Scott Peterson’s Attorney Quiz Juror Who Convicted Him

Scott Peterson, who was convicted in November 2004 of murdering his wife and husband and wife

Scott Peterson, who was convicted in November 2004 of the murder of the couple’s wife and unborn son, appeared in court on February 25, 2022, for a class hearing. (Photo by Jeff Chiu/The Associated Press/Pool.)

Scott Petersonman convicted of murdering his wife Laci PetersonThe couple’s 27-year-old and unborn son in 2002, fought Friday for a new trial by trying to discredit one of the jurors who convicted him.

Laci is 8 months pregnant with a son the couple plan to name Conner Peterson when she died. A California jury in 2004 agreed that Scott assaulted Laci on Christmas Eve and dumped her body in San Francisco Bay. Authorities arrest Peterson after massage therapist Amber Frey told police she started dating Scott Peterson a month before Laci disappeared. Frey claims that Scott told her his wife was dead; Scott Peterson maintained his innocence despite the conviction.

blank

A child stops to look at a makeshift memorial and banner of a missing person offering a reward of half a million dollars for the safe return of Laci Peterson. Banners at East La Loma Park on January 4, 2003 in Modesto, California. Laci’s body was not discovered until May 2003. (Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images.)

Attorneys for Peterson, now 49 years old according to prison records, have applied habeas . corpus petition on the grounds of Jury 7, who identified himself as Richelle Nicewas biased before she entered discussions in the Peterson murder case.

Nice who was nicknamed “Strawberry Shortcake” due to what Related press called Her “red-dyed hair” was accused by Peterson’s defense team of lying about her past status as a victim of domestic violence. Peterson’s legal team claimed Nice lied because she explicitly wanted to convict Peterson.

Nice testified Friday under immunity from prosecutors, AP noted. The parameters of immunity were briefly discussed in court on Friday before Nice’s hearing. Nice raised its Fifth Amendment privileges ahead of the hearing, one attorney noted.

The hearing was streamed online by a courtroom audio stream; however, no journalists, including Law & Crime, are allowed to record or retransmit the proceedings.

Nice testified that part of her initial nonsense questionnaire from the jury selection process was only “somewhat correct” – but most of her back-and-forth with the attorneys. Peterson’s is a linguistic clarification. Specifically, Nice said she’s not sure she considers herself a victim of crime because she once agreed to drop all potential charges in a described domestic violence case. In part because she agreed to drop potential charges, she did not identify herself as a “victim” on the Peterson grand jury questionnaire.

Here are some questions from the original March 9, 2004 jury questionnaire filled out by Nice before she was selected as a replacement – and ultimately, as a deliberative juror – in the hearing. Peterson Court:

Scott Peterson's defense team said these selections from Richelle Nice's March 9, 2004 jury questionnaire showed she was trying to hide her past in order to gain jury participation. .

Scott Peterson’s defense team said these selections from Richelle Nice’s March 9, 2004 jury questionnaire showed she was trying to hide her past in order to gain jury participation. .

Notably, the 2004 jury questionnaire did not mention that Nice in 2000 sought an injunction against her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend while she was (Nice) pregnant. A court document dated 27 November 2000, initially seeking the injunction, filled out by Nice herself, mentioned Nice in the third person. The document states that Nice was “really scared for her unborn baby” and even “started having premature contractions” due to being threatened by her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend.

A relevant section of that November 2000 court filing is here:

A case file with the caption Richelle Nice v Marcella Kinsey caught the attention of Scott Peterson's defense team. In it, Nice said she feared for her unborn baby. The case is number 415040 in San Mateo, California. Document dated November 27, 2000.

A case file with the caption Richelle Nice v Marcella Kinsey caught the attention of Scott Peterson’s defense team. In it, Nice said she feared for her unborn baby. The case is number 415040 in San Mateo, California. Document dated November 27, 2000.

On Friday, Nice tried to clarify a line she wrote in 2000 about her so-called “fear over her unborn child”. She said that her fear is about potential to fight but doesn’t allude to a “real fear” that someone is actually trying to target or “hurt” her child with any kind of specific intent aimed at the child.

“I’m scared if we fight. . . and roll around like some dummy on the ground, then, yes, I would fear that I would lose my baby doing something so stupid,” Nice testified in hindsight on Friday.

She also testified that she was “cynical” by including that language in court records.

Nice and the attorneys who questioned her said the attack that led to the 2000 lawsuit included slashing a tire, kicking a door, spraying a mace and calling for a street fight.

“She didn’t threaten my children,” Nice replied to her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend.

Peterson’s attorneys argued the 2000 case was relevant, about whether Nice was correct when she filled out the March 2004 jury questionnaire for Peterson’s murder trial. . Had she been more descriptive in that 2004 document — or, in Peterson’s defense team’s account, truthfully and accurately — she would have been kicked off the jury and would never have taken her seat. judgment against Peterson, his lawyers allege.

Peterson’s attorneys argued that Nice should have identified herself as a “victim” when prompted by question 74 of the 2004 questionnaire.

“I’ve been in many fights and I don’t consider myself a victim,” Nice testified Friday.

“Do you have your own definition of ‘victim’?” a lawyer asked her.

“Certainly,” said Nice at last.

Peterson’s defense team also quibbled with Nice’s statements in the questionnaire that showed she had no legal acumen. Nice admits she worked for a law firm for a while.

They went on to commend Nice for saying “no” in the 2004 questionnaire as a reminder of whether she had “ever been involved in a lawsuit”. They reminded Nice that the 2000 lawsuit involving her ex was, technically, a lawsuit; Nice replied that she did not know her claim for a protective order qualifies as a lawsuit.

Scott Peterson's attorneys filed this minute order from Richelle Nice's request for an injunction against her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend to secure a new trial for Peterson.

Scott Peterson’s attorneys filed this minute order from Richelle Nice’s request for an injunction against her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend to secure a new trial for Peterson.

Another part of the jury’s questionnaire is now “partially correct”, Nice said. Specifically, Nice said that “before the trial,” she “did not have any anger or resentment toward Scott. [Peterson] at all.” After the trial, she said she did, but apparently the questionnaire was only relevant to her pre-trial thoughts because it was – of course – written before the trial.

Nice testified that most of the questionnaire material was “true” or “absolutely true” in her opinion.

Friday’s hearing broke a bit of a new factual basis but instead, Peterson’s defense attorneys tried to disqualify Nice for her alleged errors and omissions in filling out the questionnaire. 2004. The hearing is scheduled to resume after a long break on Friday, when this report is released, and next week. At the end, the judge will decide if Peterson deserves a new trial.

Below is the habeas’ original file, as well as some key exhibits – including letters Peterson and Nice wrote back and forth after the original murder trial ended.

Is there a trick we should know? [email protected]

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/scott-peterson/attorneys-for-convicted-wife-killer-scott-peterson-grill-alleged-rogue-juror-in-attempt-to-secure-new-murder-trial/ Scott Peterson’s Attorney Quiz Juror Who Convicted Him

James Brien

24ssports is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@24ssports.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button