Q+A: The Scott Peterson Case

Dec. 14, 2004 — -- Here a sampling of your questions in response to the recommendation of the death penalty for Scott Peterson on a double-murder conviction. Providing answers are ABC News reporter Mike Gudgell, who has been covering the Peterson case for the past two years and ABC News law and justice reporter Greg Macek.

Susan in New Hampshire asks: For what reason might a judge overturn a jury's death penalty verdict?

Macek: Basically the judge may modify the verdict to life without the possibility of parole if he finds the jury's death verdict is contrary to law or evidence. He will review the jury's finding that the aggravating circumstances were so substantial in comparison to the mitigating circumstances that the death penalty was justified in this case. Judges are normally very reluctant to overturn a jury verdict barring some serious error, and it would be very surprising if the jury's verdict was overturned here.

Marsha in Dallas asks: How is it possible to find someone guilty and to assess the death penalty, when there was apparently zero physical evidence presented by prosecutors at trial which would connect Scott Peterson directly to the death of his wife?

Gudgell: Actually what is often referred to as "circumstantial evidence" can be very powerful. Many domestic violence cases have little "hard evidence" since fiber, hair, fingerprints and DNA from both the victim and the suspect would be expected at the scene of the crime. Many, if not most, cases are similar to what the prosecutors presented in the Peterson trial.

Unfortunately, popular television shows on forensics leave many people with an unrealistic expectation of court cases. I'd also point out that there was one piece of evidence connecting Scott to the crime. There were two hairs, which tests show are most likely Laci's, found in a pair of pliers inside the boat. Of course, there may be other explanations for how the hairs got inside the pliers. Still, it's a piece of a puzzle. Sometimes the sum is greater than the parts.

Macek: The case against Peterson was based on circumstantial evidence which is given the same weight as direct evidence under the law. The jury felt when they put all the evidence together, the prosecution proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt even though they didn't know exactly how or when Laci and Conner were killed. When considering the death penalty, the jury was allowed to consider "lingering doubt" as a mitigating circumstance. Lingering doubt is doubt somewhere between reasonable doubt and an absolute certainty.

Many analysts felt that because there was no murder weapon, or other direct evidence against Peterson, the jury might have some lingering doubt that he may be not guilty. Apparently, the nature and circumstances of the crime outweighed any lingering doubt or other mitigating circumstance in the jurors' minds, and they thought the death penalty was appropriate.

G in Ontario asks: Why were A & E and other stations allowed to run soap opera-like shows about this case while it was being tried? I think this was blatantly unfair; Peterson was depicted as guilty while he was on trial.

Gudgell: This country has a free press. There are no laws restricting A & E or any other media. (Pornography being one exception). I can't disagree that some of the coverage in some of the media was inaccurate and full of speculation. There's a difficult balancing act between the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of the press and the Sixth Amendment giving the accused the right to a fair trial. The courts and any responsible media outlet struggle with this on a daily basis.

In the Peterson case, the judge imposed a protective or "gag" order that prohibited witnesses, law enforcement and lawyers from discussing the case. Unfortunately, although gag orders are intended to limit pretrial publicity, they often contribute to inaccurate coverage because no one with authority and knowledge can comment. I think the issue you raise is a good one. There are shows on cable television that do not use the same standards of journalism as others. It's hard for the public to know whether what they are hearing is speculation or fact. That's a problem for those of us who believe in journalism as a profession and not a business.

Macek: Even if they seem biased towards guilt or innocence, the makers of pretrial docudramas often argue that they are simply recreating the facts and events in the public record about a story that has high public interest.

The jury selection process is meant to screen out jurors who have been exposed to media coverage of a case prior to trial and who have may have formed opinions based on what they've seen or heard. Both the prosecution and defense have a chance to "voir dire" prospective jurors to determine if they've been tainted by pretrial publicity, and jurors in the Peterson case went through careful screening for any potential bias as well as repeated instructions throughout the trial to avoid media coverage of the case.

Cindy in Smithsburg, Md., asks: How many California capital cases have had any part their verdict overturned? Of the cases on California death row in the last 10 years, how many have had sentences commuted or reduced?

Macek: According to the Death Penalty Information Center in Washington DC, there have been 3 exonerations in California and no clemencies since 1973.

Will in Virginia Beach, Va., asks: Is there is an automatic appeal to a death penalty verdict in California, as there is in some states? What grounds would the appeal be based upon? Do you think that the appeal process will go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court? Why are the men on death row for so long?

