MODESTO, Calif. — Scott Peterson's murder convictions will stand after a judge rejected his claim that a juror on his original 2004 trial was biased against him.
In a written ruling released Tuesday morning, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo said, "The Court concludes that Juror No. 7's responses were not motivated by pre-existing or improper bias against Petitioner, but instead were the result of combination of good faith misunderstanding of the questions and sloppiness in answering."
The Stanislaus County district attorney's office commented Tuesday, saying "we are thrilled and so grateful for the judge's decision."
The case is still far from over.
Peterson cannot appeal but can bring a new habeas petition to the state Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court on the single juror misconduct claim — a process that can take several more years, his attorney Cliff Gardner previously told The Modesto Bee.
If he lost at every level, Peterson could take the entire habeas petition to federal court; not just on the juror misconduct claim but all 19 claims in the original habeas corpus petition filed in state court, plus any new evidence that has come out since then.
The other claims in his original petition include ineffective counsel by Peterson's trial attorney, and doubts about the credibility of some expert testimony and aspects of the investigation like a cadaver dog with a poor track record.
A federal habeas petition would start in the U.S. Northern District Court, because the case was tried in San Mateo County. If Peterson lost his case there, it could be appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals and finally, he could seek review of the habeas petition by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Gardner said that process can take several years at each level and there's a low likelihood the U.S. Supreme Court would grant review. The court hears just 80 to 85 cases of the 5,000 to 7,000 it receives each year.
The claim that Peterson's right to a fair and impartial jury was violated was one of 19 in his petition for habeas corpus filed in 2015. It was the only claim the California Supreme Court didn't reject in its 2020 ruling. The court ordered that a judge in San Mateo Superior Court, where the trial took place, would decide if juror misconduct occurred.
Peterson's attorneys argued that juror Richelle Nice was biased against Peterson long before hearing any of the evidence about the disappearance and murders of his wife, Laci, and their unborn son, Conner.
An evidentiary hearing was held in March. Nice was the primary witness but another juror on Peterson's jury panel, Nice's former attorney and a police records clerk also testified. Written briefs followed and oral arguments were heard in August.
Peterson's attorneys said evidence of Nice's bias included a personal history of experiencing violence and threats when she was pregnant; omitting that personal history from a jury questionnaire, which otherwise might have resulted in her dismissal; and her failure to follow the trial judge's instructions to approach deliberations with an open mind and make a decision only after discussing the evidence with the other jurors.
Peterson's defense team pointed to testimony that Nice walked into the deliberation room and immediately announced that Peterson "should ... pay for killing the 'Little Man.'" It was a nickname she had used for Conner that Peterson's attorneys said also was evidence of bias.
The defense alleged that her omission on the jury questionnaire about being the victim of a crime while pregnant and party in a lawsuit were intentional.
"Ms. Nice's undisclosed history precluded her from being an "impartial judge of the facts as ... the law requires," reads the brief by Peterson's attorneys. They also points to evidence that she three times declined invitations to be dismissed as a juror by declaring a financial hardship despite suffering a "extremely precarious financial situation."
"Plainly, Ms. Nice was extremely eager to serve," the brief says.
Nice was questioned on the stand about an incident in which she obtained a restraining order against her her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend, who threatened her while she was pregnant.
She was also questioned about another time when that boyfriend was arrested for domestic violence after a fight that she testified was "probably" about him cheating on her. Peterson had been having an affair at the time of the murders.
Nice testified, "When I filled out that questionnaire — honestly and truly — nothing of this crossed my mind." Nice said she didn't know the restraining order she got against her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend was a type of lawsuit and didn't consider a lawsuit she later filed against the ex-girlfriend for lost wages because she ultimately dropped it.
In the incident with her boyfriend, Nice testified she was the aggressor and she hit him, not the other way around. While she is listed in two police reports as a victim, Nice said she's never considered herself one.
The Stanislaus County district attorney's office, which prosecuted the case and was the respondent to the juror misconduct claim that came out of Peterson's petition for habeas corpus, said Nice was a believable and sincere witness during the evidentiary hearing.
Stanislaus County prosecutor Dave Harris said during his oral arguments in August that the questionnaire Nice filled out was 23 pages and contained more than 100 multiple-part questions.
"She testified that when she filled it out, she did the best that she could," Harris said. "So what we have here ... is a person who filled out the questionnaire who made lots of mistakes ... but being wrong does not necessarily make it false or make her a liar."
He gave several examples of times she improperly filled out forms and said repeatedly, "Ms. Nice is not very good at filling out forms."
His written brief said her explanations during the evidentiary hearing, "were in line with her character and utterly reasonable. She was unshakable in her belief that she had done nothing wrong ... the past had just never crossed her mind."
Prosecutors pointed to Nice's testimony that, "Before the trial, I didn't have any anger or resentment towards Scott at all. After the trial, it was a bit different because I sat through the entire trial and listened to the evidence."
Nice testified that the experience of being a juror "absolutely" changed her. Prosecutors pointed to times during her testimony in the evidentiary hearing that she became emotional and tearful recalling the aftermath of the trial, including writing letters to Peterson on death row at the suggestion of her therapist.
