Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Awaiting Scott Peterson Sentence
Aired December 13, 2004 - 15:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Here is a live look at the courthouse in Redwood City, California, as we wait to hear whether Scott Peterson will live or die in this case. That verdict will be read at 4:30 p.m. Eastern. And we are all standing by for that. Right now you'd usually be watching INSIDE POLITICS but we're going to continue with our rolling coverage of this story. I want to give you a play by play of what lead up to what we're waiting for today, the verdict. CNN's Rusty Dornin takes us through that time line.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The pregnant mother with the thousand-watt smile, Laci Peterson disappears Christmas Eve 2002. Family and friends launch a campaign that quickly makes national headlines.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Laci Denise, if you're hearing dad, we love you very much and we want you home.
DORNIN: Her husband Scott says he went fishing in San Francisco Bay that day. Her family supports him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know he's a good man. He's always treated our daughter like a lady.
DORNIN: But it seems police aren't so sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's not been ruled out as a suspect. He hasn't been ruled in as a suspect.
DORNIN: Peterson refuses to do interviews and will only say he wants the focus to remain on the community search for his wife. Then on January 24, a dramatic development. Amber Friday steps up to the microphone.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We did have a romantic relationship.
DORNIN: Stunned the missing woman's family changes their minds.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since Scott is no longer communicating with anyone in Laci's family as we have so many questions he has not answered I am no longer supporting him.
DORNIN: A few days later Peterson does four television interviews.
SCOTT PETERSON, CONVICTED OF MURDERING WIFE AND UNBORN SON: I had nothing to do with her disappearance but people still accuse me of it.
DORNIN: Then in mid-April two bodies wash ashore in San Francisco Bay. They are identified as Laci Peterson and her unborn son. Scott Peterson is tracked down and arrested in San Diego. He has $15,000 in cash, two different I.D.s and has changed his hair color. That day Laci Peterson's mother describes months of haunting nightmares.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In my mind I keep hearing Laci say to me, mom, please find me and Conner and bring us home. I'm scared.
DORNIN: Police search for more evidence in the bay but turn up nothing. Scott Peterson's family hires celebrity attorney Mark Geragos. Over a year later, the trial starts. All eyes are on the prosecution's star witness, Amber Frey. Jurors hear tapes of phone calls secretly recorded between Frey and Scott Peterson. In several calls Peterson lies to her and pretends to be a jet-setting bachelor just days following his wife's disappearance.
A lead investigator tells the jury the police have 41 reasons to suspect Scott Peterson. The strongest argument Peterson admits he went fishing where his wife and unborn son washed ashore. Prosecutors say he was a liar, a cheat and a man that would murder his wife to avoid the responsibility of a child.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It certainly gave the jury enough that if the jury is inclined to convict they certainly can convict.
DORNIN: Defense attorney Mark Geragos tries to poke holes in the investigation accusing police of not following up on leads or other suspects. No murder weapon, no evidence of a crime scene, no cause of death. Geragos says there was no evidence Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child and had no motive to do so. He urges jurors not to convict Peterson just because they hate him. Reasonable doubt, he tells them is their only option.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Five months of really no evidence, no evidence whatsoever and Mark is bringing that all together very concisely.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O'BRIEN: That was from CNN's Rusty Dornin. Let's go to CNN's Rusty Dornin and the rest of the team live in Redwood City. Rusty, want to talk a little bit about the scene there right now but I have to pick up on what Justin Falconer was saying a little while ago. I don't know whether you had a chance to hear it. You have heard what he has said in the past about the non too subtle pressure that he feels jurors felt, all throughout this trial, via the media just by virtue of walking up those steps every day and being around the media. He felt that this jury was under pressure to come up with a guilty verdict and ultimately to come up with a sentence of death. What are your thoughts on that? What are others saying about that whole notion? Is Justin kind of an outlier on this one?
DORNIN: It's quite possible. They were not sequestered. The judge did not want to put them through five months of staying away from their families. He, of course, admonished them at every court break not to talk about the case. Not to listen to TV. Not to read the newspapers but it's very difficult. Some of them were trying to go to work on Fridays because there wasn't any court on Fridays. They were exposed. They walked by the sort of gauntlet of reporters. There has been an area where many of the legal analysts have been talking. And I have to confess there were times when I heard people say things about what they saw in court that I thought well, I was in there, I didn't see that. I didn't hear that. It was very interesting.
So how much they allowed themselves to be exposed certainly, they were feeling some kind of pressure perhaps in some way. But whether that can be proven, whether that will change the circumstances of any kind of appeal is very unclear.
O'BRIEN: Now, let's set the scene a little bit. A line is forming, I'm told, not far from where you are. Who is in the line? Is it -- obviously there are spaces reserved for families, attorneys, reporters. But is there a fair amount of general public just milling around there as word gets out here?
DORNIN: Oh, absolutely. This is what happened on Friday when everyone thought the verdict was going to come down on Friday. There were -- several hundred people had gathered here. There was even a man who was against the death penalty with signs against that. There are people who are in favor of the death penalty. They also had signs that they wanted the right punishment for Scott Peterson. A lot of the court watchers. All coming around here. It's beginning to happen again this afternoon. People waiting outside here to hear what that verdict is. Upstairs, outside the courtroom, of course, Ted Rowlands, my colleague, is standing in a line outside the courtroom. As soon as they open the doors they will be letting the reporters in and some members of the public in the courtroom to hear this verdict. Probably about 30 public seats. I'm not sure exactly how many media sets are in there. But it definitely will be -- there won't be an empty seat in that courtroom when the jury comes back with their verdict.
