Final Arguments for the Defendant
Penalty Phase: By Mark Geragos
December 9, 2004
MARK GERAGOS: Thank you.
It probably comes as virtually no surprise to any of you that your verdict was a complete shock to me. I don't say that to, in any way, condemn you. I don't say that, in any way, to second guess you. I have spent my entire adult life doing nothing but just jury trials. I have the utmost respect for the system and what the system represents.
I would tell you at the same time that, personally, it's probably the most devastating thing that I think I have been through professionally, and has tormented, has tormented me ever since. I have probably not slept collectively six hours since the verdict came back. And I do nothing but dream about this case. I have nightmares about this case. And pretty much taken over my brain, I suppose, in totality.
Not any different than, I suppose, than it has with all of you. You have all sat here. You have invested an enormous amount of effort and, at the same time, diligently worked. And I know that as a fact from having you guys come through the chambers when we do one of our many conferences, or the questioning like that. I don't have any doubt about that.
I do feel like I have let my client down. I feel like I have let those that, the family down. And I feel like, to some degree, I have let you down for not being able to convince you of what I so fervently believe.
I say that as kind of a confession to start off with, because I'll also tell you I did not, and it was probably professional malpractice, or ineffective assistance of counsel for me to admit. I'm going to just tell you the truth. I decided to do, there is nothing better to speak from my heart to you, is that I did not prepare a penalty phase. Did not do it.
The day the verdict came down I was in another courtroom. I didn't expect it that day. I can tell you that I, not for a minute, thought guys were coming back that day. That's why I wasn't here. I apologize. And that certainly was not a sign of disrespect. I just did not expect, and I think a couple of you know that you were going to end early that day, in any event, on that Friday. And my thought was that because you weren't going to be whole day, I could go make another appearance. I couldn't get up here in time. I apologize for that. I want you to know that was not any disrespect whatsoever.
I also tell you this part about the penalty phase, because I want you to know, I'll tell you, one of the reasons you were cooling your heels for two weeks was so that I could go out and start to interview people and put together what's called mitigation. And that's what we have been doing for the last two weeks, including, on a daily basis, while you have been in here. I have got investigators who were out tracking down people, finding people to bring them in here to present to you what's called mitigation.
And the reason, the reason that we do that, and I'll get into that in a second, is because that's what your job is right now. As you were told by Mr. Harris, both Mr. Harrises, that's what your job is.
As I told you, I hoped to never get here. And I suppose maybe some of you are thinking, good, I'm glad that you had only two weeks to do it, because otherwise I think I could have done this for a month. I could have done it for a month and half. I could have found that many witnesses I think who had the experience with Scott Peterson, who interacted with him, who did not consider him to be a monster, who did not consider him to be manipulative, who did not consider him to be an inveterate or a pathological liar, who didn't consider him to be psychotic, whatever kind of pop psychology, I guess, that you know two Scotts. I think I could have done that.
But, ultimately, I don't know what the point of that would be, because I think that what we presented to you was a representative slice of every stage of Scott's life, starting from when he was born, leading up to when you guys got here and had to listen to five months' worth of testimony.
The reason we do that, and I went back through last night and looked at the jury questionnaires when we interviewed you. And you all remember we did what was called that Hovey voir dire. Name of a case. Everybody comes in here and is individually questioned. And you are individually questioned by Judge Delucchi as to the penalty phase. I think I told most, if not all, of you at that point that the guilt or innocence phase was all that I was concerned about, and didn't even ask most of you questions about the penalty phase, because I just felt that way. And that's my everlasting regret.
At the same time, what the judge did, and he did it very well, is, he went through and he asked you specifically this question: Without hearing any mitigating factors, nothing about him, what kind of person he is or anything, is that crime, all by itself, so inflammatory to you, so repugnant to you that, in your mind, if that's what he did, you have already eliminated life without parole, and you would always pick the death penalty?
In every single instance, all of you here, everybody sitting here, you all had variations. One of you said, I would want, that is not, I would think I would need to know more about it. And that's, that answer was, another said, another one of you said, even if I found him guilty, I would still want to know more about him.
Another one of you said, in answer to the judge saying, is that crime all by itself, remember what Judge Delucchi said his preamble to all of you was, if you find that Scott Peterson murdered his wife causing the death of his unborn baby, took the body, put it in a boat, dumped that body into the bay, is that crime so inflammatory, so heinous, that, by itself, you would find him, you would always impose the death penalty? And every single one of you came up with answers like, I want to know these things. I want to know what those mitigating factors are, I want to know if that's, if that's what he did, would you always pick the death penalty? No. I would want to know more. Based on what I have seen, no, I would have to hear more about him. Not if I could hear everything else. I wouldn't say I need to be, I need to know more to be able to make that decision. No, not necessarily. I have not eliminated. I have not heard evidence about him. And I would want to know everything about him.
