CLOSING ARGUMENTS OF MARK GERAGOS

PEOPLE v. SCOTT PETERSON

               A PROJECTION

by Daniel A. Horowitz, Attorney

August 15, 2004

 

 

In this document, Daniel A. Horowitz anticipates the closing arguments of Mark Geragos in the People v. Scott Peterson case. The contents are not necessarily the personal opinions of Daniel Horowitz regarding the actual facts.

 

Basic Summary

A third person (possibly a boyfriend) of Laci Peterson kidnapped her and killed her. Her body was buried somewhere and later, in an effort to blame Scott Peterson, the body was exhumed and dumped off the Richmond-San Rafael bridge. Before the body was dumped the head was removed to hide the cause of death, a bullet or blunt trauma to the skull.

Scott Peterson’s romance with Amber Frey was initiated not due to his "cheating" on his wife but in response to being cheated on. He anticipated announcing a separation from Laci after Christmas and truly believed that he and Amber would be together at that time.

Supporting Premises

 

1. Amber Frey’s taped conversation with Scott Peterson (January 6, 2003 11:30 pm tape) establishes that Scott believes that Laci Peterson is pregnant with someone else’s baby, and therefore by extension, has had or was having an affair.

Amber: You know, you don’t have to tell me directly and it’s not something ... it’s something I’d like to hear. But Scott, I don’t feel I. I. I. Hear you, that’s not your baby.

Scott: (Changes topic)

Amber: You didn’t answer my question.

Scott: I know.

AND

 

Amber: I just have to say it sounds to me in your choice of words that this baby is not yours.

Scott: (No answer)

 

2. Scott and Laci were going to break up. If Scott or Scott and Laci were going to announce their breakup after Christmas it would explain many of Scott’s statements including:

A. He would be able to spend more time with Amber in January.

B. His response to Amber’s question on January 9 about how he had "lost" his

wife. He explains there are "different types of loss".

C. His statement to Amber that he had never cheated on her (Amber).

D. Scott’s claim that Laci knew about Amber Frey and was "fine" with it.

E. His repeated statements that there was more he wanted to tell Amber

but could not because it would hurt third parties (i.e. Laci’s family).

F. And, finally, it provides an explanation for some of the accusatory statements made by Amber Frey:

Amber: "This has to be the biggest coincidence I have ever heard of," ............. "I mean, are you psychic? I mean, you predicted your wife would be missing?"

Again, the defense will argue she wasn’t going to be "missing", rather, that just after the holidays Scott or Scott and Laci were going to announce their separation.

3. The observations that Scott’s conduct has been called "cold" is explained by Scott’s belief that Laci is pregnant with another man’s child.

A. Not hugging Sharon Rocha as they first searched for Laci.

B. Not crying about Laci’s disappearance.

C. Wanting to sell the house and her truck after she disappeared.

D. Not telling Ron Grantski that he had purchased a boat. (He is pulling

away emotionally from Laci’s family and did not/could not spend much

time with them.)

E. Going to the 12/14 Christmas party with Amber and leaving Laci alone at the other

Christmas party on the same night.

F. His romancing Amber and drawing close to her infant child. It was real

love in anticipation of being alone with Amber due to divorce. (Amber’s

father has stated that they were both in love. Amber told him that she was

in love with Scott)

G. Police finding one of the couple's wedding albums stuffed in a trash can

(Feb. 18, 2003). This was already explained as a trash can being used as a

storage bin but an impending divorce provides further explanation.

4. Once Scott’s credibility as a person is improved, the defense will pinpoint the good parts of his taped statements. For example, in the tape from January 6, 11:30 pm:

Scott: "My God, Amber. I had nothing to do with her disappearance."

 

5. There is an alternate explanation as to what happened to Laci (one that has already been floated by the defense).

A. The Frey tapes reveal that Scott believes there is another man responsible for Laci’s pregnancy. Therefore, there is at least one other man who might have had a motive (never specified) to kill Laci.

B. Witnesses will testify they saw Laci being put or pulled forcibly into a van or truck.

 

6. The body/bodies were dumped into the Bay weeks, not months, before they were found in a deliberate attempt to frame Scott.

It was public knowledge that Scott Peterson went fishing at the Berkeley Marina on the day that Laci went missing. The defense spin on the bodies will be as follows:

A. The actual killer first buried the body/bodies somewhere else.

B. Several weeks before the bodies were found he decided to place them where Scott had been fishing in order to frame him.

C. He dug up the body/bodies and removed Laci’s head. He did this because the mode of murder was a shot or blow to the head. As he knew there would be no blood or tissue found in the Peterson house, he had to hide the cause of death otherwise suspicion would have been deflected away from Scott.

D. The bodies were not in the water for months. Some of the evidence of this includes:

1. The recent emergency forensic testing being done is on items the East Bay Regional Park police remarked as having a strong smell of decay. This shows that the bodies and items were not in the water long enough to have all of the decayed/decaying material and odor washed off.

