Penalty Phase, Motions, & Sentencing: Nov 13, 2004 - Mar 17, 2005
Wednesday, 17 Nov 2004 Motion to Discharge Jury and Dismiss Penalty Phase
Geragos filed the Defense Motion to Discharge Jury and Dismiss Penalty Phase, or in the alternative, for a new Penalty Phase Jury and Change of Venue. Motion The Motion argues that the Court erred in not sequestering the Jury between the guilt and penalty phases, and by doing so, released the Jurors into a community that embraced them as heroes for convicting the Defendant. "So poisoned, how can these jurors fairly determine, without bias, whether Mr. Peterson should live or die?" Alternatively to dismissing the penalty phase (which would result in the Defendant received life without possibility of parole), the Motion requested a new Jury be empanelled and the venue changed for the penalty phase.
Monday, 22 Nov 2004 Opposition to Defendant's Motion
The Prosecutors filed their Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Discharge Jury and Dismiss Penalty Phase and/or New Jury and Change of Venue. Motion The Opposition states that Geragos' Motion incorrectly claimed "some 1,000 people had assembled" outside the courthouse to hear the verdict, and that "car horns were honked as the 'jury was still in the box'." Opposition reminds the Court that Geragos did not use all of his peremptory challenges during Jury voir dire, and therefore had accepted this jury. Regarding the first foreman's request to be removed from the Jury, Opposition claims that he retracted his claim and that a vote of the Jury had not yet been taken. Opposition reminds the Court that the Defendant does not have the right to have the jury sequestered or to have a separate jury for the guilt and penalty phases, and refers the Court to the previous filings on the subject. Opposition requests denial of a change of venue on the grounds that publicity has been so widespread in this case, that the defendant can't show that anything would be different in any other jurisdiction.
Tuesday, 30 Nov 2004
JUDGE: Okay. Also, I want to make part of the record. I have, obviously Mr. Geragos filed a petition for writ of mandate, and I have the ruling by the First Appellate District Judge, Justice Cline. And I'm going to mark that next in order. I'll make that a Court Exhibit. Which is denial. And then I was sent by fax from the California Supreme Court, sitting En Banc. The Application for Stay and Petition For Review denied. And will also be filed as a Court Exhibit next in order.
CLERK: First one will be Court Exhibit 40, and the second one signed by Chief Justice George will be 41.
Jury Pre-Instructions for the Penalty Phase Transcript
JUDGE: Again, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, what I'm going to do this morning, I'm going to pre-instruct you. Remember when we went through in the voir dire a long time ago, months ago, I went through the process of how you go through deciding which would be the appropriate penalty in this case, about weighing these aggravating and mitigating factors. I'm going to pre-instruct you now so you get another idea where we're going and how you are supposed to approach this part of the trial. And then we're going to have the opening statement by the prosecutor. Going to take approximately ten minutes. And then we are going to send you out for lunch. I know you have had a long morning. Now we're ready to proceed okay? So you are going to hear these instructions again. But these -- I'm just going to pre-instruct you as to certain portions that you will hear again, okay. The defendant in this case has been found guilty of murder in the first degree. The allegation that the murder was committed under a special circumstance has been specially found to be true.
It is the law of this state that the penalty for a defendant found guilty of murder of the first degree shall be death or confinement in the State Prison for life without the possibility of parole in any case in which the special circumstance alleged in this case has been specially found to be true. I instruct you that life in prison without the possibility of parole means exactly what it says, that the defendant will be imprisoned in the State Prison for the rest of his life. You are further instructed that the death penalty means exactly what it says. That the defendant will, in fact, be executed. For you to conclude otherwise would be for you to rely on conjecture and speculation, and it would be a violation of your oath as trial jurors. Under the law of this state you must now determine which of these penalties shall be imposed on the defendant. In deciding whether death or life in prison without the possibility of parole is the appropriate sentence, you may not consider for any reason whatsoever the deterrent or non-deterrent effect of the death penalty or the monetary cost to the state of execution or maintaining a prisoner for life. Cannot enter in your deliberations in any way.
You will be instructed as to all of the law that applies to the penalty phase of this trial. You must determine what the facts are from the evidence received during the entire trial unless you are instructed otherwise. You must accept and follow the law that I state to you. Disregard all other instructions given to you in other phases of this trial. You must neither be influenced by bias nor prejudice against the defendant, nor swayed by public opinion or public feelings. Both the people and the defendant have a right to expect that you will consider all of the evidence, follow the law, exercise your discretion conscientiously, and reach a just verdict.
Statements made by the attorneys during the trial are not evidence. However, if the attorneys stipulate or agree to a fact, you must regard that fact as proven. If an objection was sustained to a question, do not guess what the answer might have been. Do not speculate as to the reason for the objection. Do not assume to be true any insinuation suggested by a question asked a witness. A question is not evidence, and may be considered only as it helps you to understand the answer. Do not consider for any purpose any offer of evidence that was rejected, or any evidence that was stricken by the Court. Treat it as though you had never heard of it.
