Peterson Appeal May Target Geragos' Performance

Dec. 14, 2004 — -- High-profile defense attorney Mark Geragos once promised jurors in Scott Peterson's murder trial that he would prove that Peterson was "stone-cold innocent." Now that Peterson has been convicted of murder and the jury has recommended the death penalty, Geragos' performance could be grounds for an appeal.

The attorney's performance is just one issue for an appellate court to consider. Other issues include: that the scope of the judge's gag order was too narrow and should have been extended to include the lawyer for Peterson's former mistress; concerns about pretrial juror prejudice; denied requests for further changes of venue; and concerns about jurors conducting what the defense considered an investigation during deliberations.

Geragos said after the jury's recommendation was announced Monday that he was "very disappointed."

"Obviously, we plan on pursuing every and all appeals, motions for a new trial andeverything else," he said.

However, some observers say, Geragos may be the primary target of those appeals and likely won't be handling the case.

"Unfortunately Mark is going to become a pincushion for not only legal analysts, but for people working for Scott Peterson on his appeal," ABC News legal analyst Dana Cole said on ABC News Now, a 24-hour broadband and digital television news channel. "And they're going to be dissecting every one of his decisions. Look, the bottom line is, no lawyer can guarantee results."

The jury recommended that Peterson receive the death penalty in the slayings of his pregnant wife, Laci, and the baby the couple planned to name Conner. Jurors convicted Peterson on Nov. 12 of first-degree murder in Laci's death and second-degree murder in the death of the unborn baby.

Early in the trial, Geragos used the prosecution witnesses to emphasize the lack of physical evidence linking Peterson to the disappearance and death of his wife. He suggested investigators focused solely on his client, ignoring other potential theories and leads in the case.

But Geragos may have doomed the defense when he promised jurors during opening statements that he would prove his client was "stone-cold innocent" and show them who Laci's real killer was.

However, the defense's expert was not able to tell jurors decisively -- as Geragos had promised -- that the baby could have been born alive sometime after Laci was reported missing on Dec. 24, 2002. Peterson could not have killed Laci at that time, the defense argued, because he was under too much scrutiny.