 

 

2. As argued in opening, debris found on the fetus was not kelp, as the prosecution had said, but electrical tape. "It’s a man-made material and the baby's ear is folded over," Geragos said in opening. The fact that the glue had not completely been dissolved by the water and conditions in the Bay and was still affixed to the baby points to a more recent depositing of the body/bodies.

3. Det. Nelson told jurors about a piece of duct tape about 15 inches long that was attached to maternity pants on the body of Laci. Again, the duct tape would have detached from the body if it had been in the water for months.

E. Geragos will remind the jury that in opening statements he told them of witnesses who reported seeing a suspicious van in the Petersons' neighborhood around the morning Laci Peterson disappeared. He will call these witnesses.

F. Geragos will then call the former Deputy Sheriff who said that he saw a woman who looked like Laci being shoved into a dark colored van.

G. Geragos will not pick a particular scenario for how Laci died, but will remind the jury that the prosecution is asking the jury to speculate about how she was murdered. There is no evidence that Scott killed Laci. Geragos will remind them that the Modesto police took more than 100 bags of material from Peterson’s home, car and warehouse. When state crime lab scientists analyzed all that "evidence", they came up with "Zip, nada, nothing".

Some Projected Defense Counter-Points During Closing

The prosecution has not adequately prepared for this closing and Geragos will have done an excellent job of preparing counterpoint responses. It can be argued that some of these responses are incomplete or not perfect but they are good enough for reasonable doubt.

 

 

Tan vs. Black Pants

When interviewed by Brocchini on December 25th and in the February 2003 recorded telephone call with Sharon Rocha, Scott says that Laci was wearing black pants when he left the house the morning of December 24th. The prosecution claims that Laci’s body was found with tan pants. This is the color of the pants she was wearing the night before she was killed. It raises the suspicion that Scott killed her that night and therefore was never awake the next morning and never was wearing black pants.

Geragos will simply say:

1. We don’t know in detail how tan the pants were or what shade of tan the pants were.

2. Black pants fade when they are in water or on a body when it is buried. Black can fade to tan or some variant of tan.

 

The Electrical/Duct Tape and Plastic Bag

The prosecution will argue that the electrical tape (or whatever it was), duct tape and plastic bag found were actually just debris from the construction project in progress at the Richmond Bridge.

Geragos will simply say:

1. Why didn’t they call someone from that project to identify the items?

2. Do you construct a bridge with duct tape?

3. If some of the debris came from the construction site then maybe that is where Laci and Conner’s bodies were dumped. If the debris can come from there, so can the bodies.

The Fish Story

The prosecution will argue that the water was too rough to fish in that small boat and that Sturgeon were not the right fish to look for in that area.

Geragos will simply say:

1. Then it was too rough for Scott to go far out on the water and dump a body. It is, instead, far more likely that the other person dumped the body/bodies from the Richmond Bridge.

2. Internet sites show that you can fish for Sturgeon there.

3. The Fish & Game Code of California references Sturgeon fishing

(and outlaws trolling) in that general area.

Detective Brocchini

Geragos will then launch into his attack on Brocchini:

1. Brocchini turned Amber Frey against Scott Peterson.

2. The taped Amber Frey and Scott Peterson calls are really Frey/Brocchini and Peterson calls. He can say that it almost constitutes a police interrogation. Then he can read to the jury each accusatory statement made by Amber Frey and each assertion of complete

innocence by Scott Peterson.

3. The finding of a hair on the pliers. Geragos will ask to have explained how little pliers are in any manner related to putting cement anchors on a person.

4. The finding of chicken wire and cement. Geragos will ask how is chicken wire used to tie cement to a person. And, oh by the way ... there is a picture in evidence of chicken wire and a trowel in the back of Scott’s truck. Chicken wire/cement/trowel equals

stucco repair.

5. Brocchini spun all evidence (as above) for guilt.

6. Brocchini lies and similar matters:

A. Excised important fact from report about visit to nearby warehouse.

B. Told Amber Frey that Scott would get $250,000 from insurance but

failed to note that if the body were not found there was a seven year wait.

C. Told Amber Frey that blood spots were found in Scott’s truck when, in fact,

they were not blood spots.

D. The famous "duct tape" exaggeration testimony pertaining to a tip from an old acquaintance of Scott’s.

E. Brocchini’s relationship with the police officer/client and potential

suitor of Amber Frey (who told her to call Modesto PD).

F. The prosecution’s failure to inform the jury of the identity of the man

who told Amber to call Modesto PD.

 

 

CONCLUSION

Geragos will end with a strong argument for complete innocence and will remind the jury that if there are questions that the prosecution has not answered, even a single unanswered question, it is reasonable doubt. He will argue that his theory of third party guilt is actually better documented than the prosecution’s theory of Scott as the killer. He will then say that if his theory of third party guilt is reasonable then there is reasonable doubt. He will quote Judge Delucchi’s instruction to the jury that if there are two theories and each is reasonable, that they must accept the theory pointing to innocence even if the jury thinks that the theory of guilt is stronger.

Unless Rick Distaso is prepared to answer each of the items above, he will not obtain a unanimous jury verdict of guilty.

August 15, 2004

Daniel A. Horowitz