The Peterson Family has replied to Geraldo's 10-year special. Click here. It's a fairly short and very direct reply, and for anyone that wants more detailed information, it has links to in-depth articles.
Just one thing to add. I searched SII for the subject of Geraldo's big point, that Scott is resting his appeal on Conner not having been born. I distinctly remembered the subject coming up years ago, and after researching it on SII, discovered it was associated with a potential wrongful death suit by Sharon Rocha. In early May 2003, ABC did an in-depth article titled "Can a Fetus Sue." You can read the entire article. It focused on the dilemma Sharon Rocha would face in a wrongful death suit because CA law at that time did not allow a relative to sue on behalf of a fetus. So to sue on Conner's behalf, she would have to admit he was born. Which of course would defeat her case, because if Conner was born, then the whole case against Scott falls apart. The wrongful death suit was not pursued, so that legal point was never put to the test.
To my knowledge, that is the only use of the argument in this entire case. It certainly wasn't an argument put forth on Scott's behalf at trial, and it certainly is not part of Scott's appeal.
It's discouraging enough to know that so many people have falsely concluded that Scott is guilty of the murder of his wife and unborn son -- but to know that their conclusion is based on such misinformation and outright dishonesty in reporting multiples the discouragement 100 times over.
Edited to Add:
I did find an opinion article written by Cal Thomas in April 2003 which raised the question of whether Conner was a "person" as defined by the US Supreme Court. Click here to read the article.