Scott Peterson to be ruled guilty of misconduct by the jury

.

Scott Peterson was not allowed to question a California jury member who helped him get to death row in murder of his wife and unborn baby. His appellate lawyer agreed to this Thursday, while still arguing that the ex-fertilizer salesman should be given a fresh trial due to juror misconduct.

Attorney Cliff Gardner who claims Richelle Nice, a juror in Peterson’s conviction, was biased and lied about her to be on that jury. Nice indicated that on a questionnaire she could not stick to the evidence and that preexisting opinions were affecting her verdict.

“Was it a mistake?” San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo inquired. Isn’t this what lawyers should do ?”

?

Gardner stated that he believed Nice’s answers were incorrect on the questionnaire, but said they should have continued to follow up. He said that it strengthened his argument that Nice was a gunner for Peterson.

” “It seems amazing to me,” Gardner stated. It seems to me that it is consistent with her belief in a predetermined bias and was being discussed .”

The defense seeks a fresh trial for Peterson 49,, who was convicted 27, of first-degree killing of Laci Peterson and second-degree murder in the death of their unborn child, Conner.

The California Supreme Court upheld Peterson’s conviction, but overturned the death sentence in 2020. This was because some jurors disagreed with the death penalty and were dismissed despite saying that they would follow the law to impose it.

Massullo was designated to determine if Peterson’s fair trial was hampered by juror misconduct.

Peterson’s lawyers claim, among others, that Nice wanted to serve on the jury for notoriety as well as financial reasons. Nice was nicknamed “Strawberry Shortcake” because of her vibrant red hair. She later wrote a book on the case along with six other jurors.

The defense claimed she misrepresented the long questionnaire she gave prospective jurors. It asked, among others, if she had been a victim of a crime or if she ever filed a suit.

Nice did not disclose that she had filed a lawsuit while she was pregnant in 2000, and sought a temporary restraining or order because she “really fears” for her unborn baby due to threats by her ex-girlfriend. Also, she failed to tell her boyfriend that she had been beaten in 2001 by another man while she was pregnant.

Nice stated that although she could have incorrectly answered some questions, she did so honestly.

” “It wasn’t written on the questionnaire as it never crossed my mind ever,” she stated about the restraining orders. It wasn’t intentional – it never crossed my mind .”

Gardner stated that there was an “inconsistency” in what Nice wrote in legal documents and her testimony during the hearing, which lasted several days over February and March.

Nice stated in March she doesn’t remember a colleague juror telling her that, when she was joining the jury for deliberations, she said that Scott did what Laci and ‘little guy .'”

‘ to her.

” It doesn’t seem like something that I would say but it is what I don’t know,” she stated. I don’t recall this .”

.

Nice had earlier testified that she did not have any bias against Peterson, until she was presented with the evidence that Peterson dumped his wife in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002..

Stanislaus County Prosecutors claim there was no jury misconduct, and that Nice misunderstood the questionnaire.

Special Assistant District attorney David Harris stated that there is no evidence Nice was motivated to join the Peterson jury.

Harris claimed that defense lawyer Mark Geragos tried to retain Nice during the selection process, after she was dismissed by the judge because her employer wouldn’t pay for two weeks of jury service.

After Geragos intervened to ask if she would serve, Harris stated that Nice could remain if she so desired. After Geragos interjected to say she could serve, Harris said that Nice was allowed to stay.

“She wants to go,” Harris stated. Harris said, “This isn’t… This is why I want to be here. I’m secretly going after this man.” She’s been .”

exonerated if that is the case.

Harris stated that she answered all questions regarding her fairness and had no pre-trial publicity opinions.

The judge has 90 day to make a decision.