Judge Delucchi reviewed the CalJIC instructions he planned to give to the Jury with the attorneys. He indicated that if the jury hung, he would give them the instruction used by Judge Virga (People vs. Moore. 96 Cal.App.4th at page 1105). If they are still hung, he would give them the Stone instruction. And if they remain hung, he would rule a mistrial.
Then Judge Delucchi explained the purpose of the Closing Arguments to the Jurors:
We've come to the part of the trial now which is called argument. The law permits the attorneys for either side to argue to you reasonable inferences and deductions from the evidence that's been presented; okay? The prosecutor
makes an opening argument. The defense attorney makes his argument. And then the prosecutor has a closing argument. The reason why the prosecutor gets two chances to argue to you is that the prosecutor has the burden of proof. Since he has the burden of proof, the law gives him two chances, okay? Now, during
the course of these arguments, if the attorneys make reference to some portion of the evidence that's different from your recollection of what was testified to, feel free to disregard the attorney's version of what took place and rely on your own memory. You're the trier of fact. Sometimes during the course of the trial the lawyers will ask a question, and while they're formulating the next question they may not hear the answer the same way you did. So it's not an intent to deceive you by any means, but it happens, okay? So the point is if there's a conflict in the evidence, if you have -- and your recollection is that it's one way -- and, of course, you have your notes, and we have read back, too -- you can rely on your own version of the events that took place, okay?
Rick Distaso presented Closing Arguments for The People. Full Text Highlights:
It’s simple. It’s a simple case where a man murdered his wife.
I can't tell you he did it at night. I can't tell you he did it in the morning. I don't have to prove that to you. I only have to prove that he did it.
The only person that we know without any doubt who was there in the exact location where Laci and Conner Peterson’s bodies washed ashore at the exact time when they went missing is sitting right there <pointing to Scott>.
That alone is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. You can take that fact to the bank, and you can convict this man of murder.
'I was once with a woman who I thought was my soul mate, but I lost her.' Laci Peterson was dead to Scott Peterson a long time before he killed her.
I’m not telling you that he killed his wife to go marry Amber Frey. Amber Frey represented his freedom. Freedom is what he wanted.
This is the life that Scott Peterson wanted. Not necessarily to be with Amber Frey, although he was completely obsessed with her. The reason he killed Laci Peterson was that Conner Peterson was on the way. Things were going to change. No more of this running around, living this double-life thing.
He wants to live the rich, successful, freewheeling bachelor life. He can't do that when he's paying child support, alimony and everything else.
He didn't want to be tied to this kid the rest of his life. He didn't want to be tied to Laci for the rest of his life. So he killed her. There's no big secret there.
I don't care how upset you are, nobody forgets that you just got home from fishing at the Berkeley Marina.
Peterson had planned to dump Laci's body, get back to Modesto and go to the golf club, but the disposal took longer than planned. And that was it. He just screwed it up, screwed up his alibi.
He's a very manipulative guy. Scott Peterson, he knows exactly what he's doing at all times. The two lives are catching up on Scott Peterson.
He got those [porn] channels because he knew she's not coming home and he's moving on with his life. He created a fantasy life in his head and he made it his reality.
Delucchi continued the discussion of Jury Instructions. Geragos objected to the inclusion of the 2nd degree instruction based on 667 of the CCP and 1259 of the Penal Code, both sections. Delucchi overruled his objection.
Mark Geragos gave the Closing Arguments for the Defendant. Full Text Highlights:
Scott Peterson asked his sister-in-law to come over for pizza the night detectives think he killed his wife.
Authorities found no trace of evidence indicating she was murdered in the home.
He paid her health insurance premium the day before she vanished.
Police evidence photos showed a curling iron out in bathroom, though their housekeeper testified she put items away the day before.
Someone used a computer in the home on Dec. 24, 2002, to search for a fleece scarf and a sunflower-motif umbrella stand. It’s reasonable that Laci Peterson, who wore scarves and had a sunflower tattooed on her ankle, surfed the Internet that morning.
Someone printed from the Internet a recipe for crème brûlée that morning.
A neighbor, whose bedroom is about 15 feet from the Peterson’s Covena Avenue home, heard nothing unusual that night.
