Inside the trial of Parkland deputy charged for failing to confront school shooter – TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Mark Eiglarsh, who served as Scot Peterson’s defense attorney, joins host Joshua Ritter to discuss the trial that led to the officer’s acquittal on all counts.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to The Sidebar, presented by True Crime Daily, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or at joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Thursday, October 26th, 2023.
We have a special episode for you this week. We're going to try something a little bit different and something I'm actually excited about. On February 14th, 2018, Nikolas Cruz committed one of the deadliest school shootings in history. In October of 2022, Cruz was spared the death penalty in a verdict that surprised many. However, earlier this year, Scot Peterson, a former Broward County deputy, faced criminal charges for his response to the deadly Parkland shooting. This case ignited furious debate amongst those who wanted to see more done to stop needless deaths, and amongst those who saw Peterson's prosecution as a misguided prosecutorial overreach.
Today, we are very excited to be joined by Mark Eiglarsh. Mark is a seasoned defense attorney and legal commentator. But today, Mark joins us to share his experience in defending Scot Peterson in this high-profile trial, eventually securing an acquittal for his client on all charges. Mark, welcome.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:01:43]
Thanks for having me. Appreciate it.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:45]
Absolutely. We're excited because it's rare that we have the opportunity to go into a case, one case, more in depth, but with the attorney who was so integral to it, who defended the defendant in this case and knows more about it than probably anyone else. We thought it would be a good opportunity to get a little bit more into the weeds on this case in particular, because it's interesting for what it involved, but it's also interesting from a legal perspective. So let's jump right in.
First of all, in Parkland, Florida, Scot Peterson, the Broward County sheriff's deputy, worked as a school resource officer at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. He was one of the first responders on February 14th, 2018, when Nikolas Cruz executed his deadly attack that took the lives of 17 students and faculty. Mark, you live and work in Florida, not far from where this took place, right? Can you tell us a little bit what was the climate like following the shooting?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:02:49]
We were all devastated. Understand, I didn't know who Scot Peterson was. I was just a father with his three children and wife, living probably a half an hour away from this campus. We all knew kids who were affected, families who were suffering. And so instead of our usual grateful, where we go around the table each night and say what we're grateful for, we all had a lot to say about the shooting. And I wanted each of my kids to get off their chest what they felt, how unsafe they felt in their own school.
And from this discussion came a decision by my extraordinary wife of 23 years who's so empathic, she suggested that each of us handwrite a letter to each of the victims' families. And including in the letter, we included a little ceramic smiley face, a seed of happiness they're called, and just a small token to show that we're with you, we love you, and we're so sorry about what you're going through. To this day, I still get very choked up because those families are living my nightmare.
So when Scot Peterson contacted me at some point later to consider meeting with him, candidly, I wasn't interested. I was like, what's the point? I'm not going to ultimately represent this guy. I had already represented one of the victims, Aalayah Eastmond, who courageously helped others in her class survive the shooting. She used one of her classmates as a shield. He had already been killed. She felt so guilty for using his body that she held up to absorb some of the bullets.
We went on the Today Show with Megan Kelly, and we talked about her experience. So I was very aligned with all the victims in this case. I felt from what the media told us, that he was a coward, that he just cowered behind some concrete pillar instead of going in there knowing the kids were being killed. That's what we were sold. So I at first didn't even want to meet with them, Josh.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:04:48]
Yeah. Wow. That's one of the first things I want to get into. When these tragedies strike, where was another shooting last night that we heard about, a massacre taking place in Maine. Of course, it affects all of us and we're all bothered and can imagine what it's like. But to actually be in that community, to have it strike so close to home, we appreciate you giving us kind of your thoughts and what it was like to be around that community, especially we're talking about at a school, the amount of lives lost. It was just one of those real watershed moments in this discussion about school shootings and gun violence.
But as you pointed out, in the immediate wake of the massacre, Peterson became a target of criticism and scrutiny for what authorities allege was a failure to intervene in the shooting. After hearing shots, Peterson responded to the school's classroom building with his gun drawn. However, he maintains that he was unsure of where the gunfire was coming from and sought cover instead of entering the building.
