REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — Mark Geragos was certain the case was solid: Scott Peterson was either guilty of murder or a complete idiot.

In televised interviews shortly before he took over as Peterson's lead counsel, Geragos described the evidence as overwhelming, and figured Peterson was all but convicted in the deaths of his wife and unborn son.

"His defense at this point is, 'Oh, my God, somebody else must have done it and was trying to set me up ... by dumping the bodies into the general vicinity of where I was' ... I don't think it's ever going to wash," Geragos said on Fox TV.

He was equally unsparing as he chatted with Larry King on CNN: "It's a damning circumstantial case. The man is a sociopath if he did this crime," Geragos said.

Story continues

advertisement

Now all those words may come back to haunt Geragos, experts say.

Since taking the case on May 2, Geragos has been working hard to put out reasonable excuses for much of Peterson's seemingly odd behavior in the weeks after Laci Peterson disappeared. He would not comment for this story, citing a judge's gag order.

But before the judge told lawyers on all sides to stop talking outside court, Geragos suggested a range of theories, even floating the possibility of a satanic cult connection.

Authorities allege Scott Peterson killed his wife at their Modesto home while having an affair with a massage therapist, then dumped her body from his newly purchased fishing boat into San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002. The bodies of Laci Peterson and the couple's unborn son washed ashore separately four months later, a few miles from where Scott Peterson said he went on his solo fishing trip the day she vanished.

Scott Peterson, 31, could face the death penalty or life without parole if convicted in the murders.

As jury selection continues, experts say those talk show appearances could harm Geragos' chances of finding an impartial jury. Media coverage has been intense, and many potential jurors have already been dismissed because they have prejudged Scott Peterson as guilty.

"If I'm Geragos ... one of the things on my list for jury selection is to make sure that nobody who saw my shining face as a commentator sits on this jury," said James Cohen, a professor of psychology and the law at Fordham Law School in New York.

The problem, Cohen said, is that some jurors who make it onto the panel may not remember seeing Geragos on TV until they become more acquainted with him during the trial.

"Memory is a very flexible, mysterious thing," Cohen said. "There is a risk that somebody could slip by and once the trial unfolds says, 'Wait a minute, this is the guy who was saying this is a strong case that the prosecution has, how can I believe anything he says now? ... It could come back to bite his client."

Loyola University Law School professor Laurie Levenson said Geragos will be quick to deal with that.

"Knowing Mark and what a great spin artist he is, I don't think it will be much of a hurdle," Levenson said. "He's always been prepared to deal with that by saying, 'I had the wool pulled over my eyes ... but now I realize he's actually innocent."'

Geragos has repeatedly said an impartial jury cannot be seated in San Mateo County, and has hinted he may seek a second move for the trial. The case was moved from Modesto after a judge found an impartial jury could not be seated in the couple's hometown.

His own TV comments could serve to limit the impartial jury pool, Levenson said.

"It does have the possibility of undercutting his credibility. There are going to be (potential) jurors who think he talks out of both sides of his mouth," she said.