← Crime & Justice with Donna Rotunno
Loading summary
Transcript74 lines
- [00:02]
A
What they did to your family. You're lucky to make it out alive.
- [00:06]
B
Streaming on Peacock.
- [00:07]
C
These men are going to come after me. Taking them out.
- [00:10]
A
It's my only chance.
- [00:11]
B
Put a bullet in her head. From the co creator of Ozark.
- [00:15]
C
Looks like a family was running drugs.
- [00:17]
A
Execution style killing. It's rare for the Keys.
- [00:20]
B
Any leads on who they might have been running for?
- [00:22]
C
The cartel killed my family.
- [00:24]
A
I'm gonna kill them.
- [00:26]
B
Awesome, mia. Streaming now only on Peacock.
- [00:32]
A
This is Crime and Justice. I'm Donna Rotuno. More than 20 years after the murder of Lacey Peterson and her unborn son, Scott Peterson's bid for freedom hits another roadblock.
- [00:45]
B
I remember Monday Night Football with Don Meredith. Long ago he would sing at the end of the game. Turn out the lights. The party's over. I think the lights in the Peterson case are dimming and it's time that the courts are going to turn out the lights on this case.
- [01:02]
A
Peterson's attorney says the fight isn't over. Before we begin, if you're enjoying the show, make sure you go ahead and hit the follow button. It's the best way to make sure you never miss an episode. Joining me today on the latest in the Scott Peterson trial is Claudia Cowan, FOX News senior correspondent. Hi, Claudia, how are you?
- [01:25]
C
I'm good, Donna. Good to be with you today.
- [01:28]
A
Good to be with you. So tell me the latest and greatest. What is going on in the never ending saga of Scott Peterson that continues to stay in our news cycle decades later?
- [01:39]
C
It's true. This story continues to evolve, you know, more than 20 years later. So last week we had a ruling from the San Mateo Superior Court said, saying that it was not going to review alleged new evidence in the Scott Peterson case. So Scott Peterson, and now 53 years old, he's being represented by lawyers with the LA Innocence Project. I should add that the umbrella Innocence Project has very much distanced themselves from the LA Innocence Project actually issued a statement saying, we have nothing to do with this, this appeal, this habeas appeal. But the LA Innocence Project claims it had developed new evidence that would exonerate Scott. Peter I mean, this is not an appeal like something went wrong during the trial. This is a habeas petition saying you've got the wrong guy in jail. Scott Peterson didn't do this crime. And they claimed that through DNA testing they could prove that Lacy's body was found and she perished, you know, a week later than the prosecution thought. So there's no way that Scott could have done it. They claimed they had witnesses that allegedly saw Lacy alive during a time when prosecutors claimed she was already dead and, and other new evidence like this. But, you know, you talk to legal analysts and, and reporters covering this case, and it's basically repackaging information that was known at the time. And I especially think it's interesting about these witnesses that allegedly saw Lacy alive after Scott went off on his fishing trip in 2004, Christmas Eve 2004. And all of this information was known to the defense back during the trial time. And the defense did not call any of these witnesses, which tells you they weren't credible. And they probably their testimony would not have held up well under cross examination. But anyway, this is what the LA Innocence Project said they had with that could exonerate Scott Peterson. But the judge said, I'm not going to listen to it. So no dice for Scott on this particular front.
- [03:49]
A
The judge said, we've been down this road before and I think that, you know, we also heard, I know part of this, these allegations they were making as new evidence were that there was this home invasion or robbery, burglary across the street from the house. But that has been brought up. I mean, we've been listening to that for decades as well. So that also was not new evidence. And kind of wondering, I mean, Scott Peterson, obviously, and had the big legal win back in 2020 when the courts overruled the death penalty finding for him. So he is now no longer on death row. So that was the big legal win for Scott. Where does he go from here, Claudia?
- [04:27]
C
So he is now serving a sentence of life in prison without parole at Mule Creek State Prison, which is outside of Sacramento. He is no longer at San Quentin here in Marin county, where I am actually. So what's next for him is he continues his, his fight for free. He's got an appeal before the California Supreme Court on an allegation of juror misconduct. This has to do with the infamous juror, Rachelle Nice, known as Strawberry Shortcake because of her red hair. The defense claims that she came into this case with a bias and had not disclosed on her voir dire form that she had also had a number of legal entanglements when she herself was pregnant. And that that made for, you know, an impartial, a biased jury. You know, you, you get 12 impartial jurors, not, not 11. And so the defense is, is trying to appeal that. That was initially denied at the lower court. It's now before the California Supreme Court. And the LA Innocence Project says it will appeal this ruling from last week to the California Supreme Court as well, about this alleged new scientific evidence that could exonerate Scott Peterson. So we'll see where these appeals go. I don't. I don. It's going to go well for Scott Peterson. I really do think this might be the end of the road for him and his ongoing fight for freedom.
