Return to Transcripts main page
Live From...
Scott Peterson to be Sentenced
Aired December 13, 2004 - 15:00 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.
MILES O'BRIEN, CO-HOST: Hello. I'm Miles O'Brien at CNN Center in Atlanta. You're watching special coverage on CNN's LIVE FROM as we await word from jury in Redwood City, California.
The jury who has been deliberating the fate of Scott Peterson, whether he should spend life in prison or be executed in the state of California, has in fact made a decision, a decision which will become public knowledge in about 90 minutes' time.
CNN's Rusty Dornin broke the story for us just a few moments ago. She joins us with the latest from there.
Rusty, we don't know much except the time and the fact there is a decision. The rest is speculation.
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And of course, there's a lot of speculation as there always is in cases like this.
But -- and the crowd here, of course is building as people hear there's a verdict. It becomes the spectacle, and we expect probably a couple hundred people to show up here to see exactly what that verdict is.
What was interesting about this morning was that the jury did request seven different pieces of evidence, including photographs of Laci Peterson, the last one taken of her alive. Also, aerial photographs where the bodies washed ashore. Her medical records, as well as autopsy photos.
But it was very shortly after that, that they announced that the jury had gone to lunch and then moments later, it was announced that they did have a verdict.
So it was a very much of a surprise to those of us here. Many people were leaving, going to lunch, thinking nothing was going to happen until 4:30 Eastern Time when they would just be coming back for further deliberations.
It looks like we finally are going to have a decision on the final punishment for Scott Peterson -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: You are seating beside Chuck Smith one of our legal analysts.
Chuck, as -- as you walk down this road, you were very clear about it just a few moments ago. Given all the sequence of events, the fact that those 13 pieces of evidence were among the most horrific pieces of evidence against Scott Peterson, leads you to make the very firm statement the jury has determined that Scott Peterson should in fact be executed?
CHUCK SMITH, LEGAL ANALYST: Everything sounds like that, Miles. And we trial lawyers, you know, agonize over these things all the time.
But on Friday when the jury went home, you know, it certainly -- or went back to the hotel. It appeared that they were close because they were going -- they didn't declare they were hung. They wanted to spend the weekend sequestered and come back. So it sounded like they were close.
And then this morning, when after about an hour they asked for these pieces of evidence, one had to think that they were close in terms of 10 or 11 people to death, one or two holding out for life.
And these photograph, the most gruesome, the most awful, and the saddest photographs, undoubtedly were brought in by the pro death people to put in front of the life people to argue to them, "Look at what he did. Look at the horrific nature of what did he to that beautiful woman and her child. You have to come onboard with us."
And then about an hour after they got those photographs it was announced that there was a verdict. So that sounds like the most logical way to read it. But juries are sometimes not logical. You know, we're all waiting to see.
O'BRIEN: Chuck -- go ahead, Rusty.
DORNIN: I was just going to jump in, because Chuck and I were talking earlier, too.
During Mark Geragos closing argument he presented these giant boards right in front of the jury and put their own answers to the questions of if -- could you -- this crime is so heinous. Would you consider anything else but the death penalty?
And all of them, unanimously, said we would want to know more about the person. We would want to know more about this human being. We would not just want to sentence someone to death on how horrific this crime was.
And he made sure he put all of their responses in front of them while he was asking them to consider and begging them, really, to consider saving Scott Peterson's life, saying that it wasn't worth it to continue this cycle of violence.
SMITH: But you know, Rusty, the -- and the prosecution had a rejoinder for that. The prosecution basically said, you know, yes, it is a horrible crime. But what makes him the worst of the worst, for example, is the 116 days that he tortured Sharon Rocha and her family.
All along he knew where that body was, but he put those people through 116 days of torture while they waited for the discovery of that body. I mean, I thought that was powerful, compelling. And I would imagine those advocating for death reminded those jurors of that. It's not just the crime. It's not just killing his wife and child. Look at what he did to that family.
DORNIN: And I think, Chuck Smith said to me in an interview previously, a couple of weeks ago, even, that Mark Geragos hit upon the idea of lingering doubt.
In your heart of hearts I think is the way he put it, do you -- can you absolutely say that he committed this crime? Is there absolutely no doubt in your mind that he did this? What if, in 20 years, they find out he didn't do this and you sentenced him to death.
I mean, that is a very powerful thing to present to a jury. Don't you think?
SMITH: Well, it is. But remember, and I'd like to hear what Jeff Toobin has to say about this, as well. Mark Geragos in his argument to try to save his client's life, really didn't talk much about lingering doubt, didn't argue it.
Again, the prosecutor did a nice job of anticipating that and telling the jury that when Mr. Geragos gets up here, he's going to tell you, you were wrong. He's going to talk about this concept. Well, you weren't wrong. You made the right decision.
That was again powerful. He foreclosed those arguments.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's bring Jeff Toobin in then. Jeff's been missing the conversation. What are your thoughts on that, Jeff?
JEFF TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I just think the act of arguing for a life prison sentence in front of a jury that has already convicted your client has to be one of the most difficult things any lawyer can do.
Because think about it, Mark Geragos got up every morning, for five months, tried to convince something -- this jury of something and the jury absolutely rejected every claim he made. And they did it in all of six hours of deliberations. I mean, they basically gave Geragos', all his efforts, the back of his hand -- the back of their hand.
So now he's got to turn around and say, "Well, let me try to convince you of something else. You clearly hate my client. You clearly think my client committed this horrible crime. Now I've got to try to start over with you."
