New evidence that led to abrupt stop in Scott Peterson hearing won’t be in testimony
So-called new evidence from a witness that led to a two-week hiatus in Scott Peterson’s evidentiary hearing won’t make it into testimony after all.
Peterson’s attorneys said in a statement filed with the court Monday and confirmed during a hearing Wednesday that they no longer are seeking to question documentary filmmaker Shareen Anderson about a conversation she had with Peterson juror Richelle Nice.
Anderson interviewed Nice for the A&E documentary “The Murder of Laci Peterson” and was scheduled to testify March 1 about a photo she saw in Nice’s home. But during a Zoom trial-preparation session with Peterson’s attorneys Feb. 28, she said Nice had mentioned getting into a possible book deal before the 2004 trial concluded, which would impeach Nice’s testimony that she didn’t discuss a book deal until after the trial.
‘Fuzzy’ memory
However, in an interview with a San Mateo County District Attorney’s Office inspector on March 3, Anderson says her memory about the timing of the book deal is “fuzzy” and she is “not certain” it was during the trial.
Consequently, Peterson’s attorneys withdrew their request to the court to question Anderson about this aspect of her interview with Nice.
Judge Anne-Christine Massullo agreed on March 1 to continue the remainder of the hearing to March 24 and 25 to give time for the prosecution to prepare for cross examination.
When the new information came up at that March 1 hearing, Stanislaus County Special Assistant District Attorney Dave Harris called it “extremely late (and) highly suspect.”
Peterson’s team maintained that while Anderson in previous interviews had mentioned the book deal, Feb. 28 was the first time she’d suggested it occurred during the trial.
Nice and other jurors did, after the trial, co-author a book about the blockbuster case in which they convicted Peterson of murdering his wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son, Conner.
The evidentiary hearing is being held to determine if his conviction should be overturned on the grounds of juror misconduct, which was one of several claims in his petition for habeas corpus. It was the only claim for which the California Supreme Court found there was enough evidence for further review by a Superior Court judge.
Peterson’s attorneys say Nice was biased against him and wanted to get on his jury to make him pay for the murders because she, too, was the victim of violence while pregnant.
Nice testified for two days about answers she gave on a juror questionnaire that she’d never been the victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit.
It turned out that several years before the trial, Nice obtained a restraining order protecting herself and her unborn child while pregnant in 2000 due to threats from her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend. The woman had kicked in their front door, challenged Nice to fight and later followed Nice in her vehicle. Additionally, Nice was pregnant with a different child in 2001 when her boyfriend, Eddie Whiteside, was arrested for domestic violence against her.
Never thought herself a victim
Over two days of testimony in late February, Nice said she was the aggressor, not Whiteside, and she never considered herself a victim in either incident. She said it was out of spite that she asked that her unborn child be protected by the restraining order, not because she actually believed the woman wanted to harm her baby. Nice testified that neither incident crossed her mind when filling out the questionnaire.
Peterson’s attorney Pat Harris said during the hearing Wednesday that Whiteside was served with a subpoena to testify in the hearing but they haven’t heard from him since. He said Whiteside was at a bar when he was served and “probably not in the best frame of mind to talk.”
Pat Harris said several unsuccessful efforts were made to reach Whiteside after that. “I can only speculate to the court that perhaps he was more open that night because he was out enjoying himself and perhaps now he doesn’t want to speak to me now that he’s in a more sober frame of mind,” Pat Harris said.
During Nice’s testimony, Peterson’s attorneys also questioned her about a nickname she used for Conner, which they say speaks to her obsession with him.
Nice referred to Conner as “little man” on multiple occasions, including in the book she co-authored and in the deliberation room.
Gregory Beratlis, who served on the jury and co-authored the book with Nice and other jurors, said that on Nice’s first day in the deliberation room, she sat down and blurted out “that (Peterson) should basically pay for killing the ‘little man.’”
While Anderson won’t be questioned about any mention of a book deal, she is expected to testify about a photo she saw in Nice’s home of a young child wearing pajamas with the words “little man” printed on them.
Nice has testified that she nicknames most children and that “little man” was not a nickname she used for her own sons.
Testimony to come
In addition to Anderson, others left to testify include the cameraman who was with Anderson for the interview and possibly, but unlikely, Whiteside, as well as another former juror.
The former juror is Justin Falconer, who was excused several months into the trial.
Prosecutor Dave Harris said in court Wednesday that the trial judge determined Falconer lacked credibility and called him a “cancer in the jury room.”
Peterson’s attorneys want Falconer to testify about conversations he had with Nice during the trial. They say Falconer said Nice talked about Conner and called him “little man,” told him she was having money problems during jury service but that she wanted to stay on anyway, and that the two of them laughed about getting a book deal once the trial was over.
Massullo said Falconer’s credibility will be considered if he is allowed to testify but she wouldn’t allow testimony about any book deal.
“If you are withdrawing your request to have Ms. Anderson talk about the book deal then it seems Mr. Falconer’s statement about a book should fall under that same umbrella and that they are not relevant to this (juror misconduct) claim,” the judge told Peterson’s attorneys.
She said the book deal information could present a new juror misconduct claim at some point in the future but not for the purposes of the issue the California Supreme Court directed her to consider.
Massullo also denied a request by Peterson’s attorneys to allow Falconer to testify remotely as he is “involved with the military” and currently in Iraq.
“It is important that if the court is going to allow this testimony that the court is able to observe him in the same way the court has observed all the other witnesses,” she said.
Pat Harris said he would contact Falconer and find out when he plans to return to the United States.
Massullo didn’t give an exact deadline but said he would need to be here “in the next month.”
Unless the hearing is again delayed to give time for Falconer’s return, it is scheduled to resume March 24.
