By Amy Berberyan
SAN MATEO, CA – This last week in San Mateo County Superior Court, Scott Peterson was resentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for the murder of his pregnant wife, Laci, and their unborn son—he was on death row for the murders.
The murders occurred on Dec. 24, 2002, five years after Laci and Scott had married. At the time of her death, Laci was eight months pregnant with their son, Conner.
Prosecutors made the argument that Peterson “dumped his wife’s body in the Berkeley Marina on Christmas Eve and tried to cover up the crime by making it appear as if she was missing.”
Peterson was convicted of murder in 2004 and sentenced to death in 2005.
Last year, the Supreme Court overturned Peterson’s death sentence on Aug. 24 because the jurors involved in Peterson’s trial were improperly screened for bias of the death penalty.
Laci’s grieving family addressed the court before Peterson’s sentencing.
“I’ve seen no sorrow or remorse from you at all,” said Laci’s mother, Sharon Rocha. “I know you’re going to say you have no remorse because you’re innocent, but you haven’t shown any grief or sorrow for either of them. I still feel the grief every day after 19 years.”
Rocha called Peterson, who had confessed to an affair but denied the killings, a “coward” for not admitting what he did.
Brent, Laci’s brother, said the deaths had “devastated and traumatized” his family.
Laci’s sister Amy said that Peterson “[has] broken all [their] hearts by taking Laci and Conner’s [lives]. There have been so many special occasions that Laci and Conner should have been here for.
“It makes me sick being here today in front of you again,” she told Peterson. “Even though the death penalty has been lifted, you will still be punished in this life and after.”
Peterson now faces life in prison without parole rather than the death penalty.
His attorneys are claiming that Juror 7 “was untruthful and hid details of her personal life that would have presented a conflict.”
Juror 7, Richelle Nice, was accused of “prejudicial misconduct” after failing to disclose that she was a victim of domestic violence. In 2000, she sought a restraining order to protect her unborn baby from her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend.
Nice denied this domestic abuse incident had any influence on her decision during Peterson’s trial. Her hearing, which will address allegations of juror misconduct, is scheduled for late February.
Peterson’s sister-in-law claims “there is no forensic evidence. There is no timeline to this crime. Scott Peterson is innocent.”
And his attorney Pat Harris maintained his innocence, saying the judge declined his client’s right to speak.
“One of the things that really upsets him is this concept that he did not want to have a child,” said Harris. “And he wanted to talk a little bit about that and how he would never ever harm Laci or Conner.”
This contradicts what Rocha, Laci’s mother, said had happened the last time she had seen her daughter. When Rocha said she rested her hand on her daughter’s stomach, Laci told her “Scott doesn’t want to do that. He doesn’t want to feel the baby move.”
Laci’s mother accused the defendant of “already planning her murder” while she spent that evening with her daughter.
“No matter what happens…there are two things that will never change,” said Rocha, “Laci and Conner will always be dead, and you will always be their murderer.”
His defense team means to present evidence of “alleged juror misconduct” at Peterson’s next hearing, scheduled for Feb. 25, in an attempt to win a new trial.
If Peterson is granted a new trial, Peterson’s attorney said “he will present new evidence that bolsters his claim that Laci Peterson was killed when she stumbled upon a burglary.”
I don’t think too many people have a problem with this. LWOP is fine for the murderer.
Unless of course, he didn’t do it
OJ is innocent too.
You missed my point, I was agreeing with you that most people aren’t going to have a problem with Peterson getting LWOP unless it turns out he’s innocent.
I think we get your point. Personally I think its a stupid point. In your world it seems everybody is innocent unless they confess and then we need to have sympathy for the circumstances of the perps. In my world murderers need to be kept where the rest of us are safe from their predations.
That’s not an accurate assessment of my view. In this case there are enough problems with the evidence used to convict him that it’s worth examining further, but there is not enough yet to warrant overturning his conviction.
That often doesn’t even apply in his world. The perps can claim years later that they were a victim of a forced confession and then the Vanguard will post an article from some progressive social justice org that supports their allegations.
You act like this isn’t a real issue: “More than two-thirds of the DNA-cleared homicide cases documented by the Innocence Project were caused by false confessions.”
Here’s an article where Scott Peterson’s guilt was discussed in the comments. One commenter was especially on target if I don’t say so myself. 🙂
https://davisvanguard.org/2020/10/commentary-scott-petersons-case-may-return-for-a-new-trial-and-it-should/
Scott Peterson would have to be given every benefit of the doubt in order for him to have not done it. If it looks like a duck…
“You act like this isn’t a real issue:…”
Forced confession is a real issue but has nothing to do with Scott Peterson.
You want to challenge the record in the Peterson case? Go ahead. Maybe someone else murdered Lacy and dumped her in the same area where her husband was fishing. It was all a setup I’m sure. The motive was what?
And don’t forget that Scott Peterson told several friends that he went golfing on the day of Laci’s disappearance. But Peterson told the cops that he had went fishing in the Berkeley marina and produced a receipt because he knew he was busted. Why would Scotty boy originally lie that he went golfing?
Somebody else planted the “bloody gloves”? And besides, they “don’t fit”, so you know what to do . . .
My impression that guilt was not the issue, but the retrial was centered on a technical flaw of whether the penalty phase of the trial was conducted correctly. Therefore, this was not, and it is unlikely there ever will be a retrial to establish whether the guy is guilty. It was also why the death penalty was not on the table in this trial, which made it a slam dunk for the prosecution as no new evidence was necessary or allowed in the penalty phase.