And you know, that's why it's really tough to make these arguments. And -- and he didn't try to retry the case. He didn't claim -- use the lingering doubt argument much. He basically tried to change the subject to Scott Peterson's otherwise blameless life.
You know, I find it hard to blame -- blame Geragos for that choice, because there are not a lot of good options available to him. O'BRIEN: You know, it is a difficult position for a defense attorney. It's almost an argument for hiring a new set of attorneys for the penalty phase.
Let's talk about what we know, Jeff, about the dynamics of this jury. Who might be leading this jury? Who might be following? And who might be holdouts? Do we know enough to say anything about that right now?
TOOBIN: You know, I -- I will defer to Rusty who's been in court every day, except to add, that a lot of what we assume about jurors turns out not to be right.
You know, we think we know what goes on in jury rooms, and jurors then tell us, "You had it -- you had it all wrong."
So I -- I will give you a ringing declaration of ignorance. I mean, I just don't know what's going on in that jury room, but I bet Rusty Dornin does. She's that good a reporter.
O'BRIEN: Rusty, there is one particular juror...
DORNIN: Jeff, I have...
O'BRIEN: There's one particular juror, Rusty, who was viewed as an obvious potential leader here. Has it been your sense that that is the way it has gone down as the deliberations have unfolded?
DORNIN: Right. If you're talking about the foreman, that's not the person we ever thought would be a leader. And we also thought, many of us, juror No. 6 was the one who just was with the defense, that Justin Falconer, the one that had been dismissed earlier had said that he, in their brief conversations before he had been dismissed with juror No. 6, that he really didn't think Scott Peterson was guilty. So it was a very big surprise.
And yes, you can misjudge jurors very easily in the courtroom. But we do know that juror No. 8, just every time the defense would get up, every time defense attorney Mark Geragos would get up, his arms would be crossed like this. And he would be looking to the heavens.
I mean, he just looked like he did not want to hear anything about a defense for Scott Peterson or really anything good about Scott Peterson.
But as far as a real leader in there, I think that the man that they picked as the foreman more or less was someone who was a negotiator, someone who's more diplomatic.
Because the other juror that was dismissed apparently had been causing so much strife among people. And people were so angry and so upset that they just needed someone to sort of pull it together, someone that everyone got along with. And that apparently was juror No. 6.
SMITH: Miles, can I jump in on this? O'BRIEN: Yes. Jump in, Chuck. Go ahead.
SMITH: You know, what's fascinating to me is the -- the women on the jury. And I think it's half women, half men. I mean, this case has so much to do with mothers.
I mean, the mother of Sharon Rocha -- the mother of Laci Peterson, Sharon Rocha, was just a compelling figure that gave some of the most just gut wrenching testimony during the personality phase.
But the defense theme during their argument, not to kill him, not to execute him, was because of Jackie Peterson. I mean, and Mark Geragos argued that beautifully, I thought.
And I've watched these women on the jury, some of whom are mothers, you know. And I can't -- you know, that old thing about, you know, women are from Venus, men are from Mars. I'd like to think that women would have a harder time giving a death penalty.
But this just looks like such a hard group of people in general. And these women all look tough enough to do it. And it just sounds like their sympathies are more aligned with Sharon than they are with Jackie.
DORNIN: Yes. And it's interesting, because they did cry during several, you know, times during this trial, but it's -- they are very difficult to read, all of them. Very difficult.
O'BRIEN: All right. We're going to leave it there with you for now. Rusty Dornin, Chuck Smith, Jeff Toobin. And we'll send it over to Betty.
BETTY NGUYEN, CO-HOST: We want to go now to David Mattingly, who is in Modesto, California, with some community reaction as we wait to hear whether Scott Peterson will live or die.
What is the community saying there today, right now, David?
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is one community with a very strong emotional interest in this case. Remember, we are just a little over two weeks away from the anniversary of Laci's disappearance.
There were literally thousands of people in this community who personally joined in the search for Laci Peterson, thousands of people who called into the tip line, offering information during the investigation into the disappearance of Laci Peterson.
So a lot of emotions here. A lot of anger. A lot of lingering anger and lingering sadness over the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child.
You talk to people today, and you will find a vast majority of people on the streets saying that they would not have a problem with the death penalty in this case. They are very angry with Scott Peterson for taking the life of Laci Peterson and his unborn child. Now, remember, Laci Peterson was a very popular woman when she was alive, but her popularity in death has truly become remarkable here. So many people believing they have a personal connection to Laci Peterson and, therefore, a very personal interest in watching what the jury does today.
NGUYEN: David, you mentioned anger, so is this community solidified in leaning you one way against the other in this case, they're wanting the death penalty?
MATTINGLY: A majority of people that we talked to, and this is not scientific, but a majority of the people we talked to since the verdict came down said they would not have a problem with Scott Peterson getting the death penalty in this case.
But if it turns out to be life in prison, many people say they are satisfied with that, knowing that he will be off the street and being able to be behind bars and think about his crime for the rest of his natural life.
So, again, something they want to see a conclusion here, many people saying not a problem at all with the death penalty, but they will be satisfied with whatever the jury decides, since they have already come back with that guilty verdict.
NGUYEN: As we wait to hear what the conclusion is, is the community at all upset over this trial taking so long, this case taking so long to go through the legal system?
MATTINGLY: This has been difficult for a lot of people here who have been emotionally invested in the case. They feel terrible for the family that it's taken so long to get some sort of resolution in this for them.