Now, you have heard some of this before when we went through the Hovey voir dire when I took you through this, how you go through this balancing, so I'm going to explain that to you now in a little more detail. In determining which penalty is to be imposed, you shall consider all of the evidence which has been received during any part of the trial of this case except as you may hereinafter be instructed. You shall consider, take into account, and be guided by the following factors, if applicable:
The circumstances of
the crime for which the defendant was convicted and the present proceedings in
the present proceedings and the existence ever any special circumstance found to
The presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant, other than the crimes which the defendant has been tried in the present proceedings which involve the use or attempted use of force or violence, or the express or implied threat to use force or violence.
The presence or absence of any prior felony conviction other than the crimes for which the defendant has been tried in the present proceedings.
Whether or not the offense was committed while the defendant was under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance.
Whether or not the victim was a participant in the defendant's homicidal conduct or consented to the homicidal act.
Whether or not the offense was committed under circumstances which the defendant reasonably believed to be a moral justification or extenuation for his conduct.
Whether or not the defendant acted under extreme duress, under the substantial domination of another person.
Whether or not at the time of the offense the capacity of the defendant to appreciate the criminality of his conduct, or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law was impaired as a result of mental disease or defect, or the effects of intoxication.
The age of the defendant at the time of the crime.
Whether or not the defendant was an accomplice to the offense, and his participation in the commission of the offense was relatively minor.
And, any other circumstance which extenuates the gravity of the crime even though it is not a legal excuse for the crime, and any sympathetic or other aspects of the defendant's character or record that the defendant offers as a basis for a sentence less than death, whether or not related to the he offense for which he is on trial. You must disregard any jury instruction given to you in the guilt or innocence phase of this trial which conflicts with this principle.
You may also consider any lingering or residual doubt as to the defendant's guilt or intent as a factor in mitigation. Lingering or residual doubt is defined as a state of mind between reasonable doubt and beyond all possible doubt. You may not relitigate or reconsider matters resolved in the guilt phase, but you may consider lingering doubt as a factor in mitigation.
Okay? Now, you are going to get these all. You will have these with you in the jury room. But that's just to give some direction so you know what to be listening for when you hear the evidence.
Opening Statement by David Harris Transcript
As the judge has just
instructed you, one of the factors for you to consider is the circumstances of
the crime. And as we go through this part of the trial, the penalty phase, the
circumstances of this crime are like ripples on water.
When the defendant dumped the bodies of his wife, his unborn son into the bay, those ripples spread out. They touched many, many lives. Those are circumstances of the crime. You are going to hear, as part of this portion of the trial, from Brent Rocha, Amy Rocha, Ron Grantski and Sharon Rocha. They are going to try and explain something to you. They are going to try and explain something to you that you now need to consider as part of the circumstances of the crime, and that is, who are the victims.
Who was Laci Peterson? Who was Conner Peterson? Because for you to decide what the circumstances of the crime were, you have to know the victims. So these witnesses are going to tell you who Laci and Conner were. They are going to talk to you about the joy that Laci brought into their life.
They are going to talk to you about what it's like to have a big sister like Laci; what it was like to grow up and play with Laci as a younger sister. You are going to hear about her as a person, and what she meant to this family and the loss that they all suffered. You are going to hear about that, because that is a circumstance of the crime. That is one of the factors for you to consider.
You are also going to hear about what Laci's plans were, what her dreams were, the baby that she wanted, Baby Conner. You are going to hear about the plans that Laci and Brent had for Conner to grow up with his cousins and play like they did. You are going to hear about Conner and the plans that a grandmother who is going to have to spoil that baby shopping, all the things that grandparents do, but were taken away in this particular case.
You are also going to hear about something else in this particular case. You are going to get to hear from them, how they had to live this, day in, day out, starting on Christmas Eve, with a killer in their midst, this monstrous act by the defendant, the ripples on the water as it touched them.
You are going to hear what it was like for a mother, every single day, waiting to find out what had happened to her daughter. Waiting to find out what had happened to her grandson. That panic, that fear, never knowing what had happened. 100 and 16 days. The entire time with the defendant, the one who caused those ripples in the pond, in their midst.
You are going to hear that they actually feel guilty, because they didn't protect Laci from the one person that they didn't think she needed protection from. You are going to hear how the second part of the circumstance of this crime, not just who Laci was, but how it's touched this family. How, as we come close to the Christmas time, their holidays will never be the same. How Mothers Day will never be the same. How birthdays will never be the same. How there is a hole in their heart that can never be repaired.
They are going to try, in the words that they can, explain to you what that circumstances of the crime mean to them. What it's like to be left behind.
As the judge has already told you, has instructed you, given the instructions, these are, this is an aggravating circumstance, circumstance of the crime.
You are going to hear about, you already have heard about one of the mitigating factors, and that's lack of prior record of the defendant.
When we're all done with this, after the witnesses have testified, I'm going to have an opportunity to come back up and talk to you at that point in time.
