Juror at center of Scott Peterson’s retrial efforts wants immunity. Here’s why

The juror at the heart of Scott Peterson’s efforts to get a new trial wants immunity from a perjury charge if she is to testify in his case.

If not granted immunity, her attorney Geoffrey Carr said he will argue for Richelle Nice’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Peterson’s attorneys, in a petition for habeas corpus, say Nice lied during the jury selection process for Peterson’s trial in 2004 when she wrote on a questionnaire that she had never been the victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit.

She was pregnant in 2001 when she obtained a restraining order — a type of lawsuit — against her then-boyfriend’s former girlfriend for stalking and threatening them. Also, the year before, the same boyfriend was arrested on charges that included domestic violence in an incident that named her as a victim.

Prosecutors have maintained that the questionnaire asked if she’d ever been the subject of a lawsuit and Nice did not understand that a restraining order is a type of lawsuit. Regarding the domestic violence incident, Nice filed a declaration describing the incident as a “heated argument.” She said it was her then-boyfriend, not her, who called the police and she did not consider herself a victim.

It is that declaration, if her testimony were to deviate from it, that now makes her vulnerable to a possible perjury charge, Carr told The Bee. Nice signed the declaration in December and it was submitted with the prosecution’s response to the defense’s habeas petition.

No bias, juror says

Nice has denied that she lied on her questionnaire or that she harbored any bias against Peterson.

The matter was discussed during a hearing for Peterson on Wednesday.

Nice is expected to be called as a witness in an evidentiary hearing — likely the last step before Judge Anne-Christine Massullo decides if he should get a new trial. But the defense also wants to depose her prior to the hearing.

Massullo, in a tentative ruling, said Nice would not be required to give a deposition for the defense prior to an evidentiary hearing.

“It is as easy to put the witness on the stand than arrange for a deposition,” she said in court.

Whether the prosecution will grant Nice immunity was not discussed in court because Massullo then brought up another issue she said needed to be addressed before proceeding with the matter of the evidentiary hearing.

She said two of Peterson’s defense attorneys — Cliff Gardner and Andras Farkas — were appointed to represent Peterson in the habeas matter when his case was still a death penalty case.

The California Supreme Court overturned Peterson’s death sentence last year. While the prosecution initially said it would retry the penalty phase, it reversed that decision in June.

“This case has changed. It is no longer a death penalty case,” Massullo said. “I have concerns about the continued appointment of the attorneys that are in front of me on the habeas.”

Resentencing still ahead

The prosecution’s decision not to retry the penalty phase effectively converted Peterson’s sentence to life without the possibility of parole, but he still needs to be formally sentenced.

Massullo initially had agreed to a request by Peterson’s third attorney, Pat Harris, to postpone the resentencing until a decision is made on the habeas matter, but she hadn’t previously considered the type of case it is now and whether the other two attorneys can even continue to represent Peterson.

“The people have withdrawn their request to retry the death penalty phase of the case,” Massullo said. “Now this case is different, it is fundamentally different, and the avenues of appeal from a habeas for life without the possibly of parole versus a capital case are different and that is why the court intends to resentence Mr. Peterson (soon).”

Harris told the judge he needs time to talk to Peterson.

Massullo scheduled the next hearing for Oct. 6, at which time she plans to schedule the resentencing.

She said the resentencing likely will be sometime in November and Peterson will be required to be present. It will be the first time he’s been in court since his last sentencing in 2004 for the murders of his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner. He has been appearing in court remotely via zoom from San Quentin State Prison since the California Supreme Court remanded his case to San Mateo Superior Court last year.

The case was moved to San Mateo from Stanislaus because of pretrial publicity.

Massullo also scheduled an Oct. 20 hearing to determine if Gardner and Farkas can continue to represent Peterson on the habeas matter.

This story was originally published September 22, 2021 at 12:31 PM.