Laci Peterson Case Information: Others
The Legal Experts

Leslie Abramson Defense attorney; represented Erik Menendez; in a December 16, 2004, Associated Press article, suggested that Mark Geragos "doesn't care about money," but that he did want the fame that would come with representing Scott Peterson: "Sometimes when you pursue that beast, it eats you"
Augustus Accurso Retired Stanislaus County judge who still hears "two or three trials a year"; judge who swore in Al Girolami to the Stanislaus County Municipal Court in 1984; at an anniversary party for his parents in 1971, met Girolami; when preparing to leave the Stanislaus County Office of the District Attorney, suggested that Girolami apply to take his place; characterized Girolami as methodical and efficient; speculated that the Scott Peterson case might be Girolami's last: "When he's done with the Peterson case, he'll be ready for retirement"; also said that the case would probably take a toll on Girolami: "This one's going to make an old man of him—it'd make an old man of anybody"; stated in a January 18, 2004, Modesto Bee article that "justice keeps churning," predicting that a change in judges would not slow down Scott Peterson's case: "The judge goes in cold turkey and says, 'Call your first witness'"; stated in a January 23, 2004, Modesto Bee article that it would be "extremely difficult" for the prosecution to challenge the appointment of a judge after using a peremptory challenge to remove Richard Arnason; called Arnason a "straight arrow" who "doesn't favor anybody"; stated in a March 3, 2004, Modesto Bee article that a judge could tell when potential jurors were lying, but should make it as easy as possible for them to tell the truth, by having them answer privately, if necessary: "The primary issue is to be sure you get a fair and impartial jury"; in a March 8, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that jury selection in a typical case takes as little as 2 or 3 hours, but the task for Scott Peterson's trial could take several weeks; stated in a March 23, 2004, Modesto Bee article that death-qualified jurors can sometimes be problematic for the prosecution as well as the defense: "It's a problem that exists in selecting juries...you get somebody in there and they think, 'I can smooth the edges off; I can not give him death"
Jeff Adachi San Francisco public defender; in a June 19, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated said that a juror exchanging a salutation with someone was usually not a problem, "But if it's going beyond that, something that would indicate favoritism or that the person might be inclined to vote one way or another, any kind of conduct that would cause the other side to believe it's improper, that would qualify as juror misconduct"; in a June 27, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, speculated on whether Scott Peterson's prosecutors had fallen into the trap of over-trying the case: "It's called the 'dragnet approach': You bring in any facts that may intrigue the jury" but "risk not having the jury focus on what's important in your case"
Diane Amann Professor of constitutional law and criminal procedure at the University of California at Davis; commented in an August 2, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the legality of the process used in wiretaps of Scott Peterson's calls: "Beyond a doubt, giving police officers too much power without the check of the judiciary violates the separation of powers—it's an open question, within California, whether these provisions cross that line"; said in an August 7, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the defense contending that a state law is unconstitutional opens the door for a new round of appeals should Scott Peterson be convicted and exhaust his appeals in state courts: "If one invokes federal law, in particular federal constitutional law, then there is still room for review before federal courts"
Seymour Amster Attorney who represented Gerald Cruz in the 1990 Salida massacre case, a case that Scott Peterson's defenders used to show that ritualistic killings had occurred previously in central California; generally fought to exclude any evidence of the occult from trial, arguing that it was irrelevant; stated in a September 14, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that "it wasn't a cult murder in any sense, in my opinion"; called Scott Peterson's defense team's proposal of a satanic connection to Laci Peterson's murder "an interesting theory, but a reach"; resident of Van Nuys
Cris Arguedas High-profile Bay Area criminal attorney; former federal defender; stated in October 27, 2003, KPIX article that the discovery of the remains of Laci and Conner at San Francisco Bay makes for a strong case: "Their case is that he's fishing at the marina at the time she disappears and that's where the body turns up, so that is a very strong circumstantial prosecution case"; in a June 1, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article about the Scott Peterson trial, stated, "I have seen prosecutors win cases with less" and noted a flaw in the defense theory: "If someone was trying to set Scott up, they would have had to have kept the bodies until they knew of his fishing trip"
John Arguelles (John A. Arguelles) Retired attorney; in a 1988 appellate ruling that was key to upholding California's fetal murder law, cited "the unique relationship between a pregnant woman and her unborn fetus" in rejecting convicted murderer Jerry Bunyard's claim that there was no intent to kill the unborn child his wife was carrying
Peter Barnett Criminalist from Forensic Science Associates who testified on trace evidence in the San Francisco dog mauling trial; told the Modesto Bee on October 31, 2003, that "if the house cleaner says she used A and they found evidence of cleaner B, it means somebody else cleaned with it"; resident of Richmond
Robert Bell Santa Rosa defense attorney; defended Archie Fain, a convicted rapist and murderer, by fighting for a change of venue all the way to the California Supreme Court; in a January 18, 2004, Modesto Bee article, noted that asking for a speedy trial in Fain's case was never considered, contrary to the strategy of Scott Peterson's defense team
Peter Benekos Professor in the School of Justice Studies at Roger Williams University in Rhode Island; stated in a January 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article that the prosecution and the defense both have an "orchestrated routine," using deceptive public comments, to keep each other off balance
Constance Bernstein Founder and principal consultant for Synchronics Group Trial Consultants in San Francisco; stated in a February 29, 2004, San Jose Mercury News article that choosing a jury for Scott Peterson trial will be difficult, "but if they did it for O.J. Simpson, you figure they can do it for Scott Peterson, right?"; in a May 23, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, pointed out that Scott Peterson's defense "only needs one rogue juror, the kind of person who will say 'no' when everyone else says 'yes'"; in a May 31, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that it was alright for Rick Distaso and Dave Harris to be bland, because "most of the world is bland" and "bland is safe," but added, "You have to be likable—you can't be stiff and closed; you have to be nice, smart and well prepared"
George Bird Certified criminal law specialist; Torrance defense attorney; concerning the possibility of Jim Brazelton being cited for contempt of court, stated in a June 26, 2003 article in the Modesto Bee that Brazelton's statement "sounds like the type of violation that the judge won't find to be in contempt"
George Bisharat Criminal procedure specialist at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco; assessing the Scott Peterson case in a July 28, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee stated, "There is a strong presumption in our legal system in favor of public trials; there is also a strong current of law that upholds a defendant's right to a fair trial—if those things conflict, then it is likely that the defendant's right to a fair trial would prevail"; stated in an August 17, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the subpoenas issued to Lee and Jackie Peterson: "The likelihood is that they would be excluded from attending the hearing and they would likely be admonished not to discuss their testimony with any other witness; that would mean the husband and wife, technically, would not be able to discuss each other's testimony between the two of them"; concerning Lee Peterson's claim that he was issued a subpoena just to silence him, stated one should be cautious "in imputing bad motives to the prosecutor in this circumstance"; stated in an October 17, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the tracking dog evidence that "dogs can make mistakes, just like humans can"; stated in an October 26, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the defense strategy seeming to reflect that of O.J. Simpson's defense team: "It's a very important strategy...You really saw the potential impact in the sense that there was law enforcement wrongdoing in the O.J. Simpson case"; stated in a December 3, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the prosecution's request to keep Scott Peterson's truck as evidence could be justified: "If it does have blood on it in particular places, the truck is unique"; stated in a March 3, 2004, Modesto Bee article that the prosecution using tapes of Scott Peterson's wiretapped telephone conversations may compel his defense team to put him on the witness stand: "If he says something that sounds inculpatory in those conversations, somebody is going to have to explain it"; stated in an April 6, 2004, Modesto Bee article that jury selection was "an art form," and that prosecutors in the Scott Peterson case seemed to be "preparing the jury to not be disappointed with the prosecutors' case"
Roy Black Legal analyst who commented on the Scott Peterson trial during a segment of NBC's Today show
Bob Blasier Member of O.J. Simpson's defense team; stated in an October 27, 2003, KPIX article concerning the fact that Scott Peterson's wife's body turned up at the place of his alibi: "Everybody knew from the very beginning that was Scott's alibi"; stated that Scott Peterson's computer habits could be of greater concern to the defense: "Looking at the tides on the computer—that's a little more troubling to me...those are all small pieces of circumstantial evidence that can add up to a fairly solid case for the prosecution"; argued that the satanic cult theory was not so outlandish, saying that Central California is a known "hot bed" for cult activity
Griffin Bonini Deputy district attorney for Santa Clara County; in a January 23, 2004, San Mateo County Times article, commented on the prosecution's peremptory challenge of Richard Arnason: "It isn't like they're accusing the judge of being unfair"; predicted in a March 4, 2004, San Mateo County Times article that the jury for Scott Peterson's trial will be made up of "a lot of retirees and government employees or people who work for big companies like SBC who pay for jury duty"
Beth Bonora Veteran San Francisco-based trial consultant; co-founder of Bonora D'Andrea, a San Francisco trial consultancy; stated in a January 31, 2004, Modesto Bee article that the purpose of sequestering a jury was to get jurors to "focus hard on the task in front of them" and to limit their exposure to "bad publicity or the pressure"; also noted that the defense team's request for a second jury for the penalty phase of Scott Peterson's trial was a good strategy because, "a death-qualified jury is much more likely to have harsher attitudes about the criminal justice system"; stated in a February 15, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that "there has always been a considerable amount of interest in relationships gone awry" and that the Laci Peterson case has become a community event that "we can follow together"; stated in a March 6, 2004, Modesto Bee article that the jury questionnaire's seemingly mundane questions can be revealing: "Magazines tell you something about who the person is"; in a March 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that, although "lots of people feel kind of warm and fuzzy about a pregnant woman," they may not necessarily view Amber Frey in a positive light because she is unmarried and seemingly in a rebound relationship after an affair with Scott Peterson—a relationship that may have something to do with Laci Peterson's death: "It kind of casts a pall over things"; stated in an April 4, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that many potential jurors bring in a presumption of guilt against defendants: "A lot of people still think this person would not be sitting in that chair if the police and prosecution didn't really think he did it"; stated in an April 6, 2004, Modesto Bee article that, despite a judge's instruction that a defendant does not have to prove his innocence, jurors naturally want to hear a rebuttal to the prosecution: "It's one of the single biggest issues in criminal trials: People want to hear both sides"; in a May 3, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that a dismissed potential juror speaking to the press "just worsens the atmosphere"