- [05:53]
A
It really has been ongoing. I mean, you think about how long ago that was, and I was a baby lawyer at the time, and now we're 22 plus years into this, and this is a long. Been a long legal road, not only for Scott, but I'm sure for Lacey's family. It's never easy to hear these things come back up in the press, especially because I know her mother was so, you know, so much a part of what went on there and how difficult this was for her family.
- [06:21]
C
Yes, yes, it's so true. And you remember her victim impact statement and how gut wrenching it was there in the courtroom. And also, you know, you got to recognize Amber Frey in all of this as well, because she really was a hero during this case and she preserved her testimony when the tabloids threatened and actually did, you know, come out with photos of her that she had taken earlier in her life. And she still did not sell out her story. And she testified on the stand and she recorded those conversations with Scott that were so, you know, damning for him. And so, yeah, she would have had to have gone through this all as well. She was the prosecution star witness, of course, during that trial. So many victims of this story beyond just Lacy and her unborn son Connor. But for now, this, one of the nation's most notorious convictions, stays firmly in place, at least for now.
- [07:20]
A
And I think you're right. Amber really was a star witness and she, you know, was a victim because she did not know that he had a wife and child and so or soon to be child on the way. And so she was definitely put in a position where he lied to her. And I think that her testimony is actually in the end, not only her testimony in terms of the way he acted with her, but how he acted after the fact, I think was really key in having a jury convict him. And here we are all these years later. And I think you're right. I think this may be close to the end of the road for Scott, but we will continue to follow it as this was one of the really true, first true crime cases that took the world by storm and continues to do so. So much has been written and spoken about, and here we are talking about it now.
- [08:06]
C
Indeed, we are, we are. And there's more to come. I think there's at least one or two more chapters left, at least with these appellate rulings still to come.
- [08:16]
A
Absolutely. Claudia, thank you so much for your time. I appreciate you joining me today.
- [08:20]
C
You're welcome, Donna. Thanks.
- [08:24]
A
Joining me today is former criminal prosecutor and defense attorney Michael Cardoza. Michael, thank you for joining me today.
- [08:32]
B
Certainly.
- [08:33]
A
Michael, how did you get involved in the Peterson case?
- [08:37]
B
I was doing legal commentary for the Today Show, Larry King show and other shows in the Bay Area when sometime near the end of the trial, the defense team came to me and asked me if I would do a mock cross examination of Scott Peterson, which I agreed to do. And I alerted the court to that Judge De Lucky, who was the trial judge, about my attempt, or not attempt, but about to do a cross of Scott. And after I did it, I alerted the press that over the weekend I had done that, my cross of Scott Peterson. So that was my very limited part of being on their defense team.
- [09:35]
A
So when you say you alerted the judge, do you mean that you filed a, you know, additional appearance or what? What do you mean when you, you alerted the judge that you were going to do this?
- [09:44]
B
Well, it was a little bit self serving because I knew once the press found out that I did a mock cross examination, they would have thousands of questions to ask me. And part of the deal or agreement that I made with the defense was that I was going to alert the judge and also the press that I had cross examined Scott, because some might say that my comments after in effect, joining that team for a short period of time might affect my commentary on the case. So I met with Judge Deluci, the DA and the defense team and told the judge about the cross examination. And actually it was a little bit comical because I told him about it and said I'd like to be gagged because that would be my best way to avoid press questions. So we went into Chambers, the DA and the defense team, and I had known Judge DeLuke because I had tried cases in front of him in Alameda county. And I told him and he said to me, I don't want to gag you. I don't want to do that. And there was a little bit of banter going back and forth and I said, judge, please be gagged me, because gagging me is going to stop me from talking to the press. So after about 10 minutes he finally said to me, all right, that's what you want. You're officially gagged until the end of this trial. After the guilt phase of the trial, I'm going to gag you. I said, okay, fair enough. Then I went outside and had a press conference and told the press that I had cross examined Scott and a mock cross examination, but I was prohibited from walking at that time. So that's what happened. Generally at that period of time during the trial. The defense told me, when I asked, I said, hey, look, you're near the end of the trial, but you know, I'm doing all this legal commentary and you're really going to cut me out of how much longer is the defense going to last? And they tell me, and don't worry about it, maybe a week, maybe a week and a half. And I said, all right, as soon as it's over, you know, I'll be back on there and I'll be able to be a commentator again. I should have known better. What lawyer has ever able to estimate that type of thing? You, you've been there, you tried a lot of cases. You know, how long will you be on?
