When seeing the news coverage for the Laci Petersen case, I've been
struck by the amount of high-priced firepower the defense has at its
disposal (e.g., independent foresnsics specialists, advisors, et al). 
Aside from publicity associated with the case, what compensation do
these individuals receive -- how can a Scott Petersen afford such a
defense?

Dear prpro-ga;

Thank you for allowing me an opportunity to answer your interesting
question.

Death penalty cases can cost hundreds of thousands, if not millions,
of dollars to defend therefore almost everyone (and Mr. Peterson is no
different) charged with capital crimes is declared by the state to be
“indigent” and is represented by an assigned public defender or a
court-appointed lawyer. However, Mark Geragos, a prominent Los
Angeles-based attorney (you might remember him from his most recent
work on behalf of Congressman Gary Condit and actress Winona Ryder)
has publicly proclaimed himself Peterson’s attorney, but in spite of
that, when Peterson’s wallet comes up dry, it will ultimately be the
public that foots the bill. Included in the tab may be such things as
mental examinations, DNA testing, forensic testing, expert testimony
and private investigators for both the prosecution and the defense.

Peterson himself (or the Peterson family) will undoubtedly pay some of
the bill, but the trial will likely consume all his assets rather
rapidly at which time “the people” will begin getting the bills:
“Geragos said Friday that his fees would be paid by Scott Peterson's
family.”
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/050203_ctv.html

Fortunately (for him at least) because of a 1977 California Supreme
Court decision he will probably be allowed keep his private counsel
even through the appeal process when he will, by that time, be
predictably and truly indigent. Even though hundreds of thousands of
dollars would have already been spent at the time an appeal occurs
(assuming a conviction results) the public – that’s “us”, by the way –
will be required pick up the remaining bill, no matter how exorbitant
it might be.

“Under a 1977 California Supreme Court decision, defendants who have
built a relationship of "trust and confidence" over time with a
privately retained lawyer can keep that attorney at the public's
expense even if they can no longer afford the bills.

"The decision [in the 1977 case] basically said you've got an ongoing,
well-established relationship with a lawyer and under the Sixth
Amendment right to counsel, it makes no sense to disrupt that
relationship," said Elisabeth Semel, a clinical professor at the
University of California at Berkeley School of Law.”
CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/02/ctv.peterson.case/

As for the other compensation that high-profile attorneys get, what
they don’t get in cash is often made up in free publicity. How one can
measure that in terms of money is a matter of self-marketing and
depends largely on how it is used to their advantage, but suffice it
to say that either way, it makes for as lucrative arrangement.

I suppose this is one of the financial woes of prosecuting death
penalty cases.

I hope you find that that my research exceeds your expectations. If
you have any questions about my research please post a clarification
request prior to rating the answer. I welcome your rating and your
final comments and I look forward to working with you again in the
near future. Thank you for bringing your question to us.

Best regards;
Tutuzdad-ga



INFORMATION SOURCES

CNN
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/05/02/ctv.peterson.case/

COURT TV
http://www.courttv.com/trials/peterson/050203_ctv.html




SEARCH STRATEGY


SEARCH ENGINE USED:

Google ://www.google.com


SEARCH TERMS USED:

"SCOTT PETERSON" MARK GERAGOS" FEES

"SCOTT PETERSON" MARK GERAGOS" PAID

"SCOTT PETERSON" MARK GERAGOS" "PAID BY"

Excellent answer; thanks for the reasoning behind this!!