By Julian Verdon
SAN MATEO COUNTY -The California Supreme Court has ordered another look at Scott Peterson’s conviction for the murder of his wife Laci, who also carried their unborn child, on the grounds of prejudicial misconduct from a member of the jury – earlier this year Peterson’s death penalty conviction was reversed.
According to the California Supreme Court, one of the jurors, Richelle Nice, failed to disclose aspects of her personal life that mirrored the Peterson case.
“The Secretary of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation is ordered to show cause in the Superior Court of California, County of San Mateo, [. . .] why the relief prayed for should not be granted on the ground that Juror No. 7 committed prejudicial misconduct by not disclosing her prior involvement with other legal proceedings, including but not limited to being the victim of a crime.”
Nice failed to disclose that several years prior her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend threatened her while pregnant and that Nice also filed a restraining order against her. Back in September in an interview with the Modesto Bee, Nice denied the claims that her past experiences with the woman influenced her decision.
When describing her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend, she said, “She never threatened to kill me, to kill my unborn child, [or] to beat me up. When I filled out that questionnaire, my situation never came
into my mind because it was not similar at all.”
Before serving on a jury, the potential juror must fill out a questionnaire for the court and both parties involved. Nice, when asked whether she had been the victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit, answered in the negative.
Nice also added that she has reached out to the woman and even dropped the restraining order against her just months after its enforcement. Nice stated that the ex-girlfriend has met her kids and that they enjoy her company.
When describing her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend, she said, “She never threatened to kill me, to kill my unborn child, [or] to beat me up. When I filled out that questionnaire, my situation never came into my mind because it was not similar at all.”
Before serving on a jury, the potential juror must fill out a questionnaire for the court and both parties involved. Nice, when asked whether she had been the victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit, answered in the negative.
Nice also added that she has reached out to the woman and even dropped the restraining order against her just months after its enforcement. Nice stated that the ex-girlfriend has met her kids and that they enjoy her company.
She later told the Modesto Bee that Peterson’s lawyers were making up the story that she wanted to put him behind bars. “I did not lie to get on this trial to fry Scott. That was not my intention.”
Nice faced more public scrutiny when it came out she had written letters to Peterson before his death sentence; some even called them pen pals. She denied such an assertion in her interview. “My question to him was why, why did he do this? There was no friendship. There was no pen pal. Did I expect he would confess? No. But I wanted to hear from him. That was my whole reason for writing to Scott.”
When Peterson received his sentence, many pointed out that Nice seemed happy she had helped put him there. She explains her attitude was because she felt angry and upset since she believed Peterson murdered his wife.
In 2003 when the case garnered national appeal, Peterson had been named a suspect and arrested when the authorities found his wife and child’s body four months after her disappearance in the San Francisco Bay.
It was not far from where he went fishing during the time of her disappearance. Peterson has been in custody since 2004 and put on death row in 2005, but the California Supreme Court overturned his death sentence in summer of 2020.
Since Peterson’s sentencing, his case has garnered renewed public attention several times over the last two decades.
In 2012 and 2015, Peterson’s attorney, Cliff Gardener, filed appeals that Peterson’s case contained incorrect evidentiary hearings and other mistakes. Apparently, one of the dogs that detected Laci’s scent had failed two-thirds of tests with similar parameters.
Also, in 2015, some eyewitnesses claimed that they saw Laci alive after Peterson left their home. The defense filed this information along with the claim that one of the jurors lied on their questionnaire.
In summer 2020, the California Supreme Court heard testimony on Peterson’s appeal. Among the complaints from the defense were that the presiding judge improperly excused jurors. The prosecution argued that the Court should only overturn the verdict if a prospective juror had been wrongly dismissed and declared that none of the jurors had unfair predispositions about Peterson’s case.
However, the court found that a judge improperly dismissed jurors when those jurors said they opposed capital punishment, and the judge did not ask if they could set their views aside.
The California Supreme Court said, “[The Judge] made a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson’s right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase.”
Therefore, in a 7-0 ruling from the Supreme Court of California in August, they overturned Peterson’s death row sentence. However, the court decided to uphold his conviction at the time.
Justice Leondra Kruger said that because of Supreme Court rulings since 1968, “Jurors may not be excused merely for opposition to the death penalty, but only for views rendering them unable to fairly consider imposing that penalty in accordance with their oath. This is the meaning of the guarantee of an impartial jury.”
Now the media and public attention have turned to Peterson’s case yet again.
Peterson’s defense attorney, Mark Geragos, says the case has a problem with stealth jurors. A stealth juror is someone who attempts to influence a trial outcome with their own hidden agenda.
Peterson’s defense counsel filed a habeas appeal, meaning he and his legal tea, believe Nice helped facilitate a situation where Peterson was unlawfully put in prison. “[Nice wanted] in part to punish him for a crime of harming his unborn child – a crime that she personally experienced when (the assailant) threatened her life and the life of her unborn child.”
Dean Johnson, a legal analyst, summed up the potential irony of the whole affair in an interview with NPR. “I think this is going to be ironic [. . .] if it turns out that the juror who was most prominent in the post-trial proceedings and who is most adamant about Peterson’s guilt, is going to turn out to be [. . .] the very juror whose actions caused the reversal of the conviction and a new trial.”
To sign up for our new newsletter – Everyday Injustice – https://tinyurl.com/yyultcf9
Support our work – to become a sustaining at $5 – $10- $25 per month hit the link:
