In Chambers Meeting on Juror #5 and Brent Rocha incident
Judge announced that the deal about Juror 5 was all
fabricated by the media. He questioned both Brent and Juror 5,
separately, and their stories matched perfectly. Geragos wanted
entered into the record that the story put out by some media was a
total fabrication. Almost 100% was 100% false. Delucchi said the
in-chambers transcript would be released to the public, so everyone
will know the truth.
Prosecution Witness #44: Stacy Boyers, Laci's friend
Boyers said Scott didn't want any pictures of Laci that
had him in them to be circulated to the media, and on Dec 25th when
she was at the Covena house, he was vacuuming the area around the
washer and dryer. When she asked him why, he said he couldn't keep
the house clean enough. She didn't know about the affair at
San Luis Obispo, or about Amber.
On cross, Geragos asked how many people had been in and out of the
house on the 24th and 25th, and the dogs and cats in and out. He
also brought ought Scott saying that he didn't want his picture out
because he wanted it to be about Laci, not him.
Boyers also said that a party on November 20 is the first time she saw Laci wear the grandmother's jewelry -- she hadn't any at a party on November 14. The jewelry Laci was wearing on November 20 was very noticeable on her and attracted attention. At the party on December 14, she was not wearing the pendant, that is the one the jeweler said Laci always wore and wouldn't take it off.
Prosecution Witness #45: Lori Ellsworth, Laci's friend
Prosecution Witness #46: Rene Tomlinson, Laci's friend
2 more of Laci's friends. For the most part, the Prosecution used their testimony to demonstrate that Laci was too tired and too uncomfortable to be walking the dog on the 24th. A point repeated several times is that Scott insisted that no pictures of Laci with him in them were to be distributed to the media. When asked why, he said he wanted this to be about Laci, not about him. Lori Ellsworth revealed that Laci's friends were "invited" to attend Amber's press conference and that Amber spent that night at her house. After Amber's press conference, Buehler interviewed the friends all together to see what they remembered, looking back.
Prosecution Witness #47: Debra Wolski, Laci's Yoga Instructor
She testified about the amount of jewelry Laci was wearing on one of her visits, the same day she was bringing it in to a jeweler to be appraised. She estimated the jewelry to be worth about $55K. She also testified about Laci's condition on Dec. 20, saying Laci was in pain and needed assistance getting to her car. Laci told her the baby had shifted to a sideways position and asked her assistance to get him to shift back. The Defense scored a point with her testimony, though, as time after time when Geragos referred her to what a police report said she said, she would reply, I didn't say that, or I never told them that. This is a recurring theme in this trial -- information put into police reports contradicted by the witnesses.
Stipulation, Debra Wolski's testimony
"The first stipulation pertains to the testimony of Ms. Wolski, who testified yesterday. You remember the lady with the -- that was last. Here's the stipulation, the stipulation as it relates to Deborah Wolski's testimony: The parties stipulate that Deborah Wolski, the last witness who testified yesterday, never told anyone from the prosecution or the Modesto Police Department that Laci had to be helped to the car or had difficulty walking on uneven surfaces; okay? That's the first stipulation."
Stipulation, Videotaped interview between Brocchini and Scott
"The parties stipulate that only the relevant portions of the videotaped interview between Det. Brocchini and Scott Peterson will be shown to you, the Jury."
Prosecution Witness #48: Allen Brocchini, MPD Testimony Prelm Testimony
Most of Brocchini's testimony is simply a recap of his Preliminary Hearing testimony -- necessary to get it into the court record. Some new information came out today, though. We now know what happened to that pizza that was out on the counter when the police first arrived at the home but not when the photos were taken later that night. Simple enough, Scott put it back in the fridge. We also learned that March 28, 2003 was an important day for Amber -- as Scott made note of it in both his notebook and day planner. Finally, we learned that Ron Frey called Scott. It was listed as one of the last 10 phone calls on one of Scott's cell phones on February 18.
We saw some damage control. We now have Brocchini's explanation for not noticing that meringue was mentioned on the Dec. 24 Martha Stewart show -- it was mentioned only once and he didn't have the written transcript at the time. And he testified about the financial records and the suggestion to Trade Corps that they audit Scott.
We are also left with some unanswered questions. First, what was the condition of McKenzie's leash when Scott came home? Karen Servas said it was "very muddy" with leaves and dirt when she put him in the backyard, such that she had to wash her hands. No mention of Scott having to wash his hands after removing the leash -- and I presume he ate the pizza with his hands. None of the police that did the walk throughs have mentioned the condition of the leash, whether it was muddy. Karen Servas had talked to the LE that night, when she talked to Scott on the phone he handed her over to one of the officers, and she told him about finding McKenzie. Why weren't they interested in the condition of the leash?
That becomes even more important now that we know that the Christmas lights at the Peterson home were not on a timer, but had to be plugged in and the outlet was in the shed. Amy Krigbaum testified that the lights were not on during the day, but they came on about 4:30 pm. She had not seen Scott's pickup in the drive at any time during the day (she awoke after he left) and it was not in the drive when she saw the lights come on. So, who turned the lights on? Then, Scott said they were off when he returned from the park that night. He thought maybe the cat was playing with the cord and unplugged it.
The biggest hit for the Prosecution, I believe, is Scott referring to Laci in the past tense during that interview on the night of the 24th. No matter how one tries to explain it away, referring to a loved one in the past tense leaves such a lasting negative impression.
In Chambers Meeting, Juror #5 dismissed
JUDGE: All right. This is the case of People versus Scott Peterson. Let the record show the defendant is present with counsel. And the jury is in the jury box, along with the alternates. Before I invite any comments from Mr. Geragos, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, one juror has been excused. You are not to speculate as to the reason why that juror has been excused. You have all been questioned individually by the Court, and I want to reaffirm, and to strike home, or emphasize as much as I can, that you are not to listen to, read, or watch any media reports of this trial, nor discuss it with any representatives of the media or their agents. You are not to discuss this case among yourselves or with any other person, or form or express any opinions about this case. Now, you have to scrupulously observe that admonition. If you don't, it could lead to serious consequences with respect to this trial. So I have to rely on your integrity to follow the Court's instruction. It's not being given to you just in a flippant manner. It's very important. And I think this last experience should be -- should make everybody aware of how important this particular issue is. So what we're going to do now, we're going to seat the first alternate as Juror Number 5. First alternate will now be Juror Number 5. Mr. Geragos, do you want to address the Court, make your record?
GERAGOS: Yes, I do, judge. I would like to move for mistrial. I believe that the media has insinuated themselves into this case in a way that is unprecedented. I do not believe that the jurors should be called out. I don't believe the jurors should be called names on TV. I don't believe that the jurors should be interrogated or cross examined. I think it's an outrage. I have got a client who is on trial for his life. But these people have given up their life. They shouldn't have to be subjected to this. I think it's an outrage, what's going on in this case. I think the media has insinuated themselves into this case in a way that is unconscionable. I object in the strongest terms and move for mistrial.
JUDGE: All right. The motion for mistrial is denied. I think that the media is here, we have to live with the media. They do what they do, we have to do what we have to do. So that's the way it is.
GERAGOS: The problem is, is that the media is choosing off jurors, and I think that's outrageous.
Prosecution Witness #48: Allen Brocchini, MPD Testimony Prelm Testimony
When Geragos' cross of Brocchini began, obvious tension kept both the attorney and the witness from even being civil to each other. Brocchini refused to look at Geragos, keeping his eyes intently on the jury. Geragos asked him why he would not look at him when he asked questions. Distaso objected, and the Judge said he could look wherever he wanted. However, after only a few questions, Delucchi wisely recessed for the lunch break, suggesting each needed to calm down.
Back after lunch Geragos was in his usual form, and Brocchini was much more cooperative, answering the questions asked and at least occasionally looking at Geragos. Geragos started by going through the taped Dec 24 interview, point by point. His message to the jury was pretty consistent -- what Scott told Brocchini proved to be true, either through receipts or witnesses or videos.
A couple of the points made were:
Geragos called attention to the beginning of the video and asked what Scott was looking at on the table. Brocchini didn't know. Geragos informed us that it was pictures of Laci.
Why did Brocchini order the videos for the Martha Stewart show for both the 23rd and 24th, when he already knew from interviewing Margarita Nava and Ron Prater that Scott was not at home on the 23rd when the show aired?
LE interviewed the 2 fishermen that Scott said saw him at the marina on the 24th.
Brocchini said it was suspicious that Scott said Laci was wearing the same clothes on the 24th that she wore on the 23rd, and that he said the Martha Stewart show was about meringue, but when he viewed the show, he didn't notice the mention of meringue.
Prosecution Witness #48: Allen Brocchini, MPD Testimony Prelm Testimony
In his opening statement (OS), Geragos said he would prove that two police officers lied. He made good on that promise today as Brocchini admitted that he "excised" from his report a conversation he had with Peggy O'Donnell, the owner of the shop next door to Scott's Trade Corps warehouse. O'Donnell told Brocchini that she saw Laci at the warehouse on Dec. 23, the day before Laci disappeared. Laci had gone to her place of business to use the bathroom. Going through LE photos of the warehouse, Geragos emphasized that Laci could not have known the bathroom was blocked by fertilizer products and not have seen the boat. Geragos didn't end there. He introduced into the testimony a dinner date Scott and Laci had with the Miligi's about 3 weeks before Thanksgiving -- at that dinner Scott talked about a boat. Brocchini knew of this, too.
Of course, this provides the Defense with a reasonable explanation for the hair in the pliers. If Laci was in the warehouse, even in the boat (as further suggested by Geragos in his OS), then the hair has good reason to be there. Geragos carefully reviewed the testimony at the Preliminary hearing about the single hair that became two hairs, and appears to be setting Brocchini up for a planting evidence accusation.
It also explains why the cadaver dogs did not alert in the boat at the warehouse, but the scent dog did alert at the Berkeley pier. Laci's scent would have been in that boat, wherever that boat was.
Needless to say, it thoroughly washes out the Prosecution's claim that Laci did not know about the boat.
Geragos did further damage to the Prosecution's case by calling attention to Brocchini's poor handling of two eye witnesses that said they saw Laci and/or McKenzie the morning of the 24th. Brocchini claimed a thorough search of the area was conducted, but admitted one witness was not shown a picture of Laci because the witness said he did not see her face and could not ID her. When asked if he showed the witness a picture of McKenzie, Brocchini said, No.