Judge to Hear Arguments on Moving Peterson Trial

Fox News ^ | Jan 7 2004 | AP

[runningbear]

Judge to Hear Arguments on Moving Peterson Trial

Thursday, January 08, 2004

MODESTO, Calif. — The judge in the Laci Peterson (search) murder case hears arguments Thursday on the defense request to move Scott Peterson's (search) trial out of Modesto.

Laci Peterson's husband is charged with murdering her and their unborn son just over a year ago.

Peterson's lawyer, Mark Geragos (search), says Modesto citizens are prejudiced against his client, making it difficult for him to get a fair trial. Geragos has referred to Laci Peterson as a "posthumous celebrity," and says her husband has been demonized.

Prosecutors say widespread publicity makes a change of venue pointless. They say the jury selection process will eliminate anyone who's mind is already made up. And they blame Geragos himself for much of the publicity. ......

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prosecutors seek to muzzle Jackson's attorney, others in case

Prosecutors seek to muzzle Jackson's attorney, others in case

By LINDA DEUTSCH
AP Special Correspondent

LOS ANGELES --

Michael Jackson's prosecutors asked a judge Wednesday to issue a rigid publicity gag order similar to the one in effect at the Scott Peterson murder trial. Both cases are being defended by the same lawyer, Mark Geragos.

The prosecution's 58-page filing demanded a seven-point order that would prohibit Geragos, Jackson and virtually every person with any connection to the case from talking to the news media.

"There are two prosecutions pending in California that, for different reasons, are each the object of unrelenting comment and speculation in the tabloid press, 'tabloid television' and even the regular purveyors of news," the motion said, "the Scott Peterson matter, because of its brutality, and the Michael Jackson matter, because of the celebrity of the defendant and the nature of the alleged crime."

The clear target of the motion was Geragos.

"Attorney Geragos has not been shy about offering his own opinion about the supposed 'financial motive' of the boy identified as the victim in this case and the boy's family for reporting their concerns to the authorities," the motion said.

It quoted Geragos as calling the family's actions "a shakedown" and a "scam" and declaring that Jackson is "factually innocent."

Geragos told The Associated Press he would file an answer to the motion Monday, opposing a gag order. He called the motion "outrageous."

"When I first read it, I wondered if the district attorney's office was suffering from short-term memory loss," Geragos said. "I was not the one conducting multiple press conferences with audio and visual displays."

He cited a list of questions and answers Santa Barbara County District ........

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Prosecutors seek to muzzle Jackson's attorney, others in case

Prosecutors seek to muzzle Jackson's attorney, others in case

By LINDA DEUTSCH, AP Special Correspondent
(Published Wednesday, January 7, 2004, 9:11 PM)

LOS ANGELES (AP) - Michael Jackson's prosecutors asked a judge Wednesday to issue a rigid publicity gag order similar to the one in effect at the Scott Peterson murder trial. Both cases are being defended by the same lawyer, Mark Geragos.

The prosecution's 58-page filing demanded a seven-point order that would prohibit Geragos, Jackson and virtually every person with any connection to the case from talking to the news media.

"There are two prosecutions pending in California that, for different reasons, are each the object of unrelenting comment and speculation in the tabloid press, 'tabloid television' and even the regular purveyors of news," the motion said, "the Scott Peterson matter, because of its brutality, and the Michael Jackson matter, because of the celebrity of the defendant and the nature of the alleged crime."

The clear target of the motion was Geragos.

"Attorney Geragos ......

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Recap on prior story: Geragos: Peterson evidence 'feeble'

Geragos: Peterson evidence 'feeble'

By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: December 23, 2003, 07:13:00 AM PST

Police "deliberately ignored" evidence that would have benefited Scott Peterson, and prosecutors have failed to show that his wife's death involved a crime, according to a motion seeking to dismiss double-murder charges. "The police -- from the very beginning -- decided that their job was to put Scott Peterson on death row," defense attorney Mark Geragos wrote in the motion filed Monday afternoon in Stanislaus County Superior Court.

"They deliberately ignored any exculpatory evidence, and from day one worked only toward the goal of putting Scott in the gas chamber," Geragos said in a 12-page motion laced with disparaging comments about police and prosecutors.

The motion challenges the order holding Peterson for trial, handed down last month at the close of his 12-day preliminary hearing on charges he murdered his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty, which in California is administered by lethal injection or gas.

Chief Deputy District Attorney John Goold said he had not reviewed the motion and would not comment on it. A formal prosecution response is expected Jan. 8.

"We'll make our response known and address the applicable law in the paperwork we file," Goold said.

