20 May 2004 Jury selection concluded
5 more prospective jurors were qualified (5859, 5966, 2084, 873, 11340), allowing the court to excuse prospective jurors scheduled for voir dire on the 24th and 25th. The qualified prospective jurors were ordered to appear on May 27 for the Big Spin Jury selection process.
24 May 2004 Geragos charges Prosecution with "outrageous misconduct" and seeks sanctions
In a motion filed Monday, May 24, Geragos charged the prosecution (which includes the Modesto Police Department as well as the DA's office) of intentionally violating the established rules for hypnosis so Diane Jackson would be eliminated as a witness.
Diane Jackson reported seeing three dark-skinned men in a tan or brown van in front of the Medina home about 11:40 a.m. on the morning of December 24th. She reported this to the police, and was interviewed by Detective Stough. She was also interviewed by McAllister's Private Investigator Gary Ermoian. The day after her statement to Ermoian, she was hypnotized by the Modesto Police, who failed to use a California-licensed hypnotist to perform the hypnosis.
Geragos claims, in the motion, that Jackson is "a percipient witness whose testimony supports [Scott's] factual innocence of the charged crimes" (2:11). Furthermore, "Ms. Jackson's testimony is of a nature such that [Scott] cannot obtain comparable evidence by other reasonably available means" (2:5-7).
Geragos says that effectually eliminating Jackson as a defense witness is the equivalent of destroying evidence. He does not call for dismissal in the Motion, but does include this quotation from one of his cited sources:
Dismissal is, on occasion, used by courts to discourage flagrant and shocking misconduct by overzealous governmental officials in subsequent cases. (5:10-12)
Geragos asks for relief from the Court as follows:
Permitting the defense to call Jackson as a witness OR
Permitting the defense to offer into evidence all pre-hypnosis accounts by Jackson of the relevant events AND
Granting any other relief the Court deems necessary and appropriate.
It is very disturbing to think that any law enforcement officer would intentionally invalidate a potential defense witness.
In the same motion, Geragos reveals that still another witness who claimed to have seen Laci on the 24th was ignored by LE.
Just last week the prosecution turned over reports disclosing an interview with a witness who saw Laci Peterson being pulled into a van by at least two men. This eyewitness, who has been a sworn peace officer, has apparently been known to the prosecution since December of 2002 yet he was only interviewed within the last week. The witness confirmed his sighting of a woman he identified as Laci and her two abductors. However, the Modesto Police Department chose to ignore this former peace officer's report -- presumably because "it was not going in the right direction." . . . Even more disturbing is the fact that the prosecution contended that this evidence need not be produced to the defense since the materials constituted "impeachment." (9:21-10:6)
Not surprisingly, the People's response to Geragos' motion denies any "bad faith" on the part of the prosecution. It also gives a different story about the new witness.
The defense states that the prosecution "just last week turned over reports disclosing an interview with a witness who saw Laci Peterson being pulled into a van by at least two men." The defense does so in order to mislead the court, and anyone else who reads their motion, to suggest that this is completely new information that wasn't previously provided to them.
The defense neglects to tell the court that the alleged sighting took place on December 28, 2002 (four days after Laci Peterson disappeared) and that the witness had previously spoken to Modesto Police Detective Denis Holmes on that same date. Further, the witness's description of the woman's clothing did not match the clothing Laci Peterson was wearing when she was ultimately found. Finally, the witness's name, address, telephone number and a description of his statement were previously provided to the defense on May 14, 2003 in the initial discovery (Bates No. 14791, see attached discovery log signed by Bill Pavelic).
27 May 2004 The Jury Panel selected
In a random process, 12 potential jurors were seated and the Prosecution and Defense took their turns using their peremptory challenges until 12 remained without challenge, 7 men and 5 women. The same process was completed for the alternates. Juror #9, a man, then presented a letter of non-reimbursement from his employer, and was excused for cause. Alternate #1, a woman, became Juror #9 and another Alternate #1, a man, was chosen. This change set the Jury panel as evenly split -- 6 men and 6 women.
Judge Delucchi ruled: THAT THE DEFENSE INTERVIEW OF MISS JACKSON CAN BE PRESENTED AS EVIDENCE AND MR. GERAGOS CAN REFER TO IT IN HIS OPENING STATEMENT. THIS IS BRADY EVIDENCE AND IT WOULD BE AN ERROR FOR THE COURT NOT TO PERMIT THIS EVIDENCE IN AT THIS TIME. THE ISSUE OF MISS DEMPEWOLF WILL NOT BE REVISITED.
Geragos said the Defense will not raise the issue of Satanist Cults and will refer to the location of the Albany Bulb but not to the artwork on it. Since the matter regarding the mystery woman (Amanda H.) is still under investigation, if Geragos decides to call her as a witness, sufficient notice will be given to the Prosecution so they can prepare any objections they may have.
Geragos told reporters outside the courtroom that he will be calling the PI Ermoian as a witness, and he will testify to the contents of Jackson's report. Dean Johnson, former DA, told reporters that he isn't certain how the process will work. He said Geragos may call Jackson, and then the DA can impeach Jackson on any part of her testimony that does not agree with the report given to Ermoian.
Court adjourned to reconvene on June 1, with the Judge to swear in the Jury and give instructions, followed by Opening Statements.