Peterson Jury Shows Signs of an Impasse

Trying to stave off a potential impasse in the Scott Peterson murder trial, a San Mateo County Superior Court judge admonished the jury to set aside passion, prejudice and personal opinions while attempting to reach a verdict in the 5 1/2 -month-long case.

“The attitude and conduct of jurors at all times is very important,” Judge Alfred A. Delucchi told the six-man, six-woman jury Monday as it entered its fourth day of sequestered deliberations. “It is rarely helpful for a juror at the beginning of deliberations to express an emphatic opinion on the case.”

“Do not hesitate to change your opinion for the purpose of reaching a verdict if you can do so,” he said. “Consider changing methods in deliberations.”

After the judge’s lecture, the jury summoned a variety of physical evidence, including an anchor, tidal charts, a plastic bag, a life insurance policy and transcripts of Peterson’s telephone calls to his girlfriend.

Exactly what prompted the judge’s admonition was unclear. But some observers said the jury’s desire to review evidence seemed to indicate that it was back to deliberating the merits of the case.

Outside of the courtroom, Chuck Smith, a former San Mateo County prosecutor, said: “This jury is obviously not getting along.”

“Clearly, there is disagreement and the jury sought help from the judge to try and get the logjam broken,” Smith added.

Court trial analyst Paula Canny agreed.

“That this jury seems to be having difficulty should not be a surprise to anyone,” Canny said. “It is something that happens with a lot of very difficult cases.”

Peterson, 32, who could face the death penalty if convicted, allegedly smothered or strangled his pregnant wife, then used a new boat to dump the corpse into San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002.

Delucchi denied a defense motion for mistrial on Monday, an hour after several jurors, who had requested to see Peterson’s boat, climbed inside the craft and started rocking it. Defense attorneys called that a violation of state law barring jurors from experimenting with evidence.

The 14-foot aluminum boat is a critical piece of evidence for both sides of the case. Prosecutors have argued that Peterson attached concrete anchors to his wife’s 153-pound body before dumping it into the ocean. Laci Peterson’s body washed ashore in April 2003 near where her husband says he went fishing the day she disappeared.

Defense attorneys, however, countered that it would have been impossible to heave such a heavy load over the side without tipping. They also allege that Laci Peterson was kidnapped by strangers who framed her husband.

The trouble started shortly after the boat had been hauled to a local garage at the request of jurors who wanted to take a closer look.

In an unusual move, Delucchi decided that he, along with prosecutors and defense attorneys in the case, should witness the jurors’ inspection of the craft.

He also agreed to let a few jurors sit inside it. When they stood up and started shifting their weight from one foot to the other, Delucchi said he “told the jurors that they should keep in mind that they are not in the water, but on land and on a trailer.”

But that wasn’t enough for defense attorney Mark Geragos, who argued that Delucchi should either allow the jury to watch a video his team produced to demonstrate the boat’s stability on water, or declare a mistrial.

“I have strenuous objections to jurors sitting in the boat and rocking back and forth,” said Geragos, who felt the action might somehow adversely affect his client’s case. “You can’t do a juror experiment. I’m asking for a mistrial.”

But Delucchi dismissed that argument, saying there was no way to predict what conclusions might be drawn from rocking the boat. “I think it works both ways,” Delucchi said, meaning it might just as easily harm the prosecution’s case.