The defense contends there is no reasonable cause to order Peterson to stand trial, because prosecutors failed at the preliminary hearing to show the deaths involved a crime and did not present physical or circumstantial evidence to indicate Peterson murdered his wife and child. In April, passersby found the bodies of mother and son along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, a few miles from where Scott Peterson said he went fishing Dec. 24. He reported his wife missing later that day.

The standard of proof prosecutors are required to meet at a preliminary hearing is significantly lower than what's required to find a defendant guilty at trial. The defense motion to set aside the ruling and dismiss the case has little chance of success, legal observers have said.

Judge Marie Silveira is scheduled to hear the motion Jan. 14.

Peterson's trial is set for Jan. 26, but that date will likely be pushed back if Girolami grants a defense request to move the trial because of massive publicity..........

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Deadline missed for defense to fight judge's holdling order

Deadline missed for defense to fight judge's holdling order

By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: December 18, 2003, 08:57:00 AM PST

Scott Peterson's defense team has missed a court-imposed deadline for filing a motion challenging the order holding him for trial on double-murder charges. The lapse, however, likely will have little or no legal impact on the case, observers said.

Judge Al Girolami had ordered the motion to be filed by 10 a.m. Tuesday. It had not been filed with Stanislaus County Superior Court by the close of business Wednesday, court staff said.

Court officials posted a notice Wednesday afternoon asking journalists to stop calling to inquire about the document.

Peterson attorney Mark Geragos did not return calls seeking comment.

Geragos announced his intention to file the motion last month following Peterson's preliminary hearing. Such motions seek to set aside a judge's ruling at a preliminary hearing, arguing the prosecution presented insufficient evidence.

The motions rarely succeed, legal observers said.

Judge Al Girolami earlier this month ordered Peterson held for trial on charges he murdered his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner.

Judge Marie Silveira is assigned to hear the motion Jan. 7.

Under state law, Peterson's attorneys have 60 days from his Dec. 3 arraignment to file the motion, but a judge could fine Peterson's attorney for missing a court-imposed deadline, attorneys said..........

A Fair Laci Trial In Home County?

A Fair Laci Trial In Home County?

MODESTO, Calif., Dec. 16, 2003

"One reason Scott looks like a demon is what he did himself after the disappearance of his wife." S.F. prosecutor Jim Hammer

Attorney Mark Geragos (Photo: AP)

(CBS/AP) The judge in the Laci Peterson murder case will hear arguments Thursday on the defense request to move Scott Peterson's trial out of Modesto, California.

Laci Peterson's husband is charged with murdering her and their unborn son just over a year ago.

Attorneys for Scott Peterson say there is no way their client can get a fair trial in Stanislaus County and they want the case to be moved, preferably to Los Angeles, reports CBS News Correspondent Steve Futterman. His lawyers claim that nearly 60 percent of the potential jurors in the Modesto area believe Peterson is either guilty or probably guilty.

However, Gloria Gomez of CBS affiliate KOVR reports a prosecution poll indicates that 80 percent of county residents say they would keep an open mind.

It was the people of the Modesto area who searched day after day for Laci Peterson, who held candles of hope and shed tear of despair when her .......

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Heated Venue Battle In Peterson Case

Heated Venue Battle In Peterson Case

POSTED: 4:18 PM PST January 7, 2004

MODESTO, Calif. -- On the eve of the change of venue hearing in the Scott Peterson double murder trial one thing became apparent -- emotions will be running high Thursday morning when both sides take their seats in the Stanislaus County courtroom of Judge Al Girolami.

Peterson Case Special Section

Both parties will be in court to see if Girolami will grant a change of venue in the case in which Peterson is charged with killing his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Connor, in the early morning hours of Christmas Eve 2002. Prosecutors contend that Scott Peterson drove his pregnant wife's remains to San Francisco Bay and dumped them in the waters of Richmond, Calif.

The partial remains of Laci Peterson and her unborn son were found along the shoreline in April. If convicted, Peterson faces the death penalty.

In court documents filed late Tuesday, prosecutors and defense attorney Mark Geragos delivered a series of body blows that would be the envy of any heavyweight boxer. At the center of the dispute was the prosecution's filing of a challenge to the defense request to the change of venue filed last Friday.

Deputy District Attorney James Brazelton didn't mince words in that filing, charging the defense with leaking information that fanned the flames of publicity.

"The publicity in (this) case has to the great extent ......

[runningbear]

ROFL..... could it be?

