Peterson defense alleges police violated gag order
Peterson defense alleges police violated gag order
By JOHN COTÉ
BEE STAFF WRITER
Last Updated: January 11, 2004, 05:23:12 AM PST
Scott Peterson's attorney contends that police violated a judge's order and leaked documents to a tabloid magazine, part of an "orchestrated campaign to publicly convict" Peterson.
The allegation, filed in court Thursday, is the latest salvo in a case in which each side blames the other for fueling news coverage that was a primary factor in moving the double-murder trial.
"Both sides leak to impact the jury pool and public perception," said Laurie Levenson, a law professor and director of Loyola Law School's Center for Ethical Advocacy.
How effective such attempts are is hard to tell, legal observers said.
"It's almost impossible to know because jurors themselves may not know," Levenson said. "The impact is on their subconscious."
Judge Al Girolami last week ordered Peterson's trial moved, saying "the nature and extent of the publicity this case has received has rendered Stanislaus County an inappropriate venue."
A destination could be determined at a Jan. 20 hearing.
The case has saturated the media since a pregnant and photogenic Laci Peterson was re-ported missing on Christmas Eve 2002. Prosecutors say they intend to introduce TV interviews as evidence, and among their list of 400 witnesses are at least three media representatives who had contact with Scott Peterson.
In an effort to stem the media tide early in the case, Girolami issued a sweeping gag order, sealed normally public documents and forbade the release of documents or photographs that could be introduced in court.
The defense contends that prosecutors violated that order within the past two weeks by leaking a transcript of Peterson's police interview conducted early Dec. 25, 2002.
Peterson, 31, is charged with murdering his wife and their unborn son. Prosecutors are seeking the death penalty.
They have suggested that the defense could have sold the interview transcript to The National Enquirer to help pay for Peterson's defense.
Senior Deputy District Attorney Dave Harris noted in court documents that the Enquirer showed two photographs of the document, "both of which clearly hide the lower right-hand corner of the document -- the place where the traditional discovery stamp is placed on documents released to the defense."
Geragos said in court Thursday that photographs of the documents indicate that police leaked them.
"What Mr. Harris doesn't realize is that the lower right-hand corner on my defense discovery doesn't have anything in it," Geragos said. "In fact, the reason I know that this is a police leak is because the numbering system that is released to the defense is not on the top. I know that that came -- for a fact that that came -- from the police. And the police have done this week in, week out."
Chief Deputy District Attorney John Goold said the photos did not indicate where the documents came from.
"I don't see how you can draw any conclusions from anything that's put in The National Enquirer," Goold said.
He said the gag order pre-vented him from commenting on whether prosecutors or police were leaking documents and misinformation about Peterson.
"I would love to reply to that, but I think the protective order stops me from doing so," Goold said.
Enquirer isn't telling
Charlie Montgomery, an Enquirer editor who worked on the story, refused to say who pro- vided the transcript but dismissed the suggestion that the defense sold the documents.
"That seems kind of absurd to me," Montgomery said. "For something like that, they would want extremely big money, and I don't think we'd be paying that money for something they'd want."
He also rebutted the defense argument that police had routinely leaked documents to the tabloid.
"I've been dealing with a number of people on this, and we have not gotten any leaks directly or indirectly from any police authorities," Montgomery said.
Montgomery said there are "an awful lot of people who would have copies of that," including clerks and other personnel in the district attorney's office, Police Department and "then there's the defense people."
The judge could hold either side in contempt of court if he determines who leaked the documents.
The leak is not the first. Prosecutors in May sought to have.........