A Deadly Game (54 page)

"For some reason, and much to this man's detriment, this case blew up, didn't go away. But he didn't know that back in November, when he was setting this crime in action. This is the life that Scott wanted . . . not that boring old married life. ... He didn't want a baby. The reason he killed Laci Peterson was because Conner was on the way. When it was just Laci, he could lead the two lives. . . . When it was just Laci, it was okay for him; if she found out he was only hurting her. No big deal for Scott Peterson. But when Conner comes along [he] can't divorce her ... he can't lead the big, freewheeling bachelor life if he is paying alimony or child support. . . .

"He didn't want to be tied to that kid for the rest of his life; he didn't want to be tied to Laci for the rest of his life; so he killed her.

"There's no big mystery here," DiStaso closed. "As we've said all along, this is a circumstantial case. . . . The best way is to look at it like a jigsaw puzzle; take each piece of evidence and see where it fits. Each piece I've talked about today fits only in one direction-that is that this man is guilty of murder."

On Wednesday, November 3, 2004, Mark Geragos stood before the jury to deliver his closing remarks. The swagger he brought to the courtroom months ago had gradually faded away with his case. According to my sources, Geragos held court in a local bar many nights during the trial, flanked by admirers eager to be in his company. Yet as he paced the courtroom, trying to expose flaws in the prosecution's case, his performance was lackluster.

He began with a question as he gestured at Scott. "I just want to go over to my client here and ask if you hate him? We've heard four hours of 'This guy is the biggest jerk to walk the face off the earth, the biggest liar to ever walk the face of the earth . . . and you should hate him, because if you hate him, you'll convict him."

"Within one hour . . . one hour . . . [the police] decided that the person who had done this was Scott Peterson," he said. "This turns traditional police work on its head. They've come up with him, and now they try to fit the facts to it.

"I'm not asking you to nominate Scott as husband of the year," Geragos had the audacity to tell the jurors. "But I tell you, on most accounts he treated Laci with respect. He cheated on her, and he's a fourteen-carat-gold asshole for doing it. ... But he had a relationship that, by all accounts, was working."

As I sat in the courtroom that day, I cringed at Geragos's remarks.

"I think the stark reality is that this is a guy who literally got caught with his pants down, but he fully expected [Laci] to come home."

"When you take an oath here ... the judge will tell you you're supposed to examine the facts, the evidence and come to an opinion based on the facts and evidence, not emotion ... the fact is, there is no evidence that Scott Peterson was involved in this crime. . . .

"If you are swept up in feeling these emotions, 'I don't like Scott Peterson,' you have to set those things aside. . . . The fact of the matter is, beyond any reasonable doubt, Scott Peterson didn't have anything to do with this. We ask you to return a verdict of not-guilty in this case."

Since the burden of proof rests with the state, DiStaso got the last word.

"There are only two possible things that happened here; either he killed them and put the bodies in the bay, or someone else did it to frame him. Now it's getting harder, because the police > are searching the bay. So the people who have held Laci for three days would have to drive to the marina, while the police are out there searching and dump the bodies in the same place he was fishing. December 28 would be the first time these people would read about the Berkeley Marina . . . they'd have to hold her for four days before these people have any idea where this defendant went." By the time he concluded, DiStaso had made it clear that the kidnapping theory was preposterous.

Deliberations began that afternoon, with jurors sequestered at a nearby hotel. After sitting through seventy-four days of testimony, the six men and six women finally had the case. Deliberations had been under way for about twenty-six hours when jurors asked to view Scott's fourteen-foot aluminum boat. Judge Delucchi granted the request, and to my surprise he even allowed two jurors to climb aboard. While inside, they began to rock the boat back and forth. The judge quickly put a stop to their "experiment," but Geragos was outraged. He insisted that the judge reopen the case, so he could play his own videotaped demonstration showing attempts to dump a body from such a boat. If this was not permitted, he would settle for a mistrial.