Again, there's been a deep personal connection for the family in this case, many people feeling sorry for the Peterson as well as Laci Peterson's family, the Rocha family. They feel that there are victims on both sides in this case.
But again, all of that anger focused on Scott Peterson.
NGUYEN: How has that anger changed the community there in Modesto?
MATTINGLY: I've asked that question a lot. And people will say that it's helped bring them closer. They feel that this tragedy, this shared sense of loss and anger that they all have, is something that they can all relate to, and it's brought them together.
In fact, there's a blood drive going on today just by pure happenstance that it was scheduled today, a blood drive in memorial for Laci Peterson and her unborn child, Conner. So people have been turning out for that, people saying they want to do something in memory of Laci. The fact that a decision was coming out of this trial today is something that they hadn't anticipated when they scheduled it. So, again, many people saying they felt good being able to go, reconnect again with Laci in some way today.
NGUYEN: As this community goes through this together, have they talked about or have you heard word as we wait for this sentence to happen, whether they are going to gather, many members are going to gather in one particular place to go through the end of this all together at one?
MATTINGLY: Well, the time of day, at 1:30 today, means it's going to be after the lunch hour. So we will not see large crowds of people in restaurants watching TVs, as we did last time.
But you can bet people will be tuned to the radio. They will be watching TV wherever they can to see how this verdict comes out.
NGUYEN: And not only watching, but are they ready to put this behind them?
MATTINGLY: They are tired. They are emotionally spent on this case. Again, the anger and all the emotions they've been carrying for two years on this has taken its toll.
They want to see this case put to bed. They want to see a final decision on Scott Peterson, even though they know there's going to be years of appeals from now. They're looking forward to what the jury has to say today about what kind of punishment Scott Peterson, they believe, deserves.
NGUYEN: CNN's David Mattingly with community reaction there in Modesto, California. Thank you, David.
O'BRIEN: Just to recap, about an hour and 15 minutes from now, we will hear from the jury on the sentencing phase in the Scott Peterson case. They have come to a verdict on the sentence, life in prison or death by execution.
CNN's Larry King will be covering this from every facet imaginable. The Scott Peterson sentencing, the focus of his hour, which begins at 9 p.m. Eastern tonight.
In the meantime, stay tuned to CNN as we bring you developments on this front as well as all the rest of the news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: Once again, we're waiting now, about an hour and 20 minutes away when we should hear from the Scott Peterson jury, having reached a decision on the life or death decision which they faced after deliberating, in round numbers, about 11 hours total. A number which exceeds the amount of time they spent deliberating on the verdict itself, the verdict of guilt in the death of his wife and his unborn son.
Joining us on the line right now is Justin Falconer, one of the jurors that was there for at least part of these deliberations. Justin, can you hear me all right?
JUSTIN FALCONER, DISMISSED SCOTT PETERSON JUROR: Yes, I can hear you fine.
O'BRIEN: All right. You as much as anybody right now can take us inside that jury room and give us a sense of the dynamics of this group of people. What can you tell us about what's going on?
FALCONER: Well, you know, I don't think it's looking too good for Scott right now.
I think what happened initially with -- in the very beginning with the guilt verdict was that the people, actually, who are sticking with juror No. 5, the foreman, actually folded after he left.
I think that they kind of conformed with the rest of the group and said, "All right, we'll go with guilty."
And I think those same people were probably having a pretty hard time coming to terms with the death verdict here. But maybe, you know, seeing the pictures, seeing some of the evidence that they saw, you know, who knows?
Maybe they conformed to the verdict or with the rest of the jury and they folded again. And I think we're going to find out pretty soon.
O'BRIEN: Now, you felt all along the prosecution case was weak, correct?
FALCONER: Yes, I would never -- I would never have convicted somebody and given them death or life in prison, whatever, on the circumstantial evidence that this case brought forth.
I mean, it was just -- there were so many skeptical -- everything is based on skepticism (sic). You know, we think he did this. We think he did that. There's no hard evidence toward anything. I mean, they can't tell you how she died. They can't tell you when she died, you know, what she died from. Things like that.
And you know, I mean to me this wasn't even a death penalty case. I mean, I think it's difficult to sit there and come to terms with the fact they're putting somebody to death for circumstantial evidence.
But obviously, these jurors are going to answer -- they're going to answer the same questions I am. And we'll see what they have to say.
O'BRIEN: In your mind's eye as you think about who's left in the jury there, who would have been the likely holdouts or hold out singular, whatever the case may be?
FALCONER: You know, if I had to guess I think there was a gentleman there who had to consult his former pastor before actually coming into the jury. And you know, I think there was a, you know, possibly him, you know. I mean, it depends on, you know, who was really strong in their belief that he was guilty. And like I said, I think there's some people in that jury that probably folded just to kind of conform with the rest of the jury so they could come up with a verdict. And were having a difficult time now coming to the death part of it.
I think we're going to, you know -- like I said, there's a couple of personalities in there that I thought would be a little bit stronger. I think maybe they're the ones that folded. Like I said, the one juror that consulted his -- his preacher or whatever. But...
O'BRIEN: So when you say folded, I mean, this has been a terrible ordeal for people, a very long trial. Great personal sacrifices.
And I guess one in that position could understand with any number of people sort of ganging up on you, to make that decision. Is that -- in your view, is that justice?
FALCONER: No, it's not. Absolutely not. And the other reason I don't think this is any justice from day one this jury, you know, we've all been dealing with the media.
And you know, the media has -- their position is extremely evident every time you walk in the front door. And so we know what the public felt. We knew what the media was saying. You know, you don't have to watch the news -- the news shows to know that everybody thought he was guilty. And that the public opinion was that they wanted him to hang.
