187 of the California Penal Code as charged in the second count of the Information. You were regularly arraigned, and upon your arraignment you entered pleas of not guilty to the crimes charged in the Information. On February 9, 2004, the special circumstance clause pursuant to Section 190.2(a)(3) of the Penal Code of California as to the second count was stricken on the court's own motion.

You were subsequently tried by a jury and the jury rendered the following verdicts, omitting the court and cause: Verdict of the jury: We, the jury, in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, guilty of the crime of murder of Laci Denise Peterson, in violation of Penal Code Section 187(a) as alleged in Count 1 of the Information filed herein. Dated November 12th, 2004. Signed by Foreperson number 6. We, the jury, further find the degree of murder to be that of the first degree. Dated November 12th, 2004. Signed by Foreperson number 6. We, the jury, in the above-entitled cause, find to be true the special circumstance pursuant to Penal Code Section 190.2(a)(3), that the said defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, has in this case been convicted of at least one crime of murder of the first degree and one or more crimes of murder of the first or second degree. Dated November 12th, 2004. Signed by Foreperson number 6. We, the jury, in the above-entitled cause, find the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, guilty of the crime of murder of Baby Conner Peterson, in violation of Penal Code Section 187(a) as alleged in Count 2 of the Information filed herein. Dated November 12th, 2004. Signed by Foreperson number 6. We, the jury, further find the degree of murder to be that of the second degree. Dated November 12th, 2004. Signed by Foreperson number 6. And the issue of penalty having been subsequently tried by a jury, and the jury having rendered the following verdict, omitting title of court and cause: Verdict of the jury: We, the jury, in the above-entitled cause, fix the penalty at death. Dated December 13th, 2004. Signed by Foreperson number 6. And your motion for modification of verdict having been denied, this is the day regularly set for sentence. At this time do you have any legal cause why judgment of the court should not be pronounced against you?

JUDGE: Mr. Geragos? Any legal cause?

GERAGOS: The probation report I had mentioned before.

JUDGE: I was going to get to that in just a second.

GERAGOS: Under 351.1?

JUDGE: Yes.

GERAGOS: Strike those.

JUDGE: I'm going to ask that the portion of the probation report that refers to the lie detector test, that portion be redacted from the probation report.

GERAGOS: And then I've also filed this morning a letter with Marylin that I want,

JUDGE: That may also, that may also be filed and made a part of the probation report.

GERAGOS: Thank you.

JUDGE: Is there any legal cause?

GERAGOS: No.

JUDGE: All right. All right. There being no legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced this morning, for this portion of the proceedings the court has read and considered the report of the probation officer and the letters and other reports submitted to the court in this matter, including the letter from Jackie Peterson and another letter from Lee Peterson and a letter from his employer. I'm going to order that these letters be made part of the probation report and incorporated therein by reference and be made part of the record. And probation will be denied because the defendant is ineligible for probation and, further, because of the nature and seriousness and circumstances of the crime. With respect to Count 1 of the Information, the jury having found the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, guilty of the murder of Laci Denise Peterson, and the jury having fixed the degree of murder as that of the first degree; And the jury having further found in Count 2 the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, guilty of the murder of Baby Conner Peterson, and the jury further having set the degree of murder as that of the second degree; And the jury further having found the special circumstance to be true, that is the defendant committed more than one murder in either the first or second degree in this proceeding; And the court further having denied the application to modify the jury verdict as to the penalty as within the meaning of Section 190.4 and 1180 of the Penal Code; And the court having further denied the motion for a new trial; And there being no legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that for the offense of the murder of Laci Denise Peterson as alleged in Count 1 of the Information, and the murder of Baby Conner Peterson as alleged in Count 2 of the Information, that the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, shall be put to death in the manner and means prescribed by law within the walls of the State Prison of San Quentin, California, in accordance with Penal Code Section 3604. Now, the defendant is entitled to 699 days actual time. He's not entitled to any good time and work time credits because, under the law, he's not entitled to that. The court's going to order a $10,000 restitution fine, not, not a fine. A $10,000 restitution to the Victim's Compensation and Governor's Claims Board, payable through the California Department of Corrections for the funeral expenses that were advanced to the family to cover the funeral expenses of the victim and her child. There will be a $5,000 restitution fund fine pursuant to 1202.4 of the Penal Code.

GERAGOS: Judge, the,

JUDGE: Yeah.

GERAGOS:, the calculation on actual number of days is actually 699.

JUDGE: I can't hear you.

GERAGOS: I'm sorry, the calculation, I thought I heard you say 690, but I think it's,

JUDGE: 699.

GERAGOS: Yeah, it is. Okay.

JUDGE: 699. That's what I said. If it sounded like 690, I said 699. I think, it says 699 here. Okay. Now, Mr. Peterson, as far as the death penalty is concerned, with reference to Count 1 and Count 2 and the special circumstance, there is an automatic appeal to the State Supreme Court. Your present lawyers may or may not handle your appeal. If they do not, the Supreme Court will appoint counsel to represent you at no cost. There is an automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of the State of California. Therefore, it is hereby ordered, adjudged and decreed that the defendant be remanded to the care, custody and control of the Sheriff of San Mateo County, to be by said Sheriff delivered to the Warden of the State Prison at San Quentin, California, within ten days of the date of the judgment herein, and that the execution of this sentence is to be withheld by said Warden pending the final determination of Scott Lee Peterson's appeal in this matter, which is automatic. And said sentence is to be executed upon final determination of said appeal and that the said Scott Lee Peterson is to be held by him during said period until further order of this court. Therefore this is to command you to the Sheriff of San Mateo County as provided in said judgment, to take Scott Lee Peterson to the State Prison in San Quentin, California, to be delivered to the custody of the Warden of said prison. Now, this is to further command you, the Warden of the State Prison of San Quentin, California, to hold in your custody the defendant, Scott Lee Peterson, pending the decision of this case on appeal, and upon the judgment herein becoming final to carry into effect the judgment of said court at a time and place and a date to be herein affixed by order of this court within the state prison system at which time and place you shall then put to death Scott Lee Peterson in the manner and means prescribed by law. The reporter is ordered to have a transcript of these proceedings prepared and certified and filed with the clerk of the court.

GERAGOS: You had indicated that you wanted to set a date if there was no objection to the,

JUDGE: I already read that into the record, Mr. Geragos.

GERAGOS: All right.

JUDGE: I did that at the very beginning. Okay. I'd like to see counsel in chambers when this is over. It's got nothing to do with this case, but I would just like to see counsel. These proceedings will be adjourned.