Scott Peterson sentenced to death

[burton2019]

REDWOOD CITY, California (CNN) -- Rejecting a defense request for a new trial, a California judge on Wednesday sentenced Scott Peterson to death for the slaying of his pregnant wife and her fetus.

In imposing the death sentence, Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi followed the recommendation of a jury last December. (Jury recommendation)

Earlier Wednesday, Peterson was brought into a California courtroom shackled at the waist, according to The Associated Press.

The former fertilizer salesman was escorted into San Mateo County Superior Court under heavy security, wearing a dark suit and handcuffs chained to his waist, the AP reported. Additionally, 10 of the 12 jurors who sentenced him to death in December sat in the jury box Wednesday, the AP reported.

The jury that convicted Peterson in November recommended that he receive the death penalty. Delucchi had the option of reducing his sentence to life in prison.

Laci Peterson was eight months pregnant when she was reported missing on Christmas Eve 2002. Scott Peterson told police he had launched his boat at Berkeley Marina, about 80 miles from where the couple lives in Modesto, to fish in the bay that day.

Her body, and that of the fetus she carried, washed up separately on the shore in April, near where Peterson said he was fishing. A definitive cause of death was never determined.

Prosecutors said Peterson killed his wife in the couple's home on December 23 or 24, 2002, with an absence of blood in the house pointing to strangulation or smothering. They said Peterson -- who police learned was having an extramarital affair with massage therapist Amber Frey -- wanted to continue to live life as a freewheeling bachelor.

Peterson, 32, had the option of speaking on his own behalf during the sentencing. He has maintained his innocence in his wife's death. He is currently being held in the San Mateo County Jail in Redwood City, but will be moved to San Quentin State Prison if sentenced to death.

Last month, Peterson's defense attorneys filed a motion requesting a new trial on several grounds, including what they called newly discovered evidence.

That evidence stemmed from a telephone conversation involving an inmate at a California prison. The inmate's brother told him that Laci Peterson had walked up on a man who was burglarizing the house next door and that the man had verbally threatened her.

In their response, however, prosecutors claimed that evidence was not newly discovered, but that defense attorneys had known of it but failed to check it out properly.

"This is, once again, an all-too-familiar tactic on the part of the defense to twist the truth and make false claims," prosecutors said. "The defense conveniently fails to provide any admissible evidence on this point and instead relies on rumor and innuendo."

Prosecutors said the man who allegedly conducted the burglary was available to testify, but was not called to do so.

In his motion for a new trial, defense attorney Mark Geragos claimed that Delucchi committed an error by dismissing two jurors during the trial. Three jurors were dismissed in all. Prosecutors, in their response, said the issue had already been handled during Peterson's trial and the defense claim was "a rehashing of prior arguments."

Geragos said in his 135-page filing that jurors were allowed to conduct their own unauthorized experiment with Peterson's boat. Prosecutors said the so-called experiment, in which the defense claimed two jurors got in the boat and one "jumped up and down," does not amount to the taking of new evidence.

[Wildcat_65]

Thats what he deserves!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Merlin]

I think he probably did it and deserves to pay for his crime, but I would find it very difficult as a juror to vote to put someone to death in a case the involved mostly circumstantial evidence. There were no real "eye witnesses" to the crime and I would just have a problem voting to kill him 'cause I would always have a little doubt in the back of my mind. But, that's just my opinion for what it's worth.

Has anyone seen the movie Life of David Gale???

It deals with the subject of the death penalty.....really, really good movie, good ending I would definately suggest you rent it.

Its kind of an older movie but makes you think.

[Merlin]

No, haven't seen it, but I've heard of it. I guess I'll have to add it to my Blockbuster list.

[imported_Charlie_Hustle]

I dont see how they gave him the death penalty based on the fact of lack of physical ebidence. Im not in any way saying he shouldnt get ot if he did it, but going from the evidence stand point it was hard to see him get convicted.

[R0cketer]

I'd have definitely felt better if I was involved if there was more actual "proof". No doubt in my mind he is guilty but hard to prove it without more tangible evidence.

[Diets17]

I dont know if he is guilty or not, im leaning toward guilty. Though there is reasonable doubt, so there should have been a hung jury that led to another trial. Instead, he was convicted of this crime long before the jury ever gave the verdict. Also was convicted by the media and the public before the trail even started. Thats just my opinion though. Guilty until proven innocent? The new American way.

"who made you GOD to say, Ill take your life from you"
-James Heitfield.

[Jack_N_The_Green]

The death penalty is an issue i've been stradling the fence on for some time. I'm not leaning either way. I believe that if there were more than 2 eyewitnesses witnessing the murder, then they should be executed, but with evidence like DNA, or whatnot...that person's DNA is going to be on them anyway...i mean, it was his wife? i'm sure they touched...she was pregnant....there were not any eyewitnesses, so i don't believe he should be executed...

One of those Blue Collar dudes was on KRock this morning and said, "I'd like to be the one to set the time on his execution. I'd set it for 1:00 on Daylight Savings Time"

Thought that was pretty funny