And it's obvious, you know, they got off the bus today and they were treated like rock stars. They had people all around them. There were people just, you know, -- coming off, it was like they were movie stars.
That's not justice. That's the media doing what, you know, the media does, which is, you know, bring everybody's attention to something. And...
O'BRIEN: This is -- the allegations you raise are pretty serious, if, in fact, the jury was exposed to media coverage.
FALCONER: The jury -- the jury has been exposed since day one. This is common knowledge.
O'BRIEN: I didn't hear the last part you said there. But basically you say...
FALCONER: I'm sorry.
O'BRIEN: Just a communications snafu. The jury has been exposed to the media coverage all this time? So in what sense? How is that -- how have they been reached by the media?
FALCONER: Well, you walk through the front door. I mean, the media is right in front of the courthouse. You walk through -- you park your car, and you have to walk through 25 tents just to get to your -- just to get to the front door of the courthouse. I mean that's -- that's every day. And then you have...
O'BRIEN: But that's walking through a crowd of reporters. That's different than reading the newspaper, watching, you know, three or four telecasts.
FALCONER: That's walking -- that's walking through a crowd of reporters that are giving their hourly updates to their -- their stations.
O'BRIEN: I see. So you're hearing -- you were overhearing a good -- a good portion of some of the reporting that was going on?
FALCONER: Absolutely we were. Absolutely. And that's -- I mean, I don't know how many times we walked out of the courthouse, we're hearing somebody give a report. And it was like awful. We're looking at each other, like, what? You know, what courtroom were they in?
You know, it's been going on. So I don't -- I stood by my position that this jury has been tainted, you know, very heavily since day one. They know what the public wants.
They are, you know -- these are public figures. People who have to go back to work, have families, have lives. And they don't want to be public enemy No. 1. They don't want the same, you know, people that are now cheering them to turn around and make them the, you know, make them the villains and, you know, go after them the way that they went after me.
I mean it's just -- they've seen that. I have no doubt they saw what happened to me. And this is nonsense.
O'BRIEN: So you think this jury has been pressured one way or another?
FALCONER: Absolutely. 100 percent. Yes, I do.
O'BRIEN: Take it around full circle then. You said at the beginning, you alluded to it. But why don't you state it as clear as you think? Do you think this jury has decided that Scott Peterson should face death by execution?
FALCONER: Yes, I do. I think that you -- I think it shows that the evidence that they called in. You know, there was probably one or two hold-outs that said no, life.
But you know, from the looks of it, you know, the pictures that hey brought in to show, you know, I just have to agree with a lot of the pundits that were on television watching it, too, and say that, yes, they probably came to a death verdict. And so we'll take the next step shortly.
O'BRIEN: What are your thoughts then, having had this direct involvement in this case for so long? Are you surprised? Or I guess not. Given what you've said about how this jury felt pressure, I guess it probably doesn't surprise you.
FALCONER: No, it really doesn't. I think what -- I think the biggest shock and, you know -- like when I was -- first heard about the verdict, you know, it was like I had actually kind of said, Well, wow! There's, you know, obviously something there that, you know, I didn't see, and that they can hang their hat on.
But it was after the other jurors were dismissed and they were talking about, you know, the public and, you know, book deals. And I don't want to get into the book deals. I don't know if there's any truth behind that.
But what they were talking about was public opinion. And just knowing public opinion and talking about it the way that we did in the deliberating room.
And you know, yes, we talked about book deals and how famous we were going to get and who would play us in the movie. And blah, blah, blah, it was just half joking.
But what we did talk about was not being an O.J. jury. We didn't want to be, you know, considered, you know, a bunch of, you know, villains who, you know, let this guy off and, you know, be his O.J. jury and have to deal with the public after that.
And so that was definitely, you know, a clear pressure from day one.
And, you know, there were people that walked up to the jurors. They knew who we were. It took about an hour before people figured out who the jury was. And you know, there were jurors that were actually approached.
I mean, you know, people walked up and said, "Hey, you need to find him guilty. And blah, blah, blah."
And we talked about that in the deliberating room.
There were people when, you know, when the incident with me and Brent happened, that walked up to the jurors and said, you know, "Hey, this piece of crap needs to be off the jury and blah, blah, blah." And the juror had to defend me to these people.
So I mean, this is -- you know, they've been out there for the public to, you know, get hold of. And you know, I'm not surprised at all that they're going to do something that is going to be public friendly.
And I think if they had been, you know, sequestered from day one. I think if the evidence was all they got to see, I really, truly think that there would be a very different outcome.
O'BRIEN: Justin, have you been approached for a book deal?
FALCONER: No, no, I haven't, no.
O'BRIEN: Would you do one?
FALCONER: Yes, I would. You know what? I would, but this is a thing that my angle would be a little different from theirs. Theirs would be from inside the courtroom. Mine would be about the media coverage and the things that happened outside the courtroom that I believe affected the outcome of this case.
And so if I did one that's what mine would be about.
O'BRIEN: Justin Falconer, who at one time was a part of the jury, was ultimately dismissed from it and has some unique insights that he can bring to bear, as we wait about an hour from now to hear from that jury in this, the sentencing phase.
Live pictures here at the courthouse, Redwood City, California.
If you would like further depth and context for this whole story, we invite you to check out our Web site. CNN.com/law will answer just about every question you have about this case.
We'll be back with more in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(STOCK REPORT)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
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 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
MILES O'BRIEN, CO-HOST: Hello. I'm Miles O'Brien at CNN Center in Atlanta. You're watching special coverage on CNN's LIVE FROM as we await word from jury in Redwood City, California.
The jury who has been deliberating the fate of Scott Peterson, whether he should spend life in prison or be executed in the state of California, has in fact made a decision, a decision which will become public knowledge in about 90 minutes' time.
CNN's Rusty Dornin broke the story for us just a few moments ago. She joins us with the latest from there.
Rusty, we don't know much except the time and the fact there is a decision. The rest is speculation.
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: That's right. And of course, there's a lot of speculation as there always is in cases like this.
But -- and the crowd here, of course is building as people hear there's a verdict. It becomes the spectacle, and we expect probably a couple hundred people to show up here to see exactly what that verdict is.
What was interesting about this morning was that the jury did request seven different pieces of evidence, including photographs of Laci Peterson, the last one taken of her alive. Also, aerial photographs where the bodies washed ashore. Her medical records, as well as autopsy photos.
But it was very shortly after that, that they announced that the jury had gone to lunch and then moments later, it was announced that they did have a verdict.
So it was a very much of a surprise to those of us here. Many people were leaving, going to lunch, thinking nothing was going to happen until 4:30 Eastern Time when they would just be coming back for further deliberations.
It looks like we finally are going to have a decision on the final punishment for Scott Peterson -- Miles.
O'BRIEN: You are seating beside Chuck Smith one of our legal analysts.
Chuck, as -- as you walk down this road, you were very clear about it just a few moments ago. Given all the sequence of events, the fact that those 13 pieces of evidence were among the most horrific pieces of evidence against Scott Peterson, leads you to make the very firm statement the jury has determined that Scott Peterson should in fact be executed?
CHUCK SMITH, LEGAL ANALYST: Everything sounds like that, Miles. And we trial lawyers, you know, agonize over these things all the time.
But on Friday when the jury went home, you know, it certainly -- or went back to the hotel. It appeared that they were close because they were going -- they didn't declare they were hung. They wanted to spend the weekend sequestered and come back. So it sounded like they were close.
And then this morning, when after about an hour they asked for these pieces of evidence, one had to think that they were close in terms of 10 or 11 people to death, one or two holding out for life.
And these photograph, the most gruesome, the most awful, and the saddest photographs, undoubtedly were brought in by the pro death people to put in front of the life people to argue to them, "Look at what he did. Look at the horrific nature of what did he to that beautiful woman and her child. You have to come onboard with us."
And then about an hour after they got those photographs it was announced that there was a verdict. So that sounds like the most logical way to read it. But juries are sometimes not logical. You know, we're all waiting to see.
O'BRIEN: Chuck -- go ahead, Rusty.
DORNIN: I was just going to jump in, because Chuck and I were talking earlier, too.
During Mark Geragos closing argument he presented these giant boards right in front of the jury and put their own answers to the questions of if -- could you -- this crime is so heinous. Would you consider anything else but the death penalty?
And all of them, unanimously, said we would want to know more about the person. We would want to know more about this human being. We would not just want to sentence someone to death on how horrific this crime was.
And he made sure he put all of their responses in front of them while he was asking them to consider and begging them, really, to consider saving Scott Peterson's life, saying that it wasn't worth it to continue this cycle of violence.
SMITH: But you know, Rusty, the -- and the prosecution had a rejoinder for that. The prosecution basically said, you know, yes, it is a horrible crime. But what makes him the worst of the worst, for example, is the 116 days that he tortured Sharon Rocha and her family.
All along he knew where that body was, but he put those people through 116 days of torture while they waited for the discovery of that body. I mean, I thought that was powerful, compelling. And I would imagine those advocating for death reminded those jurors of that. It's not just the crime. It's not just killing his wife and child. Look at what he did to that family.
DORNIN: And I think, Chuck Smith said to me in an interview previously, a couple of weeks ago, even, that Mark Geragos hit upon the idea of lingering doubt.
In your heart of hearts I think is the way he put it, do you -- can you absolutely say that he committed this crime? Is there absolutely no doubt in your mind that he did this? What if, in 20 years, they find out he didn't do this and you sentenced him to death.
I mean, that is a very powerful thing to present to a jury. Don't you think?
SMITH: Well, it is. But remember, and I'd like to hear what Jeff Toobin has to say about this, as well. Mark Geragos in his argument to try to save his client's life, really didn't talk much about lingering doubt, didn't argue it.
Again, the prosecutor did a nice job of anticipating that and telling the jury that when Mr. Geragos gets up here, he's going to tell you, you were wrong. He's going to talk about this concept. Well, you weren't wrong. You made the right decision.
That was again powerful. He foreclosed those arguments.
O'BRIEN: All right. Let's bring Jeff Toobin in then. Jeff's been missing the conversation. What are your thoughts on that, Jeff?
JEFF TOOBIN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I just think the act of arguing for a life prison sentence in front of a jury that has already convicted your client has to be one of the most difficult things any lawyer can do.
Because think about it, Mark Geragos got up every morning, for five months, tried to convince something -- this jury of something and the jury absolutely rejected every claim he made. And they did it in all of six hours of deliberations. I mean, they basically gave Geragos', all his efforts, the back of his hand -- the back of their hand.
So now he's got to turn around and say, "Well, let me try to convince you of something else. You clearly hate my client. You clearly think my client committed this horrible crime. Now I've got to try to start over with you."
