LARRY KING - MARK GERAGOS - SCOTT PETERSON

MARK GERAGOS SPEAKS TO LARRY KING
3 MONTHS AFTER SCOTT PETERSON'S
GUILTY VERDICT AND DEATH PENALTY SENTENCE
June 6, 2005 - FULL TRANSCRIPT

HOME INDEX

LACI & CONNER
JUSTICE HAS PREVAILED

My husband and I went to the cemetery
on Laci's Birthday and put flowers.
We continue to pray for Sharon.
We want her to know,
Laci will always be remembered.
Tammi ~ Northridge, CA ~ Guestbook

LARRY KING, HOST: Tonight, Scott Peterson's defense attorney, Mark Geragos, finally breaks his long silence.
It's his first live, in-depth interview since Peterson was sent to death row, how did you get the Peterson case?

GERAGOS: I originally got a call from Lee Peterson. And Lee wanted to talk. Came up to the office. Talked to
Lee and Jackie, and after talking for a while, it kind of evolved, I suppose. And talking to Jackie, you've spoken
to her before, she's an amazing woman. And I agreed after talking with them, and my first instincts were, look, I'm
probably not the right guy for you, but after talking to her for a while, decided that I'd go up and I'd talk to Scott.

KING: What were your impressions upon meeting Scott?

GERAGOS: I was very favorably impressed upon meeting Scott. I thought he was a highly intelligent guy. I thought
he was a -- you know, somebody who I thought had a lot more emotion than the way he had been portrayed. I mean,
that was my first -- I think, I, like everybody else, when you saw him and you see kind of that B-roll of him, and that
there's always this idea that he's arrogant or that he's cocky or this or that. In knowing him, I didn't see any of that.

KING: What is your rule? Do you have to believe in your client, or do you -- or is your role to see he gets a fair trial?

GERAGOS: My role, as a criminal defense lawyer, as all criminal defense lawyers, is to see that a client gets a fair
trial-- and what goes into that is that you must test the government's case or the people's case or what-ever it is,
at every possible turn. And I suppose sometimes it's an added bonus and sometimes it's a detriment, depending
on whether or not you believe in the client's innocence. I mean, a lot of lawyers have said, and I think Edward
Bennett Williams, who is somebody that you knew well... is quoted as saying a lot of times, "God save me from the
innocent client. Because there is no greater pressure for a defense lawyer than somebody that you truly believe
is innocent who you're defending."

KING: Was that the case here?
GERAGOS: Well, it became the case here.
KING: You began to truly believe?

GERAGOS: Right. I, like a lot of the pundits I think and a lot of the public, had initially thought that, you know, it
looked bad and it was not a case. And I had made statements, I think even on your show.

KING: On January 24th, you said: "At the end of the day, they may find some evidence this guy might be a sociopath
that everybody is painting him out to be." On the day of his arrest, on this program, you said: "The most damning
piece of circumstantial evidence, the marina receipt, comes out of his own mouth and his own hands. This is just a
devastating thing. A damning circumstantial case. The man is a sociopath if he did this crime. This is a guy who has
from day one not helped himself in any way." So you had a radical change?

GERAGOS: Well, you know, I don't know that it was so much a radical change. I still think that the -- at the end
of the day, you go through that case, we spent, I don't know, maybe a year and a half on that case. And in trial,
when you are there for nine or 10 months, the same -- and you hear some of the jurors talk when it came down
to it at the end of the day -- all they said was, if the bodies had not floated up where they did, some of them said,
we could not have convicted. At the end of the day, that was the most devastating piece of evidence.

There isn't -- I think if you go through everything else that was produced in that trial, there was either an answer
for it or an explanation for it, or it was not what it appeared to be. That was the only thing that I think ultimately
was the ultimate piece of circumstantial evidence.

KING: Was there a con to taking it? We know the pros of taking it.

GERAGOS: Oh, well, I also told you this. I don't know if you've got it in your quotes, but I also said at the time,
there would be a mutiny in my office, which there was to some degree. Most people said, why take it? Because
what happens in high-profile cases, every time I have taken one of these cases where it becomes a media frenzy,
is generally, your other clients think you don't have time for them. A criminal lawyer exists on a kind of a 30/60/90.
You've got cases that come in; you either dispose of them or youtry them, on a fairly quick basis. It's not like a
civil case that may take years to get to trial. So clients tend to not want to be with you, because they figure you're
concentrating all of your time on the other case. No matter how much somebody pays you, it can't make up for the
amount of time, effort, and anxiety that goes with it.

