The Journal

Issue date: 3/24/05 Section: Opinion/Editorial

Nick Lucchesi

Jurors in the Scott Peterson trial came back to the courtroom March 16, four months after convicting him of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, and her unborn child and then dumping their bodies in the San Francisco Bay. They wanted to hear Peterson's sentence - death - firsthand.

The jurors interviewed in front of television cameras after the sentencing said being there gave them a "sense of closure." Yet, any person watching the trial coverage on television would have thought Peterson was found guilty long before the jury announced its verdict Nov. 12. In their eagerness to convict Peterson before the jury had a chance to, many in the press put due process to the side in lieu of a story.

There's no doubt the Peterson case is unusual. Psychological profiles of Scott Peterson saturated talk shows since he was named a suspect. How could it be that a seemingly intelligent, financially stable white male could do such a thing? The case resonated with women because of Laci Peterson's unborn child, and her mother's statements about the grandson she would never see fueled the rage many had toward the stoic Scott Peterson.

Yet, often time during the trial's proceedings - and jurors afterward confirmed these suspicions - viewers should have gotten a sinking feeling that maybe Peterson wasn't getting a fair shot.

"San Quentin's your new home," said Rochelle Nice, a juror interviewed after the death sentence was handed down.

Nice then called Peterson an "asshole" while walking away from cameras. This isn't exactly what is defined as a levelheaded juror, and it's pretty tough to think Peterson got a fair trial after hearing that. A person who cannot separate her personal feelings far enough away from the case itself - one has to ask how she made it past the infant stages of jury selection.

Peterson's persona during the proceedings had an effect on jurors, as Nice's post-sentencing commentary clearly reflects. Journalists are not jurors and relying more on Peterson's expressionless face than facts may make for better ratings, but it's not the story they should be telling.

This, added to Peterson's assumed guilt by the majority of those who reported and opined on the case, essentially reserved a room for Peterson at California's premiere penal facility.

High-profile court cases are flooding the media right now, giving the press numerous chances to go into detail on the legal system that is taking up an increasing amount of airtime. Instead, hand-waving cable television anchors are ruining the presumption of innocence with legal analysis that attacks high-profile defendants.

The sight of Michael Jackson hobbling to the courthouse or a jubilant Robert Blake after his acquittal all invite their own share criticism from commentators more anxious to generalize and judge than explore facts of each case.

There's no doubt that Peterson was at a disadvantage from the outset, but the seeming witch hunt that began before the trial gave his defense attorney's little help.

Whether Peterson is guilty or not should not have been the issue; it's the media's attack and subsequent judgment before his chance at a trial.


Nick Lucchesi, a senior journalism major, is the news editor for The Journal.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools