The Scott Peterson case is strictly based on circumstantial evidence leading to his conviction and enrollment in the death row. Scott Peterson was duly charged with killing his wife and his unborn child and consequently convicted of first and second-degree murder without direct incriminating evidence. Nevertheless, it is crucial to discuss the events of the entire case to properly comprehend the dynamics involved regarding the evidence as well as the scope of the case from the investigation’s and prosecutors’ points of view.
Early suspicions regarding the involvement of Scott Peterson began on 24 th December 2002 when a missing person report on Laci (Scott’s wife) was filed. According to the prosecutors of the case, Peterson’s out of character behavior gave them the first clue regarding his guilt. According to People Staff (2005), Peterson left home (Modesto California) on the eve of Christmas with his pregnant wife to go fishing 90 miles away but had no idea of what he was fishing for or the bait he was using when questioned. On 24 th January 2003, new insights were realized when Amber Frey, a massage therapist from Fresno, went public about his romantic relationship with Peterson which he adamantly denied. She further asserted that the affair had started on 20 th November 2002 when Peterson told her he was single. This revelation further elaborated on the web of lies weaved by Peterson. On 14 th April 2003, Laci’s body was discovered and recovered from the shore of San Francisco Bay area. Four days later, Peterson was incarcerated in San Diego for capital murder and was denied bail (CNN, 2017).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
On 21 st April 2003, Peterson was arraigned in court before Judge Nancy for the first time in Stanislaus County Superior Court. Following his arraignment, Peterson was accused of two counts of murder with premeditation which he pleaded not guilty. On 2 nd May, the same year, Mark Geragos announced his intentions of representing Peterson as his attorney. On 12 th June, a gag order was issued to preserve Peterson’s right to a fair trial. Subsequently, news cameras were banned from the floor of the court during the hearings. On 26 th September, the victims’ family filed a case against Peterson to stop him from selling his story and receiving money. During the preliminary hearing, forensic evidence inclusive of DNA was presented. On 19 th December, Laci’s mother further sued Peterson in two separate lawsuits for more than five million USD for the deaths of Laci and her unborn child. On 20 th January 2004, the trial was moved to San Mateo County where cameras were as well banned from the proceedings.
On 4 th March 2004, jury selection started where a jury of six men and six women was selected over the subsequent month. On 1 st June 2004, the trial officially began which saw juror Justin Falconer dismissed for misconstrued actions. On 10 th August, Frey testified with the aid of recordings she made with the help of the police after she realized Peterson had lied to her. Subsequently, the prosecution presented their case followed by the defense after which, both sides offered their closing arguments respectively. In this accord, the selected jury began deliberations. On 12 th November, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder regarding Laci’s death and second-degree murder for his son’s death. Between 30 th November and 9 th December 2004, both Sharon Rocha and Peterson’s parents testified in that order. On 13 th December same year, the jury issued a recommendation that Peterson was to be given the capital punishment of death which Judge Alfred Delucchi upheld on 16 th March 2005 and convicted Peterson to death (Fox News, 2012).
The evidence regarding Peterson’s case was largely speculative and circumstantial. The first evidence presented by the prosecutors came courtesy of the trained dogs who according to their handler, reacted to Laci’s scent four days after she had gone missing. A few months later, Laci’s body and her unborn child were discovered north of the fishing spot. The second piece of evidence presented by the prosecution was Laci’s strand of hair that was discovered on pliers kept on Peterson’s boat. According to the prosecutors, this was evidential because the deceased had never seen Peterson’s boat while alive, and as such, her body was kept on the boat after she was murdered. The third piece of evidence was the planter pots which the prosecutors believed were used to weigh Laci’s body down. This was evidential because the pieces of broken planter pots found at the fishing spot matched the pots in a storage unit owned by Peterson (Sitzer, 2017). The other pieces of evidence were largely circumstantial. To this end, the fourth evidence was that Peterson was a proven liar based on the recorded tapes as well as his affair with Amber. Ultimately, the final piece of evidence was that both Laci and the child’s body were found near the spot that Peterson said he had gone fishing (Montaldo, 2016).
Based on the evidence brought forward by the prosecutors, Peterson was found guilty of first-degree murder with special circumstances for killing Laci. Initially, this conviction would have seen him serve life imprisonment or death. Additionally, Peterson was found guilty of second-degree murder for the death of his son Conner. The convictions were considered two counts based on the state’s (California) fetal homicide statute that recognizes any fetus (8 weeks onwards) as an equal victim. For these crimes, he was sentenced to death through lethal injection in addition to paying 10,000 USD to cater for the victim’s funeral.
According to studies conducted by Williams, Demuth, & Holcomb (2007), victim gender has a significant impact on the decisions made by the jury whereby female victims seem to sway jury decisions more than male victims do. This is in relation to Scott Peterson case in the sense that the victim of the case was a pregnant woman. In this accord, the murder of Laci and her unborn child conjured up a lot of sympathy in the jury especially when Rocha testified than when Peterson did in his claim of innocence. The jury, swayed by emotions, found Peterson guilty of the counts of murder and after the emotional testimony of Rocha, the jury further recommended the death penalty for both of the crimes.
Upholding this recommendation, the judge termed the crimes as cruel, callous, heartless, and uncaring. The argument made by the authors above fundamentally makes sense given that the victim was a pregnant woman and the defendant was a remorseless male, and as such, even with little circumstantial evidence, the jury found Peterson guilty of the crimes. One would wonder the decision the court would arrive to if the victim was male and the defendant female was faced with little circumstantial evidence. Would the jury give the same verdict or would the court throw away the case for lack of substantial direct evidence?. The latter seems more likely to happen than the former. As such, it is safe to say that the victim gender played a particularly huge role in convicting Peterson especially coupled with the fact that the victim was pregnant.
References
CNN. (2017). Scott Peterson Trial Fast Facts. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/15/us/scott-peterson-trial-fast-facts/index.html
Fox News. (2012). Timeline: The Scott Peterson case. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/07/06/timeline-scott-peterson-case.html
Montaldo, C. (2016). Circumstantial Evidence: The Scott Peterson Trial. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/circumstantial-evidence-the-scott-peterson-trial-971080
People Staff. (2005). The Peterson Case: How They Got Scott. People. Retrieved from http://people.com/archive/the-peterson-case-how-they-got-scott-vol-63-no-20/
Sitzer, C. (2017). See All the Evidence That Helped Nab Scott Peterson. Intouch. Retrieved from http://www.intouchweekly.com/posts/scott-peterson-evidence-139451
Williams, M. R., Demuth, S., & Holcomb, J. E. (2007). Understanding the influence of victim gender in death penalty cases: the importance of victim race, sex ‐ related victimization, and jury decision making. Criminology, 45(4), 865-891. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00095.x
