Thinking back, it seems like it happened so long ago, so much has gone on in the world since then...
On March 16th, 2005, in a crowded courtroom in Redwood City California, Judge Alfred A. Delucchi formally sentenced Scott Peterson (accused of murdering his wife, Laci Rocha Peterson, and their unborn son, Conner) to death by lethal injection pursuant to the jury's November 12th, 2004 guilty verdict.*
To say that the trial was "highly publicized" would be a gross understatement. At the time, the Scott Peterson murder trial amounted to more like a chaotic, emotionally and media-fueled feeding-frenzy. It was the daily grist of water-cooler tirades, the opening story of hundreds of nightly news broadcasts worldwide and the platform of countless soapbox sermons.
Curiously (to my mind, anyway), unlike the O. J. Simpson trial before it, the Peterson trial proved no fodder for debate. Almost without exception, the court of public opinion appeared to have tried, convicted and sentenced Peterson before the actual opening arguments even began.
99.9% of the world seemed to agree that Scott Peterson was guilty; however, seemingly utterly alone in my trepidation, I questioned (and continue to question to this very day) just what crime the People's evidence proved "beyond the shadow of a doubt" he was guilty OF...
There is no question that the murder of wife and soon-to-be mother Laci Peterson (and her unborn son) was a callous, heinous and brutally inhuman act nearly beyond the ability of words to express it. There is also no question that Scott Peterson was proved to be a liar, philanderer and adulterer and that he appears to be morally bankrupt -- completely lacking the empathy and capacity for emotional attachment commonly found in most human beings -- while simultaneously exhibiting an overabundance of predisposition toward self-gratification and ego-centricity.
Fortunately for most of us flawed human beings, however, there are no laws on the books anywhere in these United States that prohibit possessing these traits in whatever measure. We all have flaws (mostly minor ones, thank goodness) but rarely are we put on trial for them as Scott Peterson was.
In the course of viewing the myriad court and law enforcement related dramas that we watch on television, we are often reminded that, in a court of law, it is real, concrete evidence that convicts the accused -- not personal opinions, innuendos, questionable personal philosophies or even past or present associations. Rather convictions should result from real, solid, forensic evidence and/or testimony by eyewitnesses or electronic means (photographs, videotape, phone recordings, etc.).
I submit that, based upon that premise, Scott Peterson should never have been found guilty of violating any law in the land because, in fact, the one piece of evidence submitted by the Prosecution in the case against him was circumstantial at best and as thin as the width of one human hair...
The Peterson case was fraught with problems from the start with stops and starts, precarious, borderline dismissive actions and questionable jurisprudence:
There was the change of venue from Modesto (Peterson's hometown) to Redwood City because of a perceived inability to provide an unbiased trial in an environment already saturated with high-running emotions. This fact alone speaks volumes as to the potential for consequential inadequacies in fair representation.
There was the shuffling of defense attorneys -- from veteran criminal lawyer Kirk McAllister to Public Defender Ken Faulkner to the pricey Mark Geragos -- each with its potential to "drop the baton", so to speak. In the last days of the trial, it seemed that Geragos was conspicuously absent (oddly coincidental to about the same time period of Scott Peterson's parents' announcement that they had filed bankruptcy due to expenses incurred in his defense).
More seriously, there was the nearly last-minute dismissal of two jurors -- one the jury foreman who, by all reports, was unquestionably the most detailed "notetaker" during the trial (and who, afterwards, confessed his predisposition toward a "not guilty" vote) and the other, whose alleged, momentary contact with the brother of the victim one day as all of the people concerned with the case filed into the courthouse (which could have been as an innocuous an exchange as excusing herself for bumping into him) was brought to the attention of the Court by, of all means, a "Court TV" videotape. So emotionally charged was the atmosphere surrounding this case, the dismissed foreman even cited actual "death threats" made to him from unrevealed sources which contributed to his uncontested acceptance of dismissal from the jury.
One of the replacement jurors was even seen yawning -- presumably in boredom with the testimony being given at the time -- after being placed on the jury.
Adding to the melee was the attorney for witness (and fellow adulterer with Scott Peterson) Amber Frey: The flamboyant and outspoken Gloria Allred who, unlike all of the other participants, was not bound by the gag order prohibiting communications about the case to outsiders -- especially to the Press -- a circumstance of which Ms. Allred took full advantage.
Ms. Frey's cooperation with law enforcement during the investigation surrounding Peterson is nearly legendary (a made-for-TV movie having been produced and shown on a primetime network). Unfortunately for the Prosecution, however, despite her repeated attempts via covert means to wrangle some statement -- any statement -- out of Peterson that might serve as a confession to the crime, Ms. Frey came up empty-handed.
When asked to be specific as to which aspect(s) of the Prosecution's case most influenced their guilty determination and subsequent death-penalty decision, copious media statements made by members of the jury after the trial ended cited Peterson's alleged "lack of [display of?] emotion", his penchant for telling untruths and his extensive contact with Amber Frey in the weeks following his wife's disappearance -- as well as a perceived lack of responsibility in protecting his wife and son from harm -- as deciding factors. Even by their own admissions, these factors were "hundreds of small 'puzzle pieces' of circumstantial evidence".
Fortunately for the entire American judicial system, "circumstantial evidence" has never been admissible for consideration in rendering a verdict in a U.S. court of law -- "fortunately", that is, with the glaring exception, it appears, of the Scott Peterson murder trial...
In fact, in support of their decision in the case, not one of the jurors cited the only real, solid piece of forensic evidence possessed by the Prosecution: The presence of a solitary human hair (determined by testing to have belonged to the victim, Laci Peterson) on a pair of pliers in a boat belonging to Scott Peterson.
Convincing argument could made that even this piece of evidence was entirely circumstantial.
One can imagine a hundred ways in which a single hair belonging to a man's wife could find its way onto pair of pliers that later wound up in his boat.
No testimony was ever offered claiming Laci had never set foot in the boat nor used the pliers. It is entirely possible she used the pliers at some previous and/or she was present in the boat (with or without Peterson) on many occasions and, during one of these occasions, her hair got on the pliers. There is simply no way to prove otherwise. This represents the textbook litmus test for "circumstantial evidence": A circumstance surrounding the evidence presented that could likely make it totally unrelated to the crime in question.
Yes, Scott Peterson is unquestionably a cold-hearted "cad" who cheated on his wife even as she carried their child in her womb and a liar, to boot -- but, try to imagine yourself in a similar scenario wherein you are absolutely, without question, NOT guilty of murdering your spouse...
Imagine, if you will, your local District Attorney dredging up every, single questionable conversation you have ever had with anyone about your relationship with your spouse and, indeed, the appearance of appropriateness of every relationship you have or have ever had with anyone.
Imagine just for a moment that law enforcement is scrutinizing every move you make -- no matter how inconsequential -- for the weeks and months following the shock of your spouse's murder under a microscope colored by their predetermination of your guilt and fueled by their great need to produce the perpetrator to quell the public's fear for its safety...
Ask yourself: Would the presence of one, solitary hair from my spouse's head on some object owned by me be enough to justify my receiving that lethal injection? If you are honest with yourself and the rest of the world, you must answer with a resounding "NO!".
The fact that Scott Peterson is where he is right now should give all of us -- each and every citizen of the United States -- cause to fear for our lives...
---------------------------
* Actually "verdicts" since Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder under special circumstances for his wife and second-degree murder for their unborn child.
No comments:
Post a Comment