| LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, could be looking at a hung jury in the Scott Peterson trial. Why did the judge order the jury back into court on their fourth day of deliberations and remind them on the need to keep an open mind.
We'll ask Jo-Ellan Dimitrius, the jury consultant who worked with Peterson's defense.
And Howard Varinsky, the jury consultant who worked with the prosecution.
Plus CNN's Ted Rowlands on top of the story from day one.
Court TV's Nancy Grace, the former prosecutor.
High profile defense attorney Chris Pixley.
Richard Cole covering the trial every day for the "Daily News Group."
And Justin Falconer, the former Peterson juror dismissed from the panel five months ago.
It's all next on LARRY KING LIVE. Right now lets get right into what went on today. Ted Rowlands, what went on today? TED ROWLANDS: Well, it's a busy day as the jury continued to deliberate. At one point late this morning, the judge ordered the jury back into the courtroom and reread them some of the original instructions that they were given before they began their deliberations, specifically, the judge told them that they did have to keep an open mind. That they had to not an advocate for one side, but had to analyze each fact and have it backed up with evidence. What prompted this is unclear. Obviously, there is a problem with deliberations. At some point, to say we're headed to a hung jury is most likely, I think premature here as the jury continues to asks for more evidence. And they continue to deliberate. But clearly, there's an issue that the judge wanted to address today by rereading this. As soon as the jury left the courtroom, the judge instructed the lawyers, that the next time there's a problem or an issue with deliberations, he's going to read them people vs. Moore, which is the California version of the dynamite instruction. Basically, it is advice for the jurors, role play, do other things to help them through the deliberation process. So clearly, there's a problem. The jury started today by viewing Scott Peterson's boat in a garage, adjacent to the courthouse here and there was an issue with that. Two jurors at least, got into the boat and one of them apparently actually rocked the boat back and forth. Geragos objected to that later in a hearing, special hearing this morning. He asked the judge to allow him to introduce a videotape of his lawyers conducting their own experiment in the San Francisco Bay. And a source close to the case says, in that videotape, one of the lawyers actually falls into the water and capsizes the boat. So, a very busy day here, but the headline, potential problems with the deliberation. KING: Jo-Ellan, a jury veteran, what do you read into this? JO-ELLAN DIMITRIUS: I think as both Howard and I talked about on Friday, this jury is -- there are people on both sides of the fence. And I think what happened at the end of the day, from what I understand is that the jury asked for 30 additional pieces of evidence. What I'm guessing probably happened is that whatever jurors were on, whichever side, they're looking for information they can argue to their fellow jurors. This is what I'm basing my decision on, so that they can try to in some ways do, what actually happens in the dynamite charge, which is to try to convince the other people to come over to their way of thinking. KING: Howard Varinsky, what do you read into all this? HOWARD VARINSKY: You know, first of all, all juries have to kind of reenact a scene. One of the first things they do when they get back in, is they go through the motions. They'll handle the gun. They'll handle the knife. They'll take parts in the play. So, they have to see for themselves, and that's part of the reason that they -- that they wanted to see the boat. So, They're Putting it back together for themselves, so they can see and get a sense how it went. I think they're discussing it methodically. Obviously, there's a conflict in the jury. We don't know if it's one or we don't know if it's more than one against the rest. KING: All right. And Nancy Grace, if there is that conflict, what resolves it? NANCY GRACE, COURT TV: Well, I think it's a good sign that the jury is requesting more of the evidence. And you know, Larry, in a lot of jurisdictions all the evidence goes back with the jury at the get-go and therefore you don't know every time they pick up a picture or every time they want to play the recorded tape, for instance the Amber Frey tapes. That's not allowed here. They only get the evidence when they specifically request a certain piece of evidence. Regarding this morning, when jury wanted to see the boat, Larry, I predicted that right here to you last night they didn't want to just look at it, they wanted to get in it, on it, around it, under it and they did. Not grounds for a mistrial. Also, regarding jury number 11, the lady juror. The accountant, Larry, sits front and center, it's my understanding that she has rescheduled her elective surgery, so we don't have to worry about losing that juror. KING: Chris Pixley, what does this all say to you? CHRIS PIXLEY: Well, I think it's -- it is still early and obviously they are deliberating. But I think there are some signs that they're beginning to hang. And that's not unusual in cases of this kind. In my experience there are really two cases where you're going to get a hung jury, complex cases and cases where there's largely circumstantial evidence. You've got both of those things going in this case. And it really comes down to whether the judge is going to be able to influence the jury through these instructions that he's giving anew, the reinstruction of their duty to deliberate, that they need to go back and work together on all of the evidence. I think when you get signs