SCOTT'S STICKY TAPES

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

March 23, 2004 -- REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Jurors will be allowed to see TV interviews in which double-murder suspect Scott Peterson discusses his affair with Amber Frey and other aspects of the Laci Peterson case, a judge ruled yesterday.

Peterson's attorney, Mark Geragos, had tried to exclude the interviews with Diane Sawyer and other reporters, arguing that they were "spliced and diced."

But Judge Alfred Delucchi said the interviews could be offered to "show consciousness of guilt and evidence of the defendant's state of mind."

Prosecutor Rick Distaso said he wants to use the interviews to convince jurors that Peterson told "a whole host of lies to shift blame from himself."

For instance, Peterson, 31, told Sawyer that Frey was the only woman with whom he'd had an affair, but police later learned of at least one other affair early in the couple's marriage, Distaso has said.

In response to the remarks, Peterson leaned back and threw the prosecutor a disapproving glance.

A Los Angeles criminal defense lawyer close to Geragos said the TV tapes will make it a lot harder for jurors to believe that Peterson didn't kill his wife and unborn son - who washed up dead last April along the same body of water where Peterson said he went fishing the day Laci disappeared.

"Why should 12 jurors believe anything Peterson has to say when they could go back to one or more lies that he told?" said attorney Gregory Brenner. "That is going to be really big in coming back to haunt him at trial."

In recent motions, Distaso said he also wants to play tape of Peterson saying he told police about Frey on Christmas Eve 2002, hours after his pregnant wife disappeared. Police say they first learned of the affair from Frey when she contacted them six days later.

Peterson also told Sawyer that police likely found blood in the pickup truck they confiscated.

"I know for a fact there'd be plenty of blood in there from me. You know, I work on farms and you can take a look at my hands now and they have cuts all over them," the fertilizer salesman told Sawyer.

Also yesterday, Geragos declined to give the judge a list of witnesses who could .........

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

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. -- The jury at Scott Peterson's double-murder trial will be allowed to hear television interviews he did in the weeks after his wife's disappearance in which he discussed the search for Laci Peterson and admitted having an affair, a judge ruled Monday.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos had argued the interviews have no relevance in the case.

Video On Demand: KTVU Legal Panel Discusses Peterson Change Of Venue Possibilities

"The statements do not amount to admissions or confessions since they relate to collateral matters rather than the crime for which Mr. Peterson now stands falsely accused," Geragos wrote in a court filing.

"The defendant gives statements that conflict with those he told police, initially lies about his relationship with (massage therapist) Amber Frey, lies about his relationship with his wife ... and makes numerous admissions that evidence his guilt," prosecutors wrote in a Feb. 23 filing.

Judge Alfred A. Delucchi said the interviews can "show consciousness of guilt" and the "defendant's state of mind" and their "probative value outweighs any prejudicial value."

Prosecutors likely will introduce as evidence four TV interviews with Peterson -- one by Diane Sawyer of ABC News and three by Northern California stations.

Rowlands One-On-One With Scott Peterson (Part 1)
Rowlands One-On-One With Scott Peterson (Part 2)
Timeline: Laci Peterson Case

During the interviews, the prosecution alleges, Peterson lied about his relationship with his wife and about being cooperative and forthcoming with police.

In court documents, prosecutors claim Peterson implicated himself through a series of incongruous statements on camera:

-- Peterson said he fully cooperated with police and told officers on Christmas Eve about his affair with Frey. Prosecutors claim Peterson denied his relationship with Frey on Dec. 30, 2002 -- the day Frey first told police of the affair.

-- Peterson said he told his wife about the affair and she was "at peace" ............

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

Lawyer Mark Geragos, center, and his defense team leaves the San Mateo Superior Court house during the lunch break of the pre-trial hearing for Scott Peterson in Redwood City, Calif., Monday March 1, 2004. Peterson is charged in the deaths of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son. (AP Photo/ Frederic Larson, Pool)

Behind-the-scenes attorneys are key in trial
Harris and Harris are the right-hand men

While defense attorney Mark Geragos and prosecutor Rick Distaso are the personalities that jurors will come to know in the Scott Peterson double-murder trial, they won't be the ones doing all the legal footwork.

The prosecution and defense each has a tough, competent lawyer riding shotgun -- one who helps shape the case well out of the limelight, and keeps track of the innumerable details that, taken together, could mean the difference between life and death for the defendant.

They're both named Harris. They will both be quiet and unassuming while the front men put on their cases for the jury, but behind the scenes, they are the bulldogs.