KING: Did you lose money on this?

GERAGOS: Well, yeah. I mean, ultimately at the end of the day, it's not a money-maker, no, in any sense of the word.
I mean, at a certain point, whether you're fighting for funds between the various counties, which we were, San Mateo
didn't want to pay for experts. And Stanislaus didn't want to pay. We had to go back and forth. I had go to the admini-
strative office of the courts and -- I don't want to get into the particulars of that, but that was a problem. A lot of my
fees, I ended putting back in to pay for experts, and still trying to clean up those things as well. So at the end of the
day, it's infinitely easier to just not take a case like this, to have stayed on TV, I suppose, or become a consultant.

KING: You would have been on this show forever.

GERAGOS: Oh, I could have done -- I could have done 90 shows. Every night, doing that, you could have, as you
know, lawyers are paid, if they want, to be consultants. Could have made more money.

KING: If you look back, is there anything where you say, should have, would have, could have?

GERAGOS: Always. Look, there isn't a single case when you have any kind of adversity, you always look back
and try to figure out what it was that may have gone wrong. I think one of the things that if I had to do it over
again, is I was against having cameras in the courtroom. I thought this was a case where everybody, it seemed,
coming into it, had a presumption of his guilt. I mean, we used to laugh. We'd go through 1,600 jurors, and even
the guy who was completely illiterate, on the 23-page form, he could find the one spot that said, "Scott Peterson
guty," g-u-t-y. You had even the Buddhists, who were against taking a life, said they would make an exception for
Scott Peterson. So I mean, there was a presumption of guilt in this case.

It was overwhelming. I think we should have had cameras. And the reason was, I thought at the time that maybe
we could damp down the interests, but it had the opposite effect. It kind of increased it. And people were -- you
know, it was kind of a -- it would be a public lottery every morning, which was mind- boggling. People would travel
from all over the country. And then as you walk into the courtroom, down the hallway, there would be people lined
up on both sides, begging you, give me a defense pass, give me a prosecution pass, wanting to get in. It created
more of a circus-like atmosphere. I think that would have been relieved as a safety valve.

KING: Would you have changed your opening statement? Stone-cold innocent?

GERAGOS: Not for a minute. Because I don't think that for a second that had anything to do with the jurors' decision.
I don't think that the opening statement -- a lot of the things that had been attributed to being in the opening state-
ment were not in the opening statement. So that's part of the reason that I think, if there had been cameras in the
courtroom, that would have been something that would have been...

KING: So you're saying the reason you lost that case was where the body came up?

GERAGOS: I think that that was the -- and it's not just my opinion on that; the jurors have said that. Because if you
listen to what the jurors say, they really can't articulate when this happened or how this happened. And the prosecution
couldn't. I mean, the prosecution got up in the closing argument and just also for the first time, speculated as to what
transpired, and that was belied by what the evidence was. I mean, we tried this case on the basis of a prosecution
theory that Laci had died the night before on the 23rd or in the wee morning hours. Midway through this case, on cross-
examination of the computer expert, all a sudden, lo and behold, what do we find, the computer expert says at 8:45,
somebody is on that computer, looking at umbrella stands with sunflowers on them. Laci has got a sunflower tattooed on
her. Somebody's looking at the weather, somebody is going to these various locations for other kinds of scarves and
things like that, which clearly wasn't Scott, and if it had been Scott at 8:45, why didn't he tell somebody so that he had
that as an alibi?

KING: What is it like emotionally? You believe in your client? You think Scott Peterson didn't do this, right?

GERAGOS: I believe in all my clients. I went in there, and I took that case, and I became convinced. And it is -- and I
told the jury during the penalty phase. I talked from the heart to the jury. And said, look, there's no harder thing for
me to do than have to sit here and beg you to spare his life, when I believe this, and that I felt, you know, as a -- as
a lawyer, you cannot feel any lower than in a death penalty case to have somebody that you truly believe is innocent,
to be convicted and then be sentenced to death. I mean, there is bar none, at least for me professionally, nothing
worse than you can experience than that.

