Juror in Scott Peterson trial did not disclose being a sufferer

LOS ANGELES (AP) — A girl who eagerly sought to be a juror within the homicide trial of Scott Peterson and who voted to condemn him to demise dedicated misconduct by not disclosing she had been against the law sufferer, protection attorneys mentioned Friday of their bid for a brand new trial.

New particulars present Juror 7 did not disclose her boyfriend beat her in 2001 whereas she was pregnant. It was beforehand revealed that she did not disclose that whereas pregnant with one other youngster she obtained a restraining order in opposition to the boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend, whom she feared would damage her unborn youngster.

Peterson, 48, was sentenced to demise within the 2002 murders of his pregnant spouse, Laci, and the son she was carrying.

“It’s obvious from her conduct earlier than, throughout, and after the trial that in (jury choice) she did not disclose quite a few incidents that posed threats of hurt to her unborn youngsters,” Peterson’s legal professionals mentioned. “This enabled her to sit down in judgment of Mr. Peterson for the crime of harming his unborn youngster.”

A choose is deciding whether or not to order a brand new trial due to the allegations the juror dedicated misconduct by falsely answering questions through the choice course of. The juror was not named within the courtroom papers however has beforehand been recognized as Richelle Good, who co-authored a e-book in regards to the case with six different jurors.

The California Supreme Courtroom overturned Peterson’s demise sentence as a result of prosecutors improperly dismissed potential jurors who disclosed they personally disagreed with the demise penalty however could be keen to impose it.

The Stanislaus County district legal professional’s workplace declined to touch upon the brand new allegation of misconduct, saying it will deal with the case in courtroom.

In courtroom filings, prosecutors have dismissed accusations of misconduct. They included a declaration by Good that indicated she both misunderstood or misinterpreted the questions on different authorized proceedings she had been concerned in.

Potential jurors have been requested if that they had ever been concerned in a lawsuit or participated in a trial as a celebration or witness and if that they had ever been crime sufferer or witness. Good answered “no” to these questions. The protection mentioned these solutions have been false.

The protection famous that the restraining order was a lawsuit during which Good testified. The prosecution and Good mentioned she interpreted a lawsuit as a dispute involving cash or property. She defined that she thought of the restraining order concerned “harassment” and was