O'BRIEN: Once again we're talking about 54 minutes or so when that is anticipated to happen. The jury will come in and make its announcement on its verdict in the sentencing phase of the Scott Peterson trial. Rusty, where does it go from here? We've been talking about the media role. We've been talking about the numbers of people out there. Walk us through sort of the events after whatever comes out today.
DORNIN: Well, after the verdict, the gag order is rescinded. That everyone can talk on all sides. The jury, prosecutor, defense, members of both families, and it's just depending on who wants to talk. They can all finally talk about this case. As far as the jury is concerned, however, they are restricted by state law that they cannot for 90 days accept any gifts above $50 in terms of airplane tickets back to New York on some of the morning shows, that sort of thing, dinners, monetary contributions. Any kind of payment. They cannot accept anything for 90 days. On the administrative side, of course, defense attorney Mark Geragos already said he's going to be filing a couple of motions perhaps for a mistrial. That sort of thing in early February. Then the judge, if it is a death penalty. The judge is going to be reviewing that recommendation, that sentence by the jury. He will come back on February 25 with his final decision on that. If it is a death penalty that the jury decides upon the judge can decide to take that down to life in prison without parole, however, if the jury comes back with life in prison without parole the judge cannot change that.
O'BRIEN: And as far as Scott Peterson's whereabouts through all this. Where is he?
DORNIN: He's, we believe, he's in a holding cell. He was in court earlier dressed in his suit and that sort of thing. Unlikely they took him back during a break and had him change. It's likely to be in some kind of holding cell here in the building. It's separated from the jail by just a covered corridor about two stories up. The jail is just across the street. He will remain in the San Mateo County Jail until February 25 when he is sentenced. Now if he is sentenced to death he will go to San Quentin. That is where death row is. He will join some 600-odd prisoners who are there. If he is sentenced to life he could go to a level four prison where Charles Manson is.
Also we'll be talking to Robert Talbot one of our legal analysts here about some of the places they might go. Might be Pelican Bay which is another level-four prison. They take a lot of things into consideration when they are deciding where they will put them for life in prison. He will likely be kept away from the general prison population for his own safety. He will be considered a marked man. That's an argument his defense attorney Mark Geragos made to the jury saying, look, he's going to have a horrible time in prison. He's going to have a cell the size of a king-sized mattress. He's going to be a marked man. He's going to have to look over his shoulder any time he walks anywhere. Likely they are going to keep him away from the general population if he's sentenced to life.
O'BRIEN: You mentioned Robert Talbot. He's sitting there beside you. Let's bring him into the mix here, Rusty.
Robert, the whole motion of Geragos filing a motion for a mistrial, that's pro forma stuff, that's stuff that you would expect. But on what basis would he go for a mistrial, do you think?
ROBERT TALBOT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIV. SAN FRANCISCO: Well, he's going start from day one, that this was a venue that was prejudiced against his client and probably right up until the final instructions that were given in the death penalty phase where the judge -- where he wanted the jury to be able to consider sympathy for the family as part of their considerations...
O'BRIEN: So, in other words...
TALBOT: ... and everything in between.
O'BRIEN: It's a kitchen sink kind of thing. Just throw it all in there and hope something sticks in this case, correct?
TALBOT: Yes. And there is a lot. There's a lot of evidentiary rulings that he felt pretty strongly about, Mark Geragos. There's the two jurors in that last week being dismissed, which is highly, highly unusual. If there's something in there that looks suspicious, he might have something to hang his hat on.
Also the appellate courts look at the case. And the facts of this case in which there were no where, when, how or why to the murders, proved solidly by the prosecution might influence them on some of these other decisions.
O'BRIEN: A little while ago Chuck Smith was seating in that very hot seat that you are in right now. I'm going to put you on the spot right now. What's your take given the circumstances of how this is unfolding, the length of time the jury has talked. The type of evidence that they wanted to review just before announcing they had made a decision. Do you think they have in fact come to a decision to execute Scott Peterson?
TALBOT: Talk about the hot seat. Up until this morning I really thought it was going to be a hung jury and then with a possibility of life without parole, just because it has been over 10 years since San Mateo has had a death penalty. And the death penalty is not an easy thing to get in California, particularly in a case like this. But with the evidence that the jury asked to see, that points in the direction of someone on that jury trying to convince others that there should be a death sentence. So that's a strong possibility at this point.
O'BRIEN: Our senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, watching things from afar on the other coast in New York City. And we were talking a little while ago, Jeff, about this whole notion that juries in general are becoming less inclined to deliver a death penalty verdict. You just heard Robert talking about how it has been some time in San Mateo since that has occurred. What's at the root of that, do you think?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think two things, Miles. One is DNA. DNA has led to the exoneration of literally dozens of people on death row over the past 10 years. And jurors who are regular citizens know that. And jurors know that they are in an imperfect system. And they have become more reluctant to give the ultimate penalty because they know that the system makes mistakes.
So this is -- of course, doesn't apply across the board. I mean, obviously death sentences are given out regularly in this country. But the rate at which jurors give death sentences has gone down. And I think the scientific proof of innocence on the part of convicted individuals is one of the main reasons.