Throughout the case, I felt that Delucchi had been particularly lenient with the defense team. This is not always a bad thing from an appellate viewpoint. No judges wants to be reversed by a higher court for failing to give the defendant a fair trial. Since prosecutors have no right to appeal an acquittal, they cannot make the same complaint on behalf of the state. However, there were times I thought he went too far, admonishing the prosecutors unnecessarily in front of the jury while allowing Geragos to joke and move about the room as if he owned the space.

Nevertheless, I believed that most of the judge's evidentiary calls were correct. That was certainly the case when he denied Geragos permission to air his demonstration tape and overruled his request for a mistrial.

Law enforcement sources told me that the videotape was an attempt to reenact Scott's disposal of Laci's body. To make the demonstration authentic, the man playing Scott strapped weights to his waist to simulate Peterson's actual weight. But the demonstration proved either funny or dangerous when, after standing up to heave the body overboard, the man tumbled into the water and the weights begin pulling him under. The next thing on the tape was the sight of the cameraman dropping his equipment to assist in the rescue.

As deliberations continued inside the San Mateo County Courthouse, a controversy was swirling several blocks away. Just hours after jurors viewed Scott's Gamefisher, a boat of the same size and make turned up in a parking lot several blocks from the courthouse. What appeared to be a dummy wearing coveralls was propped inside the craft, with concrete anchors tied to its arms and legs. Mark Geragos had actually bought the building and parking lot, giving him an unrestricted right to mount his display. Ostensibly, he had rigged up the boat to protest the judge's ruling and possibly sway public opinion. Yet his plan backfired when the site quickly became a makeshift memorial for Laci and Conner. By evening, dozens of mourners bearing candles, flowers, cards, and signs turned out to pay their respects to the victims. "Justice for Laci and Conner," read one sign; "Rot in Prison," read another.

"The message was supposed to be that Scott didn't do it and to reach the community by showing this evidence that wasn't allowed at trial and trying to get community sympathy for Scott," Robert Talbot, a professor at the University of San Francisco School of Law, told the press. "What it brought up was how strongly people feel about Laci's death and how, generally, the community feels like Scott did it."

To me, the stunt was tacky at best. At the time I wondered aloud whether it might constitute a violation of the gag order, as certain actions can equal speech under the law. I also believed that this was ethically reprehensible conduct that might be grounds for a grievance with the state bar association. Later in the evening the boat was towed away, but by then Geragos's actions had already provided lively fodder in legal circles and media broadcasts.

The jurors had been deliberating for about thirty-two hours when Judge Delucchi announced that he was replacing Juror #7, a woman in her mid-fifties, with Alternate Juror #1, a woman named Richelle Nice. A thirty-something mother of four with several tattoos, Nice was dubbed "Strawberry Shortcake" by reporters because of her fuchsia-colored hair. There was speculation that Juror #7 was removed because she had gone to the Internet to research something about the case, but the reason was never confirmed. In theory, the substitution required the remaining jurors to begin deliberations anew.

Another shocking twist came the following morning, when Delucchi dismissed a third juror. Juror #5, the doctor/lawyer who had replaced Justin Falconer during the trial, had been elected foreperson when deliberations began, but clearly something was going on in that jury room. Apparently, the juror asked Delucchi to release him from the case. While the exact reason is still unknown, some speculated that he refused to take a vote without reviewing every piece of evidence, and rumor had it that rebellion was afoot in the jury room. Another report suggested that the foreman could no longer deliberate honestly because public pressure might affect his verdict. We probably will not learn the specifics until transcripts of Delucchi's conversations with jurors #5 and #7 become public. While this was a controversial move and certainly grounds for appeal, I expect the judge was very careful to get justifiable reasons on the record.

Alternate Juror #3, an older man whose future son-in-law was once employed by Scott and Laci Peterson, then joined the jury. That same day, the jurors elected a new foreperson, firefighter/paramedic Steve Cardosi. The frustrated jurors started over a second time. Remarkably, the panel remained balanced with six men and six women. After deliberating for seven hours and fourteen minutes, this "third jury" announced that it had reached a verdict. As the jurors filed in to deliver their decision, several looked directly at Sharon Rocha; one even gave her a nod.

