Convictions for murder face review
Scott Peterson’s convictions for murdering his wife and their unborn child will be reexamined because of the conduct of a juror: A pregnant woman who evidently wanted to be on the jury, allegedly concealed a past lawsuit she had filed about violent threats against her, and later wrote letters to Peterson in prison saying he should have let the child live.
The California Supreme Court, which unanimously overturned Peterson’s death sentence in August because of the trial judge’s improper dismissals of some prospective jurors, rejected defense claims Wednesday that prosecutors and Peterson’s trial lawyers had failed to disclose evidence that could have proven his innocence.
But the court ordered a San Mateo County judge to examine the conduct of one of Peterson’s jurors and decide whether he was denied the right to trial by an impartial jury. The order was first reported by the Los Angeles Times.
Peterson was convicted in 2004 of killing his eightmonthspregnant wife, Laci, 27, in their Modesto home on Christmas Eve 2002. He was also convicted of murdering their unborn son, Conner. Their remains washed ashore in RichPeterson’s
mond and nearby Point Isabel four months later near an area where Peterson said he had gone fishing.
The trial was transferred to San Mateo County after pretrial surveys there found most potential jurors believed Peterson was guilty.
The court’s ruling in August upheld Peterson’s convictions, based on the trial record, and rejected defense arguments that the case should have been moved again because surveys in San Mateo County showed that most potential jurors knew about the case and many believed Peterson was guilty. The ruling would allow prosecutors to seek another death sentence at a new penalty trial.
But before any such retrial, Wednesday’s order allows defense lawyers to challenge Peterson’s convictions based on evidence that was not part of the trial record — alleged misconduct by one of the jurors.
According to a 2015 defense filing, the juror, Richelle Nice — who later identified herself when she and six other jurors published a book about the trial — was asked, along with other prospective jurors, whether she had ever filed a lawsuit or had been a victim of, or witness to, any crime. She answered no to both questions.
In fact, the filing said, in 2000 Nice had sued another woman, her exboyfriend’s former girlfriend, and accused her of coming to Nice’s house, kicking in the front door and threatening her. Nice obtained a restraining order against the woman, who was later convicted of vandalism, Peterson’s lawyer said.
The filing also said the trial judge was prepared to dismiss Nice from the jury pool because she would have no source of income for nearly all of the fivemonth trial. But Nice insisted on remaining in the pool, the defense lawyer said, because she “wanted to sit in judgment of Mr. Peterson, in part to punish him for a crime of harming his unborn child.”
During deliberations, the filing said, Nice, who was 4 ½ months pregnant, held out for a firstdegree murder conviction for the fetal death and pointed to her stomach. And after Peterson was convicted and sent to Death Row, his lawyers said, Nice sent him 28 letters between 2005 and 2007, telling him he should have been dreaming about his son’s future, “not planning a way to get rid of him!”
Lara Yeretsian, one of Peterson’s trial lawyers, said Thursday they would have removed the juror if they had known about her background.
“She was a stealth juror who had an agenda and had already made up her mind,” Yeretsian said in a statement. “Without her, it might have ended differently. You cannot have a fair trial without an impartial jury.”