As the judge told you, it will be your duty to weigh these aggravating, bad things, versus the mitigating, the good things, positive things. I'm going to tell you now, when I get up and come back up here and argue to you at the end of the case, based on what you are going to hear of the circumstances of this crime from this family out here, the only appropriate and just punishment will be death.
Prosecution Witness #1: Brent Rocha, Laci's Brother Testimony
302A: BRENT, LACI, Darren Grantski, and Zachary
SHARON, LACI, AND BRENT
302C: BRENT AND LACI
302D: LACI AT CHRISTMAS 2002
Prosecution Witness #2: Amy Rocha, Laci's Half-Sister Testimony
303A: FAMILY PICTURE, BRENT'S GRADUATION
AMY, AND LACI
303C: LACI AND AMY
303D: LACI, AMY, GRANDMOTHER ROCHA
303E: LACI AND AMY
AMY, ROSE & ANTONIO
Prosecution Witness #3: Ron Grantski, Sharon Rocha's companion Testimony
304A: RON AND
LACI AT CHRISTMAS
304B: LACI AND SHARON, RON IN BACKGROUND
Prosecution Witness #4: Sharon Rocha,
305A: SHARON AND LACI CHEERLEADER TRYOUT
305B: SHARON AND LACI JUNIOR HIGH GRADUATION
305C: SHARON AND LACI HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION
305D: SHARON AND LACI AT BEACH (2000)
305E: SHARON AND LACI AT RESTAURANT
305F: SHARON AND LACI, SEPT. 2001
305G: LACI AND 5 GIRL FRIENDS
305H: LACI AND HER GIRLFRIENDS
SHARON AND LACI'S GRANDMOTHER
305J: LACI FIRST DAY TEACHING WITH APPLE
Wednesday, 1 Dec
Opening Statement by Pat Harris
Good morning. For the past four or five months we have sat here together. And basically we have gone through a man's life in very minute detail, down to facts that I don't think most of us would want to come out in their lives. Very minute detail.
We have talked about Scott Peterson so that we now know what clothes were in his closet. We know what he ate for breakfast. We know his financial life backwards and forwards, what checks he wrote, what things he's done. We know when he goes to the gas station how much gas he puts in his car. We know what would seem like to be practically every detail of this man's life. I think it will seem for any of us to say we now know who Scott Peterson is.
What I'm here to tell you in the next week will prove that wrong. You don't know who Scott Peterson is, and it's going to be our job to show you. We spent looking at five months of a man's life, mostly. There were things that obviously went back some. But, for the most part, we dealt with five months of this man's life. It was granted, the five months that brought us all the here together.
What we're going to now show you is the 30 years that preceded this. When we show you these 30 years, I believe that you will agree that this is a life worth saving. Continue
Defense Witness #1: Lee Peterson, Scott's Father Testimony
9F-1: LEE AND SCOTT (1975)
9F-2: LEE AND SCOTT GETTING A HAIR CUT
9F-4: LEE AND SCOTT AT SANTA BARBARA BEACH
9F-5: LEE AND SCOTT WITH CENTRAL COAST CRATING VAN
9F-6: LEE AND SCOTT AT RESTAURANT
9F-7: LEE AND SCOTT IN FRANCE
9F-8: LEE AND SCOTT AT GOLF COURSE (10 YRS)
9F-9: "SANTA" LEE AND SCOTT
9F-10: LEE AND SCOTT IN CATALINA
9F-11: LEE, SCOTT, AND LACI AT PEBBLE BEACH
9F-12: LEE AND SCOTT
Defense Witness #2: Joanne Farmer, Jackie Peterson's Friend Testimony
Defense Witness #3: Jeffrey Cleveland, Peterson Friend & Employee Testimony
Defense Witness #4: Craig Farmer, Peterson Friend (Joanne Farmer's son) Testimony
Defense Witness #5: Susan Caudillo, Scott's Half-Sister Testimony
9G-1: SUSAN AND SCOTT (2 YEARS OLD)
9G-2: SUSAN AND SCOTT (5 YEARS OLD)
9G-3: SUSAN AND SCOTT (FAMILY PHOTO) (7 YRS.)