KING: You ever lost one before?
GERAGOS: I've never -- I've never lost a death penalty case.
KING: So what was it like for your gut when they announced the verdict?

GERAGOS: Well, the biggest problem, and one of the things that I regret, is that I wasn't there. I had...asked the
judge the week before, because I had another case in L.A., and I said, the following Friday, that judge wanted
me down -- the L.A. judge -- wanted me down there to do a case. And Thursday before the verdict came out
was a holiday, a court holiday. So the jury was not going to deliberate. I was up there on Wednesday. And on
Wednesday, we had one of the brouhahas with the jurors, and we replaced it and put in a new juror. And we
did that in the afternoon.

So I talked to the judge, and he said, go down there, there's not going to be a verdict. And Judge Delucchi and
I agreed, there's no way that just putting somebody in, the jury getting the instructions, you have to start
anew, not deliberating on Thursday. And then Friday, what most people don't know, is that he had already told
one of the -- promised one of the other jurors that they were going to get off, and it was only going to be a half-
day. Plus, in addition to that, the jury had asked that a priest be sent in, because they were sequestered. So all
indication were they were going to deliberate through until the following week. I went down there. Then out of
nowhere, we get the verdict.

KING: You were shocked?

GERAGOS: Yeah, we were as shocked as you can believe. But one of the things that the judge had indicated, I
said, look, I can try and get a private jet up there or scramble some way to get up there. And he had indicated,
look, the sheriff does not want to hold on to this, because as you probably saw, the courthouse had become
encircled with people. They were afraid from the public safety standpoint there was going to be a problem,
and I wasn't going to create a public safety problem by saying, hey, hold it for me, I got to get up there.

KING: How did you hear the verdict?

GERAGOS: Turned on -- I think CNN. And did it in the office. Pat Harris, who tried the case with me, was there.
One of the other lawyers from the office was there as well.

KING: What was your feeling?

GERAGOS: I mean, it was a kick in the gut. I mean, I did not expect it.

KING: You thought he would get not guilty?

GERAGOS: I -- well, I thought it would hang. All indications were that this case was going to hang going into it.
I think prior to all of the problems inside of that jury room, this case would have hung.

The -- one of the -- and I, you know, we have attempted to interview the jurors, but did not, but when you read
what the jurors have said afterwards -- one juror in particular says that if the foreman, the first foreman had not
been removed, there never would have been a verdict in the case. That was my read on it, based upon the kinds
of questions they were asking and the exhibits that they were asking for.

KING: You think they're going to write books or try to?

GERAGOS: Well, apparently -- see, and I only know what I read in this particular instance and what I've heard.
Apparently, collectively as a group, they've been shopping a book with ironically one of the pundits who was up
there second-guessing me most of the time outside of the courthouse. So he's been trying to sell it. I don't
know if it's sold.

KING: You know who it is, or...?

GERAGOS: I don't know who they -- no, they were -- collected and gathered...

KING: Who's the pundit?

GERAGOS: Oh, the pundit was one of the local yokels who was up there, who was commenting.

KING: Have you -- have you talked to Scott?

GERAGOS: Yeah, oh, frequently. We talked to Scott frequently. Pat sees him and has visited him in San Quentin...

KING: How is he living with it?

GERAGOS: I mean, he has been throughout all of this, I think, enormously resilient. And -- and one of the things,
you know, without breaching confidentiality, because he's said it to others and not just to me, but he has said, look,
after my family was killed, the fact that they're blaming me for it, it pales in comparison with losing Laci and Conner.
So, as I'd indicated before, either the guy's the greatest sociopath of all time, or he's innocent.

KING: And he's handling death row OK?

GERAGOS: Well, you know, as well as anybody...

KING: Some people emotionally could?

GERAGOS: You know, I don't know that anybody handles death row, and I don't know how anybody gets through that.
I don't know how anybody, when they've suffered a loss and if they are innocent and if they are on death row -- and
you know, we've had somewhere in the neighborhood of about 100 some-odd convictions that have been overturned
in people who were on death row, exonerated. I don't know how any of them handle it. I have read things that they
have written. I've listened to people who have been exonerated later on talk, and nobody ever says, boy, that was
a great experience, I'd do it again if I could.

KING: Why didn't you call Dr. Henry Lee, a renowned expert, defense witness?