- [12:25]
A
Absolutely.
- [12:26]
B
How long will the trial last, Judge? Don't worry about it. Short time. I'll be across a couple questions. And then two days later, you're still doing it. So that's basically how it went down.
- [12:39]
A
Well, let me ask you, do you think that the press at the time, knowing that Scott had been cross examined, even in a mock circumstance, and then did actually testify, do you think that that hurt him at all in terms of the way the media looked at it or the way that they wrote about it, given the fact that it was well known that he actually did sit through this mock cross examination?
- [13:04]
B
Well, keep in mind, as you know, jurors are not supposed to look at or read anything about the trial. So that information theoretically did not get to the jury. If it did, would I think it affected their thinking? You know, I would doubt it, but it might. But notwithstanding, as you know, jurors are instructed, don't be watching anything on television, the radio, don't read anything about this case. Everything you need to come to a conclusion or a verdict will come from the testimony in the courtroom. So I've got to believe the jurors never even knew about that.
- [13:49]
A
And so in the opportunity that you had to actually sit down and do a mock cross examination of Scott Peterson, how did you feel about Scott after you were able to do that and finish asking the questions that I'm sure were quite difficult for him to answer, given what was going on during that period of time and obviously the immense scrutiny he was under in terms of the relationship with Amber Fry.
- [14:17]
B
Well, as you know, I can't tell you anything about that because notwithstanding the fact I was only part of the defense team for a brief period of time, I cannot say what he said or what the attorneys talked about. But whether he testified or not, after I finished my mock cross, they made up their minds about whether Scott should testify. So I didn't have any feelings about whether he'd do, you know, well on the stand or not. That was completely up to them. And, you know, whether they wanted to prepare him more was up to them. Because, you know, when you do mock cross examinations, oftentimes defense attorneys will say, all right, well, you sort of cut into it there. Let's try that again maybe, and not changing your answer, but just stating it a little bit differently. I did not help in that area. I don't know if they did that. I don't know whether they based their decision not to put Scott on the stand because of the way he responded in cross or because after I finished, they then took him and tried to prepare him for a possible, possible testimony. So I don't know that. I don't know what they based it on. They didn't ask me to help them, you know, sculpt his answers. Not that you change answers, but there's a way to answer a question at times in front of a jury. So I don't know why they made that decision.
- [15:55]
A
And in terms of mock cross examination in general, just so the viewers and listeners understand, a mock cross examination is what lawyers do when they have any, any defendant or witness in a case that's going to be cross examined by the other side and sit down with that witness and ask the questions that are going to be usually more difficult to answer, just to see how they handle the pressure. Do you think that's a fair character characterization of what a mock cross examination truly is?