The other reason is there's just less crime in the country. In the early '90s, the country was really convulsed by the murder rate. Here in New York City we had 2,000 murders in the early '90s. This year there are likely to be 500 murders, the lowest level since 1963. New York is a dramatic example but the rest of the country has moved in that direction, as well. So there is less anger about crime. Less sense of vengeance. And I think those two factors lead in a general way toward fewer death sentences. But that by no means tells us what this particular jury is going to do today.
O'BRIEN: Now, Jeff, I don't know if you're able to hear Justin Falconer a little while ago as he spoke with us. Were you able to hear...
TOOBIN: I sure did, absolutely.
O'BRIEN: That was really fascinating to me.
TOOBIN: Totally fascinating.
O'BRIEN: Talking about this pressure that he felt. He thought it was very overt having to walk up those steps and hearing the live shots from the reporters and kind of scratching their head and wondering, geez, I don't remember that part of the testimony. And then Rusty saying, you know, I heard the same kinds of reports. That perhaps was an unfortunate way of bringing the jury in. We can leave that aside for a moment. Let's just talk about how the media could or might in some cases taint a jury and how a defense attorney might be able to use that on an appeal.
TOOBIN: They could. But I think it's really important to talk about exactly what Justin Falconer said and the implications of it, if it's true, because they are enormous. What he was saying was this is a jury that was told, don't pay attention to the news media, don't pay attention to public opinion, concentrate, consider only the evidence that's presented in the courtroom.
And what Justin Falconer was saying to you is, they ignored that. That they were influenced by what went on outside the courtroom. And that's a very serious thing. And my guess is several of those jurors when we hear from them probably within a matter of just a few hours will say exactly the opposite. Will say, sure, we knew there was press coverage, but we followed the judge's instructions. That's what jurors almost always says because I think it's basically true.
And so I think we have to be very careful about taking it face value what Justin has said. He's long on the record as thinking that this is a lousy case. He wasn't impressed by the prosecution's case. And remember, he only heard the weakest part of the prosecution's case. But I would be somewhat skeptical that many, if any jurors, agree with his analysis of how they made their decision.
O'BRIEN: Robert Talbot, in Redwood City, I don't know if you had a chance to hear what Justin had to say to us just a little while ago, but it was a very dramatic statement. A very clear statement that he feels this jury has been completely ramrodded, pressured by the feelings of the general public, via the media.
TALBOT: I don't feel that, but one observation I did have that I wanted to make, when I was first brought in to look at this case and I didn't come in initially as an analyst, I came in initially to look at what the analysts were saying. And I was asked to be in the court and then to go outside and hear what people -- how they were describing it. And what I was hearing in court was often very different than what it was portrayed outside to the media pool, which I thought was very, very interesting. And that's what drew me into the whole situation to become an analyst in this particular case.
So even though I really would take anything Justin Falconer said with a grain of salt, that one point that the media may have had some kind of an influence in this case, and there was some reporting that was going on that wasn't entirely accurate is something that is very interesting for the media to be taking a look at in this type of case.
O'BRIEN: Well, and then, of course, there were those cheers when the verdict was announced. That's something that would be inescapable to the jury. That sends a message, doesn't it?
TALBOT: That sends a very strong message. The jury is hearing that the public approves of what they have done. I don't know how much of an influence that would have on this death penalty phase, part of it. Remember, it has been over 10 years since there has been a death penalty decision in San Mateo County.
In California there's strong pressures against the death penalty. The San Francisco district attorney was elected on the platform that she would never go for the death penalty, and even in the case of a murder of the police officer I think the polls showed that 70 percent of the city was against her going for the death penalty. And that's right around the corner from here. So I don't think it would have any influence in this particular phase.
O'BRIEN: Jeff Toobin, the decision to sequester a jury is a difficult one for a judge because it is such a tremendous hardship that is asked of jurors. Will that be -- it's hard to say right now, but is that something that could be second guessed here?
TOOBIN: Absolutely. That is one of the things that judges can do to insulate jurors from the press pressure that we've been talking about. And if you recall from the O.J. Simpson case, Judge Ito sequestered the jury for the entire trial, which was nine months. Think about that kind of imposition on people.
I mean, it is unique in my experience that a judge would sequester a jury for that long. And Judge Delucchi here understandably didn't do that because you limit yourself to such a tiny pool of jurors who are willing to subject themselves to that. But sequestering them during deliberations as he did, that's much more common and understandable and I think appropriate.
O'BRIEN: And so, if they are not sequestered, and they say -- they come out today and they have an interview and say we weren't affected at all, does the defense have any sort of case it can bring to bear? In other words, if no one on the jury that made the decision said the media affected it, is that the end of that whole line of questioning as far as the defense is concerned?
TOOBIN: It's pretty close to the end of the line. They would have to -- the defense would have to get permission from the judge to depose jurors, to do any sort of investigation and judges are very protective of jurors. They don't want jurors to have to defend their verdicts, defend their conduct.
So unless the defense found some specific evidence of a specific breach of security, chances are that really would be the end of the inquiry. I would just like to follow up on something Robert said about the whole issue of press coverage. He said when he heard analysts analyzing the case, he heard mistakes. And I don't doubt that for a second.
I'm sure I made them on this and other cases as well. That's a very different question from whether those mistakes influenced the jury. And we really heard no evidence of that except for Justin Falconer's speculation. So sure there may have been mistakes in press coverage. There are always mistakes in press coverage. But whether that had an impact on the jury, that's a very separate and much more important question.
O'BRIEN: Robert, the burden of proof on that is, I guess, a pretty high burden, isn't it?