Jeff Boyarsky (Jeffery Leon Boyarsky) Defense attorney; attorney working with the San Mateo County Private Defender Program; stated in a January 22, 2004, San Mateo Daily Journal article concerning jury selection for the Scott Peterson trial that jurors can be excused for any reason except race, and that experts are often called in to help make the decisions: "They do a lot of studies on cases and what their outcomes have been...if you want to go full board, they can get sample jurors before they are tried"; also commented on jury selection in a January 27, 2004, San Mateo County Times article, stating that defense attorneys should seek jurors who have "experienced human imperfection in a number of ways"; in a May 4, 2004, San Mateo County Times article concerning a defense proposal for a second change of venue for Scott Peterson's trial, stated, "The motion granted in Modesto was appropriate because of the vast amounts of publicity, but to grant a second one would be even more rare"; in a June 1, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that Mark Geragos must be sure he can back up any claims he makes to jurors in the opening statement: "The first rule is, if you're not sure you can prove something, you better not even say it"; erroneously referred to in media accounts as "Jeff Boyarski"; resident of Menlo Park
Benjamin Brafman Defense attorney; partner with Mark Geragos in the defense of Michael Jackson until their firing in April 2004; in an April 27, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Geragos was "one of the most talented and highly skilled professionals" he has worked with
Harland Braun (Harland W. Braun) Los Angeles defense attorney; represented Robert Blake but resigned the case in October 2002 when his client wanted to grant an interview with Diane Sawyer; worked with Quentin Kopp to craft a legislative argument for a bill introduced in the California Senate that would abolish television coverage of the courtroom until after a verdict is reached; stated in a January 31, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning Scott Peterson's barrage of interviews: "This is a case where the guy should keep his mouth shut"; stated to CNN for a June 2, 2003, article concerning rumors of defense team leaks to the media that Mark Geragos was doing the right thing for his client by putting out anything that might make the public question the commonly held belief that Scott Peterson was guilty: "If you've got anything, get it out there or you are going to lose the jury"; stated in a July 6, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that gag orders unfairly benefit prosecutors; stated in an August 31, 2003, article in the San Jose Mercury News that his friend Mark Geragos did not take the Scott Peterson case for the publicity: "What good is the publicity if it's negative? He gets less publicity now because he's no longer on Larry King because he can't comment on the Peterson case"; noted in a November 21, 2003, article in the Los Angeles Times that Mark Geragos taking on two high-profile cases simultaneously was a unique situation: "With the Peterson jury, you'd have to be careful they wouldn't identify you with the Michael Jackson case, and with the Jackson jury, you'd have to be careful that they wouldn't identify you with the Scott Peterson case"; stated in a November 21, 2003, article in the San Francisco Chronicle concerning Mark Geragos: "He is among the handful of lawyers who people mention when they wonder, 'Who should we get for this case?'"; concerning Sharon Rocha's civil suit against Scott Peterson, stated in a December 19, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that if Scott Peterson acquitted in the criminal case, he will still have to face a civil suit: "If they seek to depose him and he refuses to appear, the court can enter a default judgment against him; If he is called as a witness and refuses to answer questions, he can be held in contempt and put in jail"; in the same article, responding to why anyone would sue Scott Peterson, an indigent defendant, for an amount in excess of $5 million, theorized, "There is always a chance he will come into something—maybe he wants to write a book"; stated in a January 2, 2004, Modesto Bee article that Amber Frey taking the stand while pregnant would "remind you that the victim was pregnant, too"; stated in a March 1, 2004, KRON report that the dog-trailing evidence could sway jurors to a guilty verdict: "That could be the whole case right there"; stated in a March 1, 2004, San Mateo County Times profile of Mark Geragos that he was a double threat, able to charm both judges and journalists: "He's a good trial lawyer and good in the media"; stated in a March 5, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that the wiretap evidence could be very damaging to Scott Peterson: "If he said anything on there that is in any way incriminating, it's devastating—it's right there in his own voice"; in a March 6, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, called jury selection "witchcraft," but noted that he "would be concerned about jurors who have read a lot of publicity and whether they would be able to vote contrary to public opinion"; alternately referred to as "Harlan Braun"; resident of Los Angeles
Gregory Brenner Los Angeles criminal defense attorney; stated in a March 23, 2004, New York Post article that Al Delucchi's allowing Scott Peterson's media interviews into evidence at trial was a damaging blow to the defense: "Why should twelve jurors believe anything Peterson has to say when they could go back to one or more lies that he told?"
Bradley Brunon (Bradley W. Brunon) 61, Los Angeles criminal defense attorney; concerning the discovery of 176 wiretapped recordings of Scott Peterson, commented in a June 19, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee: "It's kind of hard to understand how they could not know they were intercepting the calls" and that "on the surface, it seems like a significant problem"; stated in a June 27, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that Mark Geragos' threat to undermine the gag order by having defense witness attorneys present his case to the media was plausible: "If someone wants to avoid the impact of a gag order, using a surrogate with some ostensible connection to the case would be a way to do that"; concerning the use of tracking devices in the Scott Peterson case, stated in a September 5, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee: "If he went to Mexico, so what? He came back"; stated in a September 10, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the use of hypnotized witnesses: "The testimony of the witness is potentially unreliable, and there is no way to cross-examine that witness because they are not aware of what is perceived via hypnosis"; stated in an October 8, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the possibility of exclusion of hair evidence based on the fact that one hair recovered on December 27, 2002, was found to be two hairs when reviewed on February 12, 2003: "It all comes back to relevancy: There has to be enough reliable identification of the source and identity of the hair to connect it the investigation—the significance would be for the jury to decide"; stated in a November 2, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that there could be an innocent explanation for the hair found in the pliers in Scott Peterson's boat: "There are numerous ways a hair can get in a boat; it could have fallen off Scott's shirt"; stated in a November 21, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that Mark Geragos taking on two high-profile cases simultaneously was unusual but manageable: "I don't think he'll bite off more than he can chew"; stated in a December 3, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the prosecution's request to keep Scott Peterson's truck as evidence was unusual: "I've never heard of that being done"; stated in a December 18, 2003, Modesto Bee article concerning the defense team blowing a deadline imposed by Al Girolami for a filing of a motion to challenge a holding order on Scott Peterson that, "Some judges are very arbitrary about deadlines...if there is a rational explanation for why a deadline isn't met, particularly in a complex case, most judges are understanding"; stated in a February 10, 2004, Modesto Bee article that it was reasonable for Mark Geragos to request a separate jury for the penalty phase of Scott Peterson's trial because of how jurors are selected in a typical death penalty case: "The psychology from the beginning is very negative; you spend a lot of time asking what they would do if he's found guilty"; stated in a February 19, 2004, Modesto Bee article that he would have been "real surprised" if Al Delucchi had granted Mark Geragos' request to put Rick Distaso on the stand to testify about wiretaps of Scott Peterson's phones: "There's probably some gamesmanship going on"; stated in a separate February 19, 2004, Modesto Bee article that he could not understand the delay in getting evidence from 2003 to defense attorneys: "Once the tests are done, what's the reason for not providing the reports?"; in an August 17, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined that it was pointless to challenge Amber Frey about the content of the recordings she made of Scott Peterson: "Whatever he said, he said"; resident of Santa Monica
Timothy Burke Former prosecutor and longtime Boston defense attorney; in a June 9, 2004, Boston Herald article, stated that it was "significant" that Ron Grantski admitted he went fishing the morning of December 24, 2002; in a June 10, 2004, Boston Herald article, opined that Harvey Kemple's outward anger toward Scott Peterson could lead jurors to dismiss his testimony as biased: "It does indicate there's a lack of objectivity on the witness' part"
John Burris Oakland defense attorney; frequent guest on cable television talk shows; stated in a June 24, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the style of Mark Geragos suits the high-profile case: "He has certainly been extraordinarily aggressive, and properly so—he is responding to what has been presented to him"; stated in a December 24, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the December 24, 2002, timeline constructed by witnesses could be erroneous: "There is nothing to independently corroborate the time frame as laid out by the individuals—people can be mistaken"; stated in a January 27, 2004, KCBS article that Al Delucchi was "as good a judge as you will find anywhere"; in a June 26, 2004, Contra Costa Times article, stated that prosecutors should feel relieved that Justin Falconer was dismissed from Scott Peterson's jury: "The prosecution should be glad they got rid of him and got rid of him earlier, so that he couldn't continue to taint the jury—if you assume some discussions are taking place"; on March 16, 2005, appeared on a special edition of The Abrams Report to discuss Scott Peterson's formal sentencing hearing
William Cahill Retired San Francisco Superior Court judge; commented in a June 4, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee about Stephen Schoenthaler's survey that found 24 percent of Stanislaus County residents believed Scott Peterson was guilty beyond a "reasonable doubt," calling the numbers "remarkable" and stating, "I've never seen those kinds of numbers before"; stated in a January 18, 2004, Modesto Bee article that a change in judges would not hinder Scott Peterson's trial: "A lot of us get cases on the day of, and we go forward"
Chris Caldwell Los Angeles defense attorney; stated in a December 23, 2003, article in Reuters that Mark Geragos "has to be aggressive in getting out there and getting out the other side of the story" to defend his clients
Paula Canny Attorney; legal analyst; represented Gary Sheffield in the Balco steroids investigation; present for Scott Peterson's trial on July 15, 2004; strong proponent for the defense team; in a July 16, 2004, Modesto Bee article, said that the characterization by Mark Geragos of Scott Peterson as a "cad" was "the grossest understatement I have heard in a long time"; stated that it was unlikely Al Delucchi would allow jurors to see reporters' assessments of Scott Peterson following his interviews, such as when Ted Rowlands called him "definitely controlling" and "media-savvy"; in a September 30, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that, during the cross-examination of Det. Craig Grogan, Geragos was trying to work in alternate scenarios for Laci Peterson's disappearance and murder, even though he had no intention of calling witnesses to substantiate the stories; in an October 7, 2004, Modesto Bee article, offered that "Scott Peterson lied to everybody"; in an October 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated concerning Scott Peterson, "He's got motive, he's got opportunity and he's got a ton of consciousness of guilt"; in an October 25, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that the defense was lackluster: "I did expect more of a grandiose-type presentation"; in an October 31, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Al Delucchi's ruling that he would not instruct the jury that Scott Peterson's television interviews and recorded telephone conversations were potential admissions of guilt was damaging to the prosecution: "The heart of their case has been cut out"; in a November 3, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Rick Distaso "stepped up to the plate" during closing arguments, delivering a speech that was "from the heart"; in a November 5, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that prosecutors being unable to prove "when, where, how or even why" Laci Peterson was murdered was "a very dangerous proposition" in light of the fact that they were asking for a death sentence; in a November 12, 2004, Modesto Bee article concerning the defense team's use of a boat to show the impossibility of dumping out a body without the vessel capsizing, complained, "I would be real upset that the judge didn't let my videotape reenactment in"; in a November 14, 2004, Modesto Bee article discussing the turning points of the Scott Peterson trial, suggested that the arrival of Birgit Fladager coincided with a change in how the the prosecution presented its case: "It wasn't that there were any new facts; they were just presented with an emotional-pitch fervor, that boiling anger you have when you find somebody's conduct completely, morally reprehensible"; in a National Enquirer article, suggested that presenting a photograph of Scott Peterson holding a baby probably backfired on the defense team: "It just made Scott look like a monster to the jury," who was aware he was still romancing Amber Frey at the time; in a November 14, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that the penalty phase would consist of "absolutely gut-wrenching emotion" following a verdict that was inconsistent in that jurors concluded Scott Peterson premeditated the death of his wife but not that of his unborn son; according to a Court TV report, became excited after winning the seating lottery on the last day of penalty phase testimony; in a December 9, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined that Susan Medina was "a very, very, very powerful witness" for the defense during the penalty phase; in a December 15, 2004, Modesto Bee article, confessed, "Every time I've tried a death penalty case, I've ended up in therapy"; resident of Burlingame
