Stipulations to Replace State's Rebuttal

Guilt Phase

October 17, 2004

JUDGE:  All right.  This is the case of People versus Scott Peterson.  Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel.  These proceedings are taking place out of the presence of the jury.

And the record should reflect that we had a chambers conference, and at the chambers conference, we came to a stipulation with respect to the testimony of Mr. Vladimir Rodriguez.  And since then the attorneys have gotten together, and the stipulation has been modified.

There is also another stipulation with respect to an e-mail which is going to be marked people's next in order.

And then there is going to be a stipulation that Defendant's H may be admitted in evidence and take the same number.  That's going to be the tentative ruling.

And then that's going to be it.  Right?  

DISTASO:  That's right.

JUDGE:  This precludes the necessity of calling any other witnesses today.  So the testimony will consist of the Court reading stipulations to the jury.  So bring the jury in.

GERAGOS:  Judge –

JUDGE:  Oh, before you do that.  Go ahead, hold on just one second.  I want to repeat the stipulation.

GERAGOS:  You need to type that up.

I want to put on the record, they have got no objection to the admission of Defendant's H.

JUDGE:  I just put that on.

GERAGOS:  I wanted to -- one other item that comes out of the discovery that I believe that Mr. Harris is going to stipulate was also retrieved off of the computer.

JUDGE:  You agreed on that.

GERAGOS:  He is looking at it right now.

JUDGE:  Is there any objection if that goes into evidence, 295A through F?

DISTASO:  I have no objection.

JUDGE:  Do you have any objection to 295?

GERAGOS:  That was part of our stipulation.

JUDGE:  H also is going into evidence today?

GERAGOS:  I have got a three page document that shows -- was also taken off the computer.  That's going to be stipulated to.

JUDGE:  It is going to be marked next defendant's next in order?

GERAGOS:  Defendant's next in order.

GERAGOS:  It's hole-punched.  I just ask that we copy it and use the copy.

JUDGE:  Defendant's next in order will be Defendant's 9D.  That's D to the 9th power.  And that's going to be entered into evidence by stipulation? Yahoo Search Results Marked as Exhibit D9D for identification.

GERAGOS:  We stipulate.

JUDGE:  Can you describe it?

GERAGOS:  Retrieved off the computer by Lydell Wall.

JUDGE:  Can you describe it for the record?

GERAGOS:  Three pages, Yahoo Search results.

JUDGE:  Of what?

GERAGOS:  Of The Bay.  Yahoo Search results.

JUDGE:  Of the bank?

GERAGOS:  Bay.  B-a-y.

JUDGE:  Of the bag (sic).  And there is a stipulation that the original may be retained by the offering party and the copies can be admitted in evidence and take the same number.

Might as well do that now.  Defendant's 9D may be admitted in evidence and take the same number.

D. HARRIS:   That's fine.

Exhibit D9D Admitted in Evidence.

JUDGE:  Okay.  Now, I'm going to read the redone stipulation.

GERAGOS:  Okay.

JUDGE:  Okay?  And I intend read this to the jury as follows: If Vladimir Rodriguez were called to testify he would testify as follows:  That he was shown photographs that had been downloaded from the internet showing a bag of concrete in the Peterson driveway.

Rodriguez would testify there were several bags of concrete purchased and placed in the driveway.  He would testify that they were going to use the concrete to replace the fence post that supports the gate by the driveway that was removed in order to access the backyard with a tractor to dig the hole for his pool.

Rodriguez would testify that when they removed the fence post by the gate they found it was not in concrete.

Rodriguez would further testify that the contractor did not replace the front fence post by the gate in concrete since there was no concrete to begin with.

Rodriguez identified the bag of concrete in the photograph that has been labeled People's 295A through F as being his.

He would further testify that he does not know what happened to it after it was not used for the fence post.

Mr. Rodriguez said it remained in the driveway for several weeks, and then he assumes the contractor used it somewhere else.

Mr. Rodriguez would further testify that he had no concrete work done on the Petersons' property.  Is that agreed?

GERAGOS:  Yes.

DISTASO:  Yes.

JUDGE:  Then the next stipulation?

D. HARRIS:   Yes.

JUDGE:  It is also stipulated by and between counsel, that People's Exhibit -- which I will mark now, and that would be 298 -- is an e-mail recovered from the dining room table on February the 18th, 2003, during the search warrant at 523 Covena.

And I will mark the page one and two of two pages.

That will be People's 298.  And that will also be admitted in evidence by stipulation.

Copy of Email Marked as Exhibit 298 for identification and admitted into evidence.

JUDGE:  And then for the -- whatever we just marked as the defense next in order.  That would be defense next in order is going to be -- lift it up here.  D9D.

That's been admitted.

GERAGOS:  Right.  So you can tell the jury this as well, that we have stipulated that this was recovered off of the computer by Lydell Wall.

JUDGE:  Okay.  Recovered off the computer by Lydell wall.  Should I tell the jury with any more specificity that the search result –

GERAGOS:  Yahoo Search was results from a map in San Francisco Bay.