The reason that I did that is because if, as Mr. Harris, the prosecutor said, if the crime itself was so heinous, so inflammatory, that you would pick the death penalty, then there was no reason to have a mitigation phase. There is no reason to go through mitigation.
Understand that the reason that we spent the last two weeks here is because this is mitigation. You will remember that the things that the judge said to you when he was asking you about, he said, you know, would you want to hear or describe what mitigation, was he nice to animals? Is he a Cub Scout? What, how did he do in school? What did he do? All of those things.
At the same time, nobody is suggesting, and understand this. Nobody for a minute is suggesting that these things are excuses, that because you were in Cub Scouts, because you are, because you were a good athlete, that because you were kind to the elderly, because you worked at the orphanage, because you did any of these things that you heard of these witnesses, because you did that, that, therefore that excuses you from the crime, because that's not what we're talking about.
What we're talking about is a life or death decision. And the life or death decision is, is this a life, is this somebody who has lived a life that is worth saving? And there is, it's extremely difficult to sit here in a case like this, because you can't find a more tortured, emotionally-charged case than when something like this happens amongst what you consider to be two very fine families.
It's rare that you will see, in any kind of a case, two families who were together, three families together, that had come together, that had joined together, where there was apparently endless amounts of love, and there was interaction, there was all kinds of, they were full of life. And nobody for a second is suggesting that if Scott Peterson was a good golfer, or if Scott Peterson was good, was a Cub Scout, that that means he can murder Laci and that he could murder Conner. As I indicated to you, I'm not second guessing any of your decisions.
I'll talk about lingering doubt, what that means. Because one of you specifically said in your answers that before you could impose the death penalty you would have to be at a point basically without any doubt. That's not quite lingering doubt, but it's very close.
What we're saying is, is that if this is a life that has, that this is an, if this is a life that, by all accounts by everybody who was in here, is doing what one is supposed to do, that's mitigation enough. Just that. Just that alone is mitigation enough not to impose the death penalty.
The law, the reason that you have this is because we don't want to get into the situation, the death penalty is, I'm sure all of you know, is the most hotly litigated area of the law. And the courts have said, and this judge has instructed you on the law, that you are supposed to be guided by factors in aggravation and mitigation. And specifically you will remember Judge Delucchi told you what those were, and he went into great detail about it.
He told you if the defendant has any prior felony convictions, if the defendant's responsible for any other acts of violence, involving violence or threats of violence. And there is two things the District Attorney, and this is directly out of what he told every single one of you.
Number one, if the defendant has any prior felony convictions you would hear about that; and, number two, if the defendant is responsible for any other act of violence or threat of violence then you would hear about that. As Judge Delucchi said, that's about it. Prior felony convictions, act of violence, threats of violence, period. That's about it. That's what aggravation is. That's what the law is.
There is nothing in aggravating factors. There is no law that you are going to get, there is no jury instruction you are going to get, that says that there is an Amber factor. That if he was having a Christmas party with Amber, that if he lied to Amber, that if he was involved with Amber, if he was having an affair with Amber, that's an aggravating factor. Nothing.
Judge Delucchi also, and I think amazingly so, because he indicated to you he didn't know anything about this case when he got it, he didn't know, and I certainly didn't tell him, because we hadn't even gone there, what possible mitigation there was. But he cited to you, to every one of you what are mitigators. That's what they call them. What are things that cause you to vote for life over death.
His background. What kind of family does he come from? How was he raised? Is this the first time he's ever been in trouble with the law? Was he active in his community? How far did he go in school? Almost anything like that can be a mitigating factor. And that's what the law is. That's what your task is. That is what your work is at this point.
You are going to get an instruction, and Mr. Harris referred to it. This is the instruction that specifically tells you what mitigating circumstances are. And actually, (c), the absence of any prior felony conviction.
As you will remember, Mr. Harris conceded it, that when I asked Detective Grogan back in September, have you done a pretty extensive investigation on Scott Peterson? I'd have to say that.
Did you find anybody who's ever had a fistfight or physical altercation with Scott Peterson? No.
And also said, he's got no criminal history, either as a adult or juvenile, correct? That's correct.