Sheriff Scot Israel soon became a vocal critic of Peterson's actions, alleging that the deputy directly violated his active shooter training, which instructed him to go towards gunfire. And Peterson was quickly placed on unpaid leave by the Sheriff's department. How soon after this tragedy, you kind of alluded to it, did that sentiment take a turn towards why weren't these officers doing more?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:06:30]
Very quickly. There was a famous press conference where Sheriff Israel, after he had appeared at Jake Tapper's town hall meeting on CNN and started to take some criticism for standing up for his officers because all of his officers did the best they could with the limited, crappy resources that they had, including radios that were not working on campus. I mean, they literally were not working. They failed all of them. So he was taking a lot of criticism.
And instead of calling my client on the cell phone, yes, he was personal friends with my client because Sheriff Israel's kids, his triplets, went to that school. So they had a personal relationship. All he had to do, if you want to know the truth, is call my client and say, hey, what happened? Did you know where the shooter was? Tell me about things. He didn't. He has that famous press conference where they say, well, what should have happened? He should have gone in to kill the killer.
And then, of course, Trump, who knows nothing about the case, he parrots it. That school resource officer doesn't care about kids. You got the highest leader in the land now criticizing on the case. What do you think parents who lost their kids are thinking? We all joined in on the criticism. I guess he knew where the shots were coming from, and he chose his own life instead of the life of children.
So when he and I met and he started telling me certain things in my office, I said, if half of what you're telling me can be supported, then I have to be your lawyer. You are totally innocent. There's no way. And you know what? Everything he told me was supported. I have right here some of the actual comments that were made in real time, where he's on his radio and he's asking fellow officers if he knows where the shooter is located. The problem is that the sheriff never told everybody because of the pronounced echo and reverberation in that area. Because of the way the concrete buildings are constructed, nobody could tell precisely where the shots were coming from. There was echoing.
We put on dozens of witnesses who testified, students, teachers, other cops that they thought the shots were coming from hundreds of yards away, not ten feet away from where my client was standing. You couldn't tell. So the whole case was built upon this fallacy that he knew where the shots were coming from, and he did nothing. That's not --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:08:47]
I don't mean to cut you off, but not only knew where the shots were coming from but knew how many people were involved. Correct? I mean, at this point, they don't know if it's one person, five people, how many guns that person has. What? I mean, it was just a a fog of war moment.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:09:06]
You're absolutely right. My client was there for 4 minutes and 15 seconds of the 6 minutes and 38 total seconds that Nikolas Cruz was committing his abhorrent atrocities. That's all we're talking about, 4 minutes and 15 seconds. And the first shots that my client heard were of Coach Aaron Feis being shot literally a hundred yards away. So he doesn't know that the shots are coming from that building. In fact, that's why he gets on his police radio, and he says, do not approach the 12 or 1300 buildings, stay at least 500ft away.
Why is he keeping officers away? Because he wants children to be killed? It's because he couldn't tell. These buildings are 73 yards long each. So you're talking about hundreds and hundreds of yards of a potential area of where shots are coming from, from one, two, three. Again, it's the plus one rule. If you think that there's two shooters, you have to assume that there's three. No matter how many you think, you got to think there's more. He doesn't know where they are. So you don't stand out in the open.
You're trained to take a tactical position of cover, which they called cowering, but a tactical position of cover with his gun drawn, monitoring the radio, ordering the assistant principal to go into the video room to find out where is the shooter located, go watch the video surveillance. And while he's relaying that information, my client's telling the officers on the scene what they're seeing. So he was doing everything he could, including ordering a code red which he never got credit for. But we had witnesses testify that he ordered the code red to keep the kids in their classrooms. There's so much more.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:10:42]
Yeah. And I want to get into all of it, but something you alluded to, I want to back up for a moment because I feel, and it sounds like you still feel this way as well, that many people still have that original narrative stuck in their head that this person was a coward. This person didn't respond, and you said that was because of Sheriff Israel, his comments, the media, the way that they were covering it, the president, everybody was pushing this narrative. And just did you feel the same? I mean, were you a victim to that narrative as well at the time? Did you expect that he would be charged?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:11:28]
Okay. So yes, yes and no. So yes, I also bought that narrative. That's the only narrative we had. Nobody was defending him. I wasn't his attorney at first. He had some other lawyers who were afraid to speak out, I suppose. Right. So he took a year and a half hit before I joined as his sole attorney for three and a half years of preparation, and I tried my best, but it was behind the eight ball.
