Defense attorney Kirk McAllister, center, walks into court followed by his client, Scott Peterson on Oct. 17, 2003. (Associated Press)

Posted on Tue, Oct. 28, 2003

Peterson case moves at last from tabloids to courtroom
By Brian Anderson
CONTRA COSTA TIMES

A strand of hair. A piece of tape. A brown van.

A trail of evidence leading to Laci Peterson's killer has been left behind.

From the time the Modesto woman vanished Christmas Eve to the days in April when her remains and those of her unborn baby were found in Richmond, investigators have pieced together a strange mix of clues. Those leads, authorities said, point to the woman's husband, Scott Peterson, who was arrested April 18 and charged in her killing.

But defense lawyers using the same evidence and roundly different theories say the evidence not only exonerates their client, but also shows who really committed the brutal crime.

Both sides will begin using that evidence Wednesday at a preliminary hearing to convince a Stanislaus County judge that their theory is accurate. Only the judge can decide if there is enough evidence incriminating Peterson to hold him for trial on murder charges and special circumstances that allow prosecutors to pursue a death sentence.

Bit by bit

Once off-limits, much of the evidence that is expected to be presented at the preliminary hearing has slowly filtered to the reporters who have been digging away at one of the country's hottest real-life dramas. In the beginning, leaks were to blame, even as officials worked to conceal from the media what they had found.

Leaks about Scott Peterson's mistress and an insurance policy he reportedly had taken out on his wife months before she disappeared found their way into the headlines. There were leaks about cement residue in his boat and on human remains that turned out to be Laci Peterson and her unborn son.

An investigator leaked information about photographs and hair samples authorities collected from Scott Peterson early in the case. "A source close to the defense" leaked information about taped phone calls and evidence that pointed to "credible suspects" in Laci Peterson's disappearance.

There was a leaked autopsy report, providing eager reporters with information that Laci's fetus was found with tape around its neck and a gash to its body.

There also were leaks about the "true killers," who, according to the defense, remain at large.

Some theories claimed it was burglars driving a brown van or hired neo-Nazis who abducted and killed the 27-year-old Modesto woman. Others said it was the work of a serial killer or cult.

Bit by bit, more evidence turned up in court documents. A judge's order barred disclosure of search-warrant and arrest-warrant specifics and has prevented anyone associated with the case from talking about it with reporters. But records filed by defense lawyers and prosecutors began to reveal a once top-secret investigation.

Court records

Authorities had recorded hundreds of Peterson's telephone calls, some illegally, Peterson's lawyer Mark Geragos contended in his court filings. Documents also revealed some of the investigative tools authorities used in their quest to find Laci Peterson, and later her killer, after she vanished Dec. 24.

Officials hypnotized a pregnant Peterson neighbor to better determine where she was on that day, documents showed. Witnesses have told police they spotted a pregnant woman walking a dog in the area near the Peterson home.

Authorities hoped to explain that the woman witnesses saw was not Laci Peterson, but rather another pregnant Modesto woman.

Prosecutors have said they will not call the woman to testify at the preliminary hearing, but that she could eventually make an appearance at trial.

Investigators tracked Scott Peterson from Jan. 3 to April 22 using global positioning system devices attached to cars he was driving.

Along with information about a search by a Contra Costa County dog and its handler, defense lawyers have asked a judge in court documents to exclude all of that information from the preliminary hearing.

Still, testimony from police investigators, criminologists and even family members of Scott and Laci Peterson, all of whom have been subpoenaed to testify at the hearing, could reveal information as yet unknown to the general public.

"Open some eyes"

Stanislaus County District Attorney Jim Brazelton told the Modesto Bee earlier this year that evidence gathered during four months of investigation "might open some eyes."

He declined to state exactly what he meant. But prosecutors are hoping to shoot down "phony baloney" defense theories, as Brazelton characterized them to a Bee reporter, that lead to suspects other than Scott Peterson.

Yet legal experts who talked to the Times said the defense probably will not put up much of a fight in the preliminary hearing anyway. They simply don't have to, said Stanley Goldman, a Loyola Law School professor in Los Angeles.

"The only way a defendant is going to win a prelim is if the witnesses don't show up," Goldman said. Defendants, he said, "are all held to answer."

A judge only needs to be convinced that there is probable cause to believe the defendant committed a crime of which he is charged. And that just isn't much proof, said George Bisharat, a criminal procedure expert at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco.

"It would be a great surprise if he was not held to answer," Bisharat said. "There would have to be major flaws in the prosecutor's case."

So, if you are Peterson lawyer Mark Geragos, why not waive the procedure? After all, Geragos fought hard to keep cameras out of the hearing and close it off to reporters, saying publicity of the hearing would prejudice a future jury.

"It gives you an opportunity to poke holes in the prosecutor's case without risking your theories," said Ruth Jones, a criminal law professor at McGeorge School of Law in Sacramento. "The defense doesn't even have to put on evidence."

Jones, a former prosecutor, added that lawyers for the district attorney often put on just enough evidence to hold the defendant on the charges, saving additional evidence for trial, which in this case could still be a year or two away.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that isn't so, but it certainly seems that way, as long as it has taken just to get to the PRELIM, for goodness sake!

There is no such thing as "swift justice" or a "speedy trial" anymore, is there?