The Scott Peterson Case - Essay Example

The Scott Peterson Case The Scott Peterson Case The Scott Peterson case was that received significant coverage due to the nature of the crime. Scot Peterson was an American who was convicted of killing his wife Laci Peterson, as well as his unborn child in the year 2002 in California. He was later sentenced to death through lethal injection in 2005, and the case was closely followed by the media from the start to the end (Bird, 2005). Scott Peterson is now incarcerated in San Quentin State Prison on death row as his case waits on the Supreme Court of California on appeal. About the Case Scott had two attorneys representing him during this case as he had initially indicated that he would not be able to afford the services of a private lawyer. The court thus proceeded to assign him one by the name of Kirk McAllister who was a veteran defense lawyer. As the case proceeded, however, Scott Peterson later stated that he would be able to afford a private attorney after all and hired the services of Mark Geragos who had handled other high profile cases similar to his (Crier & Thompson, 2005). The judge appointed to the case later on moved the trial from Modesto, California where the crime had been committed to Redwood City in the year 2004 due an increase in hostility towards the defendant (Scott Peterson). The judge felt that due to this hostility, the judge felt that Scott would not be able to receive a fair trial in Modesto as individuals in that region had already perceived him as guilty and it would have been impossible to get a non bias jury in that area (Beratlis et al, 2007). The hostility was due to the type of coverage that the case received from the media. (Bird, 2005) The news had already portrayed Scott Peterson as an inhumane individual who was accountable for the death of an innocent woman and an unborn child. They covered the story as if the defendant was guilty, and the process of the trial was just a preliminary to the inevitable end result of a guilty verdict. In order to ensure that Scott Peterson would be able to get a fair trial, the judged moved the case to another area away from Modesto, where the residents felt bereaved as they had lost one of their own. It should b noted, however, that the coverage of the country was country wide, and thus it cannot be said how much the move changed matters in terms of the defendants portrayal (Beratlis et al, 2007). The main witness of the prosecution also hired her own attorney who played a big role as a sympathizer to the prosecution as she was not bound by the gag order that prohibited the others who were involved from talking about the case. Gloria Allred (the witness’ attorney) was able to appear on a number of television shows to discuss the case with the American public (Beratlis et al, 2007). However, she did not divulge any information that would have put the case in jeopardy, and she maintained the position that her client had no definite opinion about whether Scott Peterson was guilty or not. Gloria Allred did a superb job of keeping details about her client from the public and information about her clients past was not revealed to the media (Crier & Thompson, 2005). Scott Peterson’s lawyer argued that his client was innocent based on the evidence that was available and that the circumstantial evidence that was there was not enough to act as a basis for conviction. The defense argued that the fetus that was found with the victim were that of a full term baby and theorized that the defendants wife could have been kidnapped and held hostage for a period of time enough to let the baby develop to full term before she was murdered (Bird, 2005). The defense also tried to bring into play the idea that the Laci Peterson could have been the victim of a satanic cult that could have abducted her. However, the prosecution with the help of scientific evidence proved that the fetus was not of full term and had reached the end of development. There were a number of happenings that occurred during the trial as two members of the jury were replaced before the final deliberations were made (Beratlis et al, 2007). The first was removed due to what was termed as misconduct as she was seen talking to the victim’s brother as they passed each other within the court’s building. The second juror who was also the foreman was replaced after he asked to have himself removed. The defense attorney stated in the media that the foreman had mentioned something about threats as part of the reason that he wished to be excused from the jury duties that he had been handed (Bird, 2005). Scott Peterson was later convicted of first and second degree murder after replacements for both jurors were found for the death of his wife, and the unborn child. The case was significant in the fact that Scott Peterson was charged with first degree murder on grounds of special circumstances and not hard evidence. The jury based their decision based on 1000 little details and circumstances that when strung together made him out to be the most likely guilty party (Beratlis et al, 2007) . A case of such a high priority was mainly based on irrefutable evidence that proved those were convicted was indeed guilty of the crime that they had committed (Beratlis et al, 2007). The jury also later on claimed that Scott Peterson’s demeanor in reference to his cold attitude while the trial was ongoing played a part in making a final decision about whether he was guilty. They also claimed that the calls that occurred between him and the main witness of the prosecution were of a highly suspicious nature as he tried to cover up the knowledge of his wife’s whereabouts by lying and making excuses about where she was (Crier & Thompson, 2005). They stated that the reason that they decided that the death penalty was what he deserved is because they felt that the defendant was supposed to take care and protect his wife and child, and he did just the opposite. References Beratlis, Greg; Marino, Tom; Belmessieri, Mike; Lear, Dennis; Nice, Richelle; Guinasso, John; Zanartu, Julie; Swertlow, Frank et al. (2007).We, the Jury: Deciding the Scott Peterson Case. Beverly Hills, CA: Phoenix Books. Bird, A. (2005). Blood Brother: 33 Reasons My Brother Scott Peterson Is Guilty. New York: Regan Books Crier, C & Thompson, C. (2005). A Deadly Game: The Untold Story of the Scott Peterson Investigation. New York: ReganBooks. Read More