I actually brought in numerous reporters to my office saying, listen, do you want to get it right? Sit with me for two hours. I'll go through everything. And they left here going, wow, I didn't know that. So I had two purposes there. One, maybe it would affect their writing, which most of the time it didn't. They didn't have the courage to change their narrative. But it also was wonderful for me because we were on a shoestring budget. I mean, he's a police officer, right? Living on a pension.
I use these -- I've never told anybody this, but I use these media folks as my mock jurors. I literally did a trial in front of them, arguing my points, supporting it. And they were tough because they were like, well, let me see that. And I would show them the evidence. I would show them exactly where I'm getting it from. So yeah, it was wonderful.
But here's the one thing where I said no. No, I didn't buy a hook, line and sinker. I believed always there was something more to this case. I did not believe that this 32-year veteran officer who was award-winning, I mean he won deputy of the year a couple of times. He won a school resource officer of the year a couple of times. This guy was loved. They couldn't find one person to say anything negative. And everyone who we brought to testify said he was extraordinary. So how does he go from hero to coward in 4 minutes and 15 seconds? I thought there was more to it.
And in a Fox News appearance, apparently, and I don't remember this, I had said, I don't know, I think there may be more to this. I want to wait and get his side of the story. I said something like that, and that's part of the reason why he came to my office. He said, you know what, Mark, I had a feeling that you get me. And I was like, I don't remember the appearance, but okay, let's talk. And sure enough, there was a lot more to this story.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:13:30]
Wow, wow. Okay, well, let's get in. I wanted to kind of establish that idea of what you were thinking before you got that phone call. Let's talk about it. Right. Let's talk a little bit about the case itself and what the prosecution's position was, what your position was. Prosecutors desperately seeking accountability after the tragedy, utilize the novel theory to charge Peterson with felony child neglect.
Under a statute governing Florida caregivers, prosecutors allege that Peterson was responsible for the well-being of the school's children and failed in that duty. Patterson was eventually charged with seven counts of felony child neglect, along with three counts of culpable negligence. These charges were related to eight students, seven of whom were minors, and two school employees who were killed or injured on the third floor of the building.
Peterson was not charged for any of the deaths that occurred on the first floor of the school prior to his response. Additionally, prosecutors sought a perjury charge against Peterson, claiming that the former resource officer lied in his testimony regarding his response to the scene. Okay, walk us through, because --
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:14:46]
It kills me just hearing the allegations.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:14:49]
Yeah, I can imagine. I'm giving you -- making you relive a painful moment.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:14:54]
Just when I thought I was out, you pull me back in. No, it's killing me, but I can take one thing at a time. Yeah. So they're trying to plausibly analogize him. To a parent --
Joshua Ritter:
[00:15:07]
Tell us about that because my first reaction, I think was like yours that, yeah, this doesn't sound -- it doesn't -- the narrative was he didn't do what he should have. That I think immediately kind of angers people. They want to see these children's lives saved. But then as it began to develop, you're thinking to yourself, I don't know if I'm hearing the whole thing. And then when I hear these charges, I didn't even have to know the underlying facts as much. But I'm like, that sounds like they're reaching. So walk us through that.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:15:40]
Let's talk about that. So again, they're trying to suggest that he's like a parent who's neglectful and doesn't feed the child or doesn't give the child the necessary medicine or like a teacher who knows that a child is being abused by another teacher and owes a duty, but then just says nothing. You can't plausibly analogize a school resource officer who's there with, alone, 3200 students, right?
