|
Return to Transcripts main page
NEWS FROM CNN
New Venue for Scott Peterson Trial
Aired January 8, 2004 - 12:49 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Now stand by for one minute, Herb, because I want to follow up with the breaking news we have on the change of venue in the Scott Peterson murder trial.
Rusty Dornin was inside the courtroom. She's now outside the courtroom.
Rusty, this happened very, very quickly.
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Very quickly. Some insiders had predicted it. Judge Al Girolami obviously made up his mind by the time he walked into the courtroom. He did not end up taking any testimony from either side before he announced his decision. And, indeed, the trial of Scott Peterson will not be held in Modesto, California.
He said there was just too much of a danger and the likelihood that he might not get a fair trial here, that it was an inappropriate venue. Just as I left, he was going through the factors and the reasons that he felt that it was right to change it. He said the nature and gravity of the offense, the fact that it was a double homicide, and of course that the death penalty was involved.
He said the size of the community didn't really matter that much. The community here is about 450,000 people. The defense had argued it was just too small. He said that didn't really weigh in.
Also, he said the status of the defendant did weigh in. He was somebody who was an upstanding citizen. There wasn't really a lot of negative or positive about him before his wife disappeared. After that happened, his status changed completely in the community. There was a lot of negative emotions in the community.
And that's just about the time I left, Wolf. So what we believe is that he's going to be turning this over to the judicial review. They will make some recommendations. That's the state commission.
They'll make recommendations of two or three places. And what they're looking at is what facilities are available? What court staff is available? Who can handle this kind of media in this kind of a case?
And so they'll poll the courtrooms throughout the state to find out who would have a courtroom available. And, of course, in the next couple of weeks, because this is supposed to go to trial on January 26. From what we understand from that judicial review committee, they would take about two or three weeks to decide that, they get back to the judge. The judge holds another hearing with both sides. But in the end, it is up to this judge to decide ultimately where this trial will be held -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And the judge would then go to wherever the trial will be held and preside over the court?
DORNIN: He says he fully intends to stick with this case. And, of course, prosecutors are going to be going. And interestingly, prosecutors had said that they have 400 witness that they are going to call. That it's going to be very difficult to get all these people down there.
The defense, of course, said, oh, that's ridiculous. You're just saying you have 400 people because you don't want it to go anywhere. So it will be interesting to see how many people the prosecution really does call with this change of venue.
BLITZER: Rusty, stand by. Christopher Darden, our CNN legal analyst, former LA prosecutor, is on the phone. I want to get his reaction to what I think is a pretty surprising decision by this particular judge, who doesn't necessarily have a history of agreeing to change a venue of a high profile trial.
Chris, give us your sense of what's going on.
CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's pretty obvious and has been obvious for quite a long time that this is a very, very emotionally charged case and that there is a huge percentage of the population that has already made up its mind about Scott Peterson's guilt. And I think this judge is simply being cautious, he's being careful, because certainly had he denied this motion for change of venue, he will certainly receive a writ to the court of appeal.
BLITZER: How long do you think it will take now for the whole process to unfold? When there's a change of venue, there's clearly going to be a delay in the start of a trial.
DARDEN: Yes, there will certainly be a delay in the start of a trial. Even though the judge has issued his tentative ruling, saying that Stanislaus County is not the proper county, a determination has to be made in terms of what is the proper county. And once that occurs, the judge will pack up and head to that county to handle this case. Assuming it is not an adjacent county to Stanislaus County, it's going to probably take two or three months to get this thing back on track.
BLITZER: It's a pretty serious burden also on the judge, the attorneys, the various prosecutors, the staff, to go some place else. And presumably they're not just going to go to a neighboring county. They'll go to a different part of the state. A lot of pressure maybe to go to Los Angeles, the largest county, where the jury pool is the biggest and potentially the most supposedly untainted. DARDEN: I'm sure that Mark Geragos would like nothing more than a return to Los Angeles and try this case. And the courthouse is located a mile or so from his office. But you're correct, the cost to the taxpayers is going to be substantial, especially for a small county like Stanislaus County.
BLITZER: It's going to be a huge expenditure. Once the trial does get under way, wherever it's going to be in California, how long are we talking about the whole case before it goes to jury? How long do you think that could presumably take, based on previous experience, these kind of high profile murder cases in California?
DARDEN: Well, it is a death penalty case, which means that the jury will have to be death qualified. In other words, they won't just be questioned about guilt or innocence, but they will also be questioned about their attitudes for the death penalty and the like. And because it is a high profile case, I could foresee it taking perhaps a month just to select a jury alone. And if the prosecution has listed 400 or more witnesses in their case, and you can certainly expect to see a large contingent of defense witnesses and experts as well, this case could simply take three, four, six months to try.
BLITZER: Really? That's going to be a long process, I'm sure. Our viewers will be fascinated by it, at least many of our viewers will.
Christopher Darden, thanks very much for that report.
TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com
WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: Now stand by for one minute, Herb, because I want to follow up with the breaking news we have on the change of venue in the Scott Peterson murder trial.
Rusty Dornin was inside the courtroom. She's now outside the courtroom.
Rusty, this happened very, very quickly.
RUSTY DORNIN, CNN CORRESPONDENT: Very quickly. Some insiders had predicted it. Judge Al Girolami obviously made up his mind by the time he walked into the courtroom. He did not end up taking any testimony from either side before he announced his decision. And, indeed, the trial of Scott Peterson will not be held in Modesto, California.
He said there was just too much of a danger and the likelihood that he might not get a fair trial here, that it was an inappropriate venue. Just as I left, he was going through the factors and the reasons that he felt that it was right to change it. He said the nature and gravity of the offense, the fact that it was a double homicide, and of course that the death penalty was involved.
He said the size of the community didn't really matter that much. The community here is about 450,000 people. The defense had argued it was just too small. He said that didn't really weigh in.
Also, he said the status of the defendant did weigh in. He was somebody who was an upstanding citizen. There wasn't really a lot of negative or positive about him before his wife disappeared. After that happened, his status changed completely in the community. There was a lot of negative emotions in the community.
And that's just about the time I left, Wolf. So what we believe is that he's going to be turning this over to the judicial review. They will make some recommendations. That's the state commission.
They'll make recommendations of two or three places. And what they're looking at is what facilities are available? What court staff is available? Who can handle this kind of media in this kind of a case?
And so they'll poll the courtrooms throughout the state to find out who would have a courtroom available. And, of course, in the next couple of weeks, because this is supposed to go to trial on January 26.
From what we understand from that judicial review committee, they would take about two or three weeks to decide that, they get back to the judge. The judge holds another hearing with both sides. But in the end, it is up to this judge to decide ultimately where this trial will be held -- Wolf.
BLITZER: And the judge would then go to wherever the trial will be held and preside over the court?
DORNIN: He says he fully intends to stick with this case. And, of course, prosecutors are going to be going. And interestingly, prosecutors had said that they have 400 witness that they are going to call. That it's going to be very difficult to get all these people down there.
The defense, of course, said, oh, that's ridiculous. You're just saying you have 400 people because you don't want it to go anywhere. So it will be interesting to see how many people the prosecution really does call with this change of venue.
BLITZER: Rusty, stand by. Christopher Darden, our CNN legal analyst, former LA prosecutor, is on the phone. I want to get his reaction to what I think is a pretty surprising decision by this particular judge, who doesn't necessarily have a history of agreeing to change a venue of a high profile trial.
Chris, give us your sense of what's going on.
CHRISTOPHER DARDEN, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: Well, I think it's pretty obvious and has been obvious for quite a long time that this is a very, very emotionally charged case and that there is a huge percentage of the population that has already made up its mind about Scott Peterson's guilt. And I think this judge is simply being cautious, he's being careful, because certainly had he denied this motion for change of venue, he will certainly receive a writ to the court of appeal.
BLITZER: How long do you think it will take now for the whole process to unfold? When there's a change of venue, there's clearly going to be a delay in the start of a trial.
DARDEN: Yes, there will certainly be a delay in the start of a trial. Even though the judge has issued his tentative ruling, saying that Stanislaus County is not the proper county, a determination has to be made in terms of what is the proper county. And once that occurs, the judge will pack up and head to that county to handle this case. Assuming it is not an adjacent county to Stanislaus County, it's going to probably take two or three months to get this thing back on track.
BLITZER: It's a pretty serious burden also on the judge, the attorneys, the various prosecutors, the staff, to go some place else. And presumably they're not just going to go to a neighboring county. They'll go to a different part of the state. A lot of pressure maybe to go to Los Angeles, the largest county, where the jury pool is the biggest and potentially the most supposedly untainted.
DARDEN: I'm sure that Mark Geragos would like nothing more than a return to Los Angeles and try this case. And the courthouse is located a mile or so from his office. But you're correct, the cost to the taxpayers is going to be substantial, especially for a small county like Stanislaus County.
BLITZER: It's going to be a huge expenditure. Once the trial does get under way, wherever it's going to be in California, how long are we talking about the whole case before it goes to jury? How long do you think that could presumably take, based on previous experience, these kind of high profile murder cases in California?
DARDEN: Well, it is a death penalty case, which means that the jury will have to be death qualified. In other words, they won't just be questioned about guilt or innocence, but they will also be questioned about their attitudes for the death penalty and the like. And because it is a high profile case, I could foresee it taking perhaps a month just to select a jury alone. And if the prosecution has listed 400 or more witnesses in their case, and you can certainly expect to see a large contingent of defense witnesses and experts as well, this case could simply take three, four, six months to try.
BLITZER: Really? That's going to be a long process, I'm sure. Our viewers will be fascinated by it, at least many of our viewers will.
Christopher Darden, thanks very much for that report.
|