And you know, that's why it's really tough to make these arguments. And -- and he didn't try to retry the case. He didn't claim -- use the lingering doubt argument much. He basically tried to change the subject to Scott Peterson's otherwise blameless life.
You know, I find it hard to blame -- blame Geragos for that choice, because there are not a lot of good options available to him. O'BRIEN: You know, it is a difficult position for a defense attorney. It's almost an argument for hiring a new set of attorneys for the penalty phase.
Let's talk about what we know, Jeff, about the dynamics of this jury. Who might be leading this jury? Who might be following? And who might be holdouts? Do we know enough to say anything about that right now?
TOOBIN: You know, I -- I will defer to Rusty who's been in court every day, except to add, that a lot of what we assume about jurors turns out not to be right.
You know, we think we know what goes on in jury rooms, and jurors then tell us, "You had it -- you had it all wrong."
So I -- I will give you a ringing declaration of ignorance. I mean, I just don't know what's going on in that jury room, but I bet Rusty Dornin does. She's that good a reporter.
O'BRIEN: Rusty, there is one particular juror...
DORNIN: Jeff, I have...
O'BRIEN: There's one particular juror, Rusty, who was viewed as an obvious potential leader here. Has it been your sense that that is the way it has gone down as the deliberations have unfolded?
DORNIN: Right. If you're talking about the foreman, that's not the person we ever thought would be a leader. And we also thought, many of us, juror No. 6 was the one who just was with the defense, that Justin Falconer, the one that had been dismissed earlier had said that he, in their brief conversations before he had been dismissed with juror No. 6, that he really didn't think Scott Peterson was guilty. So it was a very big surprise.
And yes, you can misjudge jurors very easily in the courtroom. But we do know that juror No. 8, just every time the defense would get up, every time defense attorney Mark Geragos would get up, his arms would be crossed like this. And he would be looking to the heavens.
I mean, he just looked like he did not want to hear anything about a defense for Scott Peterson or really anything good about Scott Peterson.
But as far as a real leader in there, I think that the man that they picked as the foreman more or less was someone who was a negotiator, someone who's more diplomatic.
Because the other juror that was dismissed apparently had been causing so much strife among people. And people were so angry and so upset that they just needed someone to sort of pull it together, someone that everyone got along with. And that apparently was juror No. 6.
SMITH: Miles, can I jump in on this? O'BRIEN: Yes. Jump in, Chuck. Go ahead.
SMITH: You know, what's fascinating to me is the -- the women on the jury. And I think it's half women, half men. I mean, this case has so much to do with mothers.
I mean, the mother of Sharon Rocha -- the mother of Laci Peterson, Sharon Rocha, was just a compelling figure that gave some of the most just gut wrenching testimony during the personality phase.
But the defense theme during their argument, not to kill him, not to execute him, was because of Jackie Peterson. I mean, and Mark Geragos argued that beautifully, I thought.
And I've watched these women on the jury, some of whom are mothers, you know. And I can't -- you know, that old thing about, you know, women are from Venus, men are from Mars. I'd like to think that women would have a harder time giving a death penalty.
But this just looks like such a hard group of people in general. And these women all look tough enough to do it. And it just sounds like their sympathies are more aligned with Sharon than they are with Jackie.
DORNIN: Yes. And it's interesting, because they did cry during several, you know, times during this trial, but it's -- they are very difficult to read, all of them. Very difficult.
O'BRIEN: All right. We're going to leave it there with you for now. Rusty Dornin, Chuck Smith, Jeff Toobin. And we'll send it over to Betty.
BETTY NGUYEN, CO-HOST: We want to go now to David Mattingly, who is in Modesto, California, with some community reaction as we wait to hear whether Scott Peterson will live or die.
What is the community saying there today, right now, David?
DAVID MATTINGLY, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Well, this is one community with a very strong emotional interest in this case. Remember, we are just a little over two weeks away from the anniversary of Laci's disappearance.
There were literally thousands of people in this community who personally joined in the search for Laci Peterson, thousands of people who called into the tip line, offering information during the investigation into the disappearance of Laci Peterson.
So a lot of emotions here. A lot of anger. A lot of lingering anger and lingering sadness over the murder of Laci Peterson and her unborn child.
You talk to people today, and you will find a vast majority of people on the streets saying that they would not have a problem with the death penalty in this case. They are very angry with Scott Peterson for taking the life of Laci Peterson and his unborn child. Now, remember, Laci Peterson was a very popular woman when she was alive, but her popularity in death has truly become remarkable here. So many people believing they have a personal connection to Laci Peterson and, therefore, a very personal interest in watching what the jury does today.
NGUYEN: David, you mentioned anger, so is this community solidified in leaning you one way against the other in this case, they're wanting the death penalty?
MATTINGLY: A majority of people that we talked to, and this is not scientific, but a majority of the people we talked to since the verdict came down said they would not have a problem with Scott Peterson getting the death penalty in this case.
But if it turns out to be life in prison, many people say they are satisfied with that, knowing that he will be off the street and being able to be behind bars and think about his crime for the rest of his natural life.
So, again, something they want to see a conclusion here, many people saying not a problem at all with the death penalty, but they will be satisfied with whatever the jury decides, since they have already come back with that guilty verdict.
NGUYEN: As we wait to hear what the conclusion is, is the community at all upset over this trial taking so long, this case taking so long to go through the legal system?
MATTINGLY: This has been difficult for a lot of people here who have been emotionally invested in the case. They feel terrible for the family that it's taken so long to get some sort of resolution in this for them.