GERAGOS: Henry there was. We talked for -- all night, practically. And finally made the decision not to. I think at that
point, we figured that what he was going to bring was not anymore than we'd already proven. Made a decision. I don't
think it would have mattered if we had called him or if we hadn't called him, ultimately. I mean, the feeling was at that
point, jointly, that it wouldn't have made any difference, that the case had not been proven, and that we felt that we
could stand on where we were at that point.

KING: Even though his reputation proceeds him?

GERAGOS: Well, Henry, look, Henry is one of the greatest, and Henry's got a fantastic ability to be able to communicate
and to communicate in simple form, things that are generally more complex and make it understandable.

But at that point, we had jurors that were tired and had been there for a long time, and we didn't know that putting on
for another three or four days at that point stuff that would have -- that I thought we had gotten out all throughout the
cross-examination. I mean, during the cross-examination, I thought we had used their experts to prove that there was
no forensic evidence. And if there was no forensic evidence, that you would expect that there would be in this case,
and since there wasn't, that you couldn't make that leap to say, well, I'll just speculate as to what happened. I'll just
fantasize as to what happened. (witness list)

KING: Are you handling the appeal?
GERAGOS: Well, right now, we've interviewed a number of appellate lawyers.
KING: That's a specialty, right?

GERAGOS: It is a specialty. And especially, because it's a death penalty case, I always want to leave open the option
for whoever the appellate lawyer is if they want to take a shot at me for ineffective assistance of counsel, I'd be
more than happy.

KING: You would go with that?

GERAGOS: Absolutely. Absolutely. I don't have ego when it comes to that. If I was worried about that, I never would
have taken this case in the first place. I mean, there are lawyers who are more worried about their reputation than
the case. And this case, when this case came in, I was counseled by virtually everyone not to take the case. Maybe
with the exception of you. And one of the reasons was that you had somebody who was literally one of the most
reviled guys in the country. I mean, he was hated, overwhelmingly. And that tends to -- people tend to associate the
client with the lawyer. And virtually everybody said, why did you do it?

KING: What about the whole system of pundits, lawyers on television? Conviction before the case is over?
Innocence before the case...

GERAGOS: Well, what's happened is, you've taken what started off as the ESPN model as I call it. You've got the
ex-jocks, and now you've got either the lawyers who are not practicing or whatever, and they get up there. And that
model has morphed into what I call the FOX-ification of the legal system. And what has happened is, you notice that,
as cable TV started to expand, one of the first stories that came out was the impeachment story, and that kind of
drove ratings, and that really drove ratings and the various competitions amongst the channels. And so you had the
prosecutors versus the defense during impeachment, and that was also a Republican versus Democrat, and that
kind of morphed into now this idea of prosecutors being the right or the good guys, and defense lawyers being the
bad guys. And that's kind of where you have it now, and that's what's happened. And it's really a shame.

KING: Is it bad? To go into television, forecasting a case or having an opinion on a case without having heard
every minute of the trial?

GERAGOS: Well, no, I don't think that's bad. What I think is bad is when you go out and you deliberately either don't
know anything about the case, or you have abandoned the presumption of innocence, or you mislead the public.
When you mislead the public about what actually occurs in the courtroom or what happened in the courtroom, or
what the standard of proof is or what a defense lawyer's supposed to do, and you start talking about oh, defense
lawyer's job is to lie -- the defense lawyer's job is not to lie. Or you talk about the prosecution during this, that, or
the other thing, and that somehow that's more noble -- it isn't. There is a role. It's an adversary system, it's the
system -- the best system in the world. And historically, the best system that's ever been devised.

KING: The anti-Scott sentiment, did you ever see anything like that?

GERAGOS: No, nothing even close. I mean, when I represented Gary Condit, I thought that I had seen probably the
most virulent reaction against somebody. But the -- Scott, it just pales in comparison with anything I have ever seen.

KING: How did you react to Amber Frey?

GERAGOS: Well, I didn't have a real problem with her as a witness, because I didn't think that she brought anything
to the case for the prosecution. I did have a problem, obviously, with what I considered to be kind of a violation of
the restraining -- or the gag order by proxy, by her lawyer.

KING: Gloria Allred?