So I would ask certain people who testified, now you're a school resource officer. Do you ever call each kid in each day to make sure that they have a full belly and they've been nourished properly? Do you ever -- I mean it's silly. They're not caretakers under the meaning of the law or factually. And I also said this. If an officer is there to investigate a crime, which my client does, right, as a school resource officer, he's investigating someone for a criminal activity. He brings that person in. He says, all right, I need to find out if you're responsible for bringing the drugs or the guns to school. Right. So I'm performing a criminal investigation. Let me read you your Miranda rights. And he goes through, like any officer would, reads Miranda rights.
But then, oh, wait, he's a caretaker according to the state. So before you answer whether you want to waive your rights, let me just say it's not in your best interest to do so. I'm a caretaker. See anything you say to that officer, me, could be used against you, and you might not get into schools in the future. And, gosh, you might even go to prison.
I mean, what's his role there? He's a caregiver or he's a police officer. It was ludicrous. They wanted a felony because that would have ensured that he went to prison for life and or taken away his pension. Because if you're convicted of a felony, that would have done it. He would have had no money at all.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:17:25]
This is going to put us off track for a little bit. But this was something that you and I had talked about briefly beforehand that I found fascinating. Was there any plea negotiation discussed? Was there an offer on the table or how did things stand with that?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:17:42]
Never did I ever approach the state and or did they approach me about a plea offer, ever. In fact, I kept -- I'm telling you, up until when the jury went out to deliberate, my delusional mind had me believing that the prosecutors would eventually just come over and say, okay, we're going to drop this. I mean, that's how delusional I was. That's how committed I was. That's how clear I saw his innocence.
I genuinely believe that every time the prosecutor came over to me at breaks, I'd be like, all right, listen, here's what we're going to do. Yeah, we're going to drop the perjury count. That should have been dropped to begin with. That perjury count was ridiculous. We could take some time and talk about it. But that was as ludicrous as all these charges. But that's how much I believed in his innocence and saw that the evidence corroborated or supported it, that I really did believe right up to the very end that they would actually drop these bogus, meritless charges.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:18:36]
That's incredible to me. And it might be lost on some of our listeners. But for people who do this for a living, the idea that you would ever get to trial with zero offer whatsoever is unheard of. I mean, even if it's an offer that you know your client is going to reject, there's always some sort of discussion for the sake of discussion taking place before you go to trial.
But for them to just say, we're putting 12 in the box, get ready, and you have no alternative, especially in a case where, like you've already kind of mentioned, this was very political. They were trying to make a statement. You would think they could make that statement by offering your client something where he takes responsibility, and then they move on, and they can call it a victory. And never to have done that is amazing.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:19:27]
He felt that the world was against him. How is he going to get a fair jury trial where you ask most people, they start off not with the presumption of innocence, but the presumption of him being a coward. How are we going to get a fair trial? And I assured him that I believed that we could. And I planned, I worked every night, I'm telling you.
I've been practicing for 31 years, in spite of my extraordinarily youthful appearance. This case kept me up at night like no other case ever. And it's because I not only believe in his innocence. I saw how we got here. I saw how political this whole thing was. I saw what they did to him. And I've never been that guy to claim political witch hunt. This is it. This is my only case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:06]
Good for you. What was his exposure? Just so people understand, what were the stakes? What was he looking at if he was convicted of all this?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:20:13]
Just under 100 years.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:20:15]
Wow. So this is this man's life, for all intents and purposes, on trial here over these types of charges. The thing that's irritated me, and I know I don't have to pour lemon juice on your open wounds on all of this, but how they keep on categorizing it as a novel approach to the prosecution. This is them just making things up with this kind of prosecutorial reach here. But the idea that they're then doing that and exposing a man to nearly 100 years in prison is just pretty phenomenal.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:20:51]
There were numerous other officers who were there with my client, who all took positions of cover, who did the exact same thing he did for the exact same reason, because they didn't know precisely where the shots were coming from. They had a general area. No one disputes the facts that if you know where a shooter is, you got to go in and kill the shooter. My client would have done that if he knew, but he didn't know, and he was asking.
