REDWOOD CITY, Calif. (AP) — A California pass judgement on on Tuesday rejected a brand new homicide trial for Scott Peterson, just about twenty years after he used to be charged with dumping the our bodies of his pregnant spouse, Laci, and the unborn kid they deliberate to call Conner into San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002.
Peterson alleged the ensuing trial that gripped the arena used to be tainted via a rogue juror who lied about her personal historical past of abuse to get at the panel that to begin with despatched him to dying row.
Awesome Court docket Pass judgement on Anne-Christine Massullo discovered there used to be no longer proof to make stronger the protection declare that juror Richelle Great dedicated misconduct all through jury variety.
Great didn’t deliberately cover details about her lifestyles at the jury questionnaire or misrepresent her monetary state of affairs to stick at the jury and didn’t seem vengeful towards Peterson in letters she later wrote him in jail, Massullo wrote.
Peterson, now 50, can attraction her choice.
It used to be undisputed that Great didn’t expose as she used to be being decided on for Peterson’s jury in 2004 that she had sought a restraining order whilst she used to be pregnant 4 years previous. Great stated then that she “actually fears for her unborn kid” as a result of threats from her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend.
The California Ideally suited Court docket in 2020 discovered that Great’s movements required a listening to to resolve in the event that they denied Peterson a good trial, and assigned Pass judgement on Massullo to the case. The top courtroom one after the other threw out Peterson’s dying sentence in 2020 and Stanislaus County prosecutors determined in opposition to once more in search of his execution whilst they argued he gained a good trial. He used to be resentenced to lifestyles in jail in December.
Peterson argued that Great fought to sign up for the jury regardless of her monetary hardship and that she entered deliberations decided to enact revenge for Peterson’s just about full-term unborn kid, the younger sufferer she nicknamed “Little Guy.”
However Great testified that she had no bias in opposition to Peterson till she heard the proof in opposition to him.
Great stated in a sworn declaration in 2020 that it didn’t happen to her to incorporate the risk to her personal unborn kid on her juror shape as a result of she didn’t “really feel ‘victimized’ the best way the legislation would possibly outline that time period.” She later testified that she responded honestly in keeping with her figuring out of the questions.
“I didn’t write it at the questionnaire as it by no means crossed my thoughts, ever. It wasn’t carried out deliberately,” she swore all through two days of testimony in February.
She additionally disputed any monetary purpose to serving at the jury, swearing that she and different jurors by no means mentioned collectively writing their e-book, “We, the Jury,” till after the trial and verdict.
And it used to be Peterson’s famous person lawyer, Mark Geragos, who sought after her at the jury, prosecutors stated. Geragos referred to as Great again as she ready to depart after the trial pass judgement on disregarded her for monetary hardship, although Geragos stated he by no means would have carried out so had she correctly disclosed her private historical past.
Great additionally denied being biased although she stated her boyfriend on the time used to be serially untrue and denied that he ever assaulted her regardless of his arrest for home violence.
Peterson used to be arrested in April 2003 best after his mistress got here ahead to mention he advised her his 27-year-old spouse used to be long gone a month prior to her exact disappearance.
His legal professionals supplied Massullo with what they referred to as a “Credibility Chart” purporting to turn Great’s conflicting statements.
“Ms. Great merely forgot,” prosecutors spoke back in courtroom filings, arguing that any errors she made didn’t reveal bias.
“Her testimony and her demeanor … obviously confirmed she used to be no longer a vengeful, scorned girl who sought to punish (Peterson),” they argued.
Amongst different problems Massullo needed to come to a decision used to be which facet had the weight of evidence.
Prosecutors stated Peterson’s legal professionals didn’t end up Great dedicated juror misconduct. Inadvertent or accidental errors don’t rely, they argued.
Peterson’s legal professionals stated Great obviously hid details all through jury variety, even unknowingly, which they stated shifts the weight to prosecutors to end up that she wasn’t prejudiced.