this early, that at least one of the jurors isn't working together, that that's cause for concern. KING: Richard Cole, hypothetically, if this jury is 6-6 or 7-5, that judge is going to have a lot of convincing to do, right? RICHARD COLE, "REDWOOD CITY DAILY NEWS": Yes. He's already told us he'll give the Moore instruction that Ted Referred to. And then if they come back again, he has another instruction set for them. He's -- he's going to dig in his heels and he's going to try to get them to come to an agreement. Know I a lot of people who are close to this case say, oh, let's not get excited about hanging yet, this is more of a personality clash kind of an issue. But what struck me was the looks on the faces of the jurors when we saw them file into court. This has been, as we have said before, a happy, joking, garrulous kind of jury. They chatting with each other. And today, they were glum, they were grim, when they walked into that -- into the courtroom and got their instructions. And they were grim when they walked out. And that gave me chills. Up until now I kept thinking, well yes, there might be some differences, this panel has worked together and played together, I think they'll come to an agreement. But the looks on their faces, I thought, were very, very negative in that courtroom. And I kind of agreeing a little bit with, Pix, this is not -- this is not a good sign. This is -- this is not heading in the best direction. But it was good that by the end of the day, they're asking for more evidence. I think Nancy is right on that one. At least they're trying -- they're still trying. (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP) UNIDENTIFIED MALE: To constitute a deliberate premeditated killing, the slayer must weigh and consider the question of killing and the reasons for and against such a choice, and having in mind the consequences he decides to and does kill. (END VIDEO CLIP) KING: Let's spend a few moments now with Justin Falconer in Kansas City, the former juror #5 was dismissed after he was seen making comments to Laci Peterson's brother. At the time of his dismissal he said he wouldn't have been able to convict. What do you make of the developments since, Justin? JUSTIN FALCONER: I think it's pretty interesting listening to Richard and Nancy earlier that the jury has taken such a downturn in their morale. That does show that there are some problems back there. Because when I was there, everybody was pretty happy with each other and we all got along. And everybody was pretty talkative and outgoing. So that's not good. KING: Do you look at this, Justin, as a 50/50 matter, could go either way? How do you see it? FALCONER: I do. I think there's, like, three or four people in there that probably are sticking to their guns. Which way they're going, I don't know. The majority could be looking to acquit but there could be a couple of holdouts for guilty. I don't know. But I think it's interesting though that there are some people that are that passionate about their position, and they don't even want to deliberate. I think that's, you know, definitely not a good thing. I'm sure they'll work it out and I'm sure the judge -- Delucchi is a good judge and I'm sure he'll have something to say and he'll get them in line. KING: Have you heard from anyone involved in the case, anyone at all since you left it? FALCONER: Like the jury? KING: Yes. Anybody. FALCONER: No. I haven't spoken to anybody. The media is the most -- that's where I get my information from, people like Nancy and Richard. KING: What did you make of Scott Peterson? Did you get a read on him? FALCONER: I focused on him a lot. I was watching him. I watched his reactions to certain things. I think you can tell a lot about some people when you watch them and pay attention to them. I really did watch Scott, especially when people were really hammering on him. Seeing his reaction to certain things. He's very involved in his defense. He seemed confident in some things. To watch his reactions and watch how he acted, like when the pictures of Conner would come up or Laci, you pay attention to that and you also pay attention to the family, at the time, sitting right next to me. You're paying attention to all those things. KING: Ted Rowlands, any buzz around the courthouse? Are they betting, hung jury now? ROWLANDS: It's really tough to quantify because of the situation where this morning the judge is rereading these instructions and by the afternoon, the jurors are back at it and they're asking for more evidence. Who knows what's going to happen here. Of course there's a lot of folks in the media with a lot of time on their hands as they wait for the verdict. Everything has been predicted, as you can imagine. Now the big question, now, when is this jury going to make a decision and if this jury is going to make a decision. KING: Nancy, at this point, from a prosecution standpoint, would you describe yourself as disappointed, no opinion? GRACE: Absolutely not disappointed. Let me clarify my position. I do not see this jury as being downbeat, not in any sense of the word. Another thing, for anybody on this panel that's ever actually tried murder cases, the jury would be crazy if they didn't want to see the evidence. I would be concerned if the jury didn't want to hear these Amber Frey tapes, did not want to see that chart where Scott Peterson was mapping out where he was going fishing that day. You expect the jury, you want the jury to look at the evidence, argue over the evidence, get to know the evidence. There's absolutely nothing wrong with this. This is what they're supposed to be doing. KING: So nothing's happened that would affect you in any way at all? GRACE: One thing. One thing. That judge's charge this morning and I have it