Sharon and Brent huddled close, clasping hands, as the foreperson handed the verdict form to the clerk. Laci's mother wore a shocked look as the verdict was read. Scott Peterson was guilty of murder in the first degree for killing her only daughter, and guilty of murder in the second degree for her grandson, baby Conner.

In California, murder in the first degree has two possible sentence recommendations-death, or life in prison without the possibility of parole. Grabbing her son's hand, Sharon and Brent sobbed quietly, as did the group of Laci's friends who had gathered for the verdict. On the other side of the aisle, Jackie Peterson sat with a few family members. Although her head was bowed, no tears fell from her eyes. The only person crying on Scott's side of the courtroom was a legal assistant who worked for his lawyers.

By contrast, Scott Peterson sat stone-faced at the defense table. Conspicuously absent were his lead defense attorney, Mark Geragos, and his father, Lee Peterson. I was very critical of Geragos over his decision to skip the verdict. Away in Los Angeles on another case, Geragos had warned the court that he might be unable to get back to Redwood City in time to sit with his client. Yet I know very few judges who would insist that an attorney appear in their courtroom on another matter knowing he was awaiting a verdict in a capital case. Furthermore, if Scott was found guilty, Geragos would have to face that jury in the penalty phase and explain why he was too busy to show up for his client's day of reckoning.

For Lee Peterson, who was reportedly in San Diego at the time with other family members, the situation was no doubt very different. Perhaps Lee was not up to the crushing pain that a father must feel as his son is convicted of murder. Still, it was painful to watch as Jackie Peterson was left to face her son's conviction without him.

Scott's first-degree murder conviction told us that the jury believed that he had planned the crime. The finding of second-degree murder in Conner's case was puzzling to some. Several jury members later explained that they believed the target was Laci. While Scott should have known that her death meant the same for Conner, they did not believe he premeditated the killing of his child.

Meanwhile, outside the courthouse, throngs of people had gathered to await the verdict. Newspapers appeared almost instantly after the decision was read in court, their headlines proclaiming Scott Peterson GUILTY.

"What was sickening to me was all the bystanders cheering," said juror Julie Zenartu.

CHAPTER TWENTY

THE PENALTY PHASE

On Monday, November 22, 2004, Judge Delucchi announced that the penalty phase of the trial would be delayed until November 30. There were legal matters to be resolved. Geragos, it seemed to me, was in a real quandary. During the trial, he had told jurors that Scott Peterson was a cad, a cheat and "a fourteen-carat-gold asshole." Now he had to convince them to spare his client's life. Could this jury ever show leniency to his client, after Geragos had offered so little reason to believe him at trial? Would they ever listen to people who knew Scott as gentle, helpful, and sincere? How would they respond to a plea for Scott's life that did not include an expression of remorse by his client?

Geragos tried a Hail Mary pass. He asked Judge Delucchi either to grant a change of venue or to pick an entirely new jury in Redwood City to pass judgment on Scott. "I believe [there had been] irreparable harm to any kind of a fair process in a penalty phase," the defense lawyer insisted. He pointed to the large crowds that had assembled outside the courthouse to hear the verdict, some shouting derogatory taunts at Jackie Peterson as she departed the courthouse that day. "This court saw what happened," he argued. "I can only liken it to what happened in the Fifties in the South, to young black men accused of raping white women. I fully expected people to start building a gallows across the street."

Not surprisingly, Judge Delucchi denied both motions. Granting them would have led to an enormous expenditure of time and money.

Any new jury would essentially have to hear the case over again to deliberate the punishment fairly. It would be an extraordinary remedy for any judge to grant. "This is a problem without a solution; a change of venue is not going to change anything in this case ... so we're going to have to go with this jury," Delucchi concluded.