More questions during Scott Peterson hearing after DA decision not to pursue death penalty
During a hearing for Scott Peterson on Tuesday, his attorney questioned whether prosecutors could once again change course in seeking a death sentence against Peterson if he is granted a new trial.
District Attorney Birgit Fladager responded, “As our filing last week indicates, I have made the decision that we will not pursue the death penalty; that matter is now dropped. We are accepting the punishment of life without the possibility of parole ... This is no longer proceeding as as death penalty case regardless of the outcome of the habeas decision.”
The ‘habeas decision’ is what could get Peterson a new trial if Judge Anne-Christine Massullo determines a juror in Peterson’s original 2004 trial committed misconduct.
The California Supreme Court in October remanded the case to San Mateo Superior Court in response to Peterson’s petition for habeas corpus, which alleges juror Richelle Nice lied about being a victim of a crime in order to serve on his jury and “punish him.”
The jury convicted Peterson of killing his wife Laci and unborn son Conner and sentenced him to death. The case was moved from their hometown of Modesto to San Mateo County due to pretrial publicity.
Massullo, a visiting judge from San Francisco County, said Tuesday she expects a decision on a new trial will be made this year. She has also been hearing proceedings regarding the retrial of Peterson’s penalty phase.
In a separate matter from the habeas petition, the California Supreme Court overturned Peterson’s death sentence and it became life without the possibility of parole. Fladager’s second in command, Dave Harris, originally said the office would pursue a new penalty phase.
But on Friday, Fladager filed a notice saying that while the family has “no doubt” Peterson killed Laci and Conner, the process of another trial “is too painful to endure.”
Whether Fladager could even legally change her decision again at this point was up for debate during Tuesday’s hearing but Massullo pointed out that laws change and district attorneys change.
“This is premature and I don’t think any of us have a crystal ball into the future,” she said.
Will Pat Harris stay as Peterson’s attorney?
The hearing Tuesday was originally scheduled to discuss Pat Harris being appointed as Peterson’s attorney.
Harris served as second chair during Peterson’s first trial and Peterson’s family covered the costs. When the case first came back to Superior Court, Harris said he would “be representing Mr. Peterson as private counsel.”
Last month he filed a motion saying Peterson is indigent and asking to be appointed Peterson’s attorney. The Stanislaus County Counsel’s Office filed an opposition to the request, expressing concern about the potential for “tremendous costs to the taxpayers of Stanislaus County.”
Massullo said she needed more information before making a decision, including a signed form by Peterson saying he is indigent and declarations by the Public Defender and the law firm that handles conflict of interest cases about whether either or both would have a conflict of interest in Peterson’s case.
If Peterson gets a new trial, Pat Harris said in a filing last week that he will present evidence that Laci Peterson “was abducted and killed by the perpetrators of a burglary that occurred across the street from the Peterson’s home at the time of her disappearance.”
Harris wrote in the filing that the Public Defender’s office represented one of the two men convicted of the burglary and therefore has a conflict on interest.
“It is hard to imagine a more textbook definition of conflict of interest ... if the Stanislaus County Public Defender were appointed, they would be put in a position of representing Mr. Peterson by accusing a former client of theirs of a murder in a burglary in which they represented him,” Harris wrote.
The hearing was continued to June 18 to give the prosecution and Harris time to produce witness lists and for the Public Defender and contracted law firm to declare any conflicts of interest.
A filing by the defense in the habeas matter is due June 28.
This story was originally published June 1, 2021 at 1:57 PM with the headline "More questions during Scott Peterson hearing after DA decision not to pursue death penalty."
