Judge Delucchi denied Defense Motion to Dismiss, saying the Prosecution had met the burden of evidence sufficient to withstand an appeal if the Jury renders a guilty verdict.
Defense Witness #1: Carl Jensen, PI
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: David Harris
Jensen testified about the walking Laci would have done during the Carmel trip and the collection of concrete samples from the Peterson driveway. Regarding the Carmel trip, Jensen noted the distance from the Normandy Inn to the beach was 1419 feet, including a steep incline, and from the beach to the water's edge another 125-150 yards. He noted that the distance from the Normandy Inn to the shopping mall where Laci and Jackie shopped is 3/4 mile one-way. Harris asked, on cross, if there were parking lots at the shopping mall so that possibly Laci drove there instead of walked. For the concrete samples, Jensen described the time frame and the process he used to collect a single large sample from the driveway to send it to be tested. When he attempted to remove the large piece with a shovel, it broke into 11 pieces. All 11 were sent.
Judge Delucchi gave these instructions to the Jury:
Before you call Mr. Gebler, I want to instruct the jury about expert testimony to sort this out. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm going to instruct you. You are going to hear this instruction again before the case is submitted to you. But we have had the testimony of all these different experts. Now I'm going to give you a jury instruction to help you assess the testimony of these experts so you have some direction when you are trying to decide what weight you are going to give the testimony of each expert that may be called to testify. This is the instruction. What it says, it says witnesses who have special knowledge, skill, experience, training or education in a particular subject have testified or will ! testify to certain opinions. This type of witness is referred to as an expert witness. In determining what weight to give to any opinion expressed by an expert witness, you should consider the qualifications and believability of the witness, the facts or material upon which each opinion is based, and the reasons for each opinion. An opinion is only as good as the facts or reasons on which it is based. If you find that any fact has not been proved, or has been disproved, you must consider that in determining the value of the opinion. Likewise, you must consider the strengths and weaknesses of the reasons on which it is based. You are not bound by an opinion. Give each opinion the weight you find it deserves. You may disregard any opinion if you find it to be unreasonable. Now, this instruction applies both to the prosecution experts and to the defense experts that you will be hearing from. Okay, we'll take the morning recess until 11:30, then we'll pick up with Mr. Gebler.
Defense Witness #2: Steven Howard Gebler, Engineer
Construction Technology Laboratories, Inc.
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: David Harris
Gebler examined the concrete samples collected by Jensen and also took 2 of his own samples. He testified that the concrete in the driveway and the anchor and the concrete debris on the trailer and on the boat cover match, refuting the testimony by Prosecution's concrete expert that the concrete in the driveway did not match the other 3.
Defense Witness #3: James Anthony Cavallero, Britz Fertilizer
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: Rick Distaso
Cavallero sent Trade Corp a check for products purchased on November 7, 2002. A few days later, he received a call from a check cashing company wanting to verify the check. The payee had been changed on the check. After seeing the community-type mailbox Trade Corps had in mid-November, Cavallero advised Scott to get a PO Box. When Laci disappeared, Cavallero called the tip line to report the stolen check incident, but he wasn't called back.
Defense Witness #4: Martin Laffer, CPA
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: David Harris
Laffer, a CPA and former criminal investigator for the FBI, reviewed the report and testimony provided by the Modesto City Auditor, who testified for the Prosecution. Laffer said Scott had no legal responsibility for Trade Corp's finances and that he and Laci were not living beyond their means and were, in fact, sitting pretty. He could not see any evidence of financial motive for Scott to murder Laci and Conner.
Defense Witness #4: Martin Laffer, CPA
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: David Harris
Laffer continued his direct examination today with questions about the corporate structure of SAPEC, a private investment company that wholly owns Trade Corp Inc and Trade Corp USA. He reviewed CA DOJ Mansfield's analysis of Scott and Laci's financial situation and his testimony; the investigation into possible embezzlement and misappropriation conducted by Modesto City auditor Nienhaus, and his testimony; and the testimony by Brent Rocha on the value of the various parts of the Rocha Estate and when each would be distributed. He concluded that Trade Corp's financial situation was irrelevant to Scott's financial condition and Scott had no financial benefit from Laci's inheritance if she was out of the picture.
Harris noted several factors that were not included in the information from Mansfield and Nienhaus--Laffer gave an opinion on whether they would affect his conclusion about Scott and Laci being in good financial position, but noted his intent was not to do a thorough investigation, but to look at what the Prosecution witnesses did.
Defense Witness #5: Timothy Phillips, East Bay Regional Park District Officer
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: David Harris
Phillips is an officer with the East Bay Regional Park District and responded to the call on April 14 reporting human remains along the Point Isabel shoreline. Because of an early recess because of an alternate juror's illness, Phillips had only had time to provide some background information on where various items of fabric and a tarp were found in relation to the body and the Hoffman Channel.
Defense Witness #5: Timothy Phillips, East Bay Regional Park District Officer
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: David Harris
Phillips described in detail the fabric items and tarp that were found near Laci's remains on April 14. The focus of his testimony, though, was on the decomposing scent he noted with the tarp, the same scent he noted with Laci's remains. Geragos asked a lot of questions about the Hoffman channel and the marshy area between Point Isabel Park and Hwy 580. Phillips said the area is closed after 10 pm but he frequently sees transients there during the night and early morning hours and a portion of the area is used as homeless encampments. Phillips also noted that the water level in the Hoffman channel rises and falls with the tide.
