Scott Peterson doc reveals evidence hidden from defense, attorney says | Jesse Weber Live

Hinzugefügt: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]If you watch Jesse Weber Live, you know the name Mark Geragos, the legendary trial attorney who's represented some of the biggest stars and some of the most high-profile court cases in recent history. You know what I'm talking about, right? Michael Jackson, Chris Brown, Winona Ryder, they've all been clients of Geragos. But one of his most well-known clients had nothing to do with Hollywood. Scott Peterson. Scott Peterson was a salesman who hailed from Modesto, California. When his wife Lacy and their unborn son went missing on Christmas Eve uh 2002 to 2002, it set off a media firestorm that intensified when Lacy's body was discovered in the San Francisco Bay over 3 months later.

[00:00:34]Now, Peterson was arrested soon after Lacy's body was discovered, and during his over 5-month trial, Geragos repeatedly pointed to the fact that the prosecution relied on circumstantial, not direct, evidence to make their case.

[00:00:47]But despite that, despite Mr. Geragos's best efforts, the jury found Peterson guilty of two counts of murder in November of 2020 2004, and he was later sentenced to death. Now, that sentence was overturned in 2020 due to improperly dismissed jurors, and Peterson, now sentenced to life, has been sitting in prison ever since. However, there's been a glimmer of hope for Peterson in recent days. Why? This is thanks to a habeas petition that was filed by the LA Innocence Project. And the petition claims that new evidence from a burglary across the street from the Petersons that day, the day that Lacy disappeared, maybe could provide an alternative theory of what happened. And though a California judge denied that petition earlier this month, the LA Innocence Project says it plans to appeal. And despite the judge's decision, that petition has raised some big questions about this case, which is why there is a new documentary that is hoping to answer those questions. It's called Scott Peterson: The New Evidence. It's set to air July 16th and 17th on A&E. This two-part documentary special is diving into some of that new evidence, presenting a fresh perspective on a case that so many have already made up their minds about. Maybe if you look at this, you'll look at it differently. Now, the doc promises new evidence analysis, never before heard witness testimony, insights from those closest to the case, including Mark Geragos. And so, now we have a lot of questions, and I want to bring on acclaimed attorney Mark Geragos, okay? He is the host of two podcasts, in case you don't know, Reasonable Doubt, Two Angry Men. You can find it wherever you get your podcast.

[00:02:17]And Mark Geragos joins me on the the pirate ship. Good to see you, sir.

[00:02:20]>> ship right now.

[00:02:21]>> A hat tip to Adam Carolla who always talks about the pattern of behavior.

[00:02:25]>> Well, what do we have here?

[00:02:27]Um, how did you get involved in the documentary?

[00:02:30]>> Well, they they approached me. I thought that the last documentary that was all done, for the first time in a number of years, actually got people to reassess what they thought. This case, of all the cases I've been connected to, and not just me, but we did studies, we did venue studies. You know, we successfully changed venue because the pre-judgment rate the people had on this case of guilt was off the charts.

[00:02:59]Jo-Ellan Demetrius said she'd never seen anything like it. She had just come off of O.J. and thought that was kind of polarizing. This was even more so.

[00:03:09]>> But I guess the question is why would it be important? Is it the idea of hey, if he gets a new trial, people will look at this with fresh eyes, a fresh set of jurors? Because I also do wonder, and I I'll ask you more about the documentary.

[00:03:19]Let's say he were to get a new trial. I actually don't know how many people know the Scott Peterson case. Like, I wonder if you had a jury, they won't be, you know, affected They won't know about it, won't be affected by it.

[00:03:28]>> It's one of the great things on one side about the American public is that they have a short attention span.

[00:03:35]The one exception to that may be Scott Peterson. I still see people who 20, 23 years later still talk about it. One of the things that was particularly ironic, if you can talk about irony, the day he was convicted, the prosecutor handed me a report. The report had a um a tip from a lieutenant at Chino, which is a prison in California. It said he overheard an inmate talking about the burglary across the street with his brother.

[00:04:06]That report had not been turned over to us. They knew my You saw in some of the setup piece, pictures of Pat Harris. Pat Harris, who I tried the case with, was fixated on the van across the street and the burglary across the street. They had never told us that in Modesto PD had cleared the burglary, said it happened 2 days before or 2 days after, and that wasn't true.

[00:04:29]It was clearly not true. In fact, if you talked to any of the media, there was a media scrum out there the day after Christmas. There's no way the burglary happened then.

[00:04:37]>> So take you back. First, we talk about the documentary, we talk about the appeal. This never-before-heard witness testimony, I know you might be limited in what it can be, but if you're talking about an appeal, would would it be fair to say this is somebody or people that you didn't know about, could not find at the time of the trial, or these are people that their testimony was hidden from you?

[00:04:56]>> Both. And in fact, one of the things that started or jump-started the Innocence Project was an analyst from the Department of Justice, California State Department of Justice. He, who had retired, said, "Hey, there was a van that was burned out the day after she went or was reported missing, and there was a match and it had what appeared to be bodily fluids on it or blood. They deep-sixed that. They never gave that to us, even though they knew that's what we were looking for.

[00:05:28]>> One of the other things is this new scientific analysis, and this can be, you know, a big portion of why cases can be overturned years later. Fetal biometric studies, what is that? Is it the idea if you can prove that Conner, her their unborn son, was alive after December 24th, there's no way Peterson could have committed the crimes. I mean, I'm >> That's exactly what it is.

[00:05:49]>> And we had in the We We tried to show that Connor was born and that he was outside of the womb and there was tape you also in the setup piece he had tape around the neck. We We thought that was compelling. The prosecution put on evidence with an expert. That ex- expert has been debunked mightily ever since then and now there is new science that shows that in fact given all of the ultrasounds and everything else that was done that in fact he probably was born and was alive for a period of time.

[00:06:25]>> So, that's a portion of what we will also hear in title pattern data also in the San Francisco Bay. It'll be interesting as well. While I have you cuz we are running out of time, I got to ask you about There's a development in the Justin Baldoni Blake Lively lawsuit.

[00:06:36]I Which by the way, I thought it was over. I thought they settled, but now there's a fight over money, right?

[00:06:41]What's going on? I know you have some information.

[00:06:43]>> it just as we were getting on air today, the judge in the case filed an order and it basically said here it was I want a response on a couple of discrete issues.

[00:06:54]Do you all remember after the judge gutted Lively's case, they then instantly settled. One of the reasons they instantly settled is because if you read the judge's order, the lawyers for Lively had committed egregious, I think in my opinion, errors that the judge pointed out. Wrong jurisdiction, things like that. They instantly went to mediation, tried to insulate themselves from malpractice.

[00:07:18]They came back and said, "Well, this wasn't really settled. We He still has the ability, he being the judge, to file a or give us attorney's fees." Well, the order that he just filed, Judge Lyman did today, really calls into question what the attorneys have been for Lively have been saying and whether or not they misled their their client into settling this case.

[00:07:42]>> So, in other words, there could be a situation where she cannot recover attorney's fees from It's actually the production company, right? It's from Baldoni's production company. So, she would have to foot the bill. Is that what you're saying?

[00:07:53]>> I I think that he's going to rule. If I had to guess, reading the tea leaves, doesn't look to me like he's going to triple damage, doesn't look to be punitive damages. He may give a nominal amount of attorney's fees.

[00:08:07]It'll be a percentage of what she spent, and some insurance insurance company will pick it up.

[00:08:11]>> Okay, well, this story's not going away anytime soon.

[00:08:15]You're going to stay with me cuz we're going to play that game later. Would you take the case? I don't know. I think you take every case. So, stay with me.

[00:08:19]>> I was going to say I don't know >> Take here. I I tell you, I'm going to make a deal with you right now. I'm going to say with every case cuz you know what they are. I think you're going to take every one of the cases. But, mark my words. Don't say you're going to take every one of the cases.

[00:08:31]>> Thank you for watching. Subscribe below and download our NewsNation app right now on your phone and you will get fact-based, unbiased news for all Americans.