“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 any-thing 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 kidnap-ping 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.
Geragos bought a few more days by appealing this decision to the Court of Appeals. He lost. On Monday, November 29, the California Supreme Court also denied Geragos’ petition for a review and request for a stay. There was nowhere else to go but back to the jury that convicted Scott.
Unlike the trial, Judge Delucchi permitted video cameras and microphones into court for jury instructions. Silence fell over the court-room as jurors filed in just before 11:30 A.M. Once seated, the judge explained their role.
“In determining which penalty to be imposed,” he told them, “you shall consider all of the evidence. You shall consider, take into account and be guided by the following factors; the circumstances of the crime, the presence or absence of criminal activity by the defendant, other than crimes for which the defendant has been tried which involve use or attempted use of force or violence, the presence or absence of any prior felony conviction other than the crimes for which the defendant has been tried in present proceedings, whether or not victim was a participant in the defendant’s homicidal conduct, whether or not the defendant acted under extreme duress under substantial domination of another person, the age of the defendant at the time of the crime, whether or not the defendant was an accomplice to the offense, and any other circumstance, which extenuates the gravity of the crime and any sympathetic or other aspect. You may also consider any lingering or residual doubt as to the defendant’s guilt. Lingering or residual doubt is defined as a state of mind between reasonable doubt and all possible doubt. You may consider lingering doubt as a factor.”
Prosecutor David Harris delivered the prosecution’s opening re-marks. Rising to his feet, the soft-spoken lawyer addressed the jury: “The circumstances of this crime are like ripples on water. When the defendant dumped the bodies of his wife and unborn son into the bay, those ripples spread out, and touched many lives . . . you’ll hear from Brent Rocha, Amy Rocha, Ron Grantski and Sharon Rocha . . . these witnesses will tell you who Laci and Conner were; they’ll talk about the joy that Laci brought into their lives . . . you’ve hear about her as a person, what she meant to this family, the lose they all suffered . . .
“You’ll hear how it was for a mother, waiting every single day to find out what happened to her daughter, to her grandson . . . never knowing what had happened for a hundred and sixteen days . . . the entire time with the defendant, the one that caused those ripples in the pond, in their midst . . .
“You’ll hear about their guilt because they didn’t protect Laci from the one person they didn’t think she needed protection from. . . . There’s a hole in their hearts that can never be repaired.
“I’m going to argue to you that, based on the circumstances of this crime, the only just punishment is death.”
After lunch, jurors filed back into the courtroom. They watched as Brent Rocha made his way to the witness box.
“Laci was your sister?” Harris addressed the poised young man.
“Yes.”
“Tell us in your own words about your sister.”
“We grew up together, both got married, and were beginning to move on to the next phase of starting our families. She was a very energetic person, very kind,” Brent choked back tears. “To sit here and try to describe her is very difficult to do.
“We always talked when we were growing up about how nice it would be to have kids at the same time, so we could stay close as a family. . . . My first child was born in 2001, and I know at that time she was interested in starting her family as well.”
“Why was it you wanted to have your kids at the same time?”
“Not so much as we wanted to have them at the same time, we wanted to be together as a family, just be together.”
“Was she looking forward to it, when she found out she was pregnant?”
“Oh, very much so. I don’t think I’ve ever heard her more excited than the day she called me up to tell me she was pregnant,” Brent recalled.
“Why?”
“She was having problems getting pregnant,” he said. “We were very happy for her. She was really excited. She had everything ready; she was so prepared, the nursery was perfect.”
“At some point in time around Christmas Eve 2002,” the prosecutor asked, “did you get notified Laci was missing?”
“Yes, by Scott.”
“What was it like?”
“That night, I was in shock. It was cold. You’re in disbelief. You can’t believe you’re going through this right now,” Brent told the jury.
“Do you miss your sister?”
“Yes, I miss my sister. I miss her very much. I try to remember the good memories we have with each other, but they are overshadowed all the time by what happened to her, how she died, by maybe her knowing who did it. .. . I miss her terribly.”
“How has Laci and Conner’s death affected you?”
“Numer
ous ways. You wake up in the middle of the night; think about it constantly. My kids won’t have any cousins. Laci was my only full sibling. It’s a big part of the family that’s missing now.
“Laci was the person that coordinated the holidays. She was the one that did Christmas. She brought everyone together. We haven’t done that since she’s gone. She was kind of the life of the holidays. .. . I still can’t imagine the rest of my life going on without her.”
Laci’s half sister, Amy Rocha, shared Brent’s sentiments. She told jurors how Laci assumed the role of family matriarch when her grandmother Helen Rocha passed away in 1999.
“She pretty much just took over the holidays,” Amy told the hushed courtroom. “She made sure we all got together.”
“How are the holidays now that Laci is gone?” Harris asked.
“They’ll never be the same,” Amy answered.
“I first met Laci when I went to pick Sharon up for a date at her house,” Laci’s stepfather, Ron Grantski, recalled. “She was about a foot and a half tall, and came running up to the door to open the door. She never stopped running, and she always had something to say. . . . She lit up any room, and she was always the center of attention. She was the love of many people’s lives. She will be missed.
“She never studied, as far as I could see, but got straight As. It re-ally bothered me because I had to figure out that was definitely smarter than me,” Grantski smiled. “I miss telling her that, and I miss the grandson we were supposed to have. If you look at her and her mother, they had that same smile. It’s one of the things that attracted me to Sharon, that great big beautiful smile. And Laci had it, too. She was always with a smile.
“I wish I could be the one gone and not her,” Grantski said, his voice breaking. “Part of my heart is gone.”
Laci’s mother, Sharon Rocha, was the final witness called by the prosecution to give a victim impact statement. To many, her testimony was also the most poignant.
A Deadly Game Page 44