Again, there's been a deep personal connection for the family in this case, many people feeling sorry for the Peterson as well as Laci Peterson's family, the Rocha family. They feel that there are victims on both sides in this case.
But again, all of that anger focused on Scott Peterson.
NGUYEN: How has that anger changed the community there in Modesto?
MATTINGLY: I've asked that question a lot. And people will say that it's helped bring them closer. They feel that this tragedy, this shared sense of loss and anger that they all have, is something that they can all relate to, and it's brought them together.
In fact, there's a blood drive going on today just by pure happenstance that it was scheduled today, a blood drive in memorial for Laci Peterson and her unborn child, Conner. So people have been turning out for that, people saying they want to do something in memory of Laci. The fact that a decision was coming out of this trial today is something that they hadn't anticipated when they scheduled it. So, again, many people saying they felt good being able to go, reconnect again with Laci in some way today.
NGUYEN: As this community goes through this together, have they talked about or have you heard word as we wait for this sentence to happen, whether they are going to gather, many members are going to gather in one particular place to go through the end of this all together at one?
MATTINGLY: Well, the time of day, at 1:30 today, means it's going to be after the lunch hour. So we will not see large crowds of people in restaurants watching TVs, as we did last time.
But you can bet people will be tuned to the radio. They will be watching TV wherever they can to see how this verdict comes out.
NGUYEN: And not only watching, but are they ready to put this behind them?
MATTINGLY: They are tired. They are emotionally spent on this case. Again, the anger and all the emotions they've been carrying for two years on this has taken its toll.
They want to see this case put to bed. They want to see a final decision on Scott Peterson, even though they know there's going to be years of appeals from now. They're looking forward to what the jury has to say today about what kind of punishment Scott Peterson, they believe, deserves.
NGUYEN: CNN's David Mattingly with community reaction there in Modesto, California. Thank you, David.
O'BRIEN: Just to recap, about an hour and 15 minutes from now, we will hear from the jury on the sentencing phase in the Scott Peterson case. They have come to a verdict on the sentence, life in prison or death by execution.
CNN's Larry King will be covering this from every facet imaginable. The Scott Peterson sentencing, the focus of his hour, which begins at 9 p.m. Eastern tonight.
In the meantime, stay tuned to CNN as we bring you developments on this front as well as all the rest of the news.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
O'BRIEN: Once again, we're waiting now, about an hour and 20 minutes away when we should hear from the Scott Peterson jury, having reached a decision on the life or death decision which they faced after deliberating, in round numbers, about 11 hours total. A number which exceeds the amount of time they spent deliberating on the verdict itself, the verdict of guilt in the death of his wife and his unborn son.
Joining us on the line right now is Justin Falconer, one of the jurors that was there for at least part of these deliberations. Justin, can you hear me all right?
JUSTIN FALCONER, DISMISSED SCOTT PETERSON JUROR: Yes, I can hear you fine.
O'BRIEN: All right. You as much as anybody right now can take us inside that jury room and give us a sense of the dynamics of this group of people. What can you tell us about what's going on?
FALCONER: Well, you know, I don't think it's looking too good for Scott right now.
I think what happened initially with -- in the very beginning with the guilt verdict was that the people, actually, who are sticking with juror No. 5, the foreman, actually folded after he left.
I think that they kind of conformed with the rest of the group and said, "All right, we'll go with guilty."
And I think those same people were probably having a pretty hard time coming to terms with the death verdict here. But maybe, you know, seeing the pictures, seeing some of the evidence that they saw, you know, who knows?
Maybe they conformed to the verdict or with the rest of the jury and they folded again. And I think we're going to find out pretty soon.
O'BRIEN: Now, you felt all along the prosecution case was weak, correct?
FALCONER: Yes, I would never -- I would never have convicted somebody and given them death or life in prison, whatever, on the circumstantial evidence that this case brought forth.
I mean, it was just -- there were so many skeptical -- everything is based on skepticism (sic). You know, we think he did this. We think he did that. There's no hard evidence toward anything. I mean, they can't tell you how she died. They can't tell you when she died, you know, what she died from. Things like that.
And you know, I mean to me this wasn't even a death penalty case. I mean, I think it's difficult to sit there and come to terms with the fact they're putting somebody to death for circumstantial evidence.
But obviously, these jurors are going to answer -- they're going to answer the same questions I am. And we'll see what they have to say.
O'BRIEN: In your mind's eye as you think about who's left in the jury there, who would have been the likely holdouts or hold out singular, whatever the case may be?
FALCONER: You know, if I had to guess I think there was a gentleman there who had to consult his former pastor before actually coming into the jury. And you know, I think there was a, you know, possibly him, you know. I mean, it depends on, you know, who was really strong in their belief that he was guilty. And like I said, I think there's some people in that jury that probably folded just to kind of conform with the rest of the jury so they could come up with a verdict. And were having a difficult time now coming to the death part of it.
I think we're going to, you know -- like I said, there's a couple of personalities in there that I thought would be a little bit stronger. I think maybe they're the ones that folded. Like I said, the one juror that consulted his -- his preacher or whatever. But...
O'BRIEN: So when you say folded, I mean, this has been a terrible ordeal for people, a very long trial. Great personal sacrifices.
And I guess one in that position could understand with any number of people sort of ganging up on you, to make that decision. Is that -- in your view, is that justice?
FALCONER: No, it's not. Absolutely not. And the other reason I don't think this is any justice from day one this jury, you know, we've all been dealing with the media.