Do you have anything, out of the 40,000 pages, anywhere that indicates anything other than that? Detective Grogan said no. They had that investigation. You know what the numbers are. You know who they talked to.
I'll tell you something else. We brought up all of these people, I'll get into it. But if there was anybody who had, who had seen this liar, this manipulator, this person whom they are asking you to put to death, if there is any indication prior to December 8th, December 9th, of that person, they had the opportunity to bring them on. They had the opportunity to rebut anything that we presented. And the reason that they didn't is because I would suggest to you there wasn't. There was nothing that would have rebutted the fact that, by all accounts, this was a life well-lived for the first 30 years.
The other factor is this Factor (k). Just means, it is a subset of that instruction. And it says, any other sympathetic or aspect of Scott's character or record that Scott offers as a basis for sentence less than death.
Went through, we had various people who did that.
Aaron Fritz. The kind of friend I would want if I ever had a child to have a friend like Scott. He's been the kind of person that's there, no matter what.
Now, you know, I know that when you get back in that jury room there are those of are going to say, well, or adopt Mr. Harris's arguments, well, Aaron Fritz didn't know about Amber. Scott was lying to Amber. Aaron Fritz didn't know about what evidence was out there.
Well, excuse me, that, you know as well as I do, there isn't anybody who knows Scott Peterson who can't turn on the TV and not only listen to every single tape that's been played in this courtroom, go to the market and seen the tabloids and know everything, true or false, that has been discussed about Scott Peterson in this case. Yet, knowing all of that, knowing everything, knowing that he had been convicted by you people in this courtroom after five months of the murder of Laci, Aaron Fritz who knew Laci, whose wife was a friend as well, Heidi, still came in here and asked you, knowing everything, wasn't like, remember, he was a witness in the guilt phase. He was a witness in the penalty phase. He still came in here and said he's the kind of person that, no matter what, if he had ever had a child you would want to have a friend.
Britton Scheibe, another example, who is somebody who has not seen Scott for a number of years. Now, I can tell you, and he said when I asked him, Pat, I believe, asked him when he's sitting up here, he asked Britton, did you get some heat coming up here? And can you imagine what it must be like to have somebody who you were friends with in grade school, who's heard all of these things.
As all of you know, this is not a, being a friend of Scott Peterson, or standing up for Scott Peterson, is not going to win you a popularity contest. Yet Britton Scheibe told you that he felt it was the right thing to do, because he knew this Scott Peterson, and he wouldn't do things to get any type of benefit for himself. He's a genuinely friendly person, someone who was caring about others, polite to people. Never had a bad thing to say. Came up here. He exposed himself to that kind of phalanx of media that you walk in here, run the gauntlet, to testify about that Scott Peterson.
Then Roger Rowe. Since found out they named the elementary school after him. Certainly Scott was a young man in whom I had great confidence. Nothing that I can envision then or now would suggest to me that the death penalty is appropriate for him. Somebody who knew him in the early days. I'm not suggesting that Roger Rowe knows what happened in November or December, or was there, or sat through the trial. But certainly he's followed it. Certainly he knows. And he comes in here, nevertheless.
Sandra Bertram. He was never angry. He was always pleasant. He was so respectful of his parents. He was always very kind, very considerable, and very respectful. None of these people, none of them, have anything to gain by coming in here and telling you these things. There is no benefit to them, only detriment. Yet they all came in to talk to you about the Scott that they know.
One of the other subsets is, is Scott's never been arrested or accused of any criminal offense. Because, remember, one of the other things that Judge Delucchi said was any act of violence. There has been nothing, absolutely nothing. And he was an unusually respectful and devoted and loving son to his parents throughout his life.
As Julie Galloway said, with his mom, how they showed love for each other was absolutely amazing. And that, itself, can be a mitigating factor to spare his life.
You have all of these people, whether it's Roger, Julie or Susan, telling you the same consistent quotes about the Scott Peterson they know. That he was well-behaved, respectful, hard-working, highly regarded. He was a devoted, considerate, and generous friend. And that he was a caring person to many members of his extended family. All of those things were here. If there was any way, and basically came in unrebutted. No cross examination. No rebuttal witnesses. All of these people from various parts of his life came in and testified to that.
Scott did a number of good works as a young man, including volunteer work at an orphanage. School for mentally retarded. Organized clothing drives in Mexico.
You remember what Doctor Threatt said? Doctor Threatt remembered the fact that Scott not only worked with the orphanage in Tijuana, he worked locally with the mentally retarded in the beach communities in San Diego on his own time. And Doctor Threatt told you that.
