Laci Peterson's Mother vs. Her Son-in-Law: Scott Peterson
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}This is a partial transcript from On the Record with Greta Van Susteren, May 26, 2004 that has been edited for clarity.
Watch On the Record every weeknight at 10 p.m. ET!
GRETA VAN SUSTEREN, HOST: Tonight: Scott Peterson's mother-in-law, Sharon Rocha, has filed a new legal motion to keep her daughter, Laci's, belongings from being sold. Fox News legal editor Stan Goldman is in Los Angeles with the details -- Stan.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}STAN GOLDMAN, FOX NEWS LEGAL EDITOR : Yes. Good evening, Greta. Yes. This is the second attempt by the Rocha family, the family of the late Laci Peterson, to stop Scott Peterson from ever profiting from the sale of anything about this case. The first attempt they made was thrown out of court a few months ago when the judge decided that a blanket requirement that Scott Peterson not profit from anything involving the murder, or alleged murder, of his wife and unborn child was just too broad and infringed on Scott Peterson's 1st Amendment rights.
So the Laci Peterson family -- Sharon Rocha, the mother -- has filed a new lawsuit saying, OK, we're not going to stop him from trying to write any books or tell his story or make any money from that, but we don't want him selling anything out of the house for an exorbitant profit because of the notoriety of this case. Not, mind you, because we believe it rightfully belongs to us, but simply because we don't think the law ought to allow someone charged with a murder to profit from that murder, unless the 1st Amendment protects that right. And they say selling the furniture, for example, wouldn't be a 1st Amendment-protected right.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, I suppose, Stan, though, that we could wait, or somebody could wait, Scott could wait until the point where there's a verdict saying that he's guilty or not guilty because, certainly, if he's -- you know, if he's guilty, he shouldn't profit from -- from the murders. On the other hand, if he's not guilty, he's the lawful heir, right?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}GOLDMAN: That's right. And in fact, they're not even claiming, really, that they are the heir. You know, as you well know, Greta, the law doesn't allow someone to inherit from someone they've intentionally killed. But that's not actually the basis of this claim by the Rocha family. They're not saying that the property shouldn't belong to him. They're saying even if it does belong, in effect, we don't want him profiting by getting an exorbitant price for the dining room set or the sofa or something, even if it belongs to him, because that excess profit is really the result of his having killed his wife, our daughter.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right.
GOLDMAN: Its' a novel theory, I must tell you.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}VAN SUSTEREN: All right. Well, we'll follow this one. Stan, if you'd stand by, let's bring in the rest of our legal panel. Defense attorney Geoff Feiger is in Detroit. Former assistant DA Jim Hammer is in San Francisco. And in Washington is defense attorney and former D.C. homicide detective Ted Williams.
And let me tell you, gentlemen, what Fox News is learning from a source out in California, that Mark Geragos is intending to ask the judge to ban Sharon Rocha and Ron Grantski, the mother and step-father of Laci Peterson (search ), from the courtroom, although previously, he'd said that he didn't mind if they were in the courtroom.
Geoff, your thoughts on that?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}GEOFFREY FEIGER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY : He won't get away with it unless he somehow claims that they're going to be witnesses in the case and move to exclude their...
VAN SUSTEREN: They are witnesses.
FEIGER: ... presence.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}VAN SUSTEREN: They have both been subpoenaed.
FEIGER: Then that's the only basis upon which Geragos could make such a claim. Now, the judge may override it and find that whatever testimony they give would not be prejudiced by hearing the other testimony. But Geragos is entitled to move for the exclusion of witnesses, even though they're potentially the parents of a victim.
VAN SUSTEREN: Jim, what is the California law? Because, you know, the first thing that I -- when I hear this, I think, boy, you know, here's a defense lawyer. The last thing you want to do is to -- you know, is the -- the parents or stepparents of the decedent, to give them a lot of heat, especially after you've permitted them in the courtroom for the preliminary hearing. They've already heard evidence.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}JIM HAMMER, FORMER ASST. SAN FRANCISCO DA: Well, I think that's why Mark originally didn't object to it because it would have looked so bad, I think, for him to keep the victim's family out of the courtroom. But under the California law, Greta, at the preliminary examination, the judge does have the discretion, unless it's going to affect the defendant's fair trial rights, to keep the victim's family in the courtroom, even if they're witnesses. But there's no such provision for a jury trial. So if they are named as witnesses, and they are, until they're called and actually testify at the trial, they will be excluded. So the one way around it for the prosecution, Greta, is to call them early in the trial. Once they're released as witnesses, they could actually stay in the courtroom at that point.
VAN SUSTEREN: All right. What -- what is -- what is thought tonight, Jim -- and this may be wrong, but what is thought tonight is that even after they testify -- and we're hearing -- we're hearing -- we're getting information they are No. 1 and No. 2 witnesses for the prosecution -- haven't confirmed yet...
HAMMER: Right.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}VAN SUSTEREN: ... but we're hearing that. But is there any way after they have testified that the defense can keep them out of the courtroom under the theory that they may be called by the defense in the defense case?
HAMMER: Well, you bring that -- you're right. That's one way they could do it. And I can tell you, I've tried murder cases where, I think, in a slimy maneuver, defense attorneys have done that -- I say slimy, they're doing it to keep the sympathy factor out of the courtroom -- where they have kept victims' mothers out of an entire murder trial, where a woman had to sit out for a month-and-a-half in the hallway while her son's murder case was prosecuted by me and couldn't enter that courtroom until the closing argument in the case. And...
