Stages Of The Criminal Trial Scott Peterson

Stages of the Criminal Trial

"Scott Peterson"

Voir Dire

This stage is an examination of potential jurors to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Ideally, voir dire will result in an impartial jury for the trial of the accused. On March 4, 2004 jury selection began for the trial of Scott Peterson. Nearly 100 potential jurors began answering questionnaires about their views on the death penalty and their opinions on extramarital affairs. The nearly 30-page questionnaire given to prospective jurors also included questions as whether they read Field and Stream, what stickers grace their car bumpers and whether they have lost a child. On April 14, 2004 Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed an unidentified Redwood City woman after a brief meeting in his chambers. Defense attorney Mark Geragos two weeks early had accused the retired secretary of bragging to her friends on a bus trip to Reno, Nevada, that she has "passed the test" to get on Peterson's jury and that Peterson was "guilty as hell" and would "get what's due him." May 28, 2004 six men and six women were selected for Scott Peterson's murder trial all said they would be willing to sentence him to death if they convict him of killing his wife and the couple's fetus.

Opening Statements

In the opening statements both side of the case make opening statements to lay the foundation of their cases. Opening statements are not allowed to be argumentative and cannot be considered evidence by the jury; they are the road maps laying out where each side intends to take its case. First the prosecution presented its case. They alleged Peterson killed his wife in their Modesto home because he was having an affair, then drove her body nearly 100 miles to San Francisco Bay and heaved it overboard from his small boat. Prosecution offered a steady drum beat of small bits of circumstantial evidence. From the Russian poetry Peterson read his mistress to the fishing gear in his alibi to the dessert featured on a particular episode of Martha Stewart Living, it added up to Peterson's guilt, they suggested. The defense countered that Modesto authorities unfairly targeted Peterson, ignoring important leads that didn't fit their theory. Defense said that, while prosecutors had only assembled a circumstantial case, they had five witnesses that were direct evidence of Peterson's innocence.

The Presentation of the Prosecution's Case

This stage the prosecution has the burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Its goal is to present relevant facts to the jury that prove that the named defendant committed the named crime. Prosecution began this process with testimony from several witnesses about the last time they saw Laci Peterson before her disappearance. Prosecution then called Laci's mother to recount suspicious behavior by Peterson in the wake of the disappearance of his pregnant wife. Laci's stepfather testified next that within a day or two of Laci's disappearance, he had concluded his son-in-law's alibi was bogus and suspected he might be carrying on an affair with another women. Another witness that followed was Laci's cousin Harvey Kemple who said, "I saw more reaction out of Scott when he burnt the damned chicken than when his wife went missing." He also said he became suspicious "the very first day" when Peterson told him he had been golfing when his wife disappeared. Next, a woman who lived across the street from Scott told jurors in his murder trial that her home was burglarized about the same time his pregnant wife disappeared and that the thieves made off with guns and expensive jewelry not unlike the baubles the mother-to-be had recently inherited. The prosecution went on the question many more witnesses to help them prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Defense Presents its Case

If the defense attorney feels that the defense must answer the charges of the prosecution, the defense will present its own case. It is not required that the defense present a case. If the defense puts on its case, it will either provide contrary evidence to the prosecution, or offer an alibi, or present an affirmative defense. The defense brought a financial expert witness to testify that, "from a financial standpoint, Scott would've been better off it they were alive." He said the murders of defendant's wife, and her unborn son meant Peterson would not share in an estimated $160,000 inheritance his 27-year-old spouse was poised to receive on her 30th birthday; instead, that the money will go to her relatives. The defense also argued to jurors that the transients in the two areas were somehow related to Laci's murder. The defense brought a search dog handler as a witness, who said just because a search dog picked up Laci Peterson's scent at the marina does not mean