Frank Carson Stanislaus County defense attorney; stated on October 28, 2003, concerning Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing: "Typically, there are things that we've never heard, but I doubt there will be any bombshells"; in an August 19, 2004, Modesto Bee article concerning Scott Peterson's lying behavior, stated that people lie for one simple reason: "It's in their self-interest"; in an April 11, 2005, Modesto Bee article concerning the relatively short case of Scott Peterson, stated that defendants should get every bit of due process the law will allow, joking, "Our motto is no case before its time"; in an April 28, 2005, Modesto Bee article, discussed Jim Brazelton's plans to seek reelection: "I don't think anybody views him as hands-on or engaged in the daily operation of the office"
Gary Casimir Civil and criminal attorney; on April 15, 2004, appeared on The Abrams Report, discussing the testing of blood found in a van: "If the blood turns out to be Laci's...the prosecution's theory goes out the window"
Stan Casper Walnut Creek attorney; stated in a January 22, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article following the prosecution's challenge of Richard Arnason that, "The likelihood that they will end up with anyone as open-minded as Arnason is not likely"
Bob Chase Modesto-area defense attorney; defended clients against Rick Distaso on several occasions; stated in a March 1, 2004, San Mateo County Times profile of Distaso that his clean-cut image is usually an advantage in court: "If he tries to go all glitzy, he'll have problems, because that's not him"; in an April 11, 2005, Modesto Bee article concerning the relatively short case of Scott Peterson, compared defending a murderer to a "knock-down, drag-out" fight
Erwin Chemerinsky Law professor at the University of Southern California; former Justice Department trial attorney; stated that the suit filed by the Rocha family on September 26, 2003, would not pass constitutional muster, and that they would be better off with a simple wrongful death suit: "They can't do it this way"; stated in an October 26, 2003, USA Today article about Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing that "usually the defense uses these hearings as a chance to learn and to probe"; stated in a December 15, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the plan by the Office of the District Attorney to sue Stanislaus County was uncharted territory, but an area that may be revisited elsewhere as long as California remains in fiscal crisis: "The reality is there isn't enough money right now to meet the constitutional obligations"; stated in a January 22, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that the prosecution is "making the choice that they'd rather take the chance with someone else than" Richard Arnason, whom they filed a peremptory challege against; stated in a January 24, 2004, Modesto Bee article that the civil suit brought by Sharon Rocha against Scott Peterson was unconstitutional: "They're trying to say that they're entitled to limit him before he's been found guilty or liable for anything"; stated in a February 7, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that there could be a combination of reasons why Mark Geragos seemed interested in trying the Scott Peterson case before other cases, including presenting Scott Peterson to a jury before he gets "gray around the gills" from time in jail: "Geragos wants to present Scott Peterson as a good-looking man; he doesn't want him to look like a con"; stated in a February 8, 2004, Modesto Bee article that it would be "unlikely" that a judge would grant a second change of venue in a trial: "It's one thing to say, 'Take it from the area where the crime occurred,' but it's unlikely a judge would move it from another area where the crime didn't occur"
Sonia Chopra Trial consultant at the Oakland office of the National Jury Project; stated in a February 10, 2004, San Mateo County Times article that she was surprised neither the prosecution nor the defense attempted to postpone the airing of The Perfect Husband: The Laci Peterson Story because of the potential for jurors to confuse what they saw in the movie with what they saw in the trial: "I would be more concerned with this film than any other publicity"
Woody Clark San Diego prosecutor; commented in September 2, 2003, article on Court TV site about mitochondrial DNA being used in the Scott Peterson case
Kevin Clymo Sacramento defense attorney; defended boarding house serial killer Dorothea Puente of Sacramento and Unabomber Ted Kaczynski; stated in January 18, 2004, Modesto Bee article concerning Scott Peterson not waiving his right to a speedy trial that "it's easier for the defense to charge off into battle and be ready to go" but admitted, "It's a high-stakes game, a big roll of the dice"
Johnnie Cochran (Johnnie L. Cochran) Famed defense attorney and commentator; emerged into national prominence as member of O.J. Simpson's "dream team," where his "If it doesn't fit, you must acquit" line became part of the American legal lexicon; on Larry King Live, commented on Scott Peterson's defense team's effectiveness; emerged as a frequent panel member during discussions of the Scott Peterson case after Mark Geragos left to lead his defense; died on March 29, 2005, after a long illness
Andrew Cohen Legal analyst for CBS News; in a June 1, 2004, CBS News report, opined that the prosecution in the Scott Peterson case had an uphill battle without a murder weapon and a specific cause of death: "That's not going to be easy, especially with the good defense attorneys Peterson has"; in a June 2, 2004, CBS News report, stated that Mark Geragos made a good first step during opening statements, but that ultimately, the Scott Peterson case "is going to be a case in which the side that answers the most questions on the minds of jurors likely will win"; in a June 4, 2004, CBS News report, stated that Geragos "isn't telling jurors that his client is a saint; he's just telling them that a cheating husband isn't necessarily a murdering husband"
James Cohen Professor of psychology and law at Fordham Law School; stated in a March 26, 2004, CNBC report that the interviews Mark Geragos gave as a talking head were potentially damaging to Scott Peterson: "If I'm Geragos...one of the things on my list for jury selection is to make sure that nobody who saw my shining face as a commentator sits on this jury"; in a June 25, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that Mark Geragos making an issue of details excised from a police report by Det. Al Brocchini "could backfire because the sleight of hand will be seen as exactly what it is, that there is no conspiratorial effort to keep this from the jury"
Marsha Cohen Hastings Law School professor; in an August 21, 2004, Modesto Bee article concerning the lottery being held for seats at Scott Peterson's trial, noted that, with most trials, "It's just a minute of excitement for just hours and hours of crushing boredom"
Dana Cole (Dana M. Cole) Male criminal defense attorney; represented Robert Blake's former co-defendant, Earle Caldwell; stated in a November 21, 2003, article in the Los Angeles Times that, with a good travel agent, Mark Geragos was capable of taking on two high-profile cases simultaneously: "Mark has a staff of attorneys—he delegates responsibility; as long as the trials don't occur at the same time, it can be done"
Kevin Cole Associate dean of law at the University of San Diego; quoted in a June 3, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the defense team filing of a request for hearing concerning intercepted communications between Scott Peterson and his attorneys; remarked that the defense argument of attorney-client communication being exempt from spot-checking seemed suspect: "I find the argument...a little implausible on the face of the thing—attorney-client communication is probably the first type of privileged communication that comes to mind"
Jim Collins San Francisco defense attorney; served as a defense attorney in more than 20 homicide cases; in a February 29, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that "once you get to the peremptory challenge, you're not selecting...you exclude the people who see things in black and white"; in a June 20, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article about the use of humor by Mark Geragos, stated, "If the judge is laughing, what he's doing is terrific—he's making people like him"
Steve Cron Los Angeles defense attorney; professor at Pepperdine University; represented Paula Poundstone; in an April 23, 2004, MSNBC report, stated that a judge would be unlikely to grant a second change of venue for Scott Peterson's trial: "I don’t think I’ve ever heard of a trial being moved twice because of pretrial publicity"; In a June 1, 2004, CBS News report, stated that the case presented against Scott Peterson was far from the predicted "slam dunk": "I think he has a reasonably good chance of prevailing"; in a June 3, 2004, Associated Press report, stated that Mark Geragos will break down the circumstantial case against Scott Peterson and provide an innocent explanation for each claim: "He's going to try and take each little thing apart"; in a December 16, 2004, Associated Press article about the effect of Scott Peterson's trial on Geragos, opined, "I'm sure he regrets all the things he said he was going to prove and couldn't"
David DeBerry Attorney for the City of Orange; noted in a February 4, 2004, Los Angeles Times article concerning Mark Geragos' multiple requests for delays in the Jeffrey Hambarian case that three prosecution witnesses have died since he was arrested: "It's certainly a sore spot that this case has gone on for so long—I think our case has gotten short shrift for some time because of Geragos' representations that he has more important things to do"
William DeHaven Jury consultant; sometime associate of Mark Geragos; featured in a March 15, 2004, New York Post article comparing the Scott Peterson case to the famed Sam Sheppard trial
Jeff Dusek Successful prosecutor of David Westerfield in the Danielle van Dam case; stated in a July 6, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that he initially opposed a gag order in that case but later changed his mind: "Gag orders allow attorneys to focus on the case entirely"; in a June 13, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that he just laughed off the media experts who criticized his prosecution: "On virtually every occasion, they were wrong: They didn't know our case, they didn't see the police reports, they didn't know our evidence, they didn't know our strategy"
David Faigman Science and law specialist at the University of California's Hastings College of the Law; stated in an October 15, 2003, Modesto Bee article regarding probability of identification by mitochondrial DNA evidence compared to nuclear DNA: "It's not as good a number, but it's quite impressive"
Bill Fallon Former assistant district attorney of Essex County, Massachusetts; occasional commentator concerning the Scott Peterson case; on March 15, 2005, appeared on The Abrams Report to discuss Scott Peterson's chances of avoiding the death penalty; on March 16, 2005, appeared on a special edition of The Abrams Report to discuss Scott Peterson's formal sentencing hearing
Michael Fawer Louisiana attorney; represented Curtis Kyles during his retrials; in an October 18, 2004, Modesto Bee article, cited the Kyles case as one instance where the accused was framed by the actual perpetrator: "You need a unique set of circumstances, but does it happen? Yeah, it happens"; openly questioned the use of multiple alternate scenarios by Mark Geragos: "The question is, are the vagrants going to be smart enough to plant the body where the husband says he was? You've got to have a set of facts that make you credible; you can't just throw it out there and say, 'Maybe it was the blind man seen in the neighborhood or the organ grinder'"