[Jackie-O]

Of course he wants the trial moved to him hometown...I, personally would like to see it moved to Alameda. Logistically it would be muche better for the Prosecution, Laci's family and friends who will be wanting to be in the courtromm EVERY DAY.

[Annie03]

I wondered the same thing-her comments were typical Geragos spin, straight from part of the Gerogos team. When the trial happens we'll see a big fat nothing from the defense.

[maggief]

[Jackie-O]

Those pics of Snott from today?? Looks like he got his Geri-curls cut off.

[Devil_Anse]

I wonder if the state will appeal this ruling? They can appeal some rulings pre-trial--though of course if the ruling stood and there were an acquittal, they would have no appeal after trial.

The judge seems to have given great weight to the scene there was when Scott was driven into Modesto--the people standing around with signs that said "Murderer". And that comment by Modesto's ditzy mayor. When I saw Sabatino say that, I thought, uh-oh.

I don't think a change of venue is fatal for the prosecution. I guess their chances depend on what county the court ultimately says they'll get their jurors from.

If the prosecution has a good, strong case, I think they could win even in L.A. (Not that I think that will be the chosen county.) I just don't know how strong the prosecution's case is, yet. We know Scott has lied, and lied, and lied, from Day One, and the prosecution can prove that for sure. But will they get jurors who can put the pieces together--or will there be at least one nutball juror who wouldn't be satisfied unless there were ironclad forensic evidence of Scott as the killer (or a videotape of the killing)?

I sure wish Laci's skull would be found.

[Devil_Anse]

What a good point! We don't know that she was murdered... the real murderer is still out there...

Sounds like the usual, from Mr. Honesty, Geragos!

[pinz-n-needlez]

If the judge is going to sequester the jury anyway, why not go down to LA, seat a jury and then truck them all up to Modesto for the trial?

The brains and biases are from LA, but without all of the expense of moving the judge, clerk, reporter, etc. Not to mention I hate to think that the Rochas will be setting up camp away from home, just so Geragos can sleep in his own bed every night.

Pinz

[Devil_Anse]

That's right--and the people are just as entitled to a fair trial as is scumbag Scott.

But if the people lose, they don't get an appeal. Only Scott could appeal a loss.

[Devil_Anse]

The death penalty is THE LAW in California. Nothing wrong with his being willing to follow the law!

[Devil_Anse]

I can't imagine the court system in L.A. wants any part of this case. Surely their concerns would be considered, if it came to that.

[Devil_Anse]

And gee, wouldn't Scott be shocked if he found out jurors in Alameda weren't any more in love with him than the jurors in Stanislaus?

[Devil_Anse]

Since Scott likes to have a new look every time he goes in front of the public, maybe his fellow client Michael Jackson could help him think of some ideas for changes.

[Tijeras_Slim]

Yo! Who's pushing abuse on the collective wisdom of TS and CD?

[Devil_Anse]

Whoa, I can't believe that!

Admin Mod--Please let us keep Tijeras Slim's and Constitution Day's posts. They love the Laci threads, too. In fact, they have even secretly signed up for hourly updates on the case. (Sorry, guys, but it was time for your secret to be let out.)

TS, I for one thought your illustrations were very appropriate for our friend Scott!

Maybe Mark Geragos is infiltrating FR? Ewwww. Does anyone smell anything bad??

[Tijeras_Slim]

Maybe somebody thought mine looked like a lynching, but if you looked carefully it was CLEARLY the North Cork Milita hanging a United Irishman in 1798!

You would THINK people who LIVE for the Laci threads would have a HIGHER than average intelligence... was I mistaken?

[maggief]

Yes, those images are from today ... yet another new hairdo.

[Jackie-O]

I don't think that the Prosecution will appeal. IMO, I think they just want to get on with it...only argued against the change of venue as a formality...of course they want to try it in their own county. And if they DON'T appeal it, I think they would be making the statement that they are ready with a solid case against Snott...wherever it may be tried.
With that said, I sure don't want to see it moved to LA county. After the abominable OJ verdict, I sure don't want trust putting such an important, high profile case in the hands of those idiots again. If MG wants to go south...go to San Diego. Those jurors knew what to do with Westerfield, despite the Feldman's unethical conduct and the way they tried to vilify the Van Dams because of their lifestyle and drug use.
But I think because the Defense suggested Alameda as an acceptable place, that is my wager...Alameda County.
Bets, anyone?

[Jackie-O]

I'm watching Abrams...Jainie Wientraub thinks the case will go to Sacramento, Dan thinks San Francisco.

[Jackie-O]

I just noticed that too. Maybe at first glance the Militia one would be a little iffy...but the medieval one should have been okay????