And all the calls from inside that building where kids were witnessing other kids being killed, they're calling those calls in on their cell phone. They went to Coral Springs Police Department. Coral Springs Police Department is different than the Broward Sheriff's Office that my client worked for. Coral Springs never shared that information in real time with my client. So he's sitting there and it's like two different operations. Coral Springs, they knew where the shooter was located. They were getting the calls. They never shared that with my client either by his radio or when they got to the scene. Hey, brother, we're going into the 1200 building. That's where the shooter is. Okay. No one shared that with him in the four minutes and 15 seconds that he could have gone in to kill the killer.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:04]
See, this is why I looked forward to having you on the show, because that's something I never knew. That's information was never really highlighted.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:22:11]
Josh, there's so much. The judge wouldn't even let me get into half of the stuff I wanted to get into, the politics. So there's so much stuff that maybe I got to write a book or something. I don't know.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:22]
You should. Talk to us about though, because this is where people try to criticize your client the most, is they talk about the responsibilities of an officer, an active shooter training, and everybody acts like they would have been a real commando if they had a gun on their hip that day. But talk to us about that because he is armed, right? I mean, there is some expectation that that's what he's armed for is to use deadly force if he needs to, to protect students. But what was his training, what was expected of him, and what did he do?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:22:59]
Okay. I never criticized the notion that when an officer who's armed knows where a shooter or shooters are located, they have a duty to go in and protect the kids. Of course, they do. The issue for me was always he didn't know where to run. If he ran 100 yards towards the 1300 building where the shooter could have been, that would have left vulnerable all the kids in the area near him, and then you're damned either way. I guess the Peterson rule now is even when you don't know where the shooter is, just pick up direction and start running. They'll criticize you for that too.
But here's what bothered me the most, the policy at the time, now it's since been changed, but the policy at the time was an active shooter situation, you may engage the shooter. The word "may" was there. It gave him the discretion under certain circumstances that you can't go on a suicide mission. You don't have to. They since changed it to shall. At the time it was may.
Now, I never really argued that too strong to a jury, because I didn't want them to think erroneously that my client fell on the may. He knew where the shooter was, but he'll sit back and chill, and he doesn't have to go in, which he didn't have to. And that's why they shouldn't have brought the charges. He didn't know. He didn't know.
To this day, he still wasn't sure. He had a general idea. There was an indication of him saying 1200, 1300 building. So the argument is we'll just go in one of the places. Yeah, but we're talking about hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of yards because he didn't know if the shooter was on top, the side, behind, the parking lot. There were so many places this could have been, he couldn't narrow it down.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:42]
Wow. Okay. Peterson faced trial in 2023 over five years after the fatal Parkland attack. Peterson's trial featured emotional testimony from survivors of the shooting, along with expert law enforcement witnesses giving competing accounts of the bloodshed that unfolded in the high school. Much of the prosecution's attention focused on what Peterson should have done, claiming that his alleged failure to act somehow led to further deaths.
This is something I'm curious about because there's, first of all, the element of what he should have done, that he should have gone in, or he should have thrown caution to the side and just headed towards where he heard gunfire from. But then there's this added element of would that have done any good? Right? I mean, what if he got himself killed? What if he got another student killed by not realizing that that student is not the shooter or all of these other things? Tell us how that played a role.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:25:46]
Okay. I didn't focus on that too much because again, it would have seemed as if I'm telling jurors that he was concerned about his own life and or he was no match for what he clearly heard was a high-powered assault weapon against his little pistol, and he has no protection on his body, no armor, no helmet, no nothing. I didn't focus on that too much because I didn't need to.
It was clear to these jurors, after dozens of witnesses, teachers, parents standing near where my client was, who never thought the shots were coming from inside. Every witness testified no, the shots were definitely coming from outside. So where are you going to go into? The only chance of killing the killer in the 4 minutes and 15 seconds that he's on the scene hinges upon him immediately knowing the shots are coming from inside a building and then knowing precisely where that building is located.