Bill Fazio Criminal defense attorney; served 20 years as a San Francisco homicide prosecutor; stated in a February 29, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that a prosecutor "is looking for a juror that he feels will listen to the evidence and won't be swayed by emotion," but that a defender is "more interested in having a person who's an outsider, who won't go along with the majority"; in an April 4, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated, "Picking the jury is the absolutely most crucial part of the trial—It's more important than everything else together"; in a June 27, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that Rick Distaso "should start getting his act together"
Larry Fidler (Larry P. Fidler) Los Angeles Superior Court judge; in a July 21, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that outlined the pros and cons of television coverage of the Scott Peterson preliminary hearing, stated that cameras in the courtroom "do bring out the ham in some people"
Geoffrey Fieger Former attorney for Jack Kevorkian; frequent commentator on the Laci Peterson case; on February 24, 2004, stated on On the Record With Greta Van Susteren that he did not believe the dog-trailing evidence would be admitted; on March 10, 2004, claimed on On the Record With Greta Van Susteren that Mark Geragos had, in the words of Van Susteren, "lost the Winona Ryder case and the Susan McDougal case," a statement that elicited a telephone call to Van Susteren from a complaining Geragos and touched off a feud between the two; on March 15, 2005, appeared on The Abrams Report, predicting that Scott Peterson will likely be sentenced to death by Al Delucchi but noting that "the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down more death sentences than any court in the country, and you're likely to see it here"; discussed Scott Peterson's formal sentencing on the March 16, 2005, episode of The Abrams Report
George Fisher Stanford University law professor; former Massachusetts prosecutor; in a June 26, 2004, Contra Costa Times article, stated that Scott Peterson's defense team will need to complete the difficult task of coming up with "some kind of an alternative account of this slaying" and that, given the vigorous defense already displayed, "anything the defense fails to bring up is something the jury will conclude is something they simply didn't have"
Karen Fleming-Ginn President of Verdix Jury Consulting in Walnut Creek; offered services in 40 death penalty cases, including the trial of Timothy McVeigh; in a February 29, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, characterized the favored prosecution jurors as "conservative Republicans, ex-military, people who've never been in trouble with the law, never divorced—straight arrows," but said the defense should never agree to seat someone who works for a major grocery chain because "they're often very rabidly in favor of the death penalty"; stated in a March 31, 2004, Contra Costa Times article that "stealth jurors" have been more numerous since the O.J. Simpson trial led many to believe that the justice system was not working: "People have a definite yearning to find somebody guilty"; after attending the April 6, 2004, voir dire, stated in an April 7, 2004, Oakland Tribune article that she was surprised at how quickly the process was moving, but at the same time concerned that many of the qualified jurors appeared to be too willing to serve on the jury; in an April 14, 2004, San Mateo County Times article, stated that stealth jurors are not rare, but finding a witness so determined to blow the whistle on one was: "He really wanted to nail her"; in a May 31, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that watching Rick Distaso and Dave Harris at work was "like watching paint dry"; in a June 20, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article about the use of humor by Mark Geragos, stated that a laughing jury is not necessarily an acquitting jury, recalling a case where there were consistent howls of laughter in the jury room, but the jurors came back with a death sentence: "It doesn't matter how much a juror likes an attorney, it doesn't change their vote"; in a June 21, 2004, San Mateo County Times article about the verbal exchange between Justin Facloner and Brent Rocha, stated, "I can't imagine Judge Delucchi is going to blow this out of proportion"; also referred to as "Karen Fleming" and "Karen Flemming-Ginn"
Mariano Florentino-Cuellar Law instructor at Stanford University; commented in a June 4, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee about Stephen Schoenthaler's survey, stating that the survey suggests that it "would be very difficult to argue that a cross-section of the community would be open-minded enough to give a fair trial"
Terry Francke (Joseph Terrence Francke) 59, General counsel for the California First Amendment Coalition; quoted in a June 13, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee, expressed disapproval of Al Girolami's gag order, but approval of Roger Beauchesne's unsealing of search warrants; concerning the California Supreme Court's refusal to hear a media request to prevent prosecutors and defense attorneys from listening to wiretapped conversations, commented in a June 16, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the law cited by media attorneys is typically used to protect journalists from revealing unidentified sources or unpublished material, not to bar attorneys from using information gathered legally in wiretaps; commented in an Augusy 29, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning Al Girolami's tentative acceptance of the proposal by the prosecution and Scott Peterson's defense attorneys to drop gag order violation allegations against each other; resident of Carmichael; in a January 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article, criticized the fact that local law enforcement refused to provide costs for the Scott Peterson case, saying they were exempt from California's open-records laws because the case was still under investigation, yet still wanted the state to pay for it: "They have a lot of chutzpah coming to the Legislature asking for a bailout when they won't do a line-item justification"
John Freeland Modesto attorney; concerning Sharon Rocha's civil suit against Scott Peterson, stated in a December 19, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that wrongful death lawsuits are usually tried by a jury but can be heard by a judge if both parties agree
Richard Gabriel President of the American Society of Trial Consultants; runs Los Angeles-based Decision Analysis; assisted attorneys in the O.J. Simpson, Heidi Fleiss and Whitewater trials; stated in a February 5, 2004, San Mateo County Times article that the Laci Peterson case drew national attention because of the compelling images: "The candlelight vigils, neighborhood searches, the divers in the Bay...that makes for very evocative copy"; stated in a February 23, 2004, ABC News article that Scott Peterson's January 2003 television interviews give prosecutors an opportunity to reveal his character, even if he does not take the stand: "This is one of the ways they can essentially show him in front of the jury—show inconsistencies or show he has not been entirely truthful in his testimony"; stated in a March 21, 2004, Modesto Bee article that some potential jurors will dress in a certain way to help ensure they will not be selected for a jury: "People who want to get kicked off, they do use these devices"; stated in a March 29, 2004, Modesto Bee article that "one of the biggest building blocks to reasonable doubt that any defense lawyer has in mind is questioning the collection of evidence and the entire motivation of police," clearly reflected in the strategy of Mark Geragos; in an April 23, 2004, MSNBC report, stated that Geragos could find a fair jury in Los Angeles, but that it would be "pretty hard to find an impartial jury"; in a May 3, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that potential jurors who do not disclose information on their questionnaires "may be incredibly embarrassed or reluctant because of the deeply personal information they have to disclose"; in a May 23, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, suggested that prosecutors and defense team members might engage in a little gambling during Scott Peterson's final jury selection on the "big spin" day by not using a peremptory challenge on an undesirable potential juror if they believe the other side will do so: "You play a little strategy so you can save a strike; even when you have twenty strikes, sometimes a single strike can make a huge difference: It can be one of the last jurors coming into the box, and I don't have another strike"; in a May 26, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that there was nothing unusual in the fact that members of the jury pool for Scott Peterson's trial were more likely to be white and older than San Mateo County demographics would suggest, because minorities may have strong feelings about the death penalty and "more young people are getting their careers going and it would be hard to be away from work"; in a May 27, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that a defendant might stand a better chance at having a conviction overturned on appeal if his attorney exhausted all peremptory challenges: "If you go back afterward, the appellate court can say, 'You know what? You had strikes left'"; in a May 28, 2004, Modesto Bee article, expressed surprise that the prosecution did not use one of its peremptory challenges on a woman whose first husband was killed in prison: "Most people would expect the prosecution to kick somebody like that"; following Scott Peterson's conviction, speculated, "The most wrenching part of this entire case is going to be both Laci Peterson's and Scott Peterson's family testifying" during the penalty phase; in a November 22, 2004, Modesto Bee article, called the penalty phase an "extremely delicate task" in light of the fact that a jury has just handed down a guilty verdict; in a November 30, 2004, Modesto Bee article, likened the Laci Peterson case to "a Shakespearean tragedy"
Bill Gagen Danville defense lawyer; in a June 27, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, suggested that Scott Peterson's prosecutors may be holding the best for last: "Quite frequently, prosecutors will save the more telling evidence until the end of the case, because that's what the jurors will remember"
Fred Galves Law professor at the University of the Pacific's McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento; stated in a November 2, 2003, article in USA Today that there may be an innocent explanation for the hair—possibly Laci Peterson's—found in the pliers in Scott Peterson's boat: "He could have hugged her goodbye and the hair transferred to his clothes or something he was carrying—I don't think it's all that powerful that there's hair in the boat"; stated in a November 3, 2003, article by the Associated Press concerning the admissibility of mitochondrial DNA in the Laci Peterson case that the technique is "seen as a legitimate type of science"
David Garcia Retired San Francisco judge; stated in January 18, 2004, Modesto Bee article that it was "shocking" that Scott Peterson did not waive his right to a speedy trial: "It's extremely rare in a case of this consequence for lawyers not to take additional time"; stated in a February 27, 2004, Modesto Bee article that he was not surprised at Al Delucchi's decision not to sequester jurors: "If you sequester jurors, you're going to have some very angry citizens"; stated in a March 8, 2004, Modesto Bee article, "Defense attorneys want to choose twelve people who would like to have dinner with the defendant"; in a June 18, 2004, Modesto Bee article concerning Justin Falconer's verbal exchange with Brent Rocha, stated that, when he was a judge, he would routinely instruct jurors not to ask anyone connected with the case even "the time of day or where the bathroom is"
Mark Garcia Fox News legal expert; appeared on KTVU's Mornings on 2 to comment on the legal wrangling concerning the intercepted communications between Scott Peterson and his attorneys, stating that the prosecution should have recognized Kirk McAllister's voice, but the question is how much of the conversation did they hear: "The issue before the court is how much did the DA's investigators and the prosecution listen in on these conversations; If they were listening for long periods of time, it will be a problem for the prosecution, simply because they are absolutely privileged communications"
Norman Garland (Norman M. Garland) Professor at Southwestern College of Law in Los Angeles; author of several books on the rules of evidence; former prosecutor; former defense attorney; in an April 21, 2003, MSNBC report on the Scott Peterson case, stated that the view that circumstantial evidence is somehow inferior was "a misconception" held by many: "A good, strong circumstantial case is often better than an eyewitness account"
Bennett Gershman Former New York City prosecutor; teacher at Pace University Law School; author of textbooks about prosecutorial misconduct; concerning the possibility of Jim Brazelton being cited for contempt of court, stated in a June 26, 2003 article in the Modesto Bee that "judges generally don't hold prosecutors in contempt"
Stephen Gillers Law professor at New York University; stated in a November 21, 2003, article in the Los Angeles Times that Mark Geragos taking on Michael Jackson's case simultaneously could cause concerns with the Peterson family: "I'm sure the Peterson family is not happy—they must worry that his energies might be deflected toward this even higher-profile client...is his heart going to follow his pocketbook?"
