Skip to main content
CNN EditionLaw
The Web    CNN.com     
Powered by
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SERVICES
 
 
 
SEARCH
Web CNN.com
powered by Yahoo!

Networks seek right to tape Peterson proceedings

Prosecutors, defense want cameras barred from courtroom

Scott Peterson, seated at left, is shown in a recent court appearance.
Scott Peterson, seated at left, is shown in a recent court appearance.

Story Tools

RELATED
Audio Slide Show: Peterson case 
Timeline: The search 
Interactive: DNA testing 

• Criminal complaint: People v. Scott Peterson  (FindLaw, PDF)external link
• Court TV.com: Case coverage external link

MODESTO, California (CNN) -- A collection of broadcast outlets filed court papers Friday arguing that a camera should be allowed in the courtroom during Scott Peterson's preliminary hearing on charges of killing his pregnant wife and their unborn child.

"The media -- and, in particular, television -- play an indispensable role in informing the public about the conduct of judicial proceedings," said the brief, which was filed by attorneys representing CNN, NBC, ABC and Court TV.

The Stanislaus County district attorney has requested that Superior Court Judge Al Girolami bar cameras from the preliminary hearing, scheduled for September 9, out of respect for the family of Laci Peterson, who disappeared Christmas Eve.

Defense attorney Mark Geragos has argued that the hearing should be closed to members of the news media, as well as to the public, to protect Scott Peterson's right to a fair trial.

The television media attorneys countered that neither argument offers sufficient reason to prohibit cameras.

"The nature of the case," the filing claims, "strongly supports television coverage. The police, Mrs. Peterson's family, and defendant asked the public for help after Mrs. Peterson disappeared. They sought and received national publicity in the hope that it would help find the missing woman. When the bodies of Mrs. Peterson and her unborn child were found, the nation grieved.

"To ask for the public's interest and involvement in the search, and then disregard the public's ongoing interest in the result of criminal proceedings, is cavalier."

The brief contained hundreds of pages of supporting documents. Included were transcripts of Scott Peterson's television interview with ABC's Diane Sawyer and appearances by Geragos on CNN's "Larry King Live."

In a footnote, the brief points out, "Ironically, as this court has recognized, 'Defense counsel was a regular commentator prior to the defendant's arrest and his being retained on the case.'"

Also attached were federal and state studies purportedly showing that cameras in court had little or no influence on the conduct of trials. One such study was commissioned in California after the high-profile O.J. Simpson case in 1996.

"Based on all the evidence that it gathered, the task force concluded that cameras should remain in California courtrooms," the briefing stated.

Thursday, attorneys for a collection of California newspapers argued that the preliminary hearing should be open to the public and the media. (Full story)

Girolami will consider the question of media coverage at a hearing scheduled for August 14.

Laci Peterson's body and that of her fetus washed up from the San Francisco Bay in April, about five miles from where Scott Peterson said he was fishing the day his wife went missing. Scott Peterson was arrested days later.

In another matter related to the Peterson case, the defense filed an argument protesting the use of wiretaps in the investigation. Peterson attorney Kirk McAllister said California's statute violates the state constitution.

Before Peterson's arrest, hundreds of his telephone calls were recorded by police investigators. Included were 69 calls between Peterson and McAllister, which the defense argues should have been protected under attorney-client privilege.

Now, McAllister is arguing that the statute itself is invalid because it permits police to occasionally hear what a potential suspect is discussing with his or her attorney.

"First, it allows the law enforcement authorities to listen in on a privileged conversation. Second, it empowers a police officer to decide what is privileged and what is not," McAllister wrote, adding that the latter violated the constitution's separation of powers.


Story Tools
Subscribe to Time for $1.99 cover
Top Stories
CNN/Money: Ex-Tyco CEO found guilty
Top Stories
CNN/Money: Security alert issued for 40 million credit cards

City:

International Edition
CNN TV CNN International Headline News Transcripts Advertise With Us About Us
SEARCH
   The Web    CNN.com     
Powered by
© 2005 Cable News Network LP, LLLP.
A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved.
Terms under which this service is provided to you.
Read our privacy guidelines. Contact us.
external link
All external sites will open in a new browser.
CNN.com does not endorse external sites.
 Premium content icon Denotes premium content.
Add RSS headlines.