Page 10 - Ohio Vol 4 No 6

CLIMBING
“THE STAIRCASE”
BY LOUIS J. SHAPIRO
If you want to feel torn, con icted, and intrigued, then “ e Staircase” is for you. e 13-episode Net ix series takes the viewer through Michael Peterson’s murder trial, which took place in Durham, North Carolina, about 15 years ago. e
series begins around the date of the incident — December 2001 — and continues through to 2016.
If you haven’t seen the entire series yet, then you may want to stop reading because I am about to analyze it.
Overall, the show accomplishes its goals — to take you through Peterson’s journey while causing you to second-guess his position that his wife fell down the stairs. You feel for him, and yet question him. In a weird way, his compromised sen- tence of eight years of prison may strike the balance for many viewers, who are struggling for the truth.
My only critique is that the family conversations could’ve been trimmed down. Although, that may just be the litigator in me always wanting to get back to the courtroom.
In any event, let’s break e Staircase down to two catego- ries: Did he do it? Did he get a fair trial?
DID HE DO IT?
e most damaging evidence against Peterson is that his wife had seven lacerations on the back of her head. According to defense experts, in order for her injury to be caused by a fall down the stairs, she would’ve had to have slipped a er trying to get up a er the rst fall and hit her head a few more times. Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No. Add to that the Germany staircase death of his prior wife’s friend, and things are really not looking good for him.
e lurking question remains. Why would kill his wife? What was his motive to kill her? e prosecution argued that he killed her a er she discovered he was bisexual. at simply does not connect.
Someone asked me, “When was the last time you heard about someone dying from falling down the stairs?” To which I responded, “When was the last time you heard about some- one killing their spouse, when their spouse discovered that they were bisexual?”
DID PETERSON GET A FAIR
TRIAL
e two most important and mishandled pieces of evi- dence were the admission of the death of his prior girlfriend into trial, and the fact that he was bisexual.
In Germany, 17 years prior to the death of Peterson’s wife, Peterson’s previous wife’s friend su ered a sudden death from
a brain aneurysm and ended up at the bottom of the staircase. e death was ruled an accident.
In the present murder trial, the prosecution convinced the judge that that the probative value of the Germany death at a staircase, outweighed the prejudicial e ect it would have on the jury in this staircase death. Are you kidding me?!
First, how is Peterson’s defense attorney expected to fact check any of the Germany witnesses’ statements given at trial, without any police reports from 17 years ago. How is it fair to Peterson to have to simply accept the witnesses’ recollection from 17 years ago as being accurate? I can’t remember what I ate for lunch last Tuesday. Yet these witnesses remember details from 17 years ago, about an incident that was swi ly ruled an accident.
Peterson’s defense lawyer, David Rudolph, intuitively stated that the ruling by the judge on the Germany evidence, would be the most important motion that would be decided in the entire trial. How right he was.
e admission of the bisexual relationship was in am- matory and a distraction from the case. Had Peterson found out that his wife was unfaithful to him, under that scenario, perhaps the probative value could be argued. But to allow the prosecution to call the male prostitute, who made a mockery of the system on the stand, as evidence of guilt in a murder trial is preposterous.
Whether Peterson killed his wife or she fell down the stairs is something only Peterson knows. e 911 calls certainly seem to paint a man who is shock and in desperate need for aid for his dying wife. Remember he is a writer, not an actor.
Getting a fair trial, Peterson did not. e oodgate of preju- dicial evidence that the judge allowed the jury to be struck with was overwhelming. Peterson never had a chance at an acquittal.
At the conclusion of the show, the now-grey-haired judge confesses that he should not have admitted the Germany death and the bisexual evidence into the trial. In fact, he said that had he made the right rulings, the jury could have arrived at a di erent conclusion.
It’s just a shame that the trial judge didn’t come to this real- ization until Episode 13.
Louis J. Shapiro is a criminal defense attorney out of Century City and a certi ed criminal law specialist by the State Bar of California. He is also a TV/Radio Legal Analyst, Legal Consultant on NBC’s Trial & Error and is a board member of the California Innocence Project.
ATTORNEY AT LAW MAGAZINE · CLEVELAND · VOL. 4 NO. 6 10