Ivan Golde Defense attorney; frequent Court TV guest; according to a Court TV report, became excited after winning the seating lottery on the last day of penalty phase testimony, screaming, "Yes! Yes! Yes! Yes!"
Stan Goldman Professor at Loyola (Marymount) University Law School, where he taught Mark Geragos and Rick Distaso; legal editor for Fox News; during the case, was generally critical of Distaso while praising Geragos; claimed that he socialized with Geragos during Scott Peterson's case; stated in an August 19, 2003, article in the New York Post concerning the use of Kristen Dempewolf's testimony that "the fact she was put under hypnosis makes her testimony highly questionable" as evidence: "In a preliminary hearing, all sorts of things get in that normally don't, but I really doubt this could"; stated in an October 27, 2003, article in the San Francisco Chronicle that it was "almost inconceivable" that Scott Peterson would not be bound over for trial; stated in a November 6, 2003, article in the New York Post that bringing into testimony additional extramarital affairs of Scott Peterson's could be tricky for both sides: "The prosecution should probably not put all its eggs in that basket, that Amber Frey was the sole motive for killing his wife...but, on the other hand, the prosecution could still argue that it wasn't one woman that was the motive to kill his wife, but rather that it was a world of women"; stated the probability of Scott Peterson's defense team being able to call Amber Frey during the preliminary hearing was "not high" because of California's laws protecting victims: "She may not be the victim in this case, but the prosecution may be allowed to use the law"; stated in a November 15, 2003, article in the New York Post concerning Geragos threatening to call Amber Frey as a defense witness, "Maybe Geragos has something on her—he was clearly upset when the prosecution said they weren't going to be calling her"; stated in a November 21, 2003, article in the San Francisco Chronicle that Mark Geragos was capable of taking on two high-profile cases simultaneously: "He's tenacious, he has his moments of brilliance and he has typically one gear: fast-forward"; stated in a December 3, 2003, Fox News article concerning Scott Peterson demanding a speedy trial that "the defense either believes the prosecution does not have a strong case, or it believes the prosecution's case will only get stronger as time passes, so why not try it now?"; opined in a January 23, 2004, KTVU article that Geragos' argument that the prosecution already used up its one peremptory challenge had merit; stated in a February 7, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that there could be many reasons why Mark Geragos was interested in trying the Scott Peterson case before other cases, but that the most likely was that, the longer the defense stalls, "the more the prosecution will get its ducks in a row"; stated in a March 1, 2004, San Mateo County Times profile of Rick Distaso and Mark Geragos that the former "comes off as the small-town boy who could use a helping hand" and the latter "controls the court like an actor controls the stage"; in a March 5, 2004, Fox News report, refuted a claim made in the National Enquirer that Amber Frey would not testify against Scott Peterson because of her pregnancy: "Amber Frey will testify in this trial unless the prosecution dramatically changes its theory of the case"; in a May 3, 2004, San Jose Mercury News article concerning some questionable members of the jury pool, stated that their presence may reflect the "desperation" of Al Delucchi to meet his goal: "When you're fighting just to have 70, the judge isn't real eager to kick people off when there's no real reason"; in a May 22, 2004, San Jose Mercury News article contrasting the styles of Rick Distaso and Mark Geragos, asked, "Who's got more staying powe: the mild-mannered Clark Kent or Superman?" and added that, "in a 2-week trial, Mark would totally dominate...but in a 4-month trial, the question is, is Rick's style going to come across?"; in a May 30, 2004, New York Post article, quoted as saying, "The best prosecution cases are those that are based on circumstantial evidence"; in a June 13, 2004, New York Daily News article, stated that Distaso "doesn't do details well" and "doesn't connect all the dots for the jury"; in a June 20, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article about the use of humor by Mark Geragos, stated, "I think Mark Geragos is winning this case through humor...The jurors are fawning over him"; in a June 25, 2004, San Jose Mercury News article, stated that the admission by Det. Al Brocchni that he excised statements from his report "looks very damning"; in a July 15, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Mark Geragos' demonstration that a pitcher found in Scott Peterson's warehouse was not the mold for his anchor was "devastating" to the prosecution's case; in a September 30, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that the prosecution was "losing credibility" when Geragos produced records indicating that, contrary to previous testimony by Det. Craig Grogan, Scott Peterson inquired several times a day about his missing wife: "By trying to put their best foot forward, they often end up looking like they are trying to mislead the jury"; in a November 4, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated, "I think if 12 members of this jury believe that Laci was alive at 10 in the morning on the 24th, I don't think they can convict"; in a November 14, 2004, Modesto Bee article, spoke about the successful prosecution of Scott Peterson by Distaso, remarking that he will "never perhaps be a household name, but he saved himself from being a bad household name"; in a December 17, 2004, Los Angeles Times article, predicted "some court of appeal will choose to look at" the Scott Peterson conviction
David Graeven President of San Francisco-based Trial Behavior Consulting; stated in a March 5, 2004, Fox News report concerning jury selection that "the absence of an audience should make the process more relaxed" and prevent the "pollution or contamination of the panel"; in a March 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article speculating about Amber Frey's pregnancy and its possible effect on her ability to testify at Scott Peterson's trial, stated, "People tend to think about cases in terms of a storyline—the prosecution has to get the story out"; contributed to a March 21, 2004, Modesto Bee article about nonverbal cues some potential jurors use to ensure they do not get selected for jury duty; stated in a March 29, 2004, Modesto Bee article that jury selection was a "chess game" and that Dave Harris and Rick Distaso "apparently are testing whether jurors have the stomach" to convict based on circumstantial evidence; in a March 31, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that the "stealth juror" should be eliminated from the jury pool simply for telling others she was being considered: "She's out, no matter what she said"; in an April 4, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that there would be no problem in Al Delucchi calling in more potential jurors if a jury could not be composed of the first 1,000: "Other than the fact the judge said the trial would start by a certain time, there is nothing sacred about it"; in a May 4, 2004, Modesto Bee article concerning a defense change-of-venue motion, questioned whether Mark Geragos would be able to prove that "generic bias" exists in San Mateo County and not in Los Angeles County; in a May 23, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that trial consultants on both sides of the Scott Peterson case may "have gone online and done research and done any number of things that are legal" to "identify a profile of a bad juror"; in a May 26, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that the process of choosing a jury for Scott Peterson's trial "produced a more conservative group than what you would expect if they were picked randomly"; in a May 28, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that the diversity of Scott Peterson's jury validated "the judge's resolve to stick with this process," and admitted that, although the end result was surprising, "it's impossible to second-guess the moves without being privy to the information the attorneys had"; in a May 31, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that the lack of flash shown by Rick Distaso and Dave Harris may, in the long run, help them come across as very credible: "The fact that these guys aren't distracting may play in their favor"; in a June 18, 2004, AP report on the discussion between Brent Rocha and Justin Falconer, stated, "Assuming it was just social conversation, it's being blown way out of proportion"; in a November 22, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that Geragos, during the penalty phase, should not question the jurors' finding of guilt: "The surest way to get the death penalty is to call the jury stupid"
Gordon Greenberg Criminal defense attorney; noted in a November 21, 2003, article in the Los Angeles Times that Mark Geragos taking on two high-profile cases simultaneously was a unique situation in which the attorney would have to ensure that jurors' biases about one case did not spill over into another
Bernie Grimm (Bernard Grimm) Washington, D.C.-based defense attorney; stated in a November 23, 2003, Modesto Bee article that the Scott Peterson case was "a collision of common sense and the law" wherein jurors' common sense may tell them Scott Peterson is guilty but that they will require compelling evidence to convict in a death penalty case: "When you apply the law and realize it's a possible lethal injection, are you going to do that based on a hair in a pair of pliers? There's just not enough information"; stated in a December 4, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee about Gloria Allred's handling of Amber Frey's rumored pregnancy: "Gloria has painted her as a virtuous, law-abiding, upstanding, clean-cut woman, where really this woman has been around the block"; stated in a January 2, 2004, Modesto Bee article that Mark Geragos would probably decide at trial how best to cross-examine Amber Frey