- [16:25]
B
Absolutely. I mean, you know, I, I don't know how often you put your clients on this stand. There are a lot of attorneys, criminal defense attorneys, that believe don't put him on the stand because you lose control. Others and I've talked to a lot of really good trial attorneys say, no, I want to put him on the stand in this case. I want the jury to get to know him or her. So there are all sorts of things that go into deciding whether a defendant, your client, should take the stand or not. But I do know this. You know, you can prepare them from now to forget about it. You can think of every question you can bring. Great trial attorneys in to do my crosses. But once you put them up there, I know you've sat there. When you put people up, if you have you sit there and your whole body becomes tense, it becomes crazy, because they start to answer and you're going to, oh, my God, where are they going with this? And you try to stop them. You know, answer the question. If they ask you what color the car was, don't tell them, well, you know, I bought it in 1950 from my grandfather, and it's like, no, no, no, don't. Just yes or no. So you lose control. And that is very hard for defense attorneys. And we always, at least I always hesitate in terms, should I put him or her up there? You know, what do I do? Sometimes it works out wonderfully, and other times you want to shoot yourself, you know, sitting at the council table, you go, oh, my God, why did I put him or her up on that stand? They're absolutely imploding up there. And that depends. And you know this. It depends on how good you think the prosecutors are. How good are they that cross? Because I know when I was a prosecutor, there were some DAs that couldn't cross worth a darn because they just don't get the chance. I was lucky enough, and I've tried. Well, so old now, well over 200 jury trials. You know, I was able to cross a lot of defendants and a lot of witnesses. And in my day, when we started, there was no reciprocal discovery. And that means we as a prosecutor got no discovery. They put people up, for example, in a robbery case, I remember a robbery case that I tried, where they put a witness up and he goes, hi, I'm Joe Smith, and I was with the defendant at that time. We're drinking in the local bar. And he wasn't at the robbery. No. We sat there and you're going, who is this guy? You're grabbing the sleeve of your investigator going, go, run this guy. See if he's got a rap. Who is he? I think that made us that group of attorneys, better trial attorneys and better able to cross because we didn't have the plethora of discovery that defense attorneys have now. You know, you can get all this discovery now that's mandatory, and you can prepare a pretty good cross. Back in those days, you did it off the seat of your pants, but it made you awfully good, made you think on your feet.
- [19:44]
A
I think you're right. And I think you're also right about the fact that prosecutors normally aren't that great at cross examination because not A lot of lawyers do, especially cross examinations of defendants because either a, they're not putting on a case and they're relying on the state's inability to prove someone guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, or it's not a defendant that they're cross examining. And in my case, I probably put more defendants on than most people people because I do so many sexual assault cases in that consent realm. Realm is a consent or is it not consensual? And I do a lot of self defense murder cases. So those are two areas of the law where juries really do like to hear from defendants. No matter how many times you tell them that they don't have to testify and that, you know, you don't have to, you can't take that into consideration in your deliberations. At the end of the day, I do think that in certain cases it's important to put, you know, how do
- [20:41]
B
jurors not do that? You know, you tell them not to.
- [20:45]
A
Right.
- [20:45]
B
And you've got to know in their mind they're thinking it if the defendant doesn't testify. Because how many times have you heard on voir deer, well, if he's innocent, you know, then why isn't he getting up and defending himself? And then of course, the judge butts in and I always love this, yes, Mr. Juror, but despite that fact, you can be fair. Oh, okay, Judge, I can be fair. And I laugh at that.
- [21:13]
A
The best rehabilitation ever.
- [21:16]
B
I'll tell you a quick story. I did one jury trial where, thank God, I had a medical doctor and I went as I voidiered him and talked about what he was feeling in his heart of hearts and could he really be fair? He finally said to me, you know, now that I think about it, I can't, I just can't do it. And the judge did that. Well, wait a minute, you could put that aside and they'll never forget. The doctor looked at the judge and said, you, Honor, didn't you hear what Mr. Cardoza and I were talking about? No, I can't be fair. Honest to God. Eight other jurors raised their hands and said, me too. I got rid of nine jurors and one fell swoop because they really dug in and said, you know, subconsciously, I'm going to let it affect me. So when judges do that, I think, number one, how do you define fair? What's fair to you is not fair to me. So how do you do that? So, you know, jurors will give lip service to, oh, I won't do that. But you know darn well they will. So what do you do?
- [22:22]
A
Yeah, no, you're right. It's. It's very true. And I think that's part of, you know, the. The flaws in our system is when judges do start to ask people who really feel like they're in a lesser position, right? There's this person on a bench in a robe saying, well, you can be fair. You can put that aside. And of course they're going to come back with, yes, yes, your honor, yes, I can.
- [22:43]
B
Yeah. Then it's like, you bloodiered enough, you know, I gave you five. Oh, thanks, judge. The guy's life is on the line.
- [22:50]
A
Yeah, right.
- [22:51]
B
You're giving me five minutes. Thank you so much.
- [22:54]
A
You know, I do find that really interesting. Jurisdiction by jurisdiction, and I try cases all over the country, and there's some places that just let you ask anything you want, and you can go through a million questions, and the judges are fine, and there's other places where the judges don't even let you ask the question. So it's just really interesting how we have such variations in our system that
- [23:17]
B
screams of federal court, what you're talking about.