"The No. 2 attorney does the grunt work, like writing the boring motions," said Daniel Horowitz, an Oakland defense lawyer who has been following the Peterson case.

The second attorney also is key in organizing the volumes of information and doing the research that shapes legal arguments. Both attorneys declined to be interviewed for this story.

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

Peterson's attorney reaffirms client's innocence as first qualified juror selected

REDWOOD CITY - His partner suggested Scott Peterson was guilty. And his job pairs him at times with South Bay prosecutors.

Juror 4663 even has testified as an expert witness in the prosecution of polluters -- a detail not lost on defense attorney Mark Geragos.

"I'm a little concerned," Geragos told the man this morning. "You seem like a juror I would not want to have on the case."

Yet the environmental inspector with the City of San Jose said he believed he could fairly sit in judgment at Peterson's murder trial. Peterson, he agreed, is still innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

So it was today that the middle-age man with the soft tone and wire-rimmed glasses became the first juror to be qualified to serve on a panel that will be seated in Peterson's trial.

In fact, he was the only one of five prospective jurors called into the second floor courtroom here to make the cut today. The others, who said they were against the death penalty or against Peterson, were allowed out of the high-profile trial.

In what was the first day of individual jury questioning, Judge Alfred Delucchi and lawyers on both sides of the case began chipping away at 300 or so potential jurors remaining from a pool of 1,000 people initially summoned. Their goal is to find 80 people who could serve as jurors in what is expected to be a five or six month trial -- a task that started strong with Juror 4663's qualification but then seemed to stall...........

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

the Peterson trial For many are called but few are chosen...
1 of 13 potential jurors makes it past first interview

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

And those who did, with just one exception, were booted about as fast as you can say Scott Peterson.

Seating a jury in the high-profile capital murder case got off to a rocky start Monday, the first day that prospective jurors were asked to go in for individual interviews with the judge and lawyers on the case. Thirteen were called.

But before the one-on-one questioning began, prosecutors and defense attorneys excused seven right off the bat. The dismissed jurors had made it clear, in a 23-page questionnaire they filled out two weeks ago, that they either couldn't keep an open mind in the case or had philosophical problems with the death penalty.

The remaining six were taken in one at a time to answer questions. Five of those were disqualified, too.

At least one of those said he thought Peterson was guilty and that he couldn't stay away from media reports of the case. Another said she could be fair and impartial, but that her work would pay her salary for only three of the six months the trial is expected to last.

One woman lasted less than a minute when she said she could not vote to execute another human being. Another woman said that if she found Peterson guilty of the charges, she would only recommend death and would not consider an optional punishment of life in prison.

In the end, just one man, an environmental investigator for the city of San Jose who helps prosecutors build cases against toxic polluters, was asked to return in six weeks for the final selection process. ..........

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

REDWOOD CITY, Calif. - Television interviews Scott Peterson gave in the weeks after his wife's disappearance in which he discussed the search for Laci Peterson and admitted having an affair will be allowed to be used at his double-murder trial.

Judge Alfred A. Delucchi ruled Monday that the television interviews can "show consciousness of guilt" and the "defendant's state of mind."

Defense attorney Mark Geragos had argued the interviews have no relevance in the case.

Also Monday, Geragos said he would wait before possibly seeking a second change of venue. A Stanislaus County judge moved the case from Modesto after finding an impartial jury could not be seated in Peterson's hometown.

"What we've decided to do is go through jury selection," Geragos said outside the courtroom, adding he would reevaluate later whether to seek a move.

Peterson could face the death penalty or life in prison without parole if convicted of murdering his pregnant wife and their unborn son.

Authorities allege he killed Laci Peterson on Dec. 23 or 24, 2002 because he was having an affair with a massage therapist, then dumped Laci's body in San Francisco Bay. The bodies of his wife and unborn son washed ashore nearly four months later.

Prosecutors likely will introduce as evidence four TV interviews with Peterson - one by Diane Sawyer of ABC News and three by Northern California stations.

During the interviews, the prosecution alleges, Peterson lied about his relationship with his wife and about being cooperative with police. Prosecutors claim Peterson implicated himself through a series of incongruous statements on camera:

_ Peterson said he told his wife about the affair and she was "at peace" with it. But witnesses will testify that Laci Peterson never mentioned the affair, and they "did not perceive any evidence of the affair" in the way the couple interacted, according to a prosecution filing........