TALBOT: I couldn't hear the last words you said, I'm sorry.
O'BRIEN: The burden of proof to prove that a jury has truly been swayed, tainted, pressured, whatever you want to say, by the media, that's a pretty high burden.
TALBOT: Oh, absolutely. And it should be a high burden. We can't have the verdicts overturned constantly because of speculation or because of weak proof. And I think what I was saying was that we can't be 100 percent sure that the jury isn't going to be taking a peek at what the media has to be saying -- is saying about a particular case. That's why the media has to be very, very careful about what analysts who are in the courtroom.
And I wasn't talking about you, Jeffrey, I was talking about some of the people who were in the courtroom who were coming out and reporting what happened and what I saw them saying. I had been in the courtroom looking at the jury at the very same time being a little bit different.
Now, we go under the assumption that the jury is going to follow what the judge has to say. Except, human nature is human nature and we can't be 100 percent sure that that's going on. So it's just something -- it's just a warning for the media to be as careful as they can in a case like this.
O'BRIEN: Robert Talbot, Jeff Toobin, Rusty Dornin, all standing by as we await now, about 38 minutes away if everything goes on time for that jury to walk into the courtroom and announce to the world what they have determined to be the fate of Scott Peterson, life or death.
Stay with CNN as we continue our coverage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NGUYEN: You're watching rolling coverage of the Scott Peterson murder trial. We should hear in just over 30 minutes whether the jury has decided Peterson should live or die. As we wait, we want to go now to CNN's David Mattingly in Modesto, California, where Scott and Laci Peterson once lived.
As would we wait and this countdown continues, what are you hearing from the community?
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There is still so much lingering sadness and anger associated with this case here in the Petersons' hometown of Modesto. Some people actually today trying to do something positive with that emotion. A blood drive was actually scheduled today before we knew what was going to be happening in this trial.
People showing up today to give blood, saying that they wanted to reconnect in some way again with Laci Peterson, with this blood drive being in memory of Laci. They say that many people that did not know Laci say they have a very deep personal connection for her and very strong feelings against Scott Peterson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The world is grieving for a baby who never got to live life, a mother who was definitely taken way too early, way too early. They are both gone. And nothing can bring that back. Nothing can bring them back. And I think a lot of people are very, very angry about that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because of what he did -- I mean, it was just really rotten what he did. And he caused a lot of pain and hurt to her family and this community. So he deserves it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll let the jury decide on that. I think he is going -- when meets his maker some day he's going to get the final verdict at that point anyway.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: And I talked to so many people today who said before they never supported the death penalty but now they say if the jury comes back and says death for Scott Peterson they will go along with that. Back to you.
NGUYEN: And we are all waiting to hear what the jury decides. That's going to do it for this edition of LIVE FROM. Wolf Blitzer picks it up from here but right now we want to go to the stock market report.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Stocks rallying, driven higher by merger news and science holiday shopping is going better than expected. As the final trades on Wall Street are now being counted, the Dow Jones Industrials have moved up 97 points, almost 98 points. The Nasdaq Composite adding another 19 points. Retail sales up one-tenth of a percent in November, indicating consumers are continuing to shop. Tomorrow the Federal Reserve meets to decide on the direction of interest rates. The Fed is expected, widely expected, to raise interest rates by another quarter percentage point to 2.25 percent.
Oracle has finally reached a deal to buy software from Peoplesoft ending an 18-month hostile takeover battle. Oracle's bid values Peoplesoft at more than $10 billion. That's double Oracle's original offer. Peoplesoft's board of directors repeatedly fought Oracle's bids. Both stocks today gaining on the news.
The results of a deal between two auto giants, rivals General Motors and Chrysler, have agreed to work together to produce hybrid engines. Both companies are trying to break into the market. Toyota has already sold 100,000 hybrid units in the United States. Both Honda and Ford have at least one model on the market. Tomato prices falling back to normal levels over the past few days, wholesale prices dropped to 53 cents a pound down from nearly $1 just a pound a few weeks ago. It's a different story for milk however. A dairy trade group trying to keep the prices high paying farmers to slaughter more than 50,000 dairy cows over the next few months, trying to limit milk supplies and raise prices.
Coming up on CNN at 6:00 p.m. Eastern on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" we'll have a special report on the Chinese shell game in trade. The Chinese government says it will tax its own exports to the United States, but the U.S. says it will take care of it for them by taxing Chinese imports into this country. We'll have a look at what's really going on, who stands to benefit, and the hint, it's not the United States.
Also tonight, the intelligence reform bill expected to be signed by President Bush this week. It is nation's biggest intelligence overhaul in half a century. 9/11 commission member, former senator, Bob Kerrey is my guest tonight.
Also, continuing coverage of the United Nations Oil for Food scandal. It turns out billionaire Mark Rich pardoned by former president Bill Clinton may have been brokering oil deals for Saddam Hussein and the United Nations for years. We'll tell you who benefited.
