Court TV Host: Chat about the Scott Peterson murder trial from a slightly different perspective -- talk to a California lawmaker who is concerned about how much the trial is costing. Republican State Senator Jeff Denham was just on Catherine Crier Live, and you can chat with him live online, right here.

Court TV Host: Thanks for being our guest today Sen. Denham.

Jeff Denham: Hello, and thanks for having me on your show.

Question from blondie: Why is this case taking so long?

Jeff Denham: That's a questiont that would be better asked to the DA. Mr. Geragos is doing a great deal of investigation, and it's up to the DA to do the same type of investigation. And the change of venue has made this draw out further than normal.

Question from Rob: Sen. Denham, would it be possible to have a "overseeing board" in high profile/expensive cases to not only ensure the money is being spent properly, but also that the cases can be presented in the best, quickest, least expensive, yet still complete way?

Jeff Denham: On the cost side of things, the state comptroller would have been, under my bill, required to have a full accounting and justification of all bills, prior to paying those bills.

Question from Pema: Sentator, welcome. I am also from the great state of California! Can the guilty person's financers be used to help replenish the emergency fund?

Jeff Denham: That's certainly something worth checking into but I don't believe that under current law it is allowed.

Question from Lawwatcher: Senator Denham: Why is it that states like, for example, Texas, have a "speedier" justice system than does California?

Jeff Denham: Each state is different, but liberal judges can also extend the length of these trials.

Question from eowyn: How is this deficit affecting other trial cases?

Jeff Denham: I want to make sure that this case does not send the wrong message to district attorneys around the state: the message that if you pursue a high profile case, it could not only bankrupt your county but also force you to cut drastically law enforcement and fire safety, which leaves your community at risk.

Question from Nickname: How much is the trial expected to cost the state?

Question from Buzzie: Mr. Denham, could you tell us the amount of money this trial has cost?

Jeff Denham: There are no estimates out there right now, but past cases have been well over five million, and this is the highest profile case that California has ever seen.

Question from TAHOE: How does the general population feel about "footing the bill " for Scott ? And how does that if at all affect the decision on the state picking up the tab or not?

Jeff Denham: I don't know of any polls conducted on this matter, but it is current law, for rural counties to receive 80% reimbursement. In the past, for these large cases, they've received 100%, but it would still require legislation.

Question from sher: This is the "highest profile case that California has ever seen"? How 'bout the OJ case?

Question from Missy: Mr. Denham: Do you believe this case will cost more than OJ Simpson's case?

Question from blondie: Surely not higher than OJ?

Question from ImMustang: Even higher than the OJ trail?

Jeff Denham: There's a great deal of media associated with this trial with no end in sight, and the bills continue to roll in from San Mateo county, and it's unseen what Mr. Geragos is receiving for his trial and investigation costs.

Question from Pema: Senator, I am concerned that the Michael Jackson case will be too expensive for the system to handle. Are my concerns founded?

Jeff Denham: That would be a county expense because it's not a murder trial, but I would not be surprised to see a legislator from that county carrying a piece of legislation concerning that trial next year.

Question from ImMustang: What exactly causes the cost of a case to go so high, as opposed to any other murder trail?

Jeff Denham: Several different factors, but I think it started around the media frenzy, then went into the investigation, pursuit and apprehension of Scott Peterson, which involved many different counties, including Oakland, dredging the bay. There were thousands of media tips that had to be followed up on, but still the biggest cost is the change of venue, where Stanislaus County is forced to pay 100% of San Mateo County's cost.

Question from Missy: Mr. Denham: Will the public ever learn the true "dollar cost" of this trial after it's over?

Jeff Denham: Possibly, but probably not. I believe the cost of the defense will be sealed.

Question from blondie: Should there be a ceiling?

Jeff Denham: I don't think there should be a ceiling. I think we should be sure there is a fair and just trial. But at some point we may want to control the length of time that a trial goes on. We may also want to cut down on the appeals process.

Question from blondie: What can be done to cut costs?

Jeff Denham: As I just mentioned, cut down on the appeals process. Also, we need to make sure that before we do a change of venue, that a change of venue is absolutely necessary. We could limit the defense costs to only the amount that a public defender would get. We can also look at opening the defense's reimbursement to the public, and hold the defense accountable to the public. So they're not receiving a free ride.

Question from Pema: Senator, How difficult would it be to have a bill passed to help reduce costs be?

Jeff Denham: In California, it would be very difficult. Trial lawyers have a great deal of power in the legislature, with many liberal legislators.

Court TV Host: Then it would be fair to say that the issues you're raising don't have bipartisan support -- do Democrats and Repblicans in the state agree on the issues you're raising? Some Democrats agree with the reimbursement, the bill made it through both houses and died on the last night. The bill was stalled by more liberal leaders who were aligned with trial lawyers. And I will reintroduce the bill next year. I am, however, optimistic that with term limits kicking in here in California that we'll receive more bipartisan support on this issue next year. Trial funding should not be a partisan issue. And we can't afford to see rural counties go bankrupt to pursue justice.