Randy Grossman San Diego County deputy district attorney; used mitochondrial DNA to help convict Hugo Alcazar of the murder of 14-year-old Diana Rodriguez; stated in a November 3, 2003, article by the Associated Press concerning the admissibility of mitochondrial DNA in the Laci Peterson case that "the more it's used and introduced into evidence, the more difficulty the defense is going to have in fighting it"; called the mitochondrial DNA evidence "very effective" in the Alcazar conviction
Michele Hagan Criminal lawyer; quoted in November 19, 2003, KPIX article as saying Scott Peterson's taped phone calls with Amber Frey could simply show he was a philanderer, they could prove damaging to his defense: "It goes to the motive"
Stuart Hanlon San Francisco criminal defense lawyer; criticized Scott Peterson's prosecutors in a June 27, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stating, "Lawyers certainly should never be surprised by their own witnesses"
Thomas Hansen Presiding judge of Santa Clara County Superior Court; stated in a January 14, 2004, Modesto Bee article that moving a trial is a large task that takes more than a few weeks
Rockne Harmon Alameda County prosecutor; expert on DNA use in criminal trials; prosecution's DNA specialist at O.J. Simpson's trial; stated in an October 31, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that he thought it was a "bad mistake" for Mark Geragos to so extensively question Connie Fisher because there is "virtually no issue" that warrants excluding the evidence, and every judge who has heard similar arguments against it has allowed it in; suggested that Mark Geragos put his ego above his client's best interest: "Being a knucklehead, that's for your ego—there's a person at the table you're supposed to be doing it for"
David Hearrean Spokane, Washington, defense attorney; member of William Bradley Jackson's defense team in a landmark case for GPS technology; stated in a February 12, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that Jackson's defense team "felt there had to be more restrictions" on GPS use and later tried unsuccessfully to convince the Washington Supreme Court that putting a tracking device on Jackson's car was "an invasion of privacy"
Jim Hartnett Attorney with Hartnett, Smith and Associates; Redwood City councilmember; predicted in a January 22, 2004, San Mateo Daily Journal article that jury selection for the Scott Peterson trial will be long and carefully done: "The jury selection will be tremendously important for both the defense and prosecution...it won’t go as routine"
Lois Heaney Jury consultant with National Jury Project West in Oakland; in a May 4, 2004, San Mateo County Times article concerning a defense proposal for a second change of venue for Scott Peterson's trial, stated that the reported 45 percent of questionnaire respondants who admitted a prejudgment of Scott Peterson's guilt was probably a misleading statistic: "In the social milieu of jury selection, jurors feel pressure to say more socially acceptable things...easing off of the opinions they've already formed"; in a May 23, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that before the "big spin" day in Scott Peterson's trial, both sides would be "grading the jurors and comparing them," looking for the ones that may hurt their case: "You're saying, 'This juror is bad, but this juror is worse'"
Don Heller Sacramento defense attorney and former federal prosecutor; stated in a November 18, 2003, KSBW article that Mark Geragos representing Michael Jackson could mean a new lead attorney for Scott Peterson: "If Jackson comes in with a bigger retainer, at this point, he could bail out of Peterson," because most attorneys' fees are set in such a way that after a preliminary hearing and before arraignment, they can withdraw services
Eric Hickey (Eric W. Hickey) 53, Criminology professor at California State University, Fresno; stated in a January 31, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that he watched Scott Peterson's eyes during his interview with Diane Sawyer, noting that, when faced with difficult questions, his eyes shifted quickly to the left before he looked Sawyer in the eye; resident of Fresno
Robert Hirschhorn Texas-based jury consultant whose company worked for the federal government as part of the Whitewater case, William Kennedy Smith and Terry Nichols; in a February 1, 2004, Modesto Bee article stated that peers tend to be harder on one another: "It's one of those counterintuitive things"
Daniel Horowitz 50, Oakland defense attorney; frequent commentator on the Scott Peterson trial who himself became news when his wife, Brenda Vitale, was apparently slain on October 15, 2005; stated in a January 29, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that he did not believe jurors should be or would be sequestered by Al Delucchi in the Scott Peterson trial: "You can't keep publicity from a jury, you just can't make chicken out of fish; he is not going to sequester a jury because it is such a terrible imposition on these people, and they're still going to have access to the news"; stated in a February 14, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article that he was sorry fellow commentator Jim Hammer had been silenced by Jim Brazelton: "Most of the talking heads are entertainment; Hammer is an educator—his comments are so measured and so on the mark, and he gives the perspective of a top prosecutor, whereas most of these commentators are defense attorneys"; according to a February 17, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, was seen "trekking across the bay to San Mateo County on Peterson's court days, equipped with a stack of autobiographical information" promoting himself as a legal analyst; stated in a February 25, 2004, Contra Costa Times article about dog trailing that "sometimes the perception of the handler, in this case, Scott Peterson's guilt or innocence, can influence the dog"; stated in a March 1, 2004, San Mateo County Times profile of Mark Geragos that he would survive a loss in the Scott Peterson case: "We'll judge him on how he handles himself, and so far he's handled himself beautifully"; in a June 13, 2004, New York Daily News article, stated that Mark Geragos would "whale on witnesses when he senses any weaknesses"; in an August 7, 2004, Contra Costa Times article, speculated that the August 5, 2004, trial delay for evidence testing "was just a vehicle for Geragos to capitalize on the jury's knowledge that the prosecution is messing up"; in an October 28, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined that Geragos did score points during the defense phase, but that Lee and Jackie Peterson's testimony was unbelievable: "The parents were a big problem...their words didn't make a lot of sense"; in a November 2, 2004, Modesto Bee article, called the closing statement of Mark Geragos "one of the finest closing arguments that you will ever see," and contended that his speech resulted in a "complete turnaround from yesterday's prosecution closing argument"; in a November 3, 2004, Modesto Bee article, cautioned that an effective closing statement from Rick Distaso "doesn't mean Geragos can't come back," and offered that the defense attorney would "seize" upon "mistakes" made by Distaso, such as showing Laci Peterson in high heels; in a November 24, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that the penalty phase was delayed because "Mark Geragos was personally not prepared to go forward"; in a December 6, 2004, Modesto Bee article, argued that Al Delucchi should not have allowed testimony regarding Scott Peterson ordering cable-television pornography: "It certainly may have prejudiced the jury"; in a December 8, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that the defense penalty-phase strategy was to suggest that killing Scott Peterson would destroy the family, and that this is something Laci Peterson would not have wanted; in a December 15, 2004, Modesto Bee article, recalled that he was able to successfully defend a convicted murderer from the death penalty by bringing his 5-year-old daughter to the stand: "Defense is all about love...Scott never connected with this jury"; on the March 2, 2005, episode of The Abrams Report, commented on why neither the prosecution nor the defense called Anne Bird as a witness; discussed Scott Peterson's formal sentencing on the March 16, 2005, episode of The Abrams Report; web site: Criminal Defense Attorney: Daniel Horowitz
Edward Horowitz Los Angeles attorney; represented Nicole Brown Simpson's father in a wrongful death lawsuit against O.J. Simpson; concerning Sharon Rocha's civil suit against Scott Peterson, stated in a December 19, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that if Scott Peterson is found guilty in the criminal case, "the fact that he murdered Mrs. Peterson would be deemed to be true in the civil case, and then we're talking about what damages would be recoverable"
Ed Imwinkelried Law professor at the University of California-Davis; stated in a November 2, 2003, article in USA Today that if the prosecution goes "to trial in a case of this magnitude without impressive scientific testimony, some jurors may be disappointed," which could mean an acquittal
Douglas Jacobsen Stockton attorney who represented convicted murderer Jerry Bunyard in the first legal test of the California fetal murder law in 1981; stated in a September 13, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee: "I would guarantee you, since Laci disappeared, probably 20 other women have disappeared in California, and you haven't heard about one of them"
Jean-Paul Jassy Los Angeles attorney with Loeb and Loeb; regularly represents media clients, argued in an August 19, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that there was no basis to support the presumption that television coverage would make a change of venue more likely: "Do you really think that anybody in Stanislaus County doesn't know what's going on?"
