John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
jackpeace@comcast.net
November 12, 2004
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299
Re: Formal Bar Complaint Against Mark Geragos
Dear Chief Trial Counsel, California Bar:
This is my formal Bar complaint against California-licensed attorney, Mark Geragos, who is presently representing Scott Peterson in his murder trial in your state. The information given below is what is required by the Bar’s Complaint Form:
My home address is
5721 Riviera Drive, Coral Gables, Florida 33146. My home phone number is 305-666-4366, cell 305-588-3005.
Mr. Geragos' office address is Geragos & Geragos, Two California Plaza, 350 South Grand Avenue, 39th Floor,
Los Angeles, California 90071-3406, phone number 213-625-3900. I do not know how many attorneys are in this firm.
I do not believe I have complained about this attorney before, although I and others probably should have.
I have no business or legal relationship with Mr. Geragos. I am a lawyer in good standing with The Florida Bar who has been stunned today to find out, in watching a television news program, what Mr. Geragos has done to try, apparently, to influence the jury in the aforementioned murder trial arising out of the murder and disappearance of Laci Peterson and her unborn son.
Specifically, numerous news organizations are reporting that Mark Geragos pulled a “stunt” in placing on a piece of property very proximate to the courthouse that he purchased during the pendency of this trial a replica of Scott Peterson’s boat. Mr. Geragos was unsuccessful in persuading the Court to allow the jury to inspect the boat. It appears that Mr. Geragos, not satisfied with the Court’s ruling, placed the boat there in hopes that some members of the jury might see it while coming to or leaving the courthouse.
This stunt by Mr. Geragos would appear to violate California Bar Rule 5-320:
Rule 5-320. Contact With Jurors
(B) During trial a member connected with the case shall not communicate directly or indirectly with any juror.
It would appear that Mr. Geragos was attempting to engage in non-verbal communication, but communication nevertheless, in order to convey to the jury, through one of more of its members, certain visual, dimensional aspects of the boat he was barred by the Court to convey. Mr. Geragos reportedly wanted the jury to see how shallow was the draft of the boat and that a boat of that dimension, according to the defense, would likely tip over if a body were thrown overboard.
At the very least, Mr. Geragos should be required to explain to the California Bar exactly why he just happened to place a boat nearly identical to the one alleged to have been involved in the disposal of Laci Peterson’s and her son’s body precisely in a location likely to be passed by the jury. Maybe Mr. Geragos was going to go fishing later, but somehow I doubt it.
| |
Regards,
John B. Thompson |
John B. Thompson, Attorney at Law
1172 South Dixie Hwy., Suite 111
Coral Gables, Florida 33146
305-666-4366
jackpeace@comcast.net
November 17, 2004
Office of the Chief Trial Counsel/Intake
State Bar of California
1149 South Hill Street
Los Angeles, California 90015-2299
Re: Amendment to Formal Bar Complaint Against Mark Geragos
Dear Chief Trial Counsel, California Bar:
I should like to add to the above by suggesting that Mr. Geragos may also have violated, if he is the one who directed the placement of that boat on his property, the following Bar Rule:
Rule 5-120 is intended to apply equally to prosecutors and criminal defense counsel.
Whether an extrajudicial statement violates rule 5-120 depends on many factors, including: (1) whether the extrajudicial statement presents information clearly inadmissible as evidence in the matter for the purpose of proving or disproving a material fact in issue; (2) whether the extrajudicial statement presents information the member knows is false, deceptive, or the use of which would violate Business and Professions Code section 6068(d); (3) whether the extrajudicial statement violates a lawful "gag" order, or protective order, statute, rule of court, or special rule of confidentiality (for example, in juvenile, domestic, mental disability, and certain criminal proceedings); and (4) the timing of the statement.
| |
Regards,
John B. Thompson |
|