There's got to be, we have got to reconcile, or try to reconcile, and, frankly, as Pat said, I don't know how you do it, how you reconcile somebody who would go out and do that kind of community service with the person they are portraying. It's hard. It's not impossible. But the fact of the matter is that it is a mitigating circumstance. And that's what the law tells you you are to do is to take the aggravating, whatever aggravating circumstances, and weigh them against the mitigating circumstances, and then come to a decision.
The volunteer program, Conception Fritz. I agree with what Pat said today. If anybody can tell me why Coni Fritz who came up here, who seemed as, without any kind of motivation to lie, as any witness that we put on, why would Coni Fritz, what would there be to gain for Scott to pull off the road one time when he's near their house, two times when he's near the house, three times when he's near the house, to talk with Coni and Paul Fritz? What benefit, what possible benefit would there be?
He would always be, Rachel Latham talks about how he's always helping an elderly couple across the street, neighbor that doesn't get around too well. Another woman who has multiple sclerosis.
Another, from the guilt phase as well, that the neighbor next door, not just Susan Medina across the street, who talked about fixing the flat tire.
The neighbor next door, Karen Servas. Karen talked about how whenever she needed something done, because she is a single mom, she would call on Scott. She would have him come over. In fact, just the Sunday before fixed up the Christmas tree. That he had let the kid, the son play in the pool. That he been attentive to her. That he had done things like that.
So when you talk about the, somehow maybe this is somebody who did not carry on in the way that people knew him when he was young. All you have to do is remember back from the testimony during the innocence phase that there was, and is, a Scott Peterson who would go out of his way for no benefit. And that's, all of those things count as mitigating circumstances.
You know, you may consider any other sympathetic or other aspects of his character that is offered. One of the things I will tell you is out of, if you line up a hundred people that I knew in the past, if you told me that one of these people, such a sad thing would happen to Laci Peterson and Scott Peterson, I'm, there no word. I just can't believe this thing's happened to these two families. That, in and of itself, can be a reason or an aspect of his character for asking for a sentence of less than death.
And then, in addition to that, there is one more mitigating factor you may consider. And the judge told you this in instructions, and he's going to read it again. He's going to put it to you. It's called lingering doubt. And you may consider lingering doubt as a factor in mitigation. You may say lingering or residual doubt is defined as that state of mind between beyond reasonable doubt and beyond all possible doubt.
What does that mean? Pat gave you a pretty good explanation of it. All possible doubt is an, I suppose only somebody who is on a mission to God would know beyond all possible doubt.
Beyond a reasonable doubt is a standard you use to convict him. Somewhere in between is lingering doubt. You say to yourself, this is a circumstantial case. You say to yourself that all of these, I have got trouble reconciling all of this, what I have heard in mitigation, with what, the horrible crime that he's been convicted of. There can be lingering doubt. And that lingering doubt, alone, is a mitigating factor that is enough to spare his life. That alone.
Then when you do the weighing, it's a fact, condition, or event attending to a commission of a crime which increases its gravity. That's it. That's the one aggravating factor that's been presented. No violent acts. No felony convictions. As the judge told you, that's it. Those are the two, this is the only aggravating factor.
Mitigating factors are the absence of any criminal activity, absence of any felony conviction, any other sympathetic aspects of Scott's character or record that he offers as a basis.
He's never been arrested or accused. He's done a number of good works as a young man. He's been very well behaved and a highly regarded student. He's extremely hard working throughout his adult years. Extremely conscientious, devoted, considerate, a generous friend, a caring person, unusually respectful and devoted. Continues to serve as a source for guidance. Has the potential to make, to make positive contributions in prison.
And lingering doubt, this, I'm telling you when they talk about, Mr. Harris talked about the scales, this is what you are weighing. You are weighing what the judge defined to you as mitigating factors against what the judge defined to you as an aggravating factor.
Nobody is saying for a minute that if you believe he committed this crime, that, therefore, he is excused. Nobody is saying that. But just as one of you answered on your jury questionnaire, that not all murder becomes the death penalty, that does not, cannot just take the fact that there has been a murder, that there has been a loss, and then convert that into an aggravating factor that outweighs all of the mitigating factors. Because, if you do that, then the death penalty is for every single murder.
Nobody is defending murder. I'm not here to defend the act of murder or the act of taking life. In fact, I'm here to do quite the opposite, to tell you that, and ask you to spare his life, and beg you to spare his life, and beg you to consider the fact that the law is designed in such a way that when you consider all of these mitigating factors. And the one aggravating factor that it appears that the only result is to find that Scott should spend the rest of his natural days in prison with no chance for parole.