That factually did not exist. That was not what the evidence showed. So I never then said, well, even if he did go in, he could have been killed, whatever, I didn't want to make that argument because I thought, erroneously, that jurors would conclude that he was concerned about his own well-being, and he wasn't.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:04]
I understand. And that was just something that always bothered me, because it seemed as though the prosecution's assumption was that had he gone in, he would have stopped the shooter. Well, who knows if that's true or not? And that's a big if.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:27:24]
Let's play that out for one second. Do you know that students on the third floor, many of them, I think all of them testified, maybe there was one or two exceptions that they didn't hear the shots coming from the first and second floor within their own building. That the first time that they heard the shooter was when he's on their floor aiming in their direction. So the notion that my client would have gone into the first floor because, again, he wouldn't have known if the shooter, even if he knew it was in the building, he wouldn't have known if it was first floor, second floor, third floor. Right.
So the 73 yard long building, let's say he goes in. Now, he's going to do what it took a half an hour for a team of SWAT people to do. You got to clear the building, right. So you go in and you start one classroom at a time and you're going by yourself. He's vulnerable because if he turns to the left, boom, he gets killed on the right.
But okay, let's go with that. He presumably would have heard shots coming from the third floor, and then he would have then run up to the third floor, and then he would have confronted the shooter. No, they didn't hear shots on the third floor that were coming from the first floor. So that whole notion didn't make sense.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:32]
Wow. You're a unique person to ask this question of. So I'm curious. First of all, two parts I have a question about. First of all, you've talked about how you had extreme confidence in your client's innocence in all of this.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:28:51]
No doubt.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:28:51]
I'm curious, going in, did you at all question, not his innocence, but your confidence by the demeanor of either the judge or the prosecution? Did you feel, in other words, that this deck was stacked against you at all?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:29:09]
Well, let me first disclose that I still practice here in Broward County.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:29:13]
Okay. Well, then don't let me --
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:29:16]
And in front of that particular judge -- no, but I'm going to be completely honest. I thought this judge did the best that he could to give me a fair trial. I still take exception to certain things that he did. I think that the motion to dismiss should have been granted. I don't think that child neglect pertains to law enforcement. I think it says it right there in the statute and it says excluding law enforcement officers in the official performance of their duties. Right. So I don't think this case should have ever gone forward. But that said, I still believe that maybe he believed that the law meant that the case should go forward.
What I take exception to are just the things that he had discretion about. Like he asked me how long I need for closing and I said, judge, not a minute longer than I need to deliver all the material to the jury. And he took that as, okay, he's going to be a smart aleck. I need a time limit on you. I'm like, okay, three hours, judge. Not that I was going to speak for three hours, but I don't want to be looking at my watch. And the state said, two hours. He goes, okay, I'll give you two hours. So that was random to begin with, right?
But there were technical problems during my closing where the PowerPoint froze up a few times, and there were some objections, a lot of objections during closing, so I couldn't get everything in in the two hours. I needed another 20 minutes to get to the law. Right? The jury instructions that I had in my PowerPoint and the judge wouldn't give me 20 minutes. I needed 40 minutes, but I knew he wouldn't give me that.
So he said, how much time do you need? And in my head, I went 40 minutes, 30 minutes, 20 minutes. He'll give me 20 minutes, right? He didn't give me the 20 minutes. To this day, there's nothing he can say that would justify him not giving me the extra 20 minutes. The state could have had an extra 20 minutes in their rebuttal.
And you know what? The first thing out of the prosecutor's mouth was on rebuttal, Mr. Eiglarsh didn't even address the jury instruction, so obviously he agrees that the elements were present. I wanted to jump up and strangle someone at that point. I was so upset. Thank God I got the verdict that I did, the just verdict, because that one would have consumed me for the rest of my life. Twenty minutes. My client's life wasn't worth an additional 20 minutes.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:23]
Well, I know that you're biting your tongue to some extent. I don't have the same concerns that you do. I will say that I do find that to be offensive, because we're talking about a man who's looking at 100 years in prison. We're talking about essentially sending a person away for the rest of their life. And first of all, in many jurisdictions, putting any time limit on it is unheard of.
I mean, there are cases that routinely, murder cases here in Los Angeles, closing arguments can go for more than a day or so, if that's what they feel that they need, especially when you're talking about the defense that doesn't have the opportunity to then come up and address things again. So the defense, most people know this, but for our listeners benefit, the prosecution gets to have an opening. The defense has an opening, closing.