After researching the umbrella stand, Laci Peterson probably asked her husband to put their patio umbrellas in storage. That’s why they were in his pickup when police arrived — not because he used them to cover her body, Geragos said.
Testimony indicated that Scott Peterson was attempting to spend more time with his wife’s parents because they would soon have a new grandchild.
Scott Peterson appeared affectionate in a store and rubbed his wife’s stomach, an employee testified.
The theory that he didn’t want to be saddled with child support doesn’t make sense, because Laci Peterson stood to inherit $1 million — perhaps wiping out her husband’s obligation if they divorced.
He let police search his home and warehouse, provided blood and hair samples and retrieved receipts proving where he was the day in question.
The uncontroverted testimony is that this guy searched more than any human for his family.
Distaso’s suggestion Monday that Peterson grabbed a handgun for protection just before leaving to dump his wife’s body makes little sense.
Where did that come from? Now he’s going to shoot it out with the CHP on his way to the marina? That’s so absurd, makes no sense. The only thing they’re banking on is you’ll hate him, and if you hate him you will suspend rationality.
Detectives’ tunnel vision kept them from investigating reported sightings of Laci Peterson for several months, yet on Jan. 2, 2003, they used media to appeal for help from anyone who might have seen Scott Peterson’s pickup or boat.
If Scott Peterson was the person who was responsible for Laci's death, wouldn't he know what she was wearing when he killed her? Why would he tell them a white shirt and black pants? What sense would that make? Then he hides the tennis shoes and while she's dead, he watches Martha Stewart.
Geragos concluded his Closing Argument for the Defendant. He discussed the twine around Conner's neck, and Dr. Peterson's statement that it had to be cut because it could not be removed over the head. He noted the possibility that the twine was used to keep a bag on Conner, and that the bag was held in place by the twine. Geragos reviewed several of the jury instructions, reminding them of their responsibility to apply them as they deliberate. He argued that he has proven, beyond reasonable doubt, that Laci was alive on the 24th.
Rick Distaso gave the rebuttal argument for The People. Text Distaso argued that major elements of the case are pretty much stipulated to: Laci and Conner were human beings and they were murdered with malice and aforethought. He said premeditation is also stipulated to, in the sense that the Defense claims someone other than Scott abducted Laci, intending to kill her. That makes two first degree murders proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Distaso then noted that much of the Defense case rested on hearsay information, which was not admitted for the truth and which cannot be considered by them as the truth. The only exception was Diane Jackson's statements.
Distaso continued to argue that because the bodies were found where Scott said he went fishing, only two possibilities exist: either Scott put them there, or someone else did just to frame Scott. He claimed it is an undisputed fact that Laci and Conner were in the Bay for 3-6 months, and argued that it's not reasonable to conclude someone else put Laci's body in the Bay. Distaso concluded with a few more rebuttal points regarding Scott's visits to the Marina, his research on the internet, the Croton watch, and the lack of injuries to Scott's hands. To explain the mineralization on Laci's pants that Dr. Peterson said resulted from repeatedly being alternately covered and exposed, he said that occurred during the process of being washed ashore and while she lay on the rocks before being found.
Distaso closed his argument by refuting Geragos' claim that the Prosecution frequently changed its theory. He said the Prosecution has not presented a theory until the Closing Argument, that it's not allowed to do so.
Judge Delucchi then read the instructions to the Jury and retired them to select a foreman and begin deliberations. Deputies assigned to the jury were sworn and identified for the record. Text
Judge Delucchi heard arguments from Ms. Wilcox, representing the media, on the issues of access to the in-chambers transcripts and live video coverage of the verdict. Delucchi denied both requests, and audio only will be allowed for the reading of the verdict.
The Jury requested to see the following exhibits at
9:42 a.m.:
People's
Number 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 15A through C, 28, 37, 38, 53, 54, 63, 73,
68, 68A,
107, 111A through K, and 112.
The Jury requested to see the following exhibits in
the late afternoon:
People's 23, 23A, 79, 90, 207A, 212.
The
foreperson requested to see the boat again, and that was scheduled
for Monday morning.
Defendant's DD1 through 3, DIII, DJJJ, and DOOOO.
Defendant's T, U, Z and 5Q.