JUDGE:  You said of a bag?

GERAGOS:   Bay.

JUDGE:  Of The Bay.

GERAGOS:  Bay.  B-a-y.

JUDGE:  Makes a big difference.  Three page document Yahoo Search is result of what, of the bay?  Just so they know.

D. HARRIS:   The search is map, plus sand, plus Francisco, plus bay, plus chart.

JUDGE:  Okay.  Just say a map of The Bay.

GERAGOS:  It's kind of what I was getting at.

JUDGE:  Okay.  And I just need to know map of the bay recovered by Lydell Walsh?

GERAGOS:  Wall.

JUDGE:  Is it going to be a date?  

GERAGOS:  The date he did it.  He did it on August 7th of 2003.

JUDGE:  8-70-2003.  Is there is going to be a stipulation, if -- I forget that.  Remind me.  That People's Number -- Defendant's H?

GERAGOS:  Defendant's H.

JUDGE:  H will be admitted in evidence, and will take the same number Defendant's H.

I'll describe it for the record.  Is the no-sale receipt from Austin's that was identified by Mr. Austin himself.  Okay.

GERAGOS:  Yes.

Exhibit H Admitted in Evidence.

JUDGE:  That's it, right?

DISTASO:  That's just -- there is no stipulation.  That we're just not objecting.  Does that make sense?

JUDGE:  Going to move it -- it's going to go in.

DISTASO:  Right.

JUDGE:   Okay.  Then bring the jury in.  Make sure I cover everything when they get here.

Marylin, here is the 298.  That's in evidence now.

That's People's 298.  That's the e-mail found at the --  recovered from the dining room table.

Would counsel have any problem with me providing to the jury a sort of a summary sheet of the arrangements that have been made to sequester the jury?  Because they are in -- sort of in the dark as to time we're going to start, how they are going to get here, and all.  I'm going to have the Sheriff's Department prepare a summary, and then I'll run it by counsel.

GERAGOS:  As long you run it by us, I don't have any objection.

JUDGE:  Then I'll -- I would like to give it out to the jurors, at least have them see that.  They have a lot of questions right now.  So do you have any problem with that?

D. HARRIS:   Maybe I misheard the Court.  I thought the Court said something about media in there.  If the Court is talking about –

JUDGE:  This is for the -- for the jury, because they have a lot of questions.  They want to know when -- what time they are going to be picked up, what time the deliberations are going to start, what time they are going to be going home at nighttime.  And I think they are entitled to know that.  And so I'd like to put it in sort of a summary sheet prepared by the Sheriff's Department.

I'm going to ask them today again -- if I forget, remind me -- to write down any questions they may have, and we'll try to address those in some sort of a summary sheet so they will get -- they will be informed on Monday morning.

D. HARRIS:  That's fine.

GERAGOS:  That's fine with us.

JUDGE:  I'll show it to counsel before I give it to the jury.

GERAGOS:  That's fine.

JUDGE:  Okay, come on in.

(JURORS ENTER THE COURTROOM)

JUDGE:  All right.  This is the case of People versus Scott Peterson.  Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel.

The jury is in the jury box along with the alternates.  And you will be glad to know that, in this space of time, that the attorneys have gotten together, and they stipulated to all the testimony this afternoon.  So it only entails me reading the stipulations to you.  And that precludes the necessity of calling witnesses.  So they have all agreed on this, so I'm just going to read these to you.

And then when I'm done reading, you will be done.  Okay?  You don't have your notebooks, I don't think.

Well, I'll tell you what.  If you want these read back, they will be in the record.  If you want them read back now on Monday, we'll read it back to you, okay.

Okay, the first stipulation is in regards to a gentleman by name of Vladimir Rodriguez.  If you recall, I believe he's the next door neighbor that was doing some concrete work.  And so this relates to his testimony.

All right, I'll read it slowly.

If Vladimir Rodriguez were called to testify, he would testify as follows: That he was shown photographs that had been downloaded from the internet showing a bag of concrete in the Peterson driveway.  Rodriguez would testify there were several bags of concrete purchased and placed in the driveway.

He would testify that they were going to use the concrete to replace the fence post that supports the gate by the driveway that was removed in order to access the backyard with a tractor to dig the hole for his pool.

Rodriguez would testify that when they removed the fence post by the gate, they found it was not in concrete.

Rodriguez would further testify that the contractor did not replace the front fence post by the gate in concrete since there was no concrete to begin with.

Rodriguez identified the bag of concrete in the photographs, that has been labeled 295A through F, as being his.

Those are going to be moved into evidence.  They there were four photographs, if you recall, about the driveway with a bag of concrete.

He would further testify that he does not know what happened to it after it was not used for the fence post.

Mr. Rodriguez said it remained in the driveway for several weeks.  And then he assumes the contractor used it somewhere else.

Mr. Rodriguez would further testify that he had no concrete work done on the Peterson property.

Okay, that's what he would testify to.  So that testimony is not in dispute.