GERAGOS: Yeah, and I thought that that was something that one of the judges should have reigned in. And I always
thought that based upon what I heard, the only way that her book or her movie would have sold is if there was a
conviction. I thought that there was something that was just fundamentally wrong with the idea of somebody who's
a lawyer for a witness -- and I didn't understand why a witness needed a lawyer -- if the witness is gagged, why isn't
the lawyer gagged? You know, one or the other, when you asked before, what is one of the things you might do
differently? At some point, some lawyer, I don't know if it's me or somebody else in one of these cases, when they're
gagged, I think at a certain point may have to weigh whether or not the order of the court trumps their obligation to
represent their client.

KING: And so they ungag it and face contempt.

GERAGOS: Yeah, you're going to face the contempt in the face of what they think is an onslaught of misinformation,
especially if you believe that that information seeps back to the jury.

KING: Would you agree if Scott is the culprit, he is a sociopath?

GERAGOS: Look, if Scott did it, there is no question. The problem is every piece of evidence that they put on there
I think was effectively dealt with.

KING: You said where the body turns up is key? That's an extraordinary coincidence.

GERAGOS: I said that, that's a key. Except the problem was, we spent day after day after day with witnesses who
searched that place and didn't find anything, and they searched it repeatedly, and they had the most sophisticated
equipment in the world, and they mapped the bottom of the bay. They didn't find anything. They found Snapple bottles,
six-inch sticks, tires, and they found every conceivable thing in the world except anchors.

KING: If he didn't do it, there's a killer loose?

GERAGOS: That's usually the case. Anytime you have somebody who's exonerated off of death row for a horrible crime,
and the only way you make it to death row is on a horrible crime, means that there is somebody else walking around.

KING: Did you ever consider putting Scott on?

GERAGOS: Yes, absolutely. Absolutely, I considered putting Scott on.

KING: And?

GERAGOS: Ultimately at the end of the day, I didn't think they proved the case.

KING: Did Scott want to go on?

GERAGOS: I think Scott would have welcomed going on. I think he wanted to talk to this jury, to express...

KING: He could have overruled you then.

GERAGOS: Absolutely. Ultimately, it was my advice that he not take the stand, that we stand pat.

KING: What about the controversy over the boat? The judge permitted the jury to see the boat. One juror got
into the boat. You wanted to show it...

GERAGOS: Actually, two -- what actually happened is I think on the third day of deliberations, they asked to see
the boat. We had previously done a demonstration, because the whole idea was, the theory of the prosecution
was, Scott had taken Laci into the boat and then dumped her overboard. It was this 14-foot aluminum game fisher.
I actually had somebody get into a -- we bought a 14-foot game fisher, put somebody in it, had him be the
approximate size, had a demonstration done, shown -- showed that when that was done, if you pushed somebody
over the side, the boat would capsize. Tried to get that introduced. The judge wouldn't do it. He wouldn't allow it in.

KING: Reason?

GERAGOS: Then -- well, he said that -- he gave us an explanation that it wasn't the identical boat. I said, well, the boat
that's there is in evidence. So then during deliberations, he comes down, and the jurors say we want to see the boat.
Which is fine and dandy. We go down into the garage. The boat's on a trailer. Two of the jurors get in. And after they
get in, they start rocking around and they start doing their own demonstration on the trailer. I kind of come unglued,
run over to where Delucchi is, Judge Delucchi is, and tell him, you can't do this. This is a demonstration. This is
prohibited. And he said, I didn't know they were going to do this, basically. I'll give them an admonition. I said, an
admonition is not good enough, they're conducting an experiment.

We then renewed our motion to have our demonstration shown to the jury, because we felt -- because it's clear in the
jury instructions in California, caljic (ph) instruction says you shall not conduct any experiments, visit the scene, do
anything like that. He denied it. And I would expect that that would be further grounds of appeal.

KING: So, you think there are a lot of appealable grounds?

GERAGOS: Well, not just me. Judge Delucchi was quoted as saying in open court on the record, "this case is an
appellate lawyer's Petri dish." So if he thinks it's an appellate lawyer's Petri dish, and he's the trial judge, that tells
you all you need to know.

KING: And you would go so far as to say -- I want to reiterate this -- if the appellate lawyer wants to say you did a bad
-- malfeasance... ... you'd accept that?

GERAGOS: Look, I don't have a problem if they find something that they think they want to challenge, I mean, what am
I going to do? I'm going to stand on ceremony? If it's a legitimate criticism? You know, I'm a big boy. I'll take it..

