Crime California court ordered to reconsider Scott Peterson murder conviction

California court ordered to reconsider Scott Peterson murder conviction

Two months after winning a reversal of his death sentence, lawyers for Scott Peterson, the California man found guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child in a sensational 2004 trial, have persuaded the state's high court to order a review of his conviction. The California Supreme Court on...

news.yahoo.com

---

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Two months after winning a reversal of his death sentence, lawyers for Scott Peterson, the California man found guilty of murdering his wife and unborn child in a sensational 2004 trial, have persuaded the state's high court to order a review of his conviction.

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday sent the case back to trial court in San Mateo County to consider Peterson's contention that his conviction on two counts of murder be set aside on grounds of prejudicial misconduct by a member of the jury.

The high court ruled in August that the trial judge had erred in jury selection, but rejected Peterson's appeal of his conviction in the 2002 slaying of his pregnant wife, Laci, who went missing on Christmas Eve that year.

In a nearly 300-page habeas corpus petition originally filed in 2015, Peterson's attorneys outlined 19 claims arguing for a new trial, the first being that one juror concealed a possible bias against the defendant.

According to the petition, the juror "had lied her way onto" the panel by falsely denying that she had ever been the victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit, even though, while pregnant, she had sought a restraining order against a boyfriend's ex-girlfriend.

"Someone who has gone through an experience where someone was threatening their unborn child will probably have a perspective on charges brought against a defendant for harming an unborn child," Cliff Gardner, an attorney for Peterson, told Reuters on Thursday. "They may come in with a bias that other people wouldn't have."

The California Supreme Court ordered the state to show "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." Prosecutors were given until Nov. 13 to respond.

John Goold, a spokesman for prosecutors handling the motion, cautioned that the order does not automatically lead to a new trial, but requires the lower court to consider a single issue raised by Peterson's defense team in challenging the conviction.

 

[Monika H.]

Only in California.

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

0/10 for not name-dropping Li'l Connor.

 

[Clockwork_PurBle]

So I saw this and thought, "Oh my God they really won't let this 'muh stairs' thing end will they"

Then I realized it was a different Peterson.

 

[Snekposter]

Oh, fuck this dude. While yes, the actual legal case wasn't quite as solid as it could have been, nobody who doesn't think they're going to get away with killing their wife and unborn child doesn't sit around with a smirk the whole damn trial. Dude was as fake as OJ saying he was going to hunt down the real killers.

 

[Papa Adolfo's Take'n'Bake]

*flashbacks to elementary school days off when your parents had this on the T.V. intensify.*

 

[Cheesegirl78]

Oh, fuck this dude. While yes, the actual legal case wasn't quite as solid as it could have been, nobody who doesn't think they're going to get away with killing their wife and unborn child doesn't sit around with a smirk the whole damn trial. Dude was as fake as OJ saying he was going to hunt down the real killers.

Trying to claim homeless people took her and dumped her in SF Bay.
Right, Scott. Then when he went to San Diego "to look for Laci", but actually went to the Super Bowl, give me a fucking break.

 

[Sneed's Feed And Seed]

This motherfucker.

*flashbacks to elementary school days off when your parents had this on the T.V. intensify.*

PLing: High school. Ten Buck Tuesdays at the recently-renamed Boomers. The reward for information about Laci climbing higher and higher.

 

[Dick Pooman]

0/10 for not name-dropping Li'l Connor.

Or the seaweed bouquet

 

[Exigent Circumcisions]

Or the seaweed bouquet

I tried to find the SpongeBob parody song but apparently it's only available in the Scott/Lacy Peterson saga audio from O&A. Maybe I'll dig through that and clip it out later.

 

[TowinKarz]

He's a scumbag, but, juror shenanigans ARE serious business.

 

[Dom Cruise]

*flashbacks to elementary school days off when your parents had this on the T.V. intensify.*

I had just turned 13, I remember the sensationalism surrounding it.