You know, every one of you said in your jury questionnaire, and I couldn't have said it better, that life without parole, to them, would be worse than death, because understand what it is when we're talking about life without parole.
When you are in there, you are in a space, been in many prisons. And prisons are different than jail. Jail is where they house people while they are awaiting their trial, usually at a county facility like here across the street. It's kind of loose. It's not a hard, generally not a hard or overly hard place.
Prison is not the same. Prison is an awful, awful place. Scott Peterson, if you vote to spare his life, will be placed into a cell that is roughly the size of a king size bed. Roughly encompasses you four jurors right here. That's the size of his cell. And he would be in that cell roughly the size of a king size bed for the rest of his life. He will die in that cell.
Scott Peterson in that cell will have a bed to lay on, and he will have a cold metal toilet, and he will share that cell with a friend. That friend will be his cellmate. That may change. And he will stay in that cell every single day until he dies. And while he's in that cell every single day until he dies, knows that at any time, if he tries to leave to go out for a half an hour, for fifteen minutes, to go exercise, or go to the shower, that he's going to have to look over his shoulder at all times. That he's going to be a marked man. That he's going to be in danger at any moment of some other inmate administering the death penalty to him on the spot, because he will be biggest target in any prison where he gets placed, whether it's Pelican Bay, whether it's Mule Creek, wherever he goes. It's not some kind of a country club.
This is not a minimum security facility. He will be at the highest Level 4 of the California Department of Corrections every day for the rest of his life. And one of those days some guard is going to walk by, and some guard when he walks by six months from now, or a year from now, is going to knock on the cell and say, Peterson, your mom is dead. And a year after that, six months after that, another guard is going to walk by and bang on the door. Peterson, your dad is dead. Six months, a year after that, five years, ten years after that, your brother John is dead. He's not going to be out there enjoying anything. It's not any kind of a picnic for him.
I'm not asking you to do anything but cherish the fact, cherish the idea, that this, that there does not need to be any more death in this case. I don't know about any of you, that some of these pictures that, you know, were held up today have been seared in my mind, I'm sure seared in yours.
The fact of the matter is, is if you think Scott Peterson did this crime, you think that there is two Scotts, both of those Scotts are going to be put into a cell and left there to die until he does. There is no alternative. He's not coming out. Nobody gets out when it's life without parole. The judge instructed you as to that. There is not going to be, the alternative is that you strap him on to a gurney at some point and you stick a needle in his arm, and you inject poisons, and you put him to death like you would a dog. That's the alternative.
And the reason for that, or why you would do that, is, I suppose, to bring, I guess the argument of prosecution is to bring some kind of closure, to avenge.
You know, the one, to my mind the most moving witness that we had here was Susan Medina. Susan Medina is the, remember, the neighbor across the street. Susan, out of nowhere, comes up with the fact her grandfather had been murdered. Grandfather had been murdered. They finally caught the people who did it. They voted to execute. And her father went to the execution.
You remember what she said? He witnessed that execution. And she started to crying and said he was never the same after that. It didn't bring any closure. It didn't bring any healing. It didn't do anything for anybody. Nothing. All of this death and killing more, and asking you to basically like some kind of hit man, or asking, the State is asking you to be the one who sanctifies killing and doing more death. There is no point in doing any more death.
I read so much about this in the last two weeks that I can tell you story after story. The most moving story that I came across was an article I had here from, by a guy by the name of Bud Welch. That was a gentleman whose daughter, his daughter Julie Marie was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. And obviously there was two gentlemen who were prosecuted for that. One of them was Tim McVeigh. There was 166 deaths from the worst act of terrorism on American soil. And he says that she was my pal, my sidekick, my best friend. And he lost her in that bombing. And he had all kind of things, all kind of revenge. It just ate away at him, completely ate away at him.
Then when McVeigh was executed, he got no, he got absolutely no relief from it. He got no solace from it whatsoever. And that troubled him greatly, pained him. And he actually went to find Tim McVeigh's father, and met a nun who knew Tim McVeigh's father. Had the nun introduce him to Bill McVeigh.
And he went up and he sat in the garden with him, in McVeigh's garden, Mr. McVeigh's garden. And he talked to him, and he talked to McVeigh's sister. And he talked for an hour and a half. And he didn't ask for anything except to just talk, and to see the hurt in the eyes of Bill McVeigh.