The defense has their closing argument, and then the prosecution gets rebuttal, where they get to answer some of what the defense has, where the defense doesn't get to answer any of it. They have to sit down and keep quiet after they give their closing argument. And that's why they're usually afforded a lot more leeway, because they have to cover what they think might come up on rebuttal by the prosecution. So to be not only limited on a case of this magnitude and then not be afforded 20 more minutes, I'm offended on your behalf so that's pretty --
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:32:46]
In his defense, in the judge's defense, he did say I never looked at the cases that apparently there's some case law that says if the attorney is not using his time wisely or repeating himself or I don't know what the specific language is, but I invite anybody, type my name into YouTube and put Scot Peterson. Scot's got one T. He didn't kill his unborn child and wife. That's the other Peterson.
This is Scot Peterson with one T. You type that in and write closing argument. Watch my closing. You tell me if somehow, I'm like, you know what, the case law probably refers to that bumbling idiot defense lawyer who probably repeats himself a million times, who needs to just sit down. And the judge can somehow, at some point restrict him, assuming that's what the case law says. I ain't that guy.
I've been practicing 31 years. I teach litigation skills at the law school. I know what I'm doing. And if I was slightly repetitive, it's only because I have jurors who don't know how to spell unanimous. So I don't know what it is. I actually had a jury write what dose, D-O-S-E, unamous mean. And this is by the foreperson okay. So yeah. So let me repeat a little bit.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:33:58]
Well, we're going to take you up on your invitation. We have a clip of your closing argument that we're going to show to viewers now.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:34:07]
Their entire case hinges upon this erroneous belief that he knew that there were kids in that 1200 building being shot by this monster. And that wasn't proven because it didn't happen.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:34:28]
Mark, you're obviously passionate about this, as we can see from that argument, advocated, well on behalf of your client. Was there a moment though, I'm curious, and this happens oftentimes to attorneys where the trial might take some sort of emotional turn. Something may have not turned out how you would expected. Were there ever a moment where you thought to yourself I don't know if we have these jurors?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:34:59]
That only happened one time. Well, it was a long period of time. It happened during jury deliberation. I had asked them in jury selection, as I do with all my jurors. This is how I do trials. I asked jurors, I say, okay, any reasons why you wouldn't find in favor of the defense if the state doesn't prove their case? That's a standard question, but I go one step further.
I say I want you to assume that we're at the end of the state's case, and you find that they did not prove any of the charges beyond to the exclusion of every reasonable doubt. So the verdict is what? And I get them all to say, not guilty, not guilty, not guilty. Perfect. Do you believe you owe anybody, whether it be the judge, the victim's family members, the prosecution, any time, specific time limit in that jury room? In other words, if they didn't prove their case, could you come out and say not guilty in five minutes or less? I call it the five minute not guilty. I've gotten more five minute not guilty than anyone in this country because I asked for that. I underestimated though.
These jurors are looking at the cameras as they come out each time. The foreperson who I knew would be the foreperson, he was caught up by the cameras so he would come out, thank God for unanswered prayers, too. If it was up to me, he would have come out and said not guilty within five minutes. But then that would have garnered a lot of criticism that they just rushed to judgment and didn't really consider the evidence. It took them 4 days, 19 hours. And we're living at this courthouse.
And I'm telling you, that's when I started to go, oh my God, why are they taking so long? And that's why, you see, and Google it or look it up on YouTube, the verdict in Scot Peterson. That's why you haven't seen it. I am literally bawling like a little -- I couldn't believe that I cried like I did. It just came out of me emotionally because yeah, I was starting to question, oh my God, what's going to happen here? If anything, other than not guilty happens, I can't accept that. I cannot get to acceptance on that.
So to answer your question, yes, the only time that I ever felt that, oh my God, this could go against us is during jury selection only because of the length of time. And I thought at worst it would probably be a hung jury because I had jurors literally looking at me through the trial that I would make eye contact with. They were looking at me like their face would say, like, I know, can you believe this? Is that crazy? That testimony is ridiculous.