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

Attorneys in Peterson murder trial use jury screening to preview case

Attorneys in Peterson murder trial use jury screening to preview cases

The Peterson Trial

By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER

Last Updated: April 5, 2004, 06:02:12 AM PDT

REDWOOD CITY -- Could you convict someone solely on circumstantial evidence?
Would a defendant's failure to put up a vigorous defense indicate guilt?

Do you think police officers are more likely to tell the truth?

Attorneys on both sides of Scott Peterson's double- murder trial have focused on such questions for two weeks as they've screened potential jurors.

The queries highlight common misperceptions about the legal system and foreshadow key elements in the case.

The ostensible purpose of jury questioning -- known as voir dire -- is to uncover bias. But it also lets attorneys establish a rapport with jurors, educate them about the law and preview their cases, legal observers said.

"It's an art form, because the first purpose is the only legally permissible one, that is, uncovering their biases," said George Bisharat, a specialist in criminal procedure at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

"But a skilled trial lawyer is able to say a lot to kind of preview the case in the form of questioning they use," he added.

Prosecutors have asked jurors if they could convict Peterson solely on circumstantial evidence, suggesting their case might rely heavily on that.

"They are preparing the jury to not be disappointed with the prosecutors' case," Bisharat said. "They are trying to manage the expectations of the jury."

A circumstantial case is not necessarily a weak one, legal observers said, pointing to a common misperception.

"Unless you have an eyewitness who said, 'I saw Scott Peterson kill his wife,' you've got a circumstantial case," said Gerald Uelmen, a professor at Santa Clara University School of Law and a member of O.J. Simpson's defense team. "Even if somebody saw Scott Peterson carrying a body out of the house, that's not direct evidence."

In practical terms, direct evidence is either a witness account of the crime or a confession, legal academics said.

Everything else -- DNA test results, gunshot residue and fiber traces -- is circumstantial evidence, they said.

"Circumstantial evidence can be very compelling, and in many cases, more compelling than an eyewitness," Uelmen said.

An example of circumstantial evidence would be someone sitting in a wet bathing suit next to a pool with wet footprints leading from the pool to the person. Those facts are circumstantial evidence the person went swimming, Stanislaus County Chief Deputy District Attorney John Goold said.

Direct and circumstantial evidence are entitled to equal weight under the law, as prosecutors have pointed out to prospective jurors.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos has quickly followed that by noting the difference between the two types. The judge will instruct jurors that if circumstantial evidence permits two reasonable interpretations -- one pointing to guilt, the other to innocence -- jurors must adopt the one pointing to innocence.

"It's all got to fit together and point to guilt," Uelmen said, noting defense attorney Johnnie Cochran's oft-quoted line to jurors in the Simpson trial: "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit."

"Everybody assumed he was just talking about the glove," Uelmen said. "What he was really talking about was the jury instruction in a circumstantial case. If there is a way you can put it all together and it points in another direction, you've got to follow that direction."

Similarly, jurors will be instructed that prosecutors have the burden of proving Peterson is guilty of murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner, on or just before Christmas Eve 2002. Peterson does not have to prove his innocence.

"Mr. Peterson can sit there like a potted plant," Judge Alfred Delucchi repeatedly has told prospective jurors.

Geragos has returned to that point often, asking prospective jurors if they thought Peterson should have to testify or if he should have to put up a vigorous defense to be acquitted.

"It's one of the single biggest issues in criminal trials," said Beth Bonora, a veteran trial consultant and co-founder of San Francisco trial consulting business Bonora D'Andrea. "People want to hear both sides; everybody does. And yet they are educated by the judge and the attorneys that the defense does not need to put on a defense."

Bonora pointed to her experience as a juror in a drunken-driving trial.

"When the defense got up and didn't call anybody, I was surprised," Bonora said. "I had to say to myself, 'Beth, you know the rules; get over it.' I think it's just a common human reaction to want to hear the other side."

Another common reaction can be to believe police officers are more likely to tell the truth, legal observers said.

Prosecutors have consistently asked potential jurors if they would automatically favor police over other witnesses. That, legal observers said, could be a calculated way to determine if the juror is biased against police.

"This is largely going to be a police- officer testimony case," Uelmen said. "A lot of the prosecution's case is going to be built on their observations."

The defense has portrayed the police as sloppy investigators who ignored credible leads to focus on Peterson.

If a police officer's testimony proves less than credible, that could raise reasonable doubt about the case, Bonora said, which would mean an acquittal.

http://www.modbee.com/local/story/8394629p-9228106c.html

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.