VAN SUSTEREN: And never called?
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}HAMMER: ... if Geragos...
VAN SUSTEREN: And never called then?
HAMMER: And then they -- exactly. I called the mother early in the trial, so she'd be out of the way, and the defense said, Well, Judge, we want to have her as a witness, as well, made that woman sit out in the hallway the entire trial, and at the end said, You know what? We've decided not to call her. And they got away with her. I think it's slimy...
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}FEIGER: Yes, the prosecutor...
(CROSSTALK)
TED WILLIAMS, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: You know, Greta, that could be...
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}FEIGER: The prosecutor does it, too, Jim.
WILLIAMS: ... two-edged sword. Yes, but you know, this could be a...
HAMMER: The prosecutor's done with the case...
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}WILLIAMS: ... two-edged sword for Geragos.
HAMMER: ... in the first half of the case, though, Geoff. In this case, the defense, while the entire second half's going on, the poor mother sat out in the hallway the entire time. Listen, I know he's trying to save Scott Peterson's life. That's his job. But it's pretty slimy, and it really, really is painful...
VAN SUSTEREN: All right...
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: Well, not only is it slimy, but it's a two-edged sword here. You got to take into consideration the sensitivity of the Rocha family. And quite naturally, the whole world is going to be watching this trial. On the other hand, as you've said, Geragos has to protect the rights of his client. He has the right to invoke the rule. But you know, this is an issue that's very thorny, in the sense that if the Rochas are in the courtroom, there's going to be a lot of emotional testimony that they are going to hear. Any kind of an outburst during the course...
VAN SUSTEREN: But Ted -- but...
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}WILLIAMS: ... of this hearing could prejudice (UNINTELLIGIBLE)
VAN SUSTEREN: But Ted -- but Ted, at that point, they are then excused from the trial for the remainder of the trial. But until the point of that outburst, they have been there. And in fact, when I was there for the preliminary hearing, when it came to the time of the part -- I think it was about the autopsy, is that they -- they didn't show up in court because they knew it would be difficult on them.
HAMMER: Right.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}VAN SUSTEREN: And the jury does know...
WILLIAMS: Yes...
FEIGER: Hey, Greta...
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}VAN SUSTEREN: Yes, go ahead, Geoff.
WILLIAMS: But Greta, the mistake could be...
FEIGER: Greta, I guarantee you the only -- the only people who care about whether the Rochas are in the trial are maybe the prosecutor and the news media. I guarantee you, when the trial starts, the jury doesn't care.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}HAMMER: That's not true.
FEIGER: The litigants don't care.
WILLIAMS: Oh, no, no, no, no!
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}(CROSSTALK)
WILLIAMS: I got to disagree with you guys.
HAMMER: I've talked to jurors after murder trials...
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}WILLIAMS: I guarantee you on that the jurors are going to be looking...
(CROSSTALK)
HAMMER: ... victim's family in that courtroom. They do watch the victim's family in the courtroom.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}WILLIAMS: Jim is right. They're going to -- every time there's some testimony, they're going to be looking right at that victim's family. So Geoff, I have to disagree with you on that one.
VAN SUSTEREN: And -- and -- but here -- but you know who does care? I -- probably. It's probably the Rochas. I mean, probably Sharon Rocha...
FEIGER: Exactly.
{{#rendered}} {{/rendered}}VAN SUSTEREN: ... and Ron Grantski, and as long as they have good behavior in the courtroom, as long as they've already testified for the prosecution, they're witness No. 1 and No. 2, you know -- you know, what Geragos does if he tries to exclude them is he alienates them tremendously, which may not inure to his benefit, in the end.
WILLIAMS: You don't make promises you can't keep. If Geragos said he initially wanted them in the courtroom, and now, all of a sudden, he's saying he that doesn't want them in the courtroom, you know, this could be something...
VAN SUSTEREN: Let -- let me...
WILLIAMS: This could hurt him somewhere down the road.
VAN SUSTEREN: Let me ask Stan Goldman. Stan, you've been standing by. You've -- what's your thought, Stan?
GINSBERG: Well, you know, it could be a maneuver by Mark to make certain that his family can stay in the courtroom, Scott Peterson's parents. I mean, if the prosecution's going to make an argument that Laci Peterson's family's got a right to be there, Scott Peterson's family does, too. Remember, his father, Scott's father, may very well be a witness in this case because he was a witness at the preliminary hearing. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander. He may very well simply be doing this to ensure the fact that his -- his sympathetic family gets to sit in, just like the sympathetic family of the victim in this case.
VAN SUSTEREN: And of course, tomorrow we're going to have the jury selection. They're going to whittle it down to 12. And opening statements are supposed to be starting on Monday. We'll have to see whether that happens.
Anyway, gentlemen, thank you all.
Content and Programming Copyright 2004 Fox News Network, L.L.C. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Transcription Copyright 2004 eMediaMillWorks, Inc. (f/k/a Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.), which takes sole responsibility for the accuracy of the transcription. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material except for the user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon Fox News Network, L.L.C.'s and eMediaMillWorks, Inc.'s copyrights or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.