9G-4: PETERSON FAMILY PHOTO WITH GRANDFATHER
9G-5: Family at Restaurant
9G-6: Family Picture, Wedding
9G-7: Picture at wedding
9G-8: Picture of 3 Flower Girls
Thursday, 2 Dec 2004
Defense Witness #6: Aaron Fritz, Scott's Friend Testimony
9H-1: AARON AND SCOTT/HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION
9H-2: AARON AND SCOTT/HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION
9H-3: AARON AND SCOTT/HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION
9H-4: SCOTT IN TIJUANA
9H-5: ORPHANAGE IN TIJUANA
9H-6: ORPHANAGE IN TIJUANA (SISTER KIELY)
9H-7: ORPHANAGE IN TIJUANA
Defense Witness #7: Britton Scheibe, Junior High Friend Testimony
9I-1: SCOTT'S 14TH BIRTHDAY
9I-3: YEARBOOK PHOTO
9I-4: YEARBOOK PHOTO
Defense Witness #8: Joan Pernicano, Jackie Peterson's friend Testimony
Defense Witness #9: Janey Peterson, Scott's Sister-In-Law Testimony
9J-1: PETERSON FAMILY THANKSGIVING 1987
9J-2: JANEY/SCOTT PLAYING BADMINTON
9J-3: JANEY/SCOTT IN YARD
9J-4: PETERSON THANKSGIVING DINNER
9J-5: Family Dinner
9J-6: Scott with Janey, Joe & others
9J-7: SCOTT AND KIDS AT 25TH WEDDING ANNIVERSARY
9J-8: JOHN AND ALISON AT FAMILY DINNER
9J-9: Children at wedding
9J-12: LACI, SCOTT, AND JANEY
Defense Witness #10: John Edward Peterson, Scott's Half-Brother Testimony
9K-1: JOHN AND SCOTT
9K-2: JOHN, SCOTT, AND DOG
9K-3: JOHN, SCOTT "HORSEY RIDE"
9K-4: JOHN AND SCOTT/HALLOWEEN
9K-5: JOHN AND SCOTT (3 YEARS OLD)
9K-6: JOHN AND SCOTT AT DISNEYLAND
9K-7: JOHN'S WEDDING
9K-8: JOHN'S RECEPTION
9K-9: WINNIE-THE-POOH PRESENT
Defense Witness #11: Alison Peterson, Scott's Sister-in-Law Testimony
Friday, 3 Dec 2004
Defense Witness #12: Conception (Coni) M. Fritz, Aaron Fritz' Mother Testimony
Defense Witness #13: Paul F. Fritz, Aaron Fritz' Father Testimony
Defense Witness #14: Joseph Peterson, Scott's Half-Brother Testimony
9L-1: SCOTT WITH FISHING POLE (3-4 YEARS OLD)
9L-2: SCOTT WITH FISHING POLE
9L-3: SCOTT IN BLUE SWEATSHIRT - SMILING
9L-4: SCOTT SMILING
9L-5: SCOTT WITH FOOTBALL
9L-6: SCOTT DANCING
9L-7: SCOTT, MARK PLAYING FOOTBALL
9L-8: JOE PLAYING FOOTBALL
9L-9: LEE, MARK, AND SCOTT PLAYING FOOTBALL
9L-10: PETERSON FAMILY BIRTHDAY PARTY
9L-11: JACKIE READING TO SCOTT, JOE, AND JOHN AT CHRISTMAS.
9M-6: SCOTT AT DEL MAR PARK WITH BABY
9M 1-5, WERE NOT IDENTIFIED ON THE RECORD AND RETURNED TO PAT HARRIS.
Monday, 6 Dec 2004
Defense Witness #15: Ronald Roger Rowe, Scott's Grade School Superintendent-Principal Testimony
9N-1: JUNIOR VARSITY FOOTBALL TEAM
9N-2: YEAR BOOK PHOTOS
Defense Witness #16: Marvin Threatt, Dean of Students University of San Diego High School Testimony
Defense Witness #17: David Thoennes, Scott's High School Golf Coach Testimony
Defense Witness #18: Charles P. Courtney, Rancho Santa Fe Golf Club Testimony
Defense Witness #19: Sandra Bertram, Rancho Santa Fe Golf Club Testimony
Defense Witness #20: John Latham, Scott's Uncle Testimony
Defense Witness #21: Rachel Clara Latham, Scott's 1st Cousin Testimony
Defense Witness #22: Robert Latham, Scott's Uncle Testimony
Defense Witness #23: Leeta Latham, Scott's 1st Cousin Testimony
Defense Witness #24: Abraham Robert Latham, Scott's 1st Cousin Testimony
Defense Witness #25: Kelly Jean Beckton, Scott's 1st Cousin Testimony
Defense Witness #26: William Archer, Scott's Friend & College Roommate Testimony
Defense Witness #27: Carrie Archer, Wife of William Archer Testimony
Defense Witness #28: Julie Galloway, Hostess Pacific Cafe Testimony
90-1: NOT IDENTIFIED ON THE RECORD
90-2: RED JEEP/SCOTT AND LEE
90-3: SCOTT AT RESTAURANT WITH GROUP
90-4: SCOTT AND MR. AND MRS. WARREN
Tuesday, 7 Dec 2004
Defense Witness #29: Eric Scherar Testimony
Defense Witness #30: James Gray, Business neighbor Testimony
Defense Witness #31: Hugh Gerhardt, Coach Testimony
Defense Witness #32: Abbas Imani, Owner Pacific Cafe Testimony
Defense Witness #33: Robert Thompson, Jr., Professor Cal Poly Testimony
Defense Witness #34: Susan Medina, Neighbor Testimony
The case is referred to the Probation Department for the Preparation of the Probation Report. Sentencing Hearing is scheduled for February 25, 9:00 a.m.
