As jury decides Peterson’s fate, maze of appeals looms

Scott Peterson and attorney Mark Geragos listen during the prosecution rebuttal to the defense’s closing arguments in Redwood City, Calif., on Nov. 3, 2004. (AP Photo/Pool, Al Golub)

Associated Press Writer

SAN FRANCISCO — The jury that convicted Scott Peterson of murder reconvenes this week to decide whether he should be executed, but the decision may not be final for years given his numerous options for appeal.

Appeals are expected to focus on the performance of Peterson’s high-profile Los Angeles attorney, Mark Geragos, legal experts said.

‘‘An appellate attorney would argue that Geragos was incompetent,’’ said Pete Kossoris, a retired Ventura County death penalty prosecutor.

‘‘One of the things he can be criticized for was his promise of certain evidence in his opening statement, and he never offered it.’’

Geragos, as with others involved in the case, remains under a court-imposed gag order.

After a five-month trial that became a national sensation, Peterson was convicted Nov. 12 of first-degree murder in the death of his wife, Laci, and second-degree murder in the death of the fetus she carried.

Arguments begin Tuesday in the trial’s penalty phase, in which the same jury will decide whether he should get the death penalty or life in prison without parole.

A celebrity lawyer who has represented such well-known clients as Winona Ryder and Michael Jackson, Geragos will not represent Peterson once he is sentenced.

State-appointed, publicly funded lawyers will take over, a standard practice in California murder appeals.

The effectiveness of the defense is a bread-and-butter issue for appeal in capital cases, experts said.

In his opening statements to jurors in June, Geragos floated a series of explanations for the murders of Peterson’s wife, Laci, and the fetus she carried.

Among them was that transients who lived in the couple’s neighborhood abducted Peterson’s pregnant wife, then framed him after learning about his alibi, which was widely circulated in the media.

Peterson’s possible grounds for appeal also include the dismissal of two jurors during deliberations.

One was ousted after performing her own research on the case; the reason for removing the other juror, who was the foreman of the panel, has not been disclosed.

Perhaps the most damning evidence against the 32-year-old former fertilizer salesman was the hundreds of secret recordings between Peterson and his mistress, Amber Frey, but defense attorneys could argue that the recordings were inflammatory and not relevant to the case.