All right.  The second has to do with an exhibit that I have admitted in evidence, which is an e-mail  recovered from the dining room table.

So there is a further stipulation.  It is also stipulated that People's Exhibit Number 298 is an e-mail recovered from the dining room table on February the 18th, 03, during the search warrant at 553 Covena.

And that's been admitted into evidence.  And when you when you are deliberating, if you want any of these exhibits, obviously we'll send them to you, you can go through them.

The next thing is, is that the Defendant's H is going to be admitted in evidence to take the same number, now Defendant's H.  If you recall this goes way back.  Remember Mr. Austin testified from the store, and he identified a no-sale receipt from Austin's.  That's going to be admitted into evidence.  That's defendant's H.  Okay.

And I think there was one other thing.  Did I leave anything out?

GERAGOS:  I think you have got it all, judge.

JUDGE:  Okay.  No, there is one other one.

GERAGOS:  The –

JUDGE:  The one about the stipulation.

GERAGOS:  There was also a stipulation that defendant's next in order was recovered by Lydell Wall.

JUDGE:  Off the internet on Yahoo.  Okay.

GERAGOS:  Off of the computer, Scott's computer.

JUDGE:  Okay.  Okay.  And then the defense marked as 9D, Defendant's 9D.  That would be -- 9D is a three-page document 9, D's which was a Yahoo Search conducted on Scott Peterson -- on Scott's computer, which results in a map of The Bay.  This was recovered by Mr. Lydell Wall on August the 7th, 2003.  And there is no dispute that that's what he did.

And that's also been admitted in evidence and take the same number.  Right?  Everybody agreeable to that?

D. HARRIS:   Yes.

JUDGE:  Okay.  Now, that brings up the issue of sequestration.  The alternates will be sequestered.

Okay?  I know you are going to have a lot of questions.  So what I'm going to ask you to do, if you have any questions, if you will write them down and give them to Jenne.

What I'm going to do I'm going to have the Sheriff's Department prepare a little summary for you so you will know some of these questions are being answered about what time are we going to start in the morning?  How you are going to get here?  How you are going to go back?  What time are we going to recess at night?  That's been all agreed to.

And we'll have that all that information down for you.

So if -- before you leave, if you have any specific questions today, if you will write it down and give it to Jenne, she'll give it to me, I'll give it to the Captain in the Sheriff's Department who is going to oversee all this.

And then we'll have something for you by Monday so just so you know what's going to be happening the next few days.

Tomorrow, the lawyers will meet and confer in the morning, and they are going to review all these exhibits that we have had marked in here.  Some have been admitted in evidence, some have not.  The ones that are going to be admitted into evidence, there may be some agreement, and those there is a dispute about I'll rule on them.  You don't have to be here for that.

On Friday morning, we're going to have a meeting here.  This will be open, obviously.  We're going to be talking about the jury instructions.  We're going to get together, going to finalize the jury instructions.  I have already prepared the jury instructions.  They need some tweaking.  And we're going to do that on Friday morning, and get that all done.

And then when I instruct you, you will find out that you are going to get a -- you are going to get copies of those jury instructions so you will have them.  I'm going to give you the original.  I'm going to make a couple of extra copies so you can pass them around during your deliberations so the foreperson doesn't get stuck with just one copy.  So we're going to make some extra copies so you will have those at your disposal while you are deliberating on this case, okay?  So that's it.  That's it.  It's all done.

Now, I'm going to -- again I want to admonish you one more time.  You won't have to be back here until Monday morning at 9:00 o'clock.  Right here.  Do you want 9:30?

DISTASO:  I prefer 9:30, your Honor.

JUDGE:  9:30.  What's going to happen Monday is that -- and the way a case winds up is, the District Attorney makes his opening argument.  Okay?  I'll explain that to you on Monday what that means.  The District Attorney makes an opening argument.

The defense is permitted to have an argument also.

You will hear from the defense.  And then the District Attorney has the closing argument.

The reason why the District Attorney gets to argue to you twice is the District Attorney has the burden of proof.  So the law gives him two chances to argue to you.  So it would be Mr. Distaso, the defense, and then back to the prosecution.  Okay?  And that should probably take us into maybe all day Tuesday.  And then depending on where we end up, I'll either instruct you Wednesday morning -- and the day that I instruct you is the day that we're going to sequester.

But we'll let you know in advance.  All the arrangements have been made beforehand.  Okay?  Okay.  I want to give you this final admonition now.  It's not the final one, but the one for this week anyway.

You are not to discuss this case among yourselves, or with any other person, or form or express any opinions about this case.  You are not to listen to, read, or watch any media reports of this trial, nor discuss it with any representatives of the media or their agents.

So that's it until -- we're going to excuse you now until Monday morning at 9:30.  And before you leave, if you would be kind enough, if you have any questions, just write them down on a piece of paper and Jenne will collect them, and I'll go over them with the lawyers, and we'll try to have some sort of summary sheet for you so you know what's going on.  Okay?  Help you figure these things out.  Okay?  Have a nice weekend.  We'll see you Monday morning at 9:30.