Wednesday, 8 Dec 2004
Defense Witness #35: Thomas Beardsley Testimony
Defense Witness #36: Shelly Reiman, Friend Testimony
Defense Witness #37: Ed Caudillo, Scott's Brother-in-Law Testimony
Defense Witness #38: Brittney Peterson, Scott's Niece Testimony
EXHIBIT 9P: SCOTT WITH BRITTNEY AT RESTAURANT
Defense Witness #39: Jacqueline Peterson, Scott's Mother Testimony
9Q-1: SCOTT UNDER TWO YEARS OLD
9Q-2: SCOTT IN GARDEN
9Q-3: SCOTT IN TOW TRUCK TOY
9Q-4: SCOTT AT BEACH
9Q-5: SCOTT WATERING FLOWERS
9Q-6: SCOTT AS CROSSING GUARD
9Q-7: SCOTT WITH LITTLE LEAGUE TEAM
9Q-8: FAMILY DINNER WITH GRANDPA PETERSON 1974
9Q-9: SCOTT WITH BLACK LABRADOR
9Q-10: FAMILY PHOTO
9Q-11: SCOTT RAISING FLAG AT ELEMENTARY SCHOOL
9Q-12: FAMILY PHOTO
9Q-13: SCOTT, LEE, AND JACKIE
9Q-14: JOE & JANEY'S WEDDING IN IOWA
9Q-15: SCOTT WITH NIECES/NEPHEWS AT DINNER
9Q-16: SCOTT BEST MAN AT JOHN'S WEDDING
9Q-17: SCOTT GIVING TOAST AT JOHN'S WEDDING
9Q-18: SCOTT, JACKIE & LEE (18TH BIRTHDAY)
9Q-19: SCOTT AND MARK AT SUSAN'S WEDDING
9Q-20: SCOTT, ANN & JACKIE
9Q-21: FAMILY PICTURE AT ANNE'S WEDDING
Thursday, 9 Dec 2004
The Defense Rests
Final Penalty Phase Arguments by David Harris Full Text
Final Penalty Phase Argument by Pat Harris Full Text
Final Penalty Phase Argument by Mark Geragos Full Text
Judge Delucchi's Instructions to the Jurors Full Text
Jury Retired for Deliberations
Stipulation regarding Jury requests to view exhibits; Report & Sentencing scheduled for February 25, 2005. Text
Friday, 10 Dec 2004
No verdict reached by the Jury.
Monday, 13 Dec 2004 Death Verdict
Exhibits the Jury requested to see Transcript
Judge Delucchi: For the record, to identify as Court Exhibit 51 the ex parte hearing that took place on December 2nd that was already sealed. And, just for the record, the following items of evidence have been requested by the jury: People's 96-A through E, 102-A through B, 103-A through B and 104. 261-D, number 14 and number 63. And they have been sent in to the jury room for their perusal, copies of these. Jury has resumed their deliberations. So just see what happens.
The Verdict Transcript
Judge Delucchi: This is the case of People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show that these proceedings are taking place out of the presence of the jury. The defendant is present with counsel. As everybody in this courtroom is aware now, the jury has returned a verdict. When we excused you this morning about 11:30, we asked the media to leave the courtroom, because the jury usually eats their lunch in here. And about five minutes after the media left, I got a note from the jury that they had, indeed, arrived at a verdict. They wanted the jury verdicts. So we sent in the jury verdicts. We continued the case until 1:30 in order to receive the verdict.
Now, I know everybody is in a hurry out there to get this on the wire, whatever you got to do. But once the verdict is read, it's not over, because I still have to charge the jury, give them some instructions, compliment the jury, and so forth. So I don't want anybody to get up and try to leave. Because if you do, you are going to be in trouble. You are going to wait here until I leave the bench, okay? Because this has to be done in an orderly fashion. So I'm going to bring the jury in. I'm going to get the verdict. We'll read the verdict, whatever it is, and then I have to give the post-verdict jury admonition and another couple orders. Just so you will know, those jurors who want to talk to the media, they will be taken to another building. I think you all aware that's going to be, so you can go over there. And those jurors that want to talk to you will be available for you. The prosecution will remain in this courtroom, and Mr. Geragos and Mr. Harris will be in the courtroom next door if they are inclined to talk to anybody. So that's the way it's going to be. So I'm going to ask everybody, respectfully, to please remain seated until I leave the bench. Okay?
All right, bring the jury in. 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. Mr. Foreperson, has the jury arrived at a verdict with respect to the penalty phase in this case?
The Foreperson: We have, your Honor.
Judge Delucchi: Would you hand the verdict to Jenne, please? Read the verdict.
The Clerk: People of the State of California versus Scott Peterson. We the jury in the above entitled cause fix the penalty at death. Dated December 13th, 2004. Foreperson, Number 6.
Judge Delucchi: Number 6, is that unanimous verdict of the jury with respect to the penalty phase?
The Foreperson: It is, your Honor.
