Peterson lawyer angrily demands mistrial, is denied
By Harriet Ryan
Court TV
REDWOOD CITY, California (Court TV) -- A lawyer for Scott Peterson angrily demanded a mistrial Monday morning, saying prosecutors violated evidence rules by not forewarning him police officers would testify that the double-murder defendant cursed under his breath and threw a flashlight after they questioned him about his alibi for his wife's disappearance.
"What kind of BS is this," lawyer Mark Geragos shouted, after jurors who had just heard the testimony were hustled out of the courtroom.
When a prosecutor conceded the officers told him of the incidents ? episodes not documented in their reports ? before taking the stand Monday, the defense attorney exploded, throwing up his hands in frustration and insisting Judge Alfred Delucchi instruct jurors to disregard the accounts.
"Short of an admonition, I'm moving for a mistrial," Geragos steamed.
The request caused snickers in the courtroom gallery, prompting the already riled lawyer to spin around and snap at "the peanut gallery" for laughing. Peterson, dressed in a gray suit and yellow tie, stared up at his lawyer as Geragos reminded the judge he could clear the public from the court.
Delucchi quickly denied the mistrial request and told Geragos that courts were generally only cleared in movies, not real trials. He told Distaso to be more careful in the future, but implied Geragos was grandstanding.
Noting that the anger the officers described might be construed as proof Peterson was genuinely upset about his pregnant wife Laci's disappearance, the judge calmly told the lawyer, "It could be beneficial to the defense."
The testimony came from officers Derrick Letsinger and Matthew Spurlock, the first Modesto police officers to inspect the Petersons' home after the mother-to-be vanished December 24, 2002.
The officers toured the home twice about an hour after Peterson told his wife's mother that he had come home from a fishing trip to find her missing. On the second "walk-through," Peterson and another office accompanied them.
Both Letsinger and Spurlock recounted one of the most notorious pieces of evidence against Peterson: his apparent inability to answer when Spurlock asked him what type of fish he was trying to catch in San Francisco Bay.
"He had a blank look on his face for a second or so," Spurlock told jurors. "He kinda mumbled some stuff, but again blew off my question."
Both officers said Peterson hesitated again when asked what type of bait he used. Ultimately, they testified, he indicated he was fishing with a 7- to 8-inch lure.
According to the officers, the incident with the flashlight occurred shortly after they asked him the questions about the fishing trip. The officers said they told Peterson he could leave the house and, as he walked out the front door, they said he threw down a flashlight he had been holding and hissed "f---."
"It sounded like it was said through gritted teeth," Spurlock testified.
Letsinger, who testified first, said he overheard "something like a curse word," but Geragos only objected when Spurlock specified the profanity and even imitated the tone of voice Peterson used. The defense lawyer said he was willing to overlook Letsinger's testimony, but felt the officers' combined accounts were a "cheap trick" by prosecutors.
Cross-examining the officers, Geragos pointed out that neither detailed the incident in an official report. The lawyer called Spurlock, who was on the force less than two years at the time of the investigation, "an ambitious, young rookie officer" and implied he was out to impress his higher-ups, perhaps by cooking up sensational evidence against Peterson.
Quizzing him about the flashlight incident, Geragos asked Spurlock if he had seen "any burnt chicken" at the same time ? a reference to the testimony of Harvey Kemple, a prosecution witness who said last week that Peterson was more upset over charred barbecue than his wife's disappearance.
"No, I didn't see any chicken," Spurlock replied dryly.
He did acknowledge that Peterson could have been too upset about his wife to give quick answers to the fishing questions.
"Could've been a natural response?" asked Geragos.
"Could've been," agreed Spurlock.
He also conceded that he did not know why Peterson cursed or threw the flashlight.
"You don't know why he was mad, do you?" Geragos pressed.
"I have an assumption," Spurlock replied.
"But you don't know," Geragos said.
"No," the officer agreed.
Using police photographs, Spurlock and Letsinger led jurors through a tour of the Petersons' home as they found it Christmas Eve. Laci Peterson was an admirer of Martha Stewart and the home the jurors saw was meticulously decorated. The living room walls were painted a rich scarlet with white trim on the molding, and the dining room table was set with cloth napkins, butter-colored candles and shiny silver Christmas party favors.
The officers said that a cursory look through the house uncovered no sign of violence in the home. Because the one-story house was so immaculately kept, however, certain things stood out. Spurlock and Letsinger both noted an area rug crumpled against a door, dirty rags piled on top of the washing machine and two damp mops and a bucket outside the front door.
"The thing that struck me about these items was the rest of the house was almost like a model home," said Letsinger.
Prosecutors have hinted that the mop is suspicious because the couple's housekeeper had cleaned all the floors the day before. Peterson told police his wife, who was eight months pregnant, was mopping the floor when he last saw her.
A pair of Capris
Jurors also heard testimony from an employee of a maternity clothing retailer about the pants on Laci Peterson's body when her remains washed up on the shore of San Francisco Bay.
Philip Williams, national loss prevention manager for Motherworks Incorporated, which owns three national chains of maternity clothing stores, detailed how he matched the identification number from the tag of the tan pants. The legs of the pants were shredded.
Williams said the style and color number corresponded to stone-colored Capri pants Laci Peterson bought from a Motherhood maternity store in Modesto in August 2002.
Peterson told police his wife was wearing black pants when he last saw her. Laci Peterson's sister, Amy Rocha, said she was wearing cream-colored pants the evening of December 23. Prosecutors have theorized Peterson killed his wife that night.
Geragos used his cross-examination to remind jurors that Rocha was shown a photograph of the specific style of Motherhood Capris after her sister went missing and told detectives the pants were "definitely" not the ones Laci Peterson wore December 23. She said in particular the pants her sister was wearing did not have cuffs or pintuck seams like those Williams showed jurors.
Williams also showed jurors five other garments Laci Peterson purchased from the Motherhood store in August. As the images of the items from her closet flashed onto a large projection screen, the victim's mother, Sharon Rocha, began silently weeping in the front row of the courtroom.
When Williams described a pink georgette blouse "with flutter sleeves," Rocha bowed her head and dabbed at her eyes with tissues. By the time he had detailed a cream and black blouse, tissues were being passed throughout the seating section reserved for Laci Peterson's relatives.
Her husband, a 31-year-old fertilizer salesman, faces the death penalty if convicted of the murders of his 27-year-old wife and unborn son.
Modesto Detectives Jon Buehler and Ron Cloward are expected to testify Tuesday. Buehler was one of the investigators who interviewed Peterson's mistress, Amber Frey.