And Major League Baseball in the midst of a steroid use scandal. Will there be punishments? Will records stand without (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Will there be reform? My special guest tonight, one of baseball's leading commentators Charlie Steiner. Please be with us. For now, I'm Lou Dobbs in New York. Now back to Wolf Blitzer and our continuing coverage of the Scott Peterson sentencing -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Lou.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
Aired December 13, 2004 - 15:30 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
BETTY NGUYEN, CNN ANCHOR: Here is a live look at the courthouse in Redwood City, California, as we wait to hear whether Scott Peterson will live or die in this case. That verdict will be read at 4:30 p.m. Eastern. And we are all standing by for that. Right now you'd usually be watching INSIDE POLITICS but we're going to continue with our rolling coverage of this story. I want to give you a play by play of what lead up to what we're waiting for today, the verdict. CNN's Rusty Dornin takes us through that time line.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): The pregnant mother with the thousand-watt smile, Laci Peterson disappears Christmas Eve 2002. Family and friends launch a campaign that quickly makes national headlines.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Laci Denise, if you're hearing dad, we love you very much and we want you home.
DORNIN: Her husband Scott says he went fishing in San Francisco Bay that day. Her family supports him.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We know he's a good man. He's always treated our daughter like a lady.
DORNIN: But it seems police aren't so sure.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He's not been ruled out as a suspect. He hasn't been ruled in as a suspect.
DORNIN: Peterson refuses to do interviews and will only say he wants the focus to remain on the community search for his wife. Then on January 24, a dramatic development. Amber Friday steps up to the microphone.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We did have a romantic relationship.
DORNIN: Stunned the missing woman's family changes their minds.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Since Scott is no longer communicating with anyone in Laci's family as we have so many questions he has not answered I am no longer supporting him.
DORNIN: A few days later Peterson does four television interviews.
SCOTT PETERSON, CONVICTED OF MURDERING WIFE AND UNBORN SON: I had nothing to do with her disappearance but people still accuse me of it.
DORNIN: Then in mid-April two bodies wash ashore in San Francisco Bay. They are identified as Laci Peterson and her unborn son. Scott Peterson is tracked down and arrested in San Diego. He has $15,000 in cash, two different I.D.s and has changed his hair color. That day Laci Peterson's mother describes months of haunting nightmares.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: In my mind I keep hearing Laci say to me, mom, please find me and Conner and bring us home. I'm scared.
DORNIN: Police search for more evidence in the bay but turn up nothing. Scott Peterson's family hires celebrity attorney Mark Geragos. Over a year later, the trial starts. All eyes are on the prosecution's star witness, Amber Frey. Jurors hear tapes of phone calls secretly recorded between Frey and Scott Peterson. In several calls Peterson lies to her and pretends to be a jet-setting bachelor just days following his wife's disappearance.
A lead investigator tells the jury the police have 41 reasons to suspect Scott Peterson. The strongest argument Peterson admits he went fishing where his wife and unborn son washed ashore. Prosecutors say he was a liar, a cheat and a man that would murder his wife to avoid the responsibility of a child.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It certainly gave the jury enough that if the jury is inclined to convict they certainly can convict.
DORNIN: Defense attorney Mark Geragos tries to poke holes in the investigation accusing police of not following up on leads or other suspects. No murder weapon, no evidence of a crime scene, no cause of death. Geragos says there was no evidence Peterson murdered his wife and unborn child and had no motive to do so. He urges jurors not to convict Peterson just because they hate him. Reasonable doubt, he tells them is their only option.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Five months of really no evidence, no evidence whatsoever and Mark is bringing that all together very concisely.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
O'BRIEN: That was from CNN's Rusty Dornin. Let's go to CNN's Rusty Dornin and the rest of the team live in Redwood City. Rusty, want to talk a little bit about the scene there right now but I have to pick up on what Justin Falconer was saying a little while ago. I don't know whether you had a chance to hear it. You have heard what he has said in the past about the non too subtle pressure that he feels jurors felt, all throughout this trial, via the media just by virtue of walking up those steps every day and being around the media. He felt that this jury was under pressure to come up with a guilty verdict and ultimately to come up with a sentence of death. What are your thoughts on that? What are others saying about that whole notion? Is Justin kind of an outlier on this one?
DORNIN: It's quite possible. They were not sequestered. The judge did not want to put them through five months of staying away from their families. He, of course, admonished them at every court break not to talk about the case. Not to listen to TV. Not to read the newspapers but it's very difficult. Some of them were trying to go to work on Fridays because there wasn't any court on Fridays. They were exposed. They walked by the sort of gauntlet of reporters. There has been an area where many of the legal analysts have been talking. And I have to confess there were times when I heard people say things about what they saw in court that I thought well, I was in there, I didn't see that. I didn't hear that. It was very interesting.
So how much they allowed themselves to be exposed certainly, they were feeling some kind of pressure perhaps in some way. But whether that can be proven, whether that will change the circumstances of any kind of appeal is very unclear.
O'BRIEN: Now, let's set the scene a little bit. A line is forming, I'm told, not far from where you are. Who is in the line? Is it -- obviously there are spaces reserved for families, attorneys, reporters. But is there a fair amount of general public just milling around there as word gets out here?
DORNIN: Oh, absolutely. This is what happened on Friday when everyone thought the verdict was going to come down on Friday. There were -- several hundred people had gathered here. There was even a man who was against the death penalty with signs against that. There are people who are in favor of the death penalty. They also had signs that they wanted the right punishment for Scott Peterson. A lot of the court watchers. All coming around here. It's beginning to happen again this afternoon. People waiting outside here to hear what that verdict is. Upstairs, outside the courtroom, of course, Ted Rowlands, my colleague, is standing in a line outside the courtroom. As soon as they open the doors they will be letting the reporters in and some members of the public in the courtroom to hear this verdict. Probably about 30 public seats. I'm not sure exactly how many media sets are in there. But it definitely will be -- there won't be an empty seat in that courtroom when the jury comes back with their verdict.
O'BRIEN: Once again we're talking about 54 minutes or so when that is anticipated to happen. The jury will come in and make its announcement on its verdict in the sentencing phase of the Scott Peterson trial. Rusty, where does it go from here? We've been talking about the media role. We've been talking about the numbers of people out there. Walk us through sort of the events after whatever comes out today.
DORNIN: Well, after the verdict, the gag order is rescinded. That everyone can talk on all sides. The jury, prosecutor, defense, members of both families, and it's just depending on who wants to talk. They can all finally talk about this case. As far as the jury is concerned, however, they are restricted by state law that they cannot for 90 days accept any gifts above $50 in terms of airplane tickets back to New York on some of the morning shows, that sort of thing, dinners, monetary contributions. Any kind of payment. They cannot accept anything for 90 days. On the administrative side, of course, defense attorney Mark Geragos already said he's going to be filing a couple of motions perhaps for a mistrial. That sort of thing in early February. Then the judge, if it is a death penalty. The judge is going to be reviewing that recommendation, that sentence by the jury. He will come back on February 25 with his final decision on that. If it is a death penalty that the jury decides upon the judge can decide to take that down to life in prison without parole, however, if the jury comes back with life in prison without parole the judge cannot change that.
O'BRIEN: And as far as Scott Peterson's whereabouts through all this. Where is he?
DORNIN: He's, we believe, he's in a holding cell. He was in court earlier dressed in his suit and that sort of thing. Unlikely they took him back during a break and had him change. It's likely to be in some kind of holding cell here in the building. It's separated from the jail by just a covered corridor about two stories up. The jail is just across the street. He will remain in the San Mateo County Jail until February 25 when he is sentenced. Now if he is sentenced to death he will go to San Quentin. That is where death row is. He will join some 600-odd prisoners who are there. If he is sentenced to life he could go to a level four prison where Charles Manson is.
Also we'll be talking to Robert Talbot one of our legal analysts here about some of the places they might go. Might be Pelican Bay which is another level-four prison. They take a lot of things into consideration when they are deciding where they will put them for life in prison. He will likely be kept away from the general prison population for his own safety. He will be considered a marked man. That's an argument his defense attorney Mark Geragos made to the jury saying, look, he's going to have a horrible time in prison. He's going to have a cell the size of a king-sized mattress. He's going to be a marked man. He's going to have to look over his shoulder any time he walks anywhere. Likely they are going to keep him away from the general population if he's sentenced to life.
O'BRIEN: You mentioned Robert Talbot. He's sitting there beside you. Let's bring him into the mix here, Rusty.
Robert, the whole motion of Geragos filing a motion for a mistrial, that's pro forma stuff, that's stuff that you would expect. But on what basis would he go for a mistrial, do you think?
ROBERT TALBOT, LAW PROFESSOR, UNIV. SAN FRANCISCO: Well, he's going start from day one, that this was a venue that was prejudiced against his client and probably right up until the final instructions that were given in the death penalty phase where the judge -- where he wanted the jury to be able to consider sympathy for the family as part of their considerations...
O'BRIEN: So, in other words...
TALBOT: ... and everything in between.
O'BRIEN: It's a kitchen sink kind of thing. Just throw it all in there and hope something sticks in this case, correct?
TALBOT: Yes. And there is a lot. There's a lot of evidentiary rulings that he felt pretty strongly about, Mark Geragos. There's the two jurors in that last week being dismissed, which is highly, highly unusual. If there's something in there that looks suspicious, he might have something to hang his hat on.
Also the appellate courts look at the case. And the facts of this case in which there were no where, when, how or why to the murders, proved solidly by the prosecution might influence them on some of these other decisions.
O'BRIEN: A little while ago Chuck Smith was seating in that very hot seat that you are in right now. I'm going to put you on the spot right now. What's your take given the circumstances of how this is unfolding, the length of time the jury has talked. The type of evidence that they wanted to review just before announcing they had made a decision. Do you think they have in fact come to a decision to execute Scott Peterson?
TALBOT: Talk about the hot seat. Up until this morning I really thought it was going to be a hung jury and then with a possibility of life without parole, just because it has been over 10 years since San Mateo has had a death penalty. And the death penalty is not an easy thing to get in California, particularly in a case like this. But with the evidence that the jury asked to see, that points in the direction of someone on that jury trying to convince others that there should be a death sentence. So that's a strong possibility at this point.
O'BRIEN: Our senior legal analyst, Jeff Toobin, watching things from afar on the other coast in New York City. And we were talking a little while ago, Jeff, about this whole notion that juries in general are becoming less inclined to deliver a death penalty verdict. You just heard Robert talking about how it has been some time in San Mateo since that has occurred. What's at the root of that, do you think?
JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN SR. LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think two things, Miles. One is DNA. DNA has led to the exoneration of literally dozens of people on death row over the past 10 years. And jurors who are regular citizens know that. And jurors know that they are in an imperfect system. And they have become more reluctant to give the ultimate penalty because they know that the system makes mistakes.
So this is -- of course, doesn't apply across the board. I mean, obviously death sentences are given out regularly in this country. But the rate at which jurors give death sentences has gone down. And I think the scientific proof of innocence on the part of convicted individuals is one of the main reasons.
The other reason is there's just less crime in the country. In the early '90s, the country was really convulsed by the murder rate. Here in New York City we had 2,000 murders in the early '90s. This year there are likely to be 500 murders, the lowest level since 1963. New York is a dramatic example but the rest of the country has moved in that direction, as well. So there is less anger about crime. Less sense of vengeance. And I think those two factors lead in a general way toward fewer death sentences. But that by no means tells us what this particular jury is going to do today.
O'BRIEN: Now, Jeff, I don't know if you're able to hear Justin Falconer a little while ago as he spoke with us. Were you able to hear...
TOOBIN: I sure did, absolutely.
O'BRIEN: That was really fascinating to me.
TOOBIN: Totally fascinating.
O'BRIEN: Talking about this pressure that he felt. He thought it was very overt having to walk up those steps and hearing the live shots from the reporters and kind of scratching their head and wondering, geez, I don't remember that part of the testimony. And then Rusty saying, you know, I heard the same kinds of reports. That perhaps was an unfortunate way of bringing the jury in. We can leave that aside for a moment. Let's just talk about how the media could or might in some cases taint a jury and how a defense attorney might be able to use that on an appeal.
TOOBIN: They could. But I think it's really important to talk about exactly what Justin Falconer said and the implications of it, if it's true, because they are enormous. What he was saying was this is a jury that was told, don't pay attention to the news media, don't pay attention to public opinion, concentrate, consider only the evidence that's presented in the courtroom.
And what Justin Falconer was saying to you is, they ignored that. That they were influenced by what went on outside the courtroom. And that's a very serious thing. And my guess is several of those jurors when we hear from them probably within a matter of just a few hours will say exactly the opposite. Will say, sure, we knew there was press coverage, but we followed the judge's instructions. That's what jurors almost always says because I think it's basically true.
And so I think we have to be very careful about taking it face value what Justin has said. He's long on the record as thinking that this is a lousy case. He wasn't impressed by the prosecution's case. And remember, he only heard the weakest part of the prosecution's case. But I would be somewhat skeptical that many, if any jurors, agree with his analysis of how they made their decision.
O'BRIEN: Robert Talbot, in Redwood City, I don't know if you had a chance to hear what Justin had to say to us just a little while ago, but it was a very dramatic statement. A very clear statement that he feels this jury has been completely ramrodded, pressured by the feelings of the general public, via the media.
TALBOT: I don't feel that, but one observation I did have that I wanted to make, when I was first brought in to look at this case and I didn't come in initially as an analyst, I came in initially to look at what the analysts were saying. And I was asked to be in the court and then to go outside and hear what people -- how they were describing it. And what I was hearing in court was often very different than what it was portrayed outside to the media pool, which I thought was very, very interesting. And that's what drew me into the whole situation to become an analyst in this particular case.
So even though I really would take anything Justin Falconer said with a grain of salt, that one point that the media may have had some kind of an influence in this case, and there was some reporting that was going on that wasn't entirely accurate is something that is very interesting for the media to be taking a look at in this type of case.
O'BRIEN: Well, and then, of course, there were those cheers when the verdict was announced. That's something that would be inescapable to the jury. That sends a message, doesn't it?
TALBOT: That sends a very strong message. The jury is hearing that the public approves of what they have done. I don't know how much of an influence that would have on this death penalty phase, part of it. Remember, it has been over 10 years since there has been a death penalty decision in San Mateo County.
In California there's strong pressures against the death penalty. The San Francisco district attorney was elected on the platform that she would never go for the death penalty, and even in the case of a murder of the police officer I think the polls showed that 70 percent of the city was against her going for the death penalty. And that's right around the corner from here. So I don't think it would have any influence in this particular phase.
O'BRIEN: Jeff Toobin, the decision to sequester a jury is a difficult one for a judge because it is such a tremendous hardship that is asked of jurors. Will that be -- it's hard to say right now, but is that something that could be second guessed here?
TOOBIN: Absolutely. That is one of the things that judges can do to insulate jurors from the press pressure that we've been talking about. And if you recall from the O.J. Simpson case, Judge Ito sequestered the jury for the entire trial, which was nine months. Think about that kind of imposition on people.
I mean, it is unique in my experience that a judge would sequester a jury for that long. And Judge Delucchi here understandably didn't do that because you limit yourself to such a tiny pool of jurors who are willing to subject themselves to that. But sequestering them during deliberations as he did, that's much more common and understandable and I think appropriate.
O'BRIEN: And so, if they are not sequestered, and they say -- they come out today and they have an interview and say we weren't affected at all, does the defense have any sort of case it can bring to bear? In other words, if no one on the jury that made the decision said the media affected it, is that the end of that whole line of questioning as far as the defense is concerned?
TOOBIN: It's pretty close to the end of the line. They would have to -- the defense would have to get permission from the judge to depose jurors, to do any sort of investigation and judges are very protective of jurors. They don't want jurors to have to defend their verdicts, defend their conduct.
So unless the defense found some specific evidence of a specific breach of security, chances are that really would be the end of the inquiry. I would just like to follow up on something Robert said about the whole issue of press coverage. He said when he heard analysts analyzing the case, he heard mistakes. And I don't doubt that for a second.
I'm sure I made them on this and other cases as well. That's a very different question from whether those mistakes influenced the jury. And we really heard no evidence of that except for Justin Falconer's speculation. So sure there may have been mistakes in press coverage. There are always mistakes in press coverage. But whether that had an impact on the jury, that's a very separate and much more important question.
O'BRIEN: Robert, the burden of proof on that is, I guess, a pretty high burden, isn't it?
TALBOT: I couldn't hear the last words you said, I'm sorry.
O'BRIEN: The burden of proof to prove that a jury has truly been swayed, tainted, pressured, whatever you want to say, by the media, that's a pretty high burden.
TALBOT: Oh, absolutely. And it should be a high burden. We can't have the verdicts overturned constantly because of speculation or because of weak proof. And I think what I was saying was that we can't be 100 percent sure that the jury isn't going to be taking a peek at what the media has to be saying -- is saying about a particular case. That's why the media has to be very, very careful about what analysts who are in the courtroom.
And I wasn't talking about you, Jeffrey, I was talking about some of the people who were in the courtroom who were coming out and reporting what happened and what I saw them saying. I had been in the courtroom looking at the jury at the very same time being a little bit different.
Now, we go under the assumption that the jury is going to follow what the judge has to say. Except, human nature is human nature and we can't be 100 percent sure that that's going on. So it's just something -- it's just a warning for the media to be as careful as they can in a case like this.
O'BRIEN: Robert Talbot, Jeff Toobin, Rusty Dornin, all standing by as we await now, about 38 minutes away if everything goes on time for that jury to walk into the courtroom and announce to the world what they have determined to be the fate of Scott Peterson, life or death.
Stay with CNN as we continue our coverage.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
NGUYEN: You're watching rolling coverage of the Scott Peterson murder trial. We should hear in just over 30 minutes whether the jury has decided Peterson should live or die. As we wait, we want to go now to CNN's David Mattingly in Modesto, California, where Scott and Laci Peterson once lived.
As would we wait and this countdown continues, what are you hearing from the community?
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: There is still so much lingering sadness and anger associated with this case here in the Petersons' hometown of Modesto. Some people actually today trying to do something positive with that emotion. A blood drive was actually scheduled today before we knew what was going to be happening in this trial.
People showing up today to give blood, saying that they wanted to reconnect in some way again with Laci Peterson, with this blood drive being in memory of Laci. They say that many people that did not know Laci say they have a very deep personal connection for her and very strong feelings against Scott Peterson.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The world is grieving for a baby who never got to live life, a mother who was definitely taken way too early, way too early. They are both gone. And nothing can bring that back. Nothing can bring them back. And I think a lot of people are very, very angry about that.
UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Because of what he did -- I mean, it was just really rotten what he did. And he caused a lot of pain and hurt to her family and this community. So he deserves it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: I'll let the jury decide on that. I think he is going -- when meets his maker some day he's going to get the final verdict at that point anyway.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
MATTINGLY: And I talked to so many people today who said before they never supported the death penalty but now they say if the jury comes back and says death for Scott Peterson they will go along with that. Back to you.
NGUYEN: And we are all waiting to hear what the jury decides. That's going to do it for this edition of LIVE FROM. Wolf Blitzer picks it up from here but right now we want to go to the stock market report.
LOU DOBBS, CNN ANCHOR: Stocks rallying, driven higher by merger news and science holiday shopping is going better than expected. As the final trades on Wall Street are now being counted, the Dow Jones Industrials have moved up 97 points, almost 98 points. The Nasdaq Composite adding another 19 points. Retail sales up one-tenth of a percent in November, indicating consumers are continuing to shop. Tomorrow the Federal Reserve meets to decide on the direction of interest rates. The Fed is expected, widely expected, to raise interest rates by another quarter percentage point to 2.25 percent.
Oracle has finally reached a deal to buy software from Peoplesoft ending an 18-month hostile takeover battle. Oracle's bid values Peoplesoft at more than $10 billion. That's double Oracle's original offer. Peoplesoft's board of directors repeatedly fought Oracle's bids. Both stocks today gaining on the news.
The results of a deal between two auto giants, rivals General Motors and Chrysler, have agreed to work together to produce hybrid engines. Both companies are trying to break into the market. Toyota has already sold 100,000 hybrid units in the United States. Both Honda and Ford have at least one model on the market. Tomato prices falling back to normal levels over the past few days, wholesale prices dropped to 53 cents a pound down from nearly $1 just a pound a few weeks ago. It's a different story for milk however. A dairy trade group trying to keep the prices high paying farmers to slaughter more than 50,000 dairy cows over the next few months, trying to limit milk supplies and raise prices.
Coming up on CNN at 6:00 p.m. Eastern on "LOU DOBBS TONIGHT" we'll have a special report on the Chinese shell game in trade. The Chinese government says it will tax its own exports to the United States, but the U.S. says it will take care of it for them by taxing Chinese imports into this country. We'll have a look at what's really going on, who stands to benefit, and the hint, it's not the United States.
Also tonight, the intelligence reform bill expected to be signed by President Bush this week. It is nation's biggest intelligence overhaul in half a century. 9/11 commission member, former senator, Bob Kerrey is my guest tonight.
Also, continuing coverage of the United Nations Oil for Food scandal. It turns out billionaire Mark Rich pardoned by former president Bill Clinton may have been brokering oil deals for Saddam Hussein and the United Nations for years. We'll tell you who benefited.
And Major League Baseball in the midst of a steroid use scandal. Will there be punishments? Will records stand without (UNINTELLIGIBLE)? Will there be reform? My special guest tonight, one of baseball's leading commentators Charlie Steiner. Please be with us. For now, I'm Lou Dobbs in New York. Now back to Wolf Blitzer and our continuing coverage of the Scott Peterson sentencing -- Wolf.
BLITZER: Thanks very much, Lou.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