Judge Delucchi: All right. Mr. Geragos, do you want the jury polled?
Mark Geragos: Yes, please.
Judge Delucchi: Would you poll the jury, please?
The Clerk: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please answer yes or no as I call your juror number as seated
and ask the following question: Was the verdict as just read your true and individual verdict? Juror Number 1?
The Clerk: Juror Number 2?
The Clerk: Juror Number 3?
The Clerk: Juror Number 4?
The Clerk: Juror Number 5?
The Clerk: Juror Number 6?
The Clerk: Juror Number 7?
The Clerk: Juror Number 8?
The Clerk: Juror Number 9?
The Clerk: Juror Number 10?
The Clerk: Juror Number 11?
The Clerk: Juror Number 12?
The Clerk: Your Honor, the jury has been polled and the verdict is unanimously affirmed.
Judge Delucchi: You may enter the verdicts or the verdict. Verdict has been entered?
The Clerk: It has.
Delucchi's Discharge Instructions to the Jury
Judge Delucchi: All right. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, on behalf of myself and the other judges on this bench -- sort of hoarse here today -- I want to thank you very much for serving as trial jurors in this case. I know what a difficult job this has been. You have been here for a long time. You have heard a lot of evidence. You have heard the arguments of the attorneys, and you know how difficult the decision is we asked you to make in a case like had. We bring out of the community. You come in here cold turkey. We run voir dire by you. We select you, and then we put you through this ordeal. You were very diligent. There was never nobody got sick. Everybody was here on time. I just can't believe how well you performed. I know it's a hard decision for you to make. It's hard for me. It's hard for you. It's hard for the lawyers. It's hard for the families. But it's something that you saw, and this is the way you saw it, and this is the way it is. Okay? Now, I have an admonition for you before you leave. Members and alternate members of the jury, you have now completed your service as jurors in this case. On behalf of the Superior Court, I want to thank you for your giving your time and efforts to the administration of justice in this community.
You have the absolute right to either discuss or not to discuss the jury deliberations or verdict with anyone. However, be advised that, one, following discharge of the jury, the defendant, or his or her attorney or representative, or the prosecutor, or his or her representative, may discuss the jury deliberations or verdict with any member of the jury, provided that the juror consents to the discussion, and that the discussion occurs at a reasonable time the and place.
Two, any unreasonable contact with a juror by a defendant or his or her attorney, representative, or by the prosecutor, or his or her representative, without the juror's consent, must be immediately reported to me, the trial judge. Any violation of what I have just told you will be considered a violation of a lawful court order, and shall be subject to reasonable monetary sanctions. I have already sealed all the jury information, home address, your telephone number, all that has been sealed, will remain sealed pending review of this case by the Supreme Court.
There is one other thing I want to tell you about here. You are free to talk to the media if you are so inclined. And we have made arrangements if you want to. We'll take you go to a place. Jenne will make arrangements for you to talk to the media. Those of that don't want to talk will be returned to the hotel so you can go about your business, okay? Now, as you know, this case has engendered a great deal of interest by the public and, therefore, the media. If you are interested in speaking with the media, please advise the bailiff Jenne. The bailiff will take you to a room where the media will be present, and you may respond to questions.
Now, we are going to give you a handout. If you choose to speak with the media, you need to be aware of the following. Penal Code Section 1152 states that within 90 days of discharge, jurors shall not request, accept, agree to accept, or discuss with any person receiving or accepting any payment or benefit in consideration for supplying any information concerning the trial. And that juror shall promptly report to the Court any incidents within their knowledge involving an attempt by any person to improperly influence any member of the jury. Those include things like limousine rides to and from interviews, for example, gift baskets, food items, satchels shirts, transportation, including air and hotel accommodations and vacations. So for 90 days you can't accept any monetary benefit as a result of your service as a juror. After 90 days you can do whatever you want, okay?
Like I said, you can talk to the media today if you want to. You are not compelled to do so unless you want to. Okay? So I want to thank you all very much. And you are excused now. Thank you. Okay. When you leave then I'll leave the bench.
15 December 2004 Jurors appear on Greta Van Susteren's On the Record
Jury foreman Steve Cardosi, Juror No. 1 Greg Beratlis, Juror No. 7 Richelle Nice, and alternate juror Mike Church appeared on On the Record with Greta Van Susteren. Transcript
25 February 2005 Defense Motion for New Trial
Mark Geragos filed the Motion today, but it did not become available to the public until March 14 (See that date for details). Reportedly, Delucchi "literally took the document, fanned a corner with his thumb for a second and said 'in all seriousness, motion denied'."
1 March 2005 Anne Bird's book published
Blood Brother: 33 Reasons My Brother Scott Peterson is Guilty
FROM THE PUBLISHER
The story no one else can tell-for the first time, the sister of Scott Peterson comes forward with her account of his marriage and her brother's disturbing behavior-and how she slowly realized that her brother was capable of murder. The most chilling inside look at Scott Peterson from the first family member to open a public window on the Peterson family.
