Update: Next hearing set in Scott Peterson murder case
In advance of an evidentiary hearing that will determine if Scott Peterson should get a new trial on the grounds of juror misconduct, parties on both sides have filed motions to include or exclude certain evidence from the hearing.
Contested issues to be discussed at Monday’s hearing include whether statements made by Richelle Nice after Peterson’s murder conviction, letters she wrote to him on death row and excerpts from a book she co-authored should be admitted into evidence. There also remains the issue of whether the prosecution should grant Nice immunity from a perjury charge before she takes the stand later this month.
Peterson’s defense team alleges Nice — identified in court documents as Juror 7 — 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.
They claim she wanted so badly to sit in judgment of him, “in part to punish him for a crime of harming his unborn child – a crime that she personally experienced when (an assailant) threatened her life and the life of her unborn child.”
Peterson is convicted of the 2002 murders of his wife Laci and their unborn son Conner. He was re-sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in December following the overturning of his death sentence.
Nice 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 from the Stanislaus County Distinct Attorney’s Office argue 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 she, who called the police and she did not consider herself a victim.
The juror misconduct claim was one of 19 in Peterson’s 2015 petition for habeas corpus. It was the only claim for which the California Supreme Court found there was enough initial evidence to have the matter to be examined further. The Supreme Court sent the case back to San Mateo Superior Court, where the trial was held.
In a pleading filed last year, the defense said Nice’s letters “disclosed an obsessive interest in the death of (Peterson’s) unborn child.”
The prosecution is objecting to the letters and references to the book ‘We, the Jury’ being introduced as evidence “on grounds of hearsay, relevance, speculation, improper opinion, etc.”
In its response, the defense says the prosecution presented no argument in support of its objections. They also called the objection premature and misguided because what portions of the book or letters are brought into evidence will depend entirely on what Nice testified to during the hearing.
The prosecution made another motion to exclude all post-verdict statements made by Nice.
“Events occurring after the verdict in this matter are not useful to this inquiry and are irrelevant,” the prosecution wrote in its motion. “Thus, Respondent requests the court exclude all attempts by (the defense) to elicit post-verdict media interviews, pseudo-documentaries, alleged re-enactments, letters post-verdict allegedly written by Juror 7, etc.”
In its response Peterson’s attorney’s wrote Nice, “participated in literally scores of media interviews about her participation in the case. She took the extraordinary step of beginning a long correspondence with Mr. Peterson while he was on death row ... (and) made numerous statements about her role in the case.”
They said the District Attorney “has the heavy burden of proving the absence of prejudice ... the question is not when these statements were made, but what these statements are.”
Nice’s attorney, Geoffrey Carr, said his client will exercise her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination if she is not granted immunity from a perjury charge.
Both sides agree that the District Attorney’s Office’s Office can provide her that immunity but so far the office has only said that it would entertain “a use immunity discussion in order to assist the Court with finding the truth in this case.”
The defense wants the matter of immunity discussed during Monday’s motion hearings so that all parties can prepare for the upcoming evidentiary hearing, scheduled from late February through early March.
“The hearing is now weeks away. Mr. Peterson has the initial burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that juror 7 provided false information during jury selection,” Peterson’s lawyers wrote. “For Mr. Peterson to prepare to carry that burden at the hearing, he needs to know if respondent will offer immunity to the primary witness on the matter – juror 7 herself.”
Stanislaus DA confirms immunity for juror
Update, 10:25 a.m.: Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager said she intends to confer immunity upon Juror No. 7 if she should plead the Fifth Amendment when testifying.
The defense said Nice will be the first witness in the hearing on Feb. 25.
Families of defendant, victim can attend
Update, 10:50 a.m.: Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo said family members of both Scott and Laci Peterson will be allowed to attend the hearing, as they were the December re-sentencing hearing, dependent on COVID-19 restrictions in place at the time.
Next court hearing set
Update, 11:20 a.m.: The parties will return to court on Feb. 17. They will discuss how many people will attend the evidentiary hearing, as well as other matters including how many witnesses will testify.
This story was originally published February 7, 2022 at 10:06 AM.