Dave Harris queried Phillips about the decomposing smell on the tarp compared to Laci's remains, and Phillips last words of testimony were, to him the smell was the same.
Defense Witness #6: Ronald Robert Seitz, Dog Handler
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: David Harris
Seitz, a member of CARDA and Chief of the Alameda County Search and Rescue Team, was called by CARDA to participate in the searches using dogs at the Berkeley Marina on December 28. His dog TJ, like Anderson's Trimble, is a trailing dog. Given the choice of the sunglasses case and the pink slipper to use as the scent article, he chose the slipper. He said glass cases tend to be handled more by other family members, whereas slippers are not. He worked his dog in the area above the launch ramp for about 1-1.5 minutes, and the dog did not pick up a scent. The discussion about scent theory and different dog's abilities sometimes was quite convoluted, discussing possibilities of cross-contamination and ability to do a vehicle trail. Seitz said even the best dogs have only about an 80% accuracy and readily admitted that either his or Anderson's dog, which did alert on one of the launch ramps, could have been right.
Defense Witness #7: Kevin Bertalotto
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Bertalotto, investigator for the Stanislaus County DA Office, first appeared as a Prosecution witness and now is recalled as a Defense witness. Geragos began his direct examination by eliciting the details of a call Bertalotto received from a Chris Clark in response to a ModBee article that said the Prosecution planned to provide evidence that Laci had stopped walking two months before she disappeared. Clark offered his own eye-witness testimony to contradict that theory. Working for a family living on Encina, the man saw Laci walking McKenzie on Encina at least 5 times after October 15. He also saw the two of them in the park, and said one of the family members would talk to Laci when she waked McKenzie. He last saw Laci and McKenzie walking two weeks before Christmas. He said he knew it was Laci he had seen because on the night of the 24th he and the family he worked for on Encina brought coffee to the Peterson house.
Defense Witness #7: Kevin Bertalotto
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: Rick Distaso
When Ron Grantski made the 911 call on December 24, he said the husband was golfing all day. He told Bertalotto he thought he got that information from Sharon. When he interviewed Sharon, she said she assumed Scott was golfing, because that was normal for him.
Bertalotto is the one Karen Servas called to change her timeline after her Preliminary hearing testimony. The Judge instructed the jurors that they may consider prior inconsistent statements when weighing a witness' credibility. Servas also informed Bertalotto that she identified the time of her ATM transaction at Bank of America as 10:53 am.
Distaso raised issues of the Clark tip credibility, by noting that Clark had a substance abuse problem and could remember dates in relation to just getting out of a rehab center. He also raised issues the Officer Phillips' testimony by asking Bertalotto if there were any short, stocky Modesto Detectives at the autopsy. The Judge sustained the objection, and he specifically asked if either Brocchini or Grogan were there. They weren't.
Distaso's questions on recross went beyond the scope of Geragos' direct, but were allowed by Delucchi to remove the need to call Bertalotto back for the Prosecution's rebuttal case.
Defense Witness #8: Ricardo Cordova
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: Birgit Fladager
Cordova is now a Judge with the Stanislaus County Superior Court but in December 2002 was an attorney in the public defenders office. At 10:15 p.m. on December 23, someone knocked at his door, asking for money to help his girlfriend who was stranded in the foot hills. Another neighbor had the same experience. A white station wagon was reported parked within 150 feet of the Peterson home. Cordova was currently working a case with a similar situation as an MO for casing a neighborhood. Cordova told Ridenour about the man, but when Officer Reed canvassed the area, he didn't seem to know about it.
Cordova is also the one that saw the pair of flip flop sandals in the front yard of the Peterson home, near the street. He saw them there the 25th and the 26th, and called them to the attention of two officers, but they were not collected as evidence. Cordova didn't know whether they were related to Laci's disappearance or not. Bertalotto had in his report that Cordova said he thought they were unrelated to Laci's disappearance, but Cordova said he did not tell him that because he didn't know whether they were related or not.
Cordova also briefed the jury on Laci's civic involvement and his concern about her boldness. Fladager brought up that she was engaged with Scott in those activities that had Cordova concerned.
Defense Witness #9: Charles Michael March
Direct Examination: Mark Geragos
Cross Examination: Dave Harris
The Court accepted March as an expert in gynecology, infertility and reproductive matters. March reviewed all of Laci's medical reports, and the reports/testimony of Laci's doctors, Dr. Peterson the forensic pathologist, Dr. Galloway the forensic anthropologist, Dr. DeVore, and Renee Tomlinson testimony on the day Laci had a positive on her home pregnancy test. He accepted Devore's measurements and age dating, but not his interpretation of when Conner must have died. He testified that the earliest Conner could have died is December 29, with the range spreading into January.
Harris refuted March's testimony on several grounds. He questioned why March is the only one out of all the doctors and experts who came up with a different death date. March responded he was not aware that either Peterson or Galloway came up with death dates, and that Galloway's age estimates fall within his time range, not Devore's. Harris brought up the possibility that Conner was a small baby, but March responded that that would extend the date out even further than December 29.
Harris also sought to discredit March because of his emphasis on the June 9 pregnancy test in determining Laci's conception, saying the only evidence of such was Renee Tomlinson's statement. Geragos countered with information about other family member statements to the media that Laci called all of her friends early on June 9th to announce her pregnancy.
March became flustered at times, and very long winded with his answers, but he stood his ground that the earliest Conner died is December 29.