Blood Brother includes dozens of headline-making revelations and contains previously unpublished photos, e-mails, and letters, including Scott's bizarre letters to Anne from prison. What happens if, after being given up for adoption in childhood, you reestablish contact with your biological family-only to discover that your true brother is a killer? Anne Bird, the sister of Scott Peterson, knows firsthand. Filled with newsmaking revelations and intimate glimpses of Scott and Laci, the Peterson family, and the investigation that followed the murder, Blood Brother is a provocative account of how long-dormant family ties dragged one woman into the one of the most notorious crimes of our time.
However, some review were not as positive:
As true crime books go, this addition to the Scott and Laci Peterson library isn't particularly riveting, salacious or revealing, which is strange considering Bird's unique perspective. Adopted as a child, Bird reunited with her birth mother, Jackie Peterson, Scott's mother, in late 1997. Bird takes every opportunity to stress that she grew very close to the Peterson family, but there's very little evidence of this apart from Bird's own assertions. The reader learns tidbits about Scott and Laci: i.e., Laci loved flowers, and Scott "was a real charmer, the kind of guy who lights up a room." But such details hover on the surface. In fact, this book reveals more about the author's self-delusional behavior than the crime itself. Laci's abduction occurs early on, and for the rest of the book, Bird relates how, despite all evidence to the contrary, she refused to believe her brother could be guilty. Her denial is such that, after Scott's arrest, Bird writes letters to him in which she replaces the word "jail" with "camp." Despite Bird's frequent protestations, one wonders if she isn't disingenuous at times. She professes her love for her birth mother, for example, yet paints her in an unflattering light ("I was beginning to understand why Jackie was so critical of Laci. No one was good enough for her golden boy"). With the help of a therapist, Bird finally accepts the evidence and devises her list of 33 reasons why her brother is guilty. This list-which takes up a mere five pages and offers such banal reasons as Scott "flirted with our babysitter"-is just as superficial as the rest of the book.
9 March 2005 Evidence that exonerates Scott
The website Justice4Scott published a 3-page document included in the recent Defense Motion. According to the document, Steven Todd, one of the burglars involved in the Medina burglary, had a conversation with an inmate of the California Rehabilitation Center regarding an encounter he had with Laci on December 24th. The document says "Laci happened to to walk up while Steve Todd was doing the burglary and Todd made some kind of verbal threat to Laci" (p. 2 of the document).
The document is significant because, if true, then Todd can prove Laci was alive on December 24 after Scott left. That significantly changes the situation for Scott, as even Detectives Brocchini and Grogan admitted that Scott was not the guilty person if Laci was still alive when he left that morning.
The document seems to be confirmed by Todd's first statements to Officer Hicks, who arrested him:
Monday October 25, 2004
Defense Witness #14: Officer Michael Hicks
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: Birgit Fladager
MPD Tactical Patrol. Involved in the investigation of the Medina burglary. On January 2, he had one of the suspects, Steven Todd, in the back seat of the patrol car and Todd told him he would tell him about the burglary, but he wasn't involved with the woman and the baby. The Judge interrupted to instruct the Jury that the testimony was not given for the truthfulness of what Todd said, but for the reasonableness of the investigation
The full motion is not yet available on the court website, so SII does not know who supplied J4S with the document. But with all of the egregious violations of the gag order on the side of the Prosecution, it is interesting to see something leaked out that favors Scott for a change. (see date of 14 March for access to the Motion and Opposition)
10 March 2005 Geragos subpoenas Harper Collins documents
nydailynews.com reported that Geragos has subpoenaed documents Harper Collins pertaining to book deals with Amber Frey and Anne Bird. The article says Geragos' purpose is to prove a financial motive for Frey's testimony -- no conviction, no book. Besides the documents, a witness familiar with both books was subpoenaed. Geragos also reportedly answered calls for information with "I'll discuss it in court."
11 March 2005 Teamster takes credit for ousting fellow jurors
ModBee has an article on John Guinasso's opinions on the jury dynamics that saw three jurors ousted during the course of the trial, "Juror reveals secrets of trial." Guinasso, a parking garage supervisor and Teamsters union member, claims to have had a hand in the dismissal of Juror #5, Justin Falconer. Giunasso told the Bee that Falconer was ousted because of a letter he sent to Judge Delucchi, advising Delucchi that Falconer was discussing the case with other jurors and that his girlfriend was giving him information about the trial.
The second oust came during deliberations when Fran Gorman used the internet to do independent research. Guinasso quietly slipped a copy of the Judge's instructions in front of her, and then another juror thought they should tell Delucchi. The third oust came quickly after, as the replaced foreman announced to the other jurors that he was implicating himself and the new foreman, Cardosi. All of the jurors were interviewed, and Delucchi released Jackson. ModBee also revealed that Jackson has vacated his house in Burlingame and is out of the country.