And you know, the media has -- their position is extremely evident every time you walk in the front door. And so we know what the public felt. We knew what the media was saying. You know, you don't have to watch the news -- the news shows to know that everybody thought he was guilty. And that the public opinion was that they wanted him to hang.
And it's obvious, you know, they got off the bus today and they were treated like rock stars. They had people all around them. There were people just, you know, -- coming off, it was like they were movie stars.
That's not justice. That's the media doing what, you know, the media does, which is, you know, bring everybody's attention to something. And...
O'BRIEN: This is -- the allegations you raise are pretty serious, if, in fact, the jury was exposed to media coverage.
FALCONER: The jury -- the jury has been exposed since day one. This is common knowledge.
O'BRIEN: I didn't hear the last part you said there. But basically you say...
FALCONER: I'm sorry.
O'BRIEN: Just a communications snafu. The jury has been exposed to the media coverage all this time? So in what sense? How is that -- how have they been reached by the media?
FALCONER: Well, you walk through the front door. I mean, the media is right in front of the courthouse. You walk through -- you park your car, and you have to walk through 25 tents just to get to your -- just to get to the front door of the courthouse. I mean that's -- that's every day. And then you have...
O'BRIEN: But that's walking through a crowd of reporters. That's different than reading the newspaper, watching, you know, three or four telecasts.
FALCONER: That's walking -- that's walking through a crowd of reporters that are giving their hourly updates to their -- their stations.
O'BRIEN: I see. So you're hearing -- you were overhearing a good -- a good portion of some of the reporting that was going on?
FALCONER: Absolutely we were. Absolutely. And that's -- I mean, I don't know how many times we walked out of the courthouse, we're hearing somebody give a report. And it was like awful. We're looking at each other, like, what? You know, what courtroom were they in?
You know, it's been going on. So I don't -- I stood by my position that this jury has been tainted, you know, very heavily since day one. They know what the public wants.
They are, you know -- these are public figures. People who have to go back to work, have families, have lives. And they don't want to be public enemy No. 1. They don't want the same, you know, people that are now cheering them to turn around and make them the, you know, make them the villains and, you know, go after them the way that they went after me.
I mean it's just -- they've seen that. I have no doubt they saw what happened to me. And this is nonsense.
O'BRIEN: So you think this jury has been pressured one way or another?
FALCONER: Absolutely. 100 percent. Yes, I do.
O'BRIEN: Take it around full circle then. You said at the beginning, you alluded to it. But why don't you state it as clear as you think? Do you think this jury has decided that Scott Peterson should face death by execution?
FALCONER: Yes, I do. I think that you -- I think it shows that the evidence that they called in. You know, there was probably one or two hold-outs that said no, life.
But you know, from the looks of it, you know, the pictures that hey brought in to show, you know, I just have to agree with a lot of the pundits that were on television watching it, too, and say that, yes, they probably came to a death verdict. And so we'll take the next step shortly.
O'BRIEN: What are your thoughts then, having had this direct involvement in this case for so long? Are you surprised? Or I guess not. Given what you've said about how this jury felt pressure, I guess it probably doesn't surprise you.
FALCONER: No, it really doesn't. I think what -- I think the biggest shock and, you know -- like when I was -- first heard about the verdict, you know, it was like I had actually kind of said, Well, wow! There's, you know, obviously something there that, you know, I didn't see, and that they can hang their hat on.
But it was after the other jurors were dismissed and they were talking about, you know, the public and, you know, book deals. And I don't want to get into the book deals. I don't know if there's any truth behind that.
But what they were talking about was public opinion. And just knowing public opinion and talking about it the way that we did in the deliberating room.
And you know, yes, we talked about book deals and how famous we were going to get and who would play us in the movie. And blah, blah, blah, it was just half joking.
But what we did talk about was not being an O.J. jury. We didn't want to be, you know, considered, you know, a bunch of, you know, villains who, you know, let this guy off and, you know, be his O.J. jury and have to deal with the public after that.
And so that was definitely, you know, a clear pressure from day one.
And, you know, there were people that walked up to the jurors. They knew who we were. It took about an hour before people figured out who the jury was. And you know, there were jurors that were actually approached.
I mean, you know, people walked up and said, "Hey, you need to find him guilty. And blah, blah, blah."
And we talked about that in the deliberating room.
There were people when, you know, when the incident with me and Brent happened, that walked up to the jurors and said, you know, "Hey, this piece of crap needs to be off the jury and blah, blah, blah." And the juror had to defend me to these people.
So I mean, this is -- you know, they've been out there for the public to, you know, get hold of. And you know, I'm not surprised at all that they're going to do something that is going to be public friendly.
And I think if they had been, you know, sequestered from day one. I think if the evidence was all they got to see, I really, truly think that there would be a very different outcome.
O'BRIEN: Justin, have you been approached for a book deal?
FALCONER: No, no, I haven't, no.
O'BRIEN: Would you do one?
FALCONER: Yes, I would. You know what? I would, but this is a thing that my angle would be a little different from theirs. Theirs would be from inside the courtroom. Mine would be about the media coverage and the things that happened outside the courtroom that I believe affected the outcome of this case.
And so if I did one that's what mine would be about.
O'BRIEN: Justin Falconer, who at one time was a part of the jury, was ultimately dismissed from it and has some unique insights that he can bring to bear, as we wait about an hour from now to hear from that jury in this, the sentencing phase.
Live pictures here at the courthouse, Redwood City, California.
If you would like further depth and context for this whole story, we invite you to check out our Web site. CNN.com/law will answer just about every question you have about this case.
We'll be back with more in just a moment.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
(STOCK REPORT)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