Like, I had connection with some of those jurors where I would look at them throughout. I did my crosses. Even the judge criticized me. Mr. Eiglarsh, I see you looking at the jurors during cross. Yeah, judge, it's trial technique. Okay? I'm communicating with them. And I had great relations with several of them where they would literally look at me going like, I know, isn't that crazy. So I felt I had them, but I started to wonder.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:37:45]
It's hard to explain to someone if they haven't lived through it, what it's like to sit there in court when a jury comes in and they have a verdict and you don't quite know what it is. It really is, there's no other moment that I can think of that has as much drama and suspense of real-life consequences, by the way. You're built into it, where you're right, you are sitting next to a man that could be finding out he's about to spend the rest of his life in prison, or he's going to go home that evening and you're sitting right next to him as you're waiting for that to happen. It's pretty.
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:38:22]
You're right. Listen, this was not about ego. Your ego is not your amigo. I learned a long time ago. This was so -- it wasn't about me. My career would go on no matter what. This was about a man who for 32 years was exemplary, award-winning decorated officer. And one monster comes in. And in 4 minutes and 15 seconds of my client's actions, he's now an alleged criminal. That never made sense to me. It's never been done before. The prosecution could never come up with a single example of an officer being charged for inaction. Ever. And it shouldn't be done under these circumstances. This was not the right case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:39:01]
Yeah. Can you tell us -- can you share with us anything about Scot now? How has this affected his life? Has he been able to move on?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:39:11]
Well, first of all, early on, like years ago, he was forced to leave town. I mean, this was his home, South Florida. In fact, I learned later on that we both went to the same high school. He was there a few years before me, and we're both are huge pickleball fans, but he had to move to another state because he was that guy. He couldn't live here, so it's affected him that way.
They're still suing him civilly, so that's reprehensible. They still want money out of him, even though all he has is his pension, which that's not going to -- he can't give that up. So I don't even get the point of it. It's just so some civil lawyer can pound his chest and say, oh, we got Scot Peterson with a lower burden of proof, which is in civil court, it's only 51 percent. So they're going to try to get him there. And Scot wants me to work on that case too, but I need a long break. And I don't know that I'm the guy for that.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:40:06]
Talk to us in kind of your closing thoughts here, what do you think this case does as far as other prosecutors and trying to hold law enforcement responsible for these types of situations, for this idea of what they didn't do and what they should have done? Do you think this is going to have larger ramifications beyond that courtroom in Florida?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:40:36]
I'm really glad you brought that up, because I didn't feel like I was just fighting for Scot Peterson. I really believed that I was fighting for every one of the dedicated, hardworking officers who show up at a scene, and it's not black and white. The public now, we've become like Simon Cowell. We criticize, we think it should be like this, like this. It's not. Scenes are fluid. Cops are human. I've never met a cop who wants children to be killed. They go out there doing the best that they can.
And I'm hoping that it sends a message to prosecutors that only unless there's a clear-cut case, and if it's clear cut, cops should be held accountable. And we know what those cases are. When cops do wrong and they commit criminal offenses, they absolutely should be prosecuted. This wasn't even close. It wasn't. It was selective political prosecution. And you can't give Scot five years of his life back or all the money and what we went through. But you know what? I think it sends a message.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:41:41]
I think you're right. Mark, this has been an absolute pleasure. Thank you so much for sharing this experience with us. And thank you for coming on. Where can people find out more about you?
Mark Eiglarsh:
[00:41:54]
Well, I have two websites, speaktomark.com. S-P-E-A-K, speak, T-O-M-A-R-K.com. I personally receive all emails that come through that website, so feel free to call or email. And then I wrote a book called Be Happy by Choice. In fact, I have that right here. Be Happy by Choice. I'm not plugging the book, but it can help you raise your happiness levels. Go to behappybychoice.com. Book is called Be Happy by Choice, Happiness Guaranteed, or Your Misery Back.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:42:29]
Fantastic. Well, thank you again. I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or at joshuaritter.com. You can find our Sidebar episodes wherever you get your podcasts, and we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDsidebar. And thank you for joining us at the True Crime Daily Sidebar.
