California Supreme Court overturns Scott Peterson’s death penalty sentence
The California Supreme Court has rejected Scott Peterson’s claim that he received an unfair trial and affirmed his convictions for the murder of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner, in a case that brought international notoriety to Modesto.
But the court, in a unanimous opinion published Monday, said that because of errors by the trial judge during jury selection, Peterson’s right to an impartial jury during the trial’s penalty phase was undermined. It was during the penalty phase that jurors decided on death for Peterson.
Prosecutors can retry the penalty phase if they wish to seek a death sentence. If they don’t, then Peterson’s punishment becomes life in prison, according to his attorney.
The Supreme Court agreed with Peterson’s attorney that the trial judge had wrongly excluded potential jurors simply because they stated they were opposed to the death penalty without determining whether they could put their beliefs aside and follow the law.
But the court’s seven justices did not agree that the trial judge’s jury selection errors prevented Peterson from receiving a fair trial in which a jury convicted him of murder in 2004.
Court issues 102-page opinion
The California Attorney General’s Office, which represented the state in Peterson’s appeal before the Supreme Court, declined to comment, stating it would let the court’s 102-page opinion speak for itself.
Peterson’s appellate attorney, Cliff Gardner, emailed a statement:
“We are grateful for the California Supreme Court’s unanimous recognition that if the state wishes to put someone to death, it must proceed to trial only with a fairly selected jury. Prosecutors may not rely on a jury specifically organized by the state to return a verdict of death.
“And while we are disappointed that such a biased jury selection process results in a reversal of only the death sentence, we look forward to the Court’s review of the new forensic and eyewitness evidence of innocence presented in Mr. Peterson’s separate and still pending state habeas petition.
“In deciding whether to seek a new death sentence, the question for prosecutors now is whether they can prove Mr. Peterson culpable for this crime to even a single juror seated through a fair jury selection process.”
State’s last execution was in 2006
California stopped executing prisoners in 2006 because of legal challenges over the three-drug method it was using. It faced more challenges as it tried to come up with a new drug protocol. And Gov. Gavin Newsom put in place a moratorium on the death penalty in March 2019, suspending all executions while he is governor.
The California Supreme Court ruled Monday on Peterson’s automatic appeal of his death sentence after Gardner and Supervising Deputy Attorney General Donna Provenzano appeared before the justices in June.
Peterson also has what is called a petition for habeas corpus pending with the court. Unlike the automatic appeal, which focuses on alleged errors made by the trial judge, the petition can introduce new evidence to show the conviction or sentence was wrong.
These petitions can take years to resolve. Peterson, 47, also has remedies he can pursue through the federal courts.
“The appellate process is a long way from over,” Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager said in an email Monday before the Supreme Court’s opinion was released. She was chief deputy district attorney when she lead the team prosecuting Peterson.
“The decision that will be issued today will be followed by a period of about 90 days when both sides will be assessing whether there are any issues appropriate for appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Fladager wrote. “... The direct appeal process is not over; even absent a petition for review to the U.S. Supreme court by either side, I anticipate that portion will find its way to the federal court system.”
Gardner had argued in June that Peterson should get a new trial because the trial judge’s errors, including dismissing potential jurors opposed to the death penalty and not moving the trial to another location because of the massive pretrial publicity against Peterson.
The trial had been moved because of the publicity from Modesto to Redwood City. But the defense wanted the trial moved a second time and to Los Angeles County.
The Supreme Court in its opinion said that because of the massive publicity “there is no rational reason to think coverage would have been any less in Los Angeles County — one of the media capitals of the world — if Peterson’s motion had been granted.”
Laci vanished Christmas Eve 2002
Laci Peterson was about 8 months pregnant when she disappeared on Christmas Eve 2002 from her Modesto home. Peterson said he had gone fishing that day in the San Francisco Bay and returned to an empty home. The remains of Laci and Conner were found a few months later less than a mile apart along the shore of the San Francisco Bay, less than two miles from where Peterson said he fished.
The Peterson case, already attracting national attention, gained more intrigue when Amber Frey came forward. Frey was having a relationship with Peterson, who she said had told her he was not married. She worked with police to record hours of phone conversations and served as a star witness for the prosecution. The saga has generated made-for-TV movies, books and countless headlines and hours upon hours of cable commentary.
A San Mateo County juror convicted Peterson of murder in November 2004 and decided he should die the next month. Peterson is at San Quentin State Prison.
This story was originally published August 24, 2020 at 10:20 AM.
