Jury Questioning to Resume in Peterson Trial

The defense in Scott Peterson’s double-murder trial wants to pack the jury with people who have doubts about how police handle investigations while the prosecution is seeking a panel of more trusting souls.

With the resumption of jury questioning today, trust in law enforcement has emerged as a key issue for the two sides as they haggle over who will decide the fate of the 31-year-old former Modesto fertilizer salesman accused of killing his pregnant wife, Laci, and the son she was carrying about Dec. 24, 2002.

Jason Bloom, a jury consultant with Courtroom Sciences in Dallas, who is not working on the case, said the defense wanted people who question police competence.

“They would be looking for conspiracy theorists and people open to alternative explanations to Laci’s disappearance and people who have not been jaded by the press and media surrounding the case,” he said.

On the other hand, the prosecution’s ideal juror is someone who has “a great deal of comfort with the rules of society and believes law enforcement does a good job,” said another consultant, Joe Rice, who also is not associated with the trial.

The prosecution also wants people who are comfortable with a case based on circumstantial evidence, those concerned about violence against women and people with strong views on marital infidelity, said Rice, president of Jury Research Institute in Alamo, Calif.

“Each side wants jurors in favor of their side,” he said. “You’re hoping your good jurors stay under the radar and the other side doesn’t notice them. It’s poker.”

Over the next six weeks, the jury pool of about 300 will be whittled down to a panel of 12 with six alternates.

Originally, about 1,000 people were called for duty, but most were excused because of the difficulty of serving on a case expected to last six months.

Judge Alfred Delucchi is telling prospective jurors who make the second cut to return May 13, when a final group of 80 people or so will be further questioned until a jury is seated. He set the trial’s opening statements for May 17.

Peterson is facing life in prison or the death penalty if he is convicted of killing his pregnant wife and then dumping her body into the San Francisco Bay. Both bodies washed ashore last April.

Mark Geragos, the attorney representing Peterson, and Stanislaus County Deputy Dist. Atty. Rick Distaso, the prosecutor, have retained jury consultants to help with the selection.

In such high-profile cases, consultants say they commonly convene focus groups to get an idea of what types of jurors would be ideal. Both sides then draft jury questionnaires, which are melded together.

In the Peterson case, the first insights into juror beliefs came in the answers to a 23-page questionnaire, which elicited their attitudes on law enforcement, the death penalty and infidelity.

Prospective jurors also were asked about their reading and TV viewing habits and even the bumper stickers they put on their cars.

The question on infidelity came up because the prosecution contended Peterson had killed his wife because he was having an affair with a Fresno massage therapist.

Delucchi, who has imposed a gag order on the case, has denied a media request to unseal the jurors’ answers to the questionnaires.

During individual questioning in open court, which began March 22, Delucchi dismissed jurors who said they could never vote to execute anyone.

Jurors who could consider only the death penalty and not life in prison without the possibility of parole also were excused.

Others were dismissed for cause if they disclosed a bias one way or the other.

Jurors who survive this initial cut will return May 13, when lawyers from both sides will ask more questions and exercise their peremptory challenges to excuse 20 each.

“Jury selection is actually de-selection,” said jury consultant Bloom. “You’re eliminating people who are most dangerous to your case.”

In the Peterson case, two high-profile jury consultants have been hired.

Jo-Ellan Dimitrius of Dimitrius and Associates in Pasadena, who worked for the defense in the O.J. Simpson criminal case, is advising the defense.

Howard Varinsky of Howard Varinsky Associates in Emeryville, Calif., who worked for the prosecution in the Martha Stewart and Oklahoma City bombing cases, is helping the prosecution.

John Burris, a prominent criminal defense attorney in Oakland who represented Rodney King in his civil rights case against the Los Angeles Police Department, said it made sense to use jury consultants for the Peterson case and other high-profile cases.

“Lawyers have enough to do in presenting the case,” he said. “Jury consultants are another set of eyes. They may see something the lawyer doesn’t see.”

Both sides are on the lookout for the “stealth juror” who is trying to get on the case to land a movie or book deal, said Richard Matthews of Decision Analysis in San Francisco.

He said it can be “someone whose answers are too perfect, someone who is smiling at both sides.”

Last week, Geragos accused a retired secretary in the jury pool of lying to get on the jury. The judge asked the secretary and a man who gave Geragos the tip to appear in court next month.

“It doesn’t take much for a stealth juror to fool a consultant,” Geragos said. “It’s not brain surgery to figure out what somebody wants to hear.”