Prosecution argues that Scott Peterson deserves death

By JOHN COTE
BEE STAFF WRITER

E-Mail

Comments (0)

Text Size:

tool goes here

1:35 p.m.: REDWOOD CITY - Scott Peterson is “the worst kind of monster,” a cold manipulator who laughed as devastated family members searched for his pregnant wife and unborn son, prosecutors argued this morning.

“He deserves death. There is no way around it,” prosecutor Dave Harris told jurors, who likely will begin deliberating this afternoon whether Peterson should be sentenced to death or life in prison without parole.

Saying “hate sells” in American society, defense attorney Pat Harris pointed to the lack of direct evidence against his client before choking up as he pleaded with jurors to spare the 32-year-old Modesto man’s life.

“It is a life worth saving,” Pat Harris said. “I’m asking you - I’m not asking you, I’m going to beg you. When you go back there, please spare his life.”

The same jury that convicted Peterson Nov. 12 of murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner, heard a 45-minute prosecution argument before Pat Harris argued for 35 minutes. Lead defense attorney Mark Geragos resumed the defense argument this afternoon.

Dave Harris, in what a legal analyst called “one of the most compelling, powerful, arguments I’ve seen,” used a devastating photo, text and sound montage to depict Peterson as a philandering killer who ambushed his pregnant wife, lied to his supporters and let her family hope in vain for 116 days that she would be found alive.

“I thought Dave Harris did such a powerful and effective job, I don’t think the defense can overcome the picture the prosecution painted,” former San Francisco prosecutor James Hammer said.

Juror 7, a mother of four, cried during portions of the prosecution argument, while most jurors appeared impassive during the defense argument.

On the two-year anniversary of the day Scott Peterson told his girlfriend he had “lost” his wife weeks before Laci Peterson was reported missing, Dave Harris pointed to the dual life of Scott Peterson.

“Laci Peterson was an anchor around his neck,” he said. “So he put one around hers.”

Displaying on a massive screen for the jury an image of a smiling Laci and Scott Peterson in front of a Christmas tree, Dave Harris than overlaid the smiling substitute teacher with a photo of Scott Peterson holding hands with his then-girlfriend, Amber Frey, in front of another Christmas tree.

“He is the worst kind of monster,” Dave Harris said. “Scott Peterson is the worst of the worse, because he’s the kind of person … you trust, who’s manipulative. No one ever sees it coming.”

Jurors heard snippets of secretly taped phone calls, including one Peterson made to Frey the night of a New Year’s Eve vigil for his wife in which he pretended to be partying near the Eiffel Tower in Paris.

Dave Harris juxtaposed two pictures of Peterson smiling at the vigil with a photo of Laci Peterson’s mother, Sharon Rocha, and several supporters who appear devastated at the same event.

They also heard calls where Peterson is making beach plans with his family, then leaves a voice mail for a supporter, telling her he was at grief counseling.

Dave Harris discounted as victims of manipulation the 39 defense witness who testified that the Scott Peterson they knew could never have murdered his wife.

“Scott Peterson was a person who had a plan and he acted. He executed it.”

Sharon Rocha and Laci Peterson’s sister, Amy Rocha, quietly sobbed during parts of Harris’ presentation, which featured a slide show of family photos, including Laci in a cheerleader outfit, reveling at a wedding and smiling with her brother and sister.

“Remember the victims,” Harris said, at one point holding up for the jury photos of the remains of mother and son as they were found along the San Francisco Bay shoreline. “Remember Laci and Conner.”

He argued that life in prison was too good for Scott Peterson because it would allow him to live and enjoy simple comforts such as books and writing letters, all of which he had denied his victims.

Pat Harris, speaking in hushed tones that were largely inaudible in much of the courtroom, pointed to the concept of lingering doubt, a factor the jurors can consider when deciding on the sentence.

In a circumstantial evidence case, such as this one, lingering doubt was essentially inherent, Harris argued.