Mark Geragos was not in court last week when jurors found his client, Scott Peterson, guilty of murder, but their verdict sent him a clear message: We didn't believe you.

The conviction meant the jurors did not buy the lawyer's arguments, nor the evidence he presented over the five-month trial. The nefarious brown van? The live birth theory? Peterson as a grief-stricken husband? All rejected.

Now, in the penalty phase scheduled to start Monday, the Los Angeles attorney must go back to the same 12 people and beg them to trust him when he says Peterson's life is worth sparing.

Geragos has filed motions asking for a new jury and a change of venue, and the hearing could be postponed depending on Judge Alfred Delucchi's rulings Monday.

Story continues

advertisement

Asking for mercy from a jury that rebuffed a defendant's claims of innocence is a challenging, but routine, task for experienced capital attorneys, yet it may prove more difficult for Geragos. Although he is a veteran criminal defense lawyer, Peterson's is the first death penalty defense he has headed, and he went further than most capital attorneys would in insisting on his client's innocence.

"The evidence is going to show clearly, beyond any doubt, that not only is Scott Peterson not guilty, but Scott Peterson is stone-cold innocent," he told jurors during his June 2 opening statement.

Geragos made a host of other promises that he did not fulfill. His defense case was brief, weak and disjointed. It included testimony from a questionable medical expert who had jurors shaking their heads and laughing.

"I don't think they like him too much right now," said criminal defense attorney Daniel Horowitz of the jurors. Horowitz has tried eight capital cases and observed much of the Peterson trial.

"He put on his theory of the case and it was ridiculous and it was rejected. He made a claim that couldn't be proven and, rather than be honest, he put on a charlatan so it transformed him from truth-teller, which he was at the beginning of the trial, to P.T. Barnum," he said.

Regaining trust

The potential blows to Geragos' believability are especially worrisome for Peterson's legal team, because a lawyer's credibility can be a deciding factor during the penalty phase. The decision between life in prison without parole and death is subjective and heavily influenced by the trust jurors have in the person arguing for life.

"They've got to believe you so they can say, 'If this guy who knows him so well thinks there are reasons to spare his life, then maybe there are,'" said Charles Gessler, who has tried 15 capital cases in his 31-year career with the Los Angeles public defender's office.

Geragos is so tied to Peterson's claims of innocence that some legal commentators have suggested jurors will not listen to him in the penalty phase and he should allow another lawyer to handle that portion of the trial.

While dividing responsibilities is somewhat common in capital trials, Peterson's case does not seem a likely candidate. Geragos' co-counsel, Pat Harris, questioned only 20 mostly minor witnesses of the 184 who testified and did not do any part of the opening statement or closing argument.

A trial is normally divided only if both attorneys have played significant roles in the defense.

"If [the lawyers] are not of equal stature, it leaves the jury with the impression that they are getting the second string and that you don't think this is important," said William Linehan, a Hayward, Calif., defense attorney who has tried 20 capital cases.

He split up the guilt and penalty phases in about four of those cases, but said he now believes it is not necessary.

"I don't think it has to make a difference. I have confidence in my ability to dissuade jurors from executing my client, in spite of having asked them to acquit him," said Linehan, none of whose clients have received the death penalty.

Of crucial importance, experts say, is Geragos' need to leave behind his insistence on Peterson's innocence and acknowledge immediately that the jury has spoken.

"You can't say, 'Hey, blockheads, you blew it.' That would be fatal to your client," said Gessler.

Gessler said he usually begins his opening statement during the penalty phase by placing his hand on his client's shoulder and telling jurors that while both he and the defendant were very disappointed in the verdict, they respect the jury system.

"The jurors are usually sitting there with some trepidation of their own. 'We said no to this guy, so now what's he going to say?'" Gessler noted. "I let them know that for me, it's not another day at the office. I said reasonable doubt and I meant it, but I understand that it's their verdict."

Geragos is permitted to suggest there are still questions about who committed the crimes. He can also argue that the jurors should consider such "lingering doubt" when deciding whether death is appropriate.

However, rearguing the case can offend jurors who have already spent hours in the jury room debating the facts to arrive at their verdict.

"You can mention [lingering doubt], but it should come mostly from the jury itself on its own and not from the lawyer," Gessler said.

Jokes aside

Delucchi has set aside four days for testimony from family members and friends of Laci Peterson and the defendant. The testimony from the slain woman's mother, Sharon Rocha, and other relatives is expected to be especially heart-wrenching.

Geragos will call a host of Peterson's own relatives and friends and focus on the fertilizer salesman's good deeds over his 32 years. He is also likely to paint life in prison without parole as a very harsh punishment that jurors can feel comfortable handing to Peterson.

Jurors, experts say, will be listening not only to what Geragos says, but how he says it.

"He has to assume the mantle of dead seriousness. The time for flippancy or joking — if there ever was such a time — is over," Linehan said.

Horowitz said that the quick wit and charisma that seemed to appeal to jurors early in the case will not work when talking to them about the death penalty.

"He has to talk to the jury with humility. He can't be Mark Geragos, the most clever talking head on TV," he said.

In some ways, Geragos will be Peterson's strongest character witness. Throughout the trial, jurors saw the men side by side at the defense table, looking through evidence, passing notes and occasionally sharing a smile. The six men and six women on the jury know the two are close.

"I've sat with people who've done horrific, horrific crimes, and yet, sitting with them month after month, I can find something in them that I like, that is worth saving. My job is to introduce that to the jury," Horowitz said.

The key is often whether the jury thinks the lawyer is being sincere when he says his client does not deserve death row.

"They have to believe that you honestly want your client's life to be saved and you are not just doing this because you are being paid," Linehan said.

Horowitz noted that jurors who smiled readily at Geragos' jokes early on had stopped laughing entirely by the end of the trial, but he said he did not think the rapport was broken beyond repair.

"I wouldn't sell him short. People are his strength," he said. "He probably has the ability to charm them right back."