And he came away after that hour and a half of talking convinced that there was absolutely no reason to continue that cycle of death, to continue that cycle of killing. There was absolutely no reason. The only measure of closure he ever got was when he sat and talked with McVeigh, Mr. McVeigh, and then left that house and actually has dedicated his life ever since trying to eliminate the death penalty, because it's been such a moving experience for him.
I'm not asking you to do that. I'm not asking you to nullify the death penalty. I'm not asking you to abolish the death penalty. I'm asking you to take a look at the mitigating factors, asking you to take a look at the aggravating factors. I'm asking you, I'm begging, really. I'd get down on my knees if it wouldn't look so contrived. I would do whatever it takes to beg you to not, to not put Scott Peterson to death.
Scott Peterson, the guy that I have sat next to, that I have invested, invested all this time, one who for eight years, by all accounts, seven years by all accounts, loved Laci and cared for Laci, the Scott Peterson whose mother, as you saw, it would destroy. His father who, as you saw, it would destroy. Whose extended family, as you saw, would be destroyed. And to what end? What is that going to do for us? What, at the end of the day, does killing him, does putting him down, as opposed to letting him stay in a cell the size of a king size mattress, what benefit? How do we revenge anything? What do we do there?
And, at the same time, what does that do for the Rochas? How does that help Sharon? How does that help Ron Grantski? Or how does that help Brent or Amy? How does that idea of sticking a needle in his arm, strapping him on to a gurney and killing him, how is that going to help you? None of this is going to.
This is the most awful situation you can even imagine. None of this is going to bring back Laci. None of this is going to bring back Conner. Even if you believed that he did this horrendous act, which you must in order to convict him, even if you believed that, there is nothing, nothing that putting him to death is going to do except just cause more ripples in this case, turn this into a riptide.
And it's a riptide of more death. You go from Jackie's father being murdered, she didn't even know, to losing her daughter, her grandson; Sharon losing her daughter, Ron talking about losing his stepdaughter, and not ever saying so many things he wanted to say. Brent talking about them not having to grow up together.
So all that's being asked of you is to punish him with life without parole and just not kill him. That's all I'm asking is just don't kill him. End this cycle now. There is no reason to put him to death. The law does not require it. In fact, the law is the opposite. The law is, is that he should receive life without. To kill him at this point serves absolutely no purpose.
I'd ask you, when you go back there, as I know you will, to give us, each of you, your individual decisions. And what I mean about this is this: Judge D is not going to force you, as he said when we started on this, he's never going to tell you what to do in this case. One vote for life, and if you decide that's where I am, and you deliberate, and you talk about it, and you are there, you are that one vote, this is when, and I asked many one of you, I never thought I would be asking for the penalty phase. I asked you for the guilt phase, if you were that one vote, you believed that life, the sanctity of life was so important in this case that you want to stop all of this killing, then all you have got to do is push the button, call Jenne, call Mike, and that's it. That's it. It's a hung jury. That's it.
You are not forced to come to a unanimous decision. He's never going to tell you that you must come to a unanimous decision of death in this case, ever. All he's going to tell you is that each one of you, each one of you has sworn an oath to give the law and the facts your consideration. If you believe, as I'm begging you to, that this is a life worth saving, all I'm asking for is you to hang on and vote for life.
There is nothing that requires unanimity here. There is nothing that requires that you vote death. In fact, I humbly, humbly submit to you that the law requires, based on all of this, that you vote for life.
I'm going to send you off now. I wish I could, I want to just talk to you forever. I don't ever want to let you go back there without knowing that one of you understand how passionate I am about this, how much this means, and how right I think that the decision to vote for life is. But I have got to pass this along.
I'm not going to keep you here any longer. I'm going to give this over to you at this point. I'm going to give this decision over to you and pray and hope that this, which is obviously the biggest decision that anybody could ever be given, the most profound decision that anybody could ever have to do, and that you will do what I consider to be the right thing, which is not to kill, and perpetuate the whole new generation of victims, and not to kill, and not to commit an act that is irreversible, irrevocable, but to give some measure of compassion and mercy or sympathy to Scott, to his family, and to those, and I think in a strange way the Rochas.
I don't think that killing Scott is going to bring them one minute's worth of solace. I don't think that, I don't think the killing Scott is going to bring Amy one minute's worth of solace, nor Brent. I don't think it's going to bring anybody any solace. I think it will haunt people.
And I would, once again, just beg you, and thank you, and ask you, humbly, to vote for life in this case. Thank you.