- [23:20]
A
It sure does. It sure does. So let's talk about the Innocence Project and their allegations, claiming that there were Brady violations in the Scott Peterson case. And just so everybody's aware, Brady violations involve evidence being turned over, and the prosecutors have an obligation to turn over pieces of evidence. And the Innocence Project is saying that in the Scott Peterson case, there was evidence that was withheld. Why don't we talk about what they're claiming was withheld?
- [23:50]
B
Well, I've not heard that they're claiming that there was evidence withheld. I know there's a situation that gestational period and the way the forensics were done, I know they're questioning that and saying that was old science. There's new science now that said that Lacy and her unborn child, Connor, did not die until December 28th. And they're asking, or they asked the court, let us get that evidence and in front of a jury. So that's one of their claims. The other claim that I know about is that burglary that allegedly happened across the street. They're saying other people, and I don't know if you've ever heard this, but here in the Bay Area, we call it the Sodi defense. It's the. Some other dude did it. That's Sodi, not my guy. Some other dude did it. They're saying, now, wait a minute. These burglars probably did it. And because the police didn't investigate that, I assume that's what you're talking about, because there wasn't a lot of discovery about initially about the burglary across the street. And I know a really good friend of mine. He became a really good friend after the trial. Ted Rollins from Court TV happened to be standing in front of that burglarized house on the day the police said it happened. And they said it happened on that day, and therefore it didn't happen at or about the time that Lacy was kidnapped. And I remember Ted said, no, I stood in front of that house all day. There was no burglary that day. And I assume there.
- [25:36]
A
I think that was. Was really. Yeah, that was definitely an issue because they talked about the fact that she was kidnapped or, you know, missing on December 24th, Christmas Eve, but that this house was burglarized on December 26th. But that wasn't the case. It was actually the same day, December 24th.
- [25:55]
B
Exactly. And then they had other witnesses that allegedly saw Lacy walking the dog. But the defense knew about those back then, and I know they talked to those witnesses, and they chose not to put those witnesses on. So the judge is basically saying, in essence to the defense when she denied the habeas. Now, wait a minute. You're just taking old evidence and repackaging it and hoping that we'll draw a different inference from it. This is not new evidence, and therefore she wouldn't hear the motion and out of hand, just denied it. As for other evidence that wasn't turned over, I don't know of anything else myself that they're arguing about there.
- [26:47]
A
Well, I. I think they were talking about evidence about a van that was attached to the crime. And I don't know if this is information the defense had originally, but what I've been reading about is a van attached to the crime that they found burned, and that in that van, there was a mattress that had blood on it, and that that blood was never tested. So I don't know if the defense was actually aware that that existed at the time or if that was information that available after the fact. But I think it's really interesting, and I don't know, and you would know this better than I would, given the fact that you were much closer to it. I don't know if at the time the case went to trial, that December 24, December 26 date issue was resolved. So you would know that better than me. I don't know the answer to that.
- [27:40]
B
Was it resolved into the defense's mind, it was resolved. They didn't put any evidence on about that or attack that in, in any way, I'm not sure because again, I only took a very small part of this, you know, what they thought about the van and the DA or DNA in the van, you know, and what the technology was back then. Because as you know, DNA has come leaps and bounds since 2004. So I'm sure the defense is talking now. We want to look into that. And I remember their motion before, the one that was just recently denied spoke to that, but Judge Yield turned that down too. So there were all sorts of other things in the trial that, you know, I thought were wrong. I have no opinion, nor would I give one about whether Scott did it or not. But I'll tell you this, I don't think he got a fair trial for all sorts of reasons.
- [28:40]
A
Yeah, I think that's interesting. And I mean, this case obviously has been dissected for so many years. This happened 22 years ago almost. And here we are. And this is, you know, there's been so many documentaries and, and in, in the most recent, I think, documentary on Peacock, Scott said that he wished he would have testified. Now, I know that that is Monday morning quarterbacking and it's very easy for a defendant to say that, but sitting in my position as a defense attorney, thinking about Scott Peterson taking the stand, and even though I agree that the case was highly circumstantial, I think there was a lot out there to question. But I also think that Scott would have been under extreme scrutiny from the prosecutors. And it's a lot easier to look at this case when all of this time has gone by. But we really have to remember, first of all, this was in the news nonstop. It was almost before the 24 hour news cycle in this case became a 24 hour news cycle. And I was a brand new lawyer, fairly new at the time that this case, I graduated from law school 26 years ago. So I was a fairly new lawyer at the time. This case was being talked about daily, nightly morning, all portions 24 7. And Scott himself, I think was painted as such a villain that I think cross examining him today about an affair would have a different effect on jurors than Maybe it did 26 years ago. You know, you have the pregnant wife at home and she's missing and you have a, you have this girlfriend and the girlfriend doesn't know that you have a wife and that the wife is missing. And I think that back then that area of cross examination was Much more of a hot button issue than it is 22 years later. What do you think about that?