Dean Johnson Defense attorney; San Mateo County prosecutor for 15 years; criticized by Mark Geragos, who called him one of the "local yokels" who was "up there second-guessing me most of the time"; following the Scott Peterson trial, worked on a book with jurors; on April 15, 2004, stated on The Abrams Report that stealth jurors should not be cause for a change of venue: "There are going to be stealth jurors no matter where you go"; in a May 4, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that the prejudgment rate against Scott Peterson cited by Mark Geragos in a May 3, 2004, change-of-venue motion was not unusually high, and that an argument for moving a trial based on stealth jurors was weak: "Stealth jurors are a lot like Bigfoot—very many reported sightings, but very little hard evidence"; in a May 28, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, opined that Al Delucchi allowing the testimony of Diane Jackson was "a huge deal," and echoed that sentiment in a June 1, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article; in a June 1, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article concerning the Scott Peterson case, noted, "Statistics show that about 30 to 40 percent of jurors make up their minds during opening statements—after that's done, it's nearly impossible to shake a juror from that mindset"; in a June 1, 2004, KGO report, was quoted as saying "Where's the beef" in regard to the prosecution's opening statement; on the June 2, 2004, The Abrams Report, stated that Mark Geragos' opening statement was effective: "If you wanted to teach people how to do an opening statement, this has everything that you would get from the textbook"; in a June 6, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that the prosecution was not putting its evidence into context: "They're running the risk of losing the jurors"; in a June 9, 2004, KGO report, stated, "Geragos may be doing the one thing that could blow this case for him and doing it very early, which is arguing with these witnesses, fighting with these witnesses and alienating this jury who likes these witnesses"; in a June 14, 2004, San Mateo County Times article, predicted that the prosecution was "very slowly, piece by piece, fact by fact, putting a net around Scott Peterson that, at the end of trial, they'll tighten"; in a June 17, 2004, KGO report, speculated that the prosecution may be working on establishing a financial motive after testimony about Laci Peterson pawning jewelry and having jewelry appraised, but noted,"Everything in this case can be turned around for either side"; in a June 26, 2004, Contra Costa Times article, criticized prosecutors for not adequately "rehabilitating" witnesses discredited by Scott Peterson's defense attorneys: "My experience is you can rehabilitate a witness from almost anything...if you just think about it for a moment and are aggressive enough to do it"; in a June 27, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, suggested that Rick Distaso and Dave Harris were simultaneously "over-trying and under-trying the case" against Scott Peterson: "They are putting in a lot of evidence that apparently they have no need for whatsoever; they're under-trying it in that they seem underprepared"; in a June 28, 2004, KGO report, explained that a judge will tell the jury to look at the whole body of evidence: "The evidence is the whole elephant; If you walked out blindfolded and embraced the elephant's leg, you might think an elephant is sort of like a tree trunk, but you need to look at the whole elephant to see, 'Hey, this is an elephant'"; in a June 28, 2004, San Mateo County Times article, stated that prosecutors would need to be able to explain why Det. Al Brocchini excised information from a police report or it "will be a major blow" to their case; in a June 29, 2004, KGO report, stated that it seemed as though Rick Distaso got "the fire in his belly" when his redirect examination of Det. Al Brocchini helped rehabilitate him; in a June 29, 2004, KTVU report, stated that the prosecution "restored credibility to Brocchini" by introducing a tip that was incriminating to Scott Peterson but which was not explored because it could not be corroborated; in a June 29, 2004, Modesto Bee article, reinterated that the prosecution scored with their redirect of Brocchini, showing that, "if anything, this investigation did not have tunnel vision"; in a July 1, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that prosecutors would be better off showing "Scott wasn't after Amber Frey or any particular woman; he was after women—he wanted to portray himself as this high roller with a lot of money and a lot of sexual partners"; in a July 7, 2004, Modesto Bee article, called the dispute over Det. Al Brocchini's "duct tape" testimony a "tempest in a tea pot"; in a July 7, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that prosecutors did not capitalize on the headway they had made by showing photographs of the recovered bodies of Laci and Conner Peterson, saying, they "had the jury in an emotional state, ready to convict, but once again they didn't bring it home"; in a July 10, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that the defense team's mentions of Det. Richard Byrd in connection to Amber Frey were a "red herring"; in a July 12, 2004, Modesto Bee article, said it would be hard to predict whom the prosecution would call next: "It's sort of a roller-coaster ride"; in a July 15, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that the defense team was trying to prove that investigators combing the San Francisco Bay did the "most thorough, high-tech search possible and didn't find anything because the bodies weren't dumped there until much later by the real killers"; in another July 15, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Mark Geragos was asking for a mistial with "a wink and a nod" because he did not want one and knew he would not get one: "Though the prosecution would never say this, a mistrial might be the best thing that they could hope for right now"; in another July 15, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that the defense team's cross-examination of Det. Dodge Hendee "doesn’t destroy the prosecution’s main points: Scott was manufacturing anchors, some are missing," but added, "I do fault the prosecution—for their presentation, strategy and tactics; From the start, they could have told us all the things we’re now trying to figure out for ourselves"; in a July 23, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated, "There are hundreds of reasons to explain why a single hair could be in a place"; in a July 28, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that David Weber's testimony was "a net loss for the prosecution"; in an August 9, 2004, San Jose Mercury News article, stated that, while proving Scott Peterson is a liar and an adulterer does not prove he is a murderer, "At some point you say, 'If the guy is good enough at fooling everybody so that he's got this whole double life, well, maybe he's capable of this as well'"; in an August 12, 2004, Modesto Bee article concerning Amber Frey's secretly taped conversations with Scott Peterson, noted that, although no one was forcing him to make the statements he made, "juries don’t like deception"; in an August 14, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that Scott Peterson was fully aware of the situation during his taped conversations with Amber Frey, and that he was using them to carefully craft an alibi: "He's not going to say anything on those tapes that's not self-serving"; in an August 17, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined that the jurors were not becoming bored with the taped conversations between Amber Frey and Scott Peterson: "They are reacting with Amber Frey on the tape"; in an August 25, 2004, Modesto Bee article, said it was a "great move" by Mark Geragos to joke that he had no cross-examination questions for Amber Frey; in an August 28, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated, "This jury definitely is overloaded...we can't even follow it"; in an August 30, 2004, Modesto Bee article that reported on Mark Geragos presenting evidence that Internet activity conducted from Scott and Laci Peterson's computer on December 24, 2002, included searches for such "feminine" items as a scarf and sunflower-motif umbrella stand, commented that "the defense is asking us to make an inference"; in a September 9, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Lee Peterson "did not come across as angry or particularly biased" during his testimony: "I think he played well to the jury"; in a September 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article, questioned the wisdom of putting Lee Peterson on the stand: "The defendant's own father is the last person you would want on the stand"; in a September 14, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Pin Kyo's testimony about the nylon twine found on the body of Conner Peterson was helpful to the prosecution because she explained how it could have ended up there as debris: "It's essentially a half-hitch that, when opened, became much bigger and could easily float over the baby's head"; in a September 15, 2004, Modesto Bee article concerning the trial testimony of Robert O'Neill, stated that prosecutors were asking the jury to infer "something sinister" was involved with the concrete work of Scott Peterson; in a September 17, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that the grisly autopsy photographs reminded everyone why they were there in court: "These are real people who died a horrible death"; in a September 18, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated concerning the jurors, "They don't like Scott Peterson"; in a September 22, 2004, Modesto Bee article, commented on Det. Craig Grogan's statement about the condition of the Tradecorp Warehouse ("It seemed like a tremendous mess for making one 8-pound anchor"): "I think that's one of those phrases that rings in jurors' ears"; in a September 24, 2004, Modesto Bee article, commented on the suggestion by Geragos that Scott Peterson's question after his arrest ("Have they found my wife and son?") could be interpreted as concern: "If they had found his wife and son alive, would they have put him in handcuffs?"; in a September 25, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined that Geragos was "going to have a difficult time with a lot of Scott's misrepresentations"; in an October 7, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined that Al Delucchi would "certainly" deny any motion by Scott Peterson's defense team to have the charges against him dropped for lack of evidence prior to the presentation of the defense case; in an October 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Scott Peterson's mental state is "one of a thousand pieces, and no one piece contains the entire picture"; in a separate October 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article, pointed out, "If Mark Geragos can convince the jury that Conner Peterson lived beyond December 24, then Scott Peterson is innocent—you don't have to prove someone else guilty"; in an October 28, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that Scott Peterson's defense may be in trouble because "one of the hugest mistakes you can make is to overstate your case" as Mark Geragos did in his opening remarks; in an October 29, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated, "This case is going to come down to closing arguments, no question about it"; in a November 1, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined that the defense case "just kind of fell apart," and stated, "If I were a prosecutor, and I heard Lee would take the stand, I would drop on my knees and thank whatever deity I worship...because there's enough there to turn him into a prosecution expert"; in a November 2, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Geragos appealed to reason "because he knows if the jurors rely on their instincts, on their feelings, on the way they feel about Scott Peterson instead of logic, then he's going to lose this case"; in a November 3, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that, in closing arguments, Rick Distaso was "finally, for the first time…telling the jury this story"; in a November 4, 2004, Modesto Bee article, suggested that the defense closing statement asked jurors to do something contrary to human nature, "Jurors let their feelings influence their decision in every case"; in a November 5, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined, "The defense took a heavy blow today" during Rick Distaso's rebuttal argument; in the same November 5, 2004, article, stated that the men and women considering Scott Peterson's fate were the "the most impassive, stone-faced jury" he had ever seen: "Anybody who's making a prediction is just reading tea leaves or rolling dice"; in a November 12, 2004, Modesto Bee article, erroneously suggested that the replacement of foreman Gregory Jackson with Steve Cardosi should be regarded as "a good day for the defense"; in a November 14, 2004, Modesto Bee roasting of Mark Geragos, suggested the attorney "assumed a certain burden of proof in the jury's mind, and he didn't do any of things he promised to do"; in a November 22, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined, "The theme for the defense during the penalty phase is 'stuck between a rock and a hard place'" because they have to be contrite without admitting their client's guilt: "It's a matter of speaking to the heart, it's a matter of being humble—and Geragos doesn't do humble very well"; in a December 2, 2004, Modesto Bee article, speculated concerning the man taken into the judge's chambers just before the start of the penalty phase, "It's obvious the judge, who listened to this supposed bartender's testimony, has decided that whatever he had to say really isn't material"; in a December 3, 2004, Modesto Bee article, praised the decision to have Pat Harris take over the penalty phase; in a December 5, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that it was a "huge mistake" for Joe Peterson to talk about Scott Peterson's love of the water; in a December 8, 2004, Modesto Bee article, questioned the negative effect on the jurors of so many witnesses extolling the virtues of Scott Peterson: "I think this jury is beginning to resent it"; in a December 11, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that, during closing arguments in the penalty phase "Geragos made the case that there will be justice for Laci without death for Scott"