verbatim, where he's basically telling one of the jurors, I have a good idea who it may be, let's just say somebody needs to be deep sixed off the jury, telling them, don't go into the jury deliberations full of pride, where you get an opinion at the get- go and you won't give in to other people reasoning with you. That's a concern but not unusual. KING: Who said agh to that? FALCONER: I did. I'm sorry. Nancy, I think you got six wrong. I think if there's somebody holding out stubborn I think you're going to be surprised at who it is. GRACE: Oh, really, and how would you know that, Mr. Falconer unless you have been in touch with number 6. FALCONER: Actually I sat next to him in court... Yes, I know him a lot better than you... no, Nancy, I haven't been talking to him but I did sit next to him for four weeks and I do know him better than you, and I don't think he's who you're thinking. DIMITRIUS: I'll come to Justin's defense. I don't think it's juror number deep six. I think that there's another juror that everyone's been talking about that would be no surprise to anybody who that individual is. FALCONER: She knows exactly who I'm talking about. DIMITRIUS: Well, everybody's referring to him -- I believe his number is juror number 8. FALCONER: Exactly. Thank you very much. GRACE: No way. FALCONER: Hey, Nancy. Let me tell you this right now, too, and I'll say this right here that when everything does open up, there was complaints against juror number 8 from the other jurors. So this is not -- I've been watching your reporting and hearing what you've been saying. It's not been accurate. KING: Nancy, at least admit, admit that he may know them better than you. GRACE: It hurts, but I think you're right. KING: Justin, you want to make a prediction? FALCONER: I'm either going with hung or an acquittal. With the way things are going right now, I going to have to go with hung. These people are very intelligent and they're very set, I think, in their ways. And I think after sitting five months, they're probably very passionate about their position and I don't think they're going to give it up easily, especially if there's not the evidence to show otherwise. This whole case is speculation, which is tremendously difficult for all of us. It's, we think he did it this way, we think he did it like that, we think she died this way, we think she ended up. The only thing solid they have is the fact that Laci did wash up where she did and Scott did place himself there, but even that's speculation as to how she got there. It's difficult to say either way. KING: Thank you, Justin. Good seeing you again. Let's take a call. Carrolton, Kentucky. CALLER: Hi. I wanted to ask the panel, if there is a retrial, will the trial be in Redwood City again and will Geragos be the defense attorney? Thank you. DIMITRIUS: You know, I don't know the answer to either one of those questions. I'm sure that whether Mark has it or someone else has it, clearly they don't want it to be in Modesto, and clearly there was a change of venue in the first trial. I don't know whether or not Mark would be part of a retrial. KING: Nancy, in a case like this, when it's over if it's hung, is the jury polled? GRACE: Yeah. They get polled routinely. Either side can ask for the polling. That's also SOP, standard operating procedure, when there is a verdict. One way or the other. Because, Larry, I have actually seen a juror crack during the polling process -- they're polled individually -- the juror cracked, they had to go back into the jury room and start deliberating again. So whichever side is unhappy with the verdict or the outcome, they will ask the jury to be polled. KING: Modesto, California, hello. CALLER: Hi. My question is, how many times can there be a hung jury? And if there is a hung jury, there's no way they would let Scott come back to Modesto, is there? ROWLANDS: Well, I'm not sure how many times they can try it. I know that it's up to the prosecution. Well, first, it's up to the judge. He has to give the OK for prosecutors to refile charges. And could he come back to Modesto? Well, for sure, he will be -- he's still a possession of Stanislaus County, if you will. He will most likely stay here if there is a hung jury until they figure out what they're going to do with it. And whoever is representing Scott Peterson will most likely try to get the trial moved to Los Angeles as their first order of business. What happens there, we'll have to see how it plays out. KING: Howard, how important is it to you to talk to jurors after a hung jury? VARINSKY: I mean, it's a font of information. And then you have the actual trial jurors to talk to. I mean, you find out what the conflicts were in the jumper, what they bought, what they didn't buy. I mean, you can correct a lot of mistakes next time around, make a lot of adjustments based on what you hear jurors talk about. COLE: You know, a week or so, I would have said no. I'm just less certain about that. I think today was a very bad sign. I -- and I think I can answer one, I think if there is a retrial, I don't believe that Mark Geragos will be doing it. There's financial issues, there's issues with his practice. He's been way up in Northern California for six months, and that doesn't help him out a lot down where his practice is based in Southern California. KING: I think we'll probably be seeing all of you tomorrow. Thanks very much. HOME INDEX LACI TRIAL SCOTT ALIBI-WITNESS LIST JURORS WIRETAPS AUTOPSY DOGS CEMENT EVIDENCE PHOTOS |
| . |
| . |
| LARRY KING LIVE - Monday, November 8, 2004 FULL TRANSCRIPT Is Juror #6 the holdout? Or is it really Juror #8? |
| LACI & CONNER "Even though I never had the pleasure to meet Laci I will always remember her beautiful smile" JAMIE HIRAGA * California * GUESTBOOK |
 |
 |