KING: What was the motive?

GERAGOS: Gee, you got me. That was one of the questions we had all along.

KING: I mean, as everyone kept saying, what about divorce?

GERAGOS: It morphed -- it morphed, I think. The prosecution's original theory I think was for Amber, that he was in
love with Amber. When it became apparent that that wasn't going to fly, then it became, well, he wanted to be foot-
loose and fancy-free. I don't think for a second that either of those make any sense, but like I say, we'll have to wait
and see how it plays out on appeal.

KING: What's your read of the crime? Like who do you think did it?

GERAGOS: I have -- I have various theories. I don't know yet. It's still under investigation, and I certainly wouldn't at
this point speculate on it, but it's still under investigation. There's tips coming in all the time. There's people who are
investigating it, and rightfully so. So I'm not going to get in the way of that.

KING: A rogue is in trouble in a court then, right? Scott was a rogue?

GERAGOS: Well, you have a situation where we have reached the point where the media has, in what I call these super-
size cases, they decide or they champion the idea of the conviction. They want to kind of try and convict the person
prior to there actually being a trial. That's a problem. You know, part of what's happened is this kind of -- the Internet,
where you don't have to source, and it jumps over to cable, and once it's on cable, it goes to broadcast media, and then
certain thingsbecome fact that are not fact. You may get to a point in America where we have to do what they do in
England, which is shutit down as soon as somebody gets filed on, so that you don't get to a point where the media
convicts the person.

KING: They can't cover the trial, right?

GERAGOS: Right. They can't cover it, and you wait and you see later on. It's not a blanket elimination of the media, but it
delays what it is, and it's only in -- you know, the criticism, at least from my standpoint, is not across the board. You can
go into the courthouse in any courthouse in this country, and 99.999 percent of the cases are never covered by the
media, have no affect whatsoever. Or if they are covered, it's on a one-day or a two-day blip. It's only in these kind of
super size cases, where you have jurors who -- where it affects jurors. You get what I call stealth jurors.

KING: You think if this were not supersized, Scott would be not guilty?

GERAGOS: I think that if this case were tried and it was a reasonable doubt standard, yes, I think he would have
been found not guilty.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) - (BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GREG BERATLIS, JUROR, PETERSON CASE: If those bodies had never been found, or had been found in the desert, or
let's say in Yosemite National Park, we wouldn't be here. But those bodies were found in the one place he went prior
to her being missing by anybody else -- or knowing when she was missing. That was the one place. And I played in my
mind over and over, conspiracy, was somebody trying to set up Scott? Was somebody after Laci? It didn't add up for me.
(END VIDEO CLIP)

KING: How are Scott's parents doing?

GERAGOS: It's tough on them. I mean, Jackie is incredibly strong, as is Lee, but it's tough. I mean, there's -- when
they see him, and they visited him...

KING: How often can they see him?

GERAGOS: Well, they can set up appointments and get up there, and they have done it on a number of occasions, and
they do it as often as they can. And I think they -- the family tries to see him at least once a week.

KING: Is he isolated?

GERAGOS: Well, everybody on death row is isolated in a certain sense. He's in a kind of a preliminary stage, and then
he gets reevaluated at a certain point, and then he gets certain other kinds of freedoms, in terms of associating -- or
having a larger area in which to go into. But it's a fairly isolated lifestyle.

KING: Everyone in his area is on death watch, right?

GERAGOS: Yeah. This -- well, you say death watch; they're all on death row. There's very little -- especially the situation
he's in right now, very little human contact and human interaction other than the visits.

KING: And he can go out and exercise?

GERAGOS: Well, occasionally, and that gradually happens the longer you are there.

KING: Define reasonable doubt.

GERAGOS: Well, that's a good question. The jury instruction says it's an abiding conviction. Something I often talk to
jurors about it, is it's that state of mind where you can wake up every morning of every day for the rest of your life and
say, yeah, I'm sure I don't have any doubts about this.

KING: Thank you, Mark.

GERAGOS: OK, Larry, good to see you.

HOME INDEX LACI CONNER CASE INFO AUTOPSY WIRETAPS WITNESS LIST ALBUMS TRIAL LKL INDEX

SCOTT PETERSON ~ GUILTY!

TRIAL OF SCOTT PETERSON