Issues of which court has jurisdiction to be raised at next Scott Peterson hearing
As Scott Peterson’s case returns to court in Modesto on Friday, his attorney is arguing that any action taken here will be moot because Stanislaus County doesn’t have jurisdiction over the case.
Pat Harris asserts that jurisdiction remains in San Mateo County, where Peterson was convicted and sentenced to die in 2004 after his trial was moved due to publicity in the case.
The California Supreme Court earlier this year overturned the death sentence and said a hearing must be held to determine if juror misconduct occurred before the trial started, returning both issues to the lower court. Harris maintains the lower court should be San Mateo for both issues and if Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager wants the case to be heard here she needs to file the proper motion and argue for that.
One hearing has already been held in Stanislaus County on Oct. 23. Judge Nancy Leo during the hearing said the case had been remanded there by the California Supreme Court but Harris argues there is no evidence of that.
Also during that hearing, Chief Deputy District Attorney Dave Harris – unrelated to Pat Harris – announced plans to retry the penalty phase of Peterson’s case after the California Supreme Court overturned his death sentence in August.
But there is another issue – allegations that a juror lied to get on Peterson’s trial – that is awaiting a hearing by a judge in San Mateo county and has the potential to overturn his conviction. Harris said the DAs office would like to wait to start jury selection for the penalty phase until they know whether they need to retry the guilt phase as well, but that would require Peterson to waive his right to a speedy trial.
Pat Harris agreed to a limited time waiver so he could consult with his client and another hearing was scheduled for Nov. 6.
After the Oct. 23 hearing, Pat Harris said he spoke to a California Supreme Court clerk who told him both matters in Peterson’s case were remanded back to San Mateo Court, not Stanislaus. The clerk told Pat Harris there might have been some confusion because documents transferring the case back to the the lower court were sent both to San Mateo and Stanislaus courts, he said in his motion filed in San Mateo court on Oct. 29.
In the motion, Pat Harris requested an immediate status conference be scheduled in San Mateo court, saying all matters should proceed there and any hearings in “Stanislaus County should be rendered moot.”
Birgit Fladager responds to hearing
The Oct. 23 hearing had been put on calendar in Stanislaus Court at the request of District Attorney Birgit Fladager, according to Pat Harris’ motion and Fladager’s response.
In her response Fladager said, “The people can appear in whichever venue the court deems appropriate ... provided the finding of venue is supported by the law.” But she said the decision can’t rely on the hearsay statements of a court clerk.
Whatever the outcome, she asked that the court make a decision as “expeditiously as possible.” If Peterson doesn’t waive time, jury selection in a new penalty phase of the trial must begin by the end of the month.
As of Wednesday morning, no hearing to address the matter had been scheduled in San Mateo court and Pat Harris told The Bee he didn’t anticipate one would be scheduled until next week.
He said he plans to raise the issue of jurisdiction in Stanislaus Court during the hearing Friday and doesn’t know how he will proceed in terms of waiving time. He will appear in person and Peterson, like at the last hearing, will appear via video conference.
San Mateo court has assigned a judge, but not a court date, to hear the matter related to the alleged juror misconduct, which was introduced as part of Peterson’s petition for habeas corpus.
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.
The California Supreme court ruled that a San Mateo Superior Court judge must decide whether prejudicial misconduct occurred when a juror failed to disclose on a written questionnaire that she’d been the victim of a crime and obtained a restraining order against the perpetrator.
Peterson’s death sentence was overturned in August as a result of one argument in his automatic appeal, that 13 potential jurors were wrongly excluded.
The jurors had stated they were opposed to the death penalty, but the judge failed to determine whether they could put their beliefs aside and follow the law, according to the court’s unanimous opinion.
Laci Peterson was about 8 months pregnant when she disappeared on Christmas Eve 2002 from her Modesto home. A few months later her body and that of her unborn son were found along the shore of the San Francisco Bay, less than two miles from where Peterson said he fished on the day of Laci’s disappearance. Peterson’s defenders have pointed out that the police widely publicized his Dec. 24 alibi.
This story was originally published November 5, 2020 at 8:28 AM.