 

[Saint Alphonsus]

From the most zealous doctor and patron of moralists--

 

[Blimp]

*flashbacks to elementary school days off when your parents had this on the T.V. intensify.*

As someone who actually lived in-range of most of KFI's LA headliners in the 2000's, I remember how the alphabet affiliate takes ranged from "Jon and Ken are hyper-analyzing every one of Scott's retarded decisions and it's interfering with his ability to bullstestify", "Why must we tolerate KFI organizing polygraph hits against private citizens on private property? Yes, we care about private property!", or "Shock jocks mount attack on Mark Geragos yet again". While KFI doesn't hide they're spinster Mom & Dad center-right AM radio, they were one of the few stations I caught in the background that actually vetted what an aloof and non-empathetic shitpiece he was, while also playing said sound bites from other stations trying to insist we allow Geragos-senpai the right to defend his client without interference

My dipshit high school self knew from clips alone that Scott is the adult version of every "that kid" who tells people he has a working Mew code, that it's totally different from the SS Anne method (which also works), but won't tell anyone except his friends about it because "it might glitch their game". The Chris Watts case is pretty much a carbon copy for zoomers and/or /tv/, minus the political aspects that got every LA scumfuck applicable involved

According to the petition, the juror "had lied her way onto" the panel by falsely denying that she had ever been the victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit, even though, while pregnant, she had sought a restraining order against a boyfriend's ex-girlfriend.

"Someone who has gone through an experience where someone was threatening their unborn child will probably have a perspective on charges brought against a defendant for harming an unborn child," Cliff Gardner, an attorney for Peterson, told Reuters on Thursday. "They may come in with a bias that other people wouldn't have."

Considering all not fucked-up humans have bad reactions to someone having their unborn children threatened, assume everyone else on the jury lied about this fact too. Having a hyper-specific question like that in your jury selection is already showcasing how bad a case Scott had, and going for a technicality presently shows everyone involved still knows Scott's a murdering shitpiece, so assume this case is less about his innocence, and more a grandstand against the death penalty

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Satanists could have snatched her and sacrificed her and her baby. That behavior has been known to occur.

 

[mr.moon1488]

According to the petition, the juror "had lied her way onto" the panel by falsely denying that she had ever been the victim of a crime or involved in a lawsuit, even though, while pregnant, she had sought a restraining order against a boyfriend's ex-girlfriend.

There's literally no lie here most likely. You can get a temporary protective order against someone without ever suing them civilly, or them being charged with having committed a crime against you. His lawyer was just a dumbass and didn't ask specific enough questions. Had he or she asked specific enough questions, he might have had a legitimate challenge for cause, or if not could have used one of the ten peremptory strikes you get in capital cases.

 

[DocHoliday1977]

Is Harvey holding out hope he'll get his conviction overturned?

 

[TowinKarz]

There's literally no lie here most likely. You can get a temporary protective order against someone without ever suing them civilly, or them being charged with having committed a crime against you. His lawyer was just a dumbass and didn't ask specific enough questions. Had he or she asked specific enough questions, he might have had a legitimate challenge for cause, or if not could have used one of the ten peremptory strikes you get in capital cases.

I've been through jury duty twice, granted, never empaneled for a murder case, but I did get put on two no-shit felony cases (theft and receiving stolen property / reckless discharge of firearm and aggravated assault) and for what it's worth, neither defense team asked that question of us, and it seems, well, odd to me. What's that got to do with anything? Are you implying that I can't tell the difference between a person who offended against me and a person alleged to have offended against another? Or that I don't get the concept of innocent until proven guilty? Even though the Judge and everyone on down the line makes sure we understand it? Or that I don't get the seriousness of it? ALL cases you'd seat a jury for are crimes, or civil actions, you don't get a jury for a parking ticket or serving the wrong entrée with red wine..... I don't see what he was going for or how a technical truthful answer by a juror that you want to hair-split about (A crime happened to me, but I don't consider myself a victim, I got over it pretty fast) or (Technically, no crime was committed because the restraining order I got was never violated) would affect the ability to weigh the evidence fairly.

 

[Bowl of Ramen]

0/10 for not name-dropping Li'l Connor.

It’s California, he’s just another glob of pregnancy tissue.

There was a pretty decent series, just a few years old, on Prime called “The Murder of Laci Peterson” - the sixth episode delves into the Scott Is Innocent groupies. They exist.