Objection! Read Online Free PDF Page B

cross-examination, he told Geragos he found what appeared to be cement residue in what looked like five rings, which indicated that Peterson had made five anchors—but only one was found. Geragos, trying to punch holes in Hendee’s theory, showed the pictures of the so-called rings and O B J E C T I O N !
    2 3
    commented that they looked more like light right angles than rings. He mocked Hendee, saying, “Is this a ring? And is this a ring? Is this a circle?” His attempt at witty sarcasm fell flat. Although there were a few chuckles in the courtroom, some of the jurors looked disgusted by the treatment the detective received. He was a credible witness who deserved to be treated with respect. Evidently Geragos thought otherwise.
    When Geragos’s long-anticipated cross-exam of Peterson’s former lover, Amber Frey, was set to commence, he deadpanned in open court,
    “No questions.” He then paused for effect before adding, “Just kid-ding.” While there were a few people who thought this was hilarious, certain members of the jury looked on stoically and never even cracked a smile, as if to relay the message, “What’s funny about murder?”
    There’s no doubt Mark Geragos is a talented lawyer. How far can sheer talent take a defense when pitted against the truth? In State v.
    Scott Peterson, the truth won out.
    A M A T T E R O F M O N E Y
    One thing for sure about Geragos is that this million-dollar defense attorney not only knows the ropes, he knows how to tie them into a lasso for the prosecution. The Modesto Bee reported that two judges decided last July that taxpayer money would go to help Geragos defend Peterson. Stanislaus County Superior Court judges Roger M. Beauchesne and Linda McFadden met with Geragos behind closed doors in July 2003 and sent him their decision a few days later. At the time we couldn’t know the facts supporting their decision, since the law requires that the ruling remain confidential. When asked about the motion, Geragos told reporters, “Look, if I did file, I couldn’t tell you. If I didn’t file, I still couldn’t tell you.”
    The last time I checked, public funds are generally used with the public’s knowledge, with the exception of secret FBI and CIA opera-tions. There is no justification for keeping this information secret.
    While Geragos shouldn’t be made to reveal trial strategy, taxpayers 2 4
    N A N C Y G R A C E
    have a right to know how much money judges are forking over to the defense. As for his asking for any money at all, I firmly believe that he and other high-priced lawyers like him should be paid the same rates as court-appointed attorneys, prosecutors, and state experts.
    Much of the public’s money designated for defendants’ attorneys goes to pay for court-appointed attorneys, not high rollers from silk-stocking law firms. It’s the exception, not the rule, for defendants to hire expensive private attorneys, run out of money, and end up with their hands in our pockets.
    Erik and Lyle Menendez, who gunned down their parents in Beverly Hills in 1989, and Danielle van Dam’s killer, David Westerfield, received public money. If Geragos ever does reveal just who paid the bill, I suspect we won’t hear the real story for quite a while.
    A B R I E F V I S I T T O
    N E V E R L A N D
    When Geragos was in charge of Michael Jackson’s defense in its early stages, virtually everything the defendant did was a horrendous mockery of the justice system. With a client like Michael Jackson and a lawyer like Mark Geragos, division of fault is pretty tricky. I do not necessarily believe that Geragos knew what was to come, but I have to wonder, did he have an inkling?
    In January 2004, when Michael Jackson pled not guilty in his first hearing on child-molestation charges, the judge planned to keep a tight rein on the singer and the attorneys in the case. Judge Rodney Melville immediately set a strict tone and kicked off the day’s proceedings by scolding Jackson for