- [30:34]
B
Well, let me start with something I thought was that might be of interest to you. First of all, remember this happened in Modesto, California. It's some 80 miles approximately away from Redwood City. When the defense asked for a change of venue, that change of venue was granted. And when it's granted, the chief justice of the California Supreme Court then makes a decision. Where do I send this case? You know, where should it be tried? Not Modesto, because that change of venue has been granted. Instead, the chief justice came up with, let's send it to san Mateo County, 80 miles away. And when I heard that, I thought, whoa, wait a minute, that's the same area. The media, I mean, our media covers, you know, Northern California. And certainly what goes on in the Bay Area covered Modesto and vice versa. Everybody here in NorCal, Northern California had an opinion about whether Scott Peterson was guilty. A lot. I know a lot of people like you just said, oh, he's having an affair. Well, then he's guilty. And you know how wrong that is, right? Oh, he's having an apparently life.
- [31:50]
A
Correct.
- [31:50]
B
And I said on TV a lot, isn't that the essence of an affair? You lie about it, you're cheating in this case on your wife. So are you going to tell the press, oh, yeah, I was having an affair. Or do you lie? The fact Scott lied to my mind didn't make him a murderer, but there were a lot of people that did. So by moving the case to San Mateo, to Redwood City, San Mateo county, the city of Redwood City. I thought, that's too close. Send it to Southern California, to la, to San Diego, where people knew about the case but did not know the intricate details of the case and didn't have opinions. And you know, when you voir dear or a jury, a juror could say, yes, I've heard about the case, but I haven't come to an opinion about it. So the fact I've heard about it doesn't mean anything. But these jurors have opinions about the case. Well, can you set that opinion aside? And I about fell off my chair a couple times in the courtroom. Oh, yeah, Judge, I'll set that opinion aside. And I thought, baloney, I'm not going to set it aside. You've already made up your mind and now you're going to do this confirmation bias thing where. Well, you know, I'm not going to let that fact I know he's guilty interfere, but let me Find facts that support my thinking about it. That's why I thought that was the worst thing that could have happened. I thought, no, Norcal, you're not going to get a fair jury here. And look at the jury he got. I mean, you talk about the most famous. What's her name? Nichelle Nice or Nice the strawberry shortcake.
- [33:31]
A
Yes.
- [33:32]
B
Where she. Oh, I forgot. I. I didn't know that. You know, the domestic violence counted. Gee, I should have told you about that. And I'm thinking, come on, you've got common sense. Of course you should have told them. And then that juror.
- [33:47]
A
Well, especially when you listen to the rest of the voir and, you know, all the questions being asked.
- [33:52]
B
Yeah. So there are all sorts of things that I thought was wrong, but here, here's. Here's inside baseball for you, okay? At the beginning of their trial, the attorneys for the prosecutors began to prosecute. There were only two of them in court. Two of them. And they were trying to get a photograph. I'll never forget this. They're trying to get a photograph in. And they were fumbling a little with it, you know, And I'm thinking, whoa, how much experience do you guys have? You know, this is like a photograph, you know? You know how simple it is. Hey, your Honor, our witness. This photograph accurately depict the scene at the time? Yeah, something goes in. Judge Deluci actually took the photograph from the prosecutors and said to the witness, this accurately depict the. Not the incident, but the area at the time. Yeah, it did. Okay. It's in the next day or the day after there was another prosecutor there. And I thought, wait a minute, what's going on? And now I think she's now DA of that county. She came in a couple days later, I guess, to straighten that the DA's out in the courtroom. But I thought that was really interesting, you know, that something very simple like that they sort of fumbled around with. And I thought, whoa, okie doke. Especially.
- [35:17]
A
Especially a case of that magnitude.
- [35:19]
B
Oh, no question. I mean, we come, you know, you're from Chicago, we come from bigger counties, and we have a lot of courtroom experiences because of the crimes that go on. I've tried, God, well over 40 murder trials, you know, at that time. So, you know, we tend to get more experience in smaller counties. But notwithstanding, I was thinking, oh, my God, you know, who are these people? But yet they were able to put it in and get their conviction, you know, after they got rid of a whole bunch of yours.
- [35:54]
A
Let me ask you, what do you think the appellate Court is going to do. Now that the Innocence Project has been denied their, their requests and their motions before the court, they have said that they are going to appeal. Do you think that there are any options here for Scott Peterson? And if they are, what are they? And if not, is this the end of the road for him?
- [36:17]
B
Well, certainly they can appeal the denial of the habeas. They can always then, after they exhaust the state, go to the federal. But to put it in the terms of. I remember Monday Night Football with Don Meredith. Long ago, he would sing at the end of the game, turn out the lights. The party's over. I think the lights in the Peterson case are dimming, and it's time that the courts are going to turn out the lights on this case. It'll go on appeal. My guess would be it's going to be denied. You know, appellate and supreme courts don't like to overrule the trial attorney or not the trial, the trial judge, or the judge hearing the motions. So he may get his appeal, but I don't see them being successful at it. The best shot they have is, in my opinion, is the gestational argument that they say proves that Lacy and Connor died sometime between December 28th and January 5th and not on or about December 24th. Therefore, Scott's, you know, not guilty. Whether the appellate court will give any credence to that, that's their only shot. But the lights are dimming quickly on the Scott Peterson case.
- [37:37]
A
And really, the fact that he was taken off death row and was successful in that request, I think was probably the real win for him in this situation.
- [37:46]
B
No question. I mean that here's what strikes me. You have all, all the things that we've talked about and a lot more that we haven't talked about. So the Supreme Court looks at that and says, all right, what we're going to do is reduce it from death to lwop, life without possibility of parole. That's the break we're going to give Peterson. We're not going to deal with all this other stuff. He stays in, in prison. Instead of saying, we're going to reverse this because he didn't get a fair trial with all the ancillary things that went on, the change of venue, getting rid of that one juror, Hawk or whatever his name was, when he was talking to Lacy's brother in the line going in, he gets kicked off for that. Then you had doctor Lawyer kicked off. Doctor Lawyer was a juror who was both a medical doctor and a lawyer, which I always thought Whoa, why would you do that? But, okay, you know, he wanted to vet the evidence more with the jurors. And they said, we already made up our mind. We're not doing this. You're holding us up, and therefore, you should get off this jury. And they complained to judge, to Lucky, and he got. He got dosed. So I'm thinking, wait a minute, you're dossing jurors left and right, you know, and then you bring strawberry shortcake in. Plus. And I'll tell you why I think moving the case to San Mateo was wrong. As you sat in that courtroom, out front of the courthouse was an area where the TV tents were, and it's like a courtyard. You could hear the crowd in the courtroom. You could hear them. And for example, when the guilty verdict came back, you could hear them cheer. And I thought, whoa, they're cheering that loud? I thought, what am I back in the 1850s where there's a mob out front that's going to break him out and, you know, hang him out here in the courtyard? And I thought, what kind of juror or how would that affect you? Because they're sitting there, they're hearing this cheering. When the guilty verdict came back, they've gotten a, whoo, I better bring back death on this one. Because you don't think they thought, oh, my God, if I hang this Jerry the guilt face or hang the death face, people are going to know me, know where I live. And I could no longer live in San Mateo County. And I thought that wouldn't happen down south. But that's why I say change of venue was, you know, a big deal in my mind.
- [40:26]
A
Well, I'll tell you, we've seen it in a lot of high profile cases. We had the mobs out cheering for Karen Reed. And, you know, she was found not guilty, obviously, and guilty of a misdemeanor dui. But she was. She had a huge amount of support cheering for her in the background. And there was all the people cheering against Harvey Weinstein, that's for sure, and screaming out the windows. And while the jury was being selected, there were flash mobs happening outside. So, you know, things that happen. Michael, I thank you. Exactly. I sure do. I thank you so much for joining. And we will see what happens next with Scott Peterson's appeal. Have a great day.
- [41:02]
B
Thanks. You, too.
- [41:05]
A
Thank you for joining me for another episode of Crime and Justice. Remember, we want to hear from you. Send us your thoughts, questions, or theories, and we will answer them on air.