Gudgell: There is an automatic appeal in the state of California but there are several legal issues that most certainly will lead to a series of appeals. The presiding judge in the case called it a "Petri dish" for appellate attorneys, referring to a laboratory technique for growing biological experiments. The list is long, starting with what attorney Mark Geragos called a "polluted jury pool." Many prospective jurors, some who actually served, were exposed to media coverage prior to the trial. It's possible appellate attorneys may try on the basis of ineffective counsel, accusing Mark Geragos of promising too much in his opening statement and not being prepared for the penalty phase of the trial. I'm not a lawyer and I do not know if this will be THE test case of the California death penalty statute, but most legal scholars believe the California law will eventually find its way to the Supreme Court.

Macek: The judicial system wants to make sure no stone is left unturned before an inmate is executed in case of a wrongful conviction. At the trial court level, there are automatic applications to review both the death and guilty verdicts, and the defendant gets to appeal directly to the California Supreme Court as well. It generally takes 4-5 years before a condemned inmate in California gets his appellate attorneys. Cases can remain in the state system for years once the appeals begin. After the state process has been exhausted, the Federal appeals process begins which can take several more years.

Peterson's attorneys will also likely file motions for a new trial based on any number of issues: evidentiary rulings, juror misconduct, witness credibility questions, ineffective assistance of counsel, or newly discovered evidence. Once the state appeals process is exhausted, the federal appeals process begins which could go all the way to the Supreme Court if they agree to hear the case.

Barbara asks: What is the total estimated legal bill for Peterson's defense? Who paid it? Will his family use the same team for the appeal? They were supposedly out of money, what law firm would they turn to now?

Gudgell: We understand the Petersons have spent over $1 million defending their son. They didn't have to spend any money. Scott is responsible for his own defense and, since he had few assets, the state would have had to hire a team of public defenders.

Stanislaus County has not released their budget for State v. Peterson but it is believed that the final tally will exceed $2 (million) or $3 million. Appeals could double that amount. The State of California will reimburse the county for a large portion of those costs. There is an automatic appeal in death penalty cases and the state is required to provide an appellate attorney. Mark Geragos will likely stay on until formal sentencing on Feb. 25. Once the initial appeals have been exhausted, he will most likely be replaced by the state-appointed attorney. This is not an indication that the Petersons can't pay for the the appeal or are unhappy with Geragos. One likely appeal will be based on "ineffective" counsel. Someone other than Mark will have to make that argument. There's a long waiting list for state appointed lawyers. Scott may spend up to five years behind bars before he gets counsel.

Macek: Peterson will automatically be appointed counsel by the state for his death penalty appeals, but the family could turn to a private appellate attorney as well. Given the lengthy appeals process in a death penalty case, it would likely be very costly to hire private counsel, and it is more likely Peterson will be represented by a public defender.

Homa in Rockville, Md., asks: Why did this particular case get so much coverage?

Gudgell: That is an excellent question. In the quiet moments, when there are any, those of us who have covered this case go over this question with amazement. As you might expect, domestic homicides are quite common. I believe there's no one reason this case and this story has so captured the public's curiosity. It's a combination or a conspiracy of circumstances.

ABC's "Good Morning America" was the first network to broadcast the story. It was around Christmas, there was little competition from other news that morning. The idea of a pregnant woman missing on Christmas was enough to merit attention. The fact that the family wanted the publicity and supplied pictures of a sweet-looking expectant mother helped. As you might remember, the family encouraged media coverage, hoping to find Laci alive. When the bodies were found, it was far too late to turn it off. The public became a partner in a mystery.

I also think the cable channels fanned the flames of curiosity by using talk shows to freely speculate about the details of the case (some real and some imagined). The unfortunate consequence of making this a media spectacle is that many see the story in terms of winners and losers. Those of us who have covered the case for two years know better. There are no winners or losers, just victims. It has devastated the families. When Jackie Peterson left the courthouse after the guilty verdict she was jeered by the gathering crowd like she was some soap opera villain. She's a mother who has lost a son. The curious and obsessed sent in "evidence" to the court, often causing delays in the case. Your question, and the consequences of the coverage, will be debated for some time. The Peterson case is one of a kind.

Macek: Great question, but I'm not sure there is a clear answer. A lot of it probably had to do with the nature of the crime -- an attractive pregnant woman disappears from a seemingly "normal" American household on Christmas eve, which is generally a slow news period. Once the case got picked up and started making the cable news circuit, the rest of the facts played out almost like a movie script -- the affair, the tearful interviews, the bodies washing ashore, and Scott's dramatic arrest. This just seemed to be a real life drama that became almost an obsession for both the media and the public which feed off of one another.