Guinasso explained what happened with the boat incident during deliberations. When the juror who climbed inside and sat down and rocked the boat, he also wanted to see if he could "toss something overboard." Guinasso said Scott "dropped his chin almost to his chest." Another revelation is that Guinasso is the juror involved with the bartender who was brought into the Judge's chambers. Guinasso told ModBee that he was "accused of talking about the trial, including telling others that jurors had 'secret notebooks', presumably to help write books later. He denied it, and the judge let him stay."
11 March 2005 Catherine Crier's Book published
A DEADLY GAME: The Untold Story of the Scott Peterson Investigation
NEW YORK, Feb. 7 /PRNewswire/ -- ReganBooks, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers, announced today that it will publish A DEADLY GAME: The Untold Story of the Scott Peterson Investigation, by award-winning journalist, former judge, and legal analyst Catherine Crier with Cole Thompson. The host of Court TV's Catherine Crier Live, Crier has covered the case since the disappearance of Laci Peterson in late December 2002. Drawing on exclusive interviews and extensive, never-before-seen material connected with the case, A DEADLY GAME offers a stunning account of the crime, its aftermath, and the investigation that led to Scott Peterson's conviction on two counts of murder.
"A DEADLY GAME is the definitive account of this complex and disturbing case," said Judith Regan, President and Publisher of ReganBooks. "Catherine Crier's reporting goes far deeper than all previous journalistic treatments, offering countless new revelations into both Scott Peterson and the investigation that brought him to justice."
A DEADLY GAME is scheduled to go on sale on March 11, 2005.
Interestingly, Crier has no hesitation in claiming unprecedented access to the inner workings of the investigation, and having access to the 40,000+ pages of discovery, itself a gross violation of the gag order and contempt of court.
Ex Judge Crier in the Dock (PWC's critical review)
13 March 2005 Greta Van Susteren reveals the points in Geragos' motion supporting new trial
On a special On the Record Greta and her panel reviewed the Defense Motion for a new trial. According to the show, the points are:
1. Error in the fleeing instruction given to the Jury. Delucchi said Scott was fleeing, and the Jury could infer something sinister from that or not.
2. Error in removing 2 jurors, didn't meet legal standard. 2 jurors were the first Juror 5, Justin Falconer, and the second Juror 5, who was the first jury foreman.
3. Error in meeting porn channel evidence, prosecution did not establish that Laci would have disapproved of such channels, and both computers in the home had adult content from the internet.
4. Error in admitting the dog evidence.
5. Error in allowing the jurors to get into the boat and rock it, constituted an experiment by the jury. Also complaint that the Defense demo, which was done on water, not on a trailer, was not allowed in.
6. Error in admitting the Amber tapes, prejudicial not probative.
14 March 2005 The Defense Motion and Prosecution Opposition
Defense Motion, 122 pages, released, along with the Prosecution's Opposition.
Defense Major Points:
Court has authority to order a new trial on the various grounds alleged in
II. The defense has recently discovered new exculpatory evidence that the prosecution failed to provide to it.
III. the denial of motion for change of venue denied Mr. Peterson of a fair and impartial jury. a new trial should be ordered because of this
IV. The court erred by removing the first and second jurors number 5, and by refusing to declare a mistrial when it became apparent that the jurors' deliberations were being influenced by matters outside the evidence adduced in court. the errors mandate a new trial.
V. the jury conducted its own, unauthorized experiment with the boat and in so doing received evidence outside of court which Mr. Peterson was not provided an opportunity to meet or explain, and which prejudiced his defense. a new trial should therefore be granted.
court should rule that the evidence in this case was insufficient to support
the jury's finding of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt
VII. because no evidence supported an instruction on second degree, non-premeditated murder, it was error for the court to give it. moreover, having instructed the jury on second degree murder, the court should also have instructed on manslaughter.
VIII. the court erred by instructing the jury on "flight."
IX. the trial court erred by excluding demonstrative evidence -- a videotaped experiment showing the instability of the boat -- offered by defense
X. the prosecution's wiretap evidence was erroneously admitted.
XI. the court erred by admitting tape recordings of Mr. Peterson's irrelevant statements to Amber Frey
court erred by admitting the dog evidence
XIII. the court erroneously admitted evidence regarding Mr. Peterson's purchase of adult programming.
XIV. the court erred by denying Mr. Peterson's to have his guilt or innocence determined by a jury that was not death qualified.
16 March 2005 Motion for Retrial Denied; Sentencing & Victim Impact Statements
To no one's surprise, Judge Delucchi missed the opportunity to right an injustice and instead merely rubberstamped a wrongful conviction. Taking my seat among the 26 public attendees in a packed courtroom, I provided live coverage of this morning's hearing as it happened.
I've also written my opinions about Delucchi's denial of the motion. Please refer to Judge Delucchi: Definitely Not a good Judge of Character
17 March 2005 Scott transferred to San Quentin
According to an AP report, Scott was transferred to San Quentin at 3:10 a.m. this morning. "Secured with leg irons and shackles around his wrists and waist, Peterson was led away in a white, unmarked van. The prison is about 20 miles north of San Francisco."