J. Albert Johnson Veteran trial lawyer; in a June 9, 2004, Boston Herald article, commented that "it appears there is an utter lack of preparation of the government's witnesses"; in a June 10, 2004, Boston Herald article, opined that apparent contradictions in Scott Peterson's statements are inconsistencies "from which the jury can draw inferences of guilt"
Ruth Jones Criminal law professor at the McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento; former New York City prosecutor; quoted in a June 11, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the issuing of a subpoena to Wray Ladine, stated: "It's very unusual"; concerning the gag order imposed by Al Girolami, stated that they have mixed results but "might change the tone of what people are hearing"; concerning a possible link between the Laci Peterson and Ladonna Milam murders, stated in a July 1, 2003, article in the Fresno Bee: "From the defense perspective, they would explore any reasonable alternative that might explain the disappearance of Laci Peterson" just as law enforcement would "have an obligation to try and figure out if it fits"; stated in a July 28, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that, as an alternative to a closed preliminary hearing, testimony from some witnesses could be done in chambers; commented in an August 2, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the legality of the process used in wiretaps of Scott Peterson's calls: "It would be very unusual for a Superior Court to find this unconstitutional"; in an August 21, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee, stated that Al Girolami, in opening the preliminary hearing to the public but banning cameras "struck a balance between the public's right to access and the defendant's right to a fair trial"; commented in an Augusy 29, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning Al Girolami's tentative acceptance of the proposal by the prosecution and Scott Peterson's defense attorneys to drop gag order violation allegations against each other; in a September 16, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee, speculated that Spec-West representatives may not have been contacted by investigators about the plastic found near Laci Peterson's body simply because the plastic is not related to the case, but noted that novice killers may use materials that can be traced back to them; commented in October 12, 2003, Modesto Bee article on calls between Amber Frey and the friends and family of Laci Peterson: "Maybe I'm cut from a harder cloth...my friend, daughter or sister is missing, maybe dead, and you're the one her husband is sleeping with; I don't want to chat on the phone with you"; stated in an October 26, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the impending preliminary hearing: "Everything will be a revelation to us—this case is unique in that sense"; stated in a November 17, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee concerning the lack of a "smoking gun" revelation during Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing, "A circumstantial evidence case doesn't necessarily give you a nice, tightly written story"; stated in a November 22, 2003, Modesto Bee article that one of the fascinating things about the Scott Peterson case was that no one who knew him seemed to initially suspect him: "Not one immediately said, 'Oh, my God—maybe it was Scott'"; drawing a general parallel to rape shield laws, stated in a December 4, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that Amber Frey's rumored pregnancy should not be a factor in her testimony: "The rape shield law is a general way for the law to say, 'This information...it's not relevant for determining if you are telling the truth or not; There is no correlation between your prior sexual history and what has happened with this defendant"; predicted in a December 9, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that there will be a lot more evidence to come at Scott Peterson's trial, but none of it will be conclusive: "You see it on television all the time: 'Oh, my God,' the audience gasps, and we know who the killer is—if they had evidence like that, we would have seen it at the preliminary hearing"; in a December 24, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee, states, "A timeline isn't important in every case, but it may be particularly important in this case because of the questions that remain unanswered"; stated in a January 7, 2004, Modesto Bee article that prosecutors may call Steven Todd to affirm that he broke into Rudy and Susan Medina's home, dispelling connections between the burglary and Laci Peterson's disappearance; stated in a February 1, 2004, Modesto Bee article that white-collar workers tend to "make more difficult decisions" on their jobs and therefore could be seen as favoring the prosecution in a death-penalty case; stated in a February 10, 2004, Modesto Bee article that she thought Al Delucchi would not sequester jurors in Scott Peterson's trial after having banned cameras from the courtroom; stated in a February 12, 2004, Modesto Bee article that the introduction of GPS evidence was risky for prosecutors: "They have to weigh the importance of this evidence with the likelihood of raising an appellate issue...it's a difficult balancing act"; stated in a February 19, 2004, Modesto Bee article that Mark Geragos is "going to make a lot of motions, and he's going to lose many of them, but that's his job: to make motions"; stated in a separate February 19, 2004, Modesto Bee article that it was difficult for prosecutors to get all evidence quickly to defense attorneys, but that it is unlikely they are intentionally holding back: "It would just be stupid to do that, but really more than that, it would be unsocial"; stated in a February 24, 2004, Modesto Bee article that jury questionnaires are meant to weed out "people who have spent too much time following the case"; stated in a March 29, 2004, Modesto Bee article that defendants are regularly convicted on circumstantial evidence, but that "the societal perspective is not necessarily the same: In pop culture, on TV and sometimes in reporting, people will say, 'It's just a circumstantial evidence case,' suggesting there is something inherently wrong with it"; in an April 13, 2004, Modesto Bee article, speculated that Bill Mitchell may have been subpoenaed by prosecutors for any number of reasons, and that they may know something about his account of the Laci Peterson sighting that was not revealed in the media; in a May 30, 2004, Modesto Bee article, said that Scott Peterson's televised statements could be a key to building a circumstantial case against him: "When you piece it all together, plus add Scott's lying about some facts, collectively it could show guilt beyond a reasonable doubt"; in a July 2, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that Det. Al Brocchini's testimony about a tip that Scott Peterson had once discussed how to hide a body was "quite explosive": "Whether or not the police thought it was credible, it's hanging in the room—everybody heard it"; in a July 29, 2004, Modesto Bee article speculating that Mark Geragos has asked for public aid for Scott Peterson's defense, stated, "I've been amazed that he has had this much money so far"; in an August 9, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that, even if Amber Frey's credibility were to be attacked, "at the end of the day, the tapes are left for the jury's independent evaluation"; in an August 15, 2004, Modesto Bee article, opined that Mark Geragos could attempt to discredit Amber Frey by showing she lied on other occasions, but that the dispute between her and her ex-boyfriend would be small potatoes: "It's not totally immaterial, but it's not sufficiently relevant that the judge would let Mr. Geragos explore it at length"
Ruth Karas Former prosecuting attorney; stated in a November 13, 2003, KCRA article concerning detectives' need to eliminate Scott Peterson from the investigation, "He was the last person to see Laci Peterson alive that everyone is aware of and so he has to be eliminated first...and they could never eliminate Scott Peterson"; supported Det. Al Brocchini's test of the private tip line established by the Peterson family: "You could look at Det. Brocchini calling in as a tipster—giving a real tip to the Peterson family hot line—as a good strategy on the police's part, just to test and make sure that if tips are coming in that are good on the Peterson hot line, they are getting passed on to the police"
Diane Karpman Los Angeles legal ethics expert; opined in a September 18, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the federal charges filed against Mark Geragos should "not impair his ability to continue to represent" Scott Peterson; in a November 17, 2004, Modesto Bee article about John Thompson filing a complaint against Geragos for openly displaying a fishing boat used in evidentiary tests, stated that attorneys are "easy targets" and are "almost always required to fall on the sword"
Burton Katz (Burton S. Katz) Retired Los Angeles judge; previous prosecutor in the Charles Manson murder case; former defense attorney; stated in a February 10, 2004, Modesto Bee article that Mark Geragos was requesting a separate jury for the penalty phase of Scott Peterson's trial because the attorney "wants two cracks at a jury", but that a viable option could be to sequester jurors closer to the end of the trial; in a February 21, 2004, Modesto Bee article, stated that "a judge gets scared" at the prospect of district attorneys purposely withholding evidence
Peter Keane Dean emeritus and professor of law at San Francisco's Golden Gate University School of Law; former chief public defender in San Francisco; said that Mark Geragos' "swagger and arrogance worked against him" in the Scott Peterson trial; stated in a November 19, 2003, KRON article that Scott Peterson's relationship with Amber Frey after his wife's disappearance could be enough to persuade a jury that he had reason to murder: "That is enough for a reasonable jury to say, 'That's why he did it—he wanted the girlfriend'"; in a February 29, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that one-at-a-time interviews with potential jurors in death penalty cases was necessary to "explore the individual opinions and thoughts and really get to the very soul of those jurors regarding those issues"; in an April 26, 2004, San Jose Mercury News article, stated that Cory Carroll's story could be true, but that it would be risky for the prosecution to base their whole case on the testimony of a criminal: "If the jury finds the prosecution puts on witnesses whom they don't find credible, then it affects the credibility of the whole case, and a defense attorney can make a lot of hay out of that in closing arguments"; in a June 20, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article about the use of humor by Geragos, stated, "I would never use humor in a murder trial...This is serious business; It's not celebrity game-playing"; in a June 26, 2004, Contra Costa Times article, stated that Det. Al Brocchini's admission of excising potentially exonerating information may not resonate with jurors: "One of the things that people have to keep in mind is something that might appear very dramatic might not have that same kind of dramatic effect upon a jury while they're hearing it"; in a December 17, 2004, Los Angeles Times article, stated that the removal of Gregory Jackson "could be a very big card" in Scott Peterson's appeals
Robert Keating (Robert G.M. Keating) Former judge; quoted in Maureen Orth's book, The Importance of Being Famous: Behind the Scenes of the Celebrity-Industrial Complex, in relation to the tactics of Mark Geragos: "Defense lawyers often try to throw out red herrings in hopes that some member of the jury someday will say, 'Hey, what about that dragon somebody saw?'"
John Kelly (John Q. Kelly) Attorney who represented Nicole Brown's family in their successful civil suit of O.J. Simpson; occasional commentator on the Laci Peterson case
Bob Kochly Contra Costa County district attorney; in a January 22, 2004, San Francisco Chronicle article, stated that prosecutors were being "cautious" in finding a judge for the Scott Peterson trial: "They have here the most important case in recent memory—a case which is in the grip of the national media...they want to be sure to get the best judge they can"
Karen Jo Koonan Senior trial consultant at the National Jury Project West in Berkeley; commented on jury selection in the Scott Peterson case in a January 27, 2004, San Mateo County Times article, calling the process "putting pieces of a puzzle together"; commented on the Paul Strand poll of San Mateo County in a February 4, 2004, Oakland Tribune article
Pete Kossoris Retired Ventura County death penalty prosecutor; in a December 6, 2004, Modesto Bee article, predicted that "an appellate attorney would argue that [Mark] Geragos was incompetent"
Jim Larsen Assistant public defender for San Joaquin County; estimated that defense costs for Scott Peterson could easily top $1 million
Evan Lee Professor at the University of California Hastings College of the Law; stated in an October 28, 2003, Associated Press article concerning Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing: "You may get an unusual case where the prosecution thinks if it comes on like gangbusters, the defendant will switch their plea to guilty—I have a funny feeling that's not going to happen in this case"
Laurie Levenson (Laurie L. Levenson) Loyola Law School professor; director of Loyola Law School's Center for Ethical Advocacy; former prosecutor; stated to CNN for a June 2, 2003, article concerning rumors of defense team leaks to the media, "There's been a concerted effort to try to change the hearts and minds of potential jurors—the strategy is to create questions now and hope that it will translate into reasonable doubt later"; stated in People magazine article concerning how Mark Geragos would attack Amber Frey to defend Scott Peterson, "If she ends up being a witness who is really pointing the finger at Scott, then I can guarantee you that Geragos will go for the jugular"; stated in a September 18, 2003, article in the Modesto Bee that the federal charges filed against Geragos would probably do little to change the public's already formed view of him, stating that "people are going to use this to see what they already believe," but noting also that "anything that distracts from your credibility is a serious issue" in a death penalty case; in an October 26, 2003, USA Today article concerning Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing, stated, "I would hope the prosecution has learned the le