Peterson turns to state Supreme Court
Defense team seeks venue change, new jury for penalty phase
(CNN) -- Attorneys for convicted murderer Scott Peterson Wednesday asked the California Supreme Court to change the location of the penalty phase of Peterson's trial and let a new jury decide whether he deserves to die.
The trial judge and an appeals court have both turned down those requests.
The penalty phase in Peterson's trial is scheduled to begin next Wednesday in Redwood City, California. Jurors will decide whether he should be sentenced to death or life in prison without possibility of parole.
After 184 witnesses testified over a period of 23 weeks, Peterson was convicted November 12 of first-degree murder with special circumstances in the death of his wife, Laci, and of second-degree murder in the death of their unborn son.
Their bodies turned up separately on the shore of San Francisco Bay in April 2003, almost four months after a pregnant Laci Peterson disappeared from the couple's Modesto home.
Peterson's lead attorney, Mark Geragos, argued that the penalty phase should be moved out of Redwood City because of the community's animosity toward his client.
Geragos also said that the departure of two jurors during deliberations had compromised the jury's ability to render a fair verdict.
On Tuesday, California's 1st District Court of Appeals rejected an emergency request filed by Geragos after the trial judge, Alfred Delucchi, denied Geragos' motion Monday. (Full story)
Geragos said "massive media interest in and community fervor" about the case had polluted the panel.
"That the jury was in fact influenced by such extrinsic factors was demonstrated by the comments of Juror Number 5, before his dismissal ... to the effect that 'given what's transpired' in the jury room, he feared that his ability to weigh the evidence fairly and openly had been so compromised 'that I would never know personally whether or not I was giving the community's verdict, the popular verdict, the expected verdict,' " according to court papers filed November 17.
In documents it filed opposing the defense requests, the prosecution countered that when asked to explain his comments, the juror "completely retracted his claim."
"What is of even more significance is that at the time the [juror] made his statements in a repeated attempt to get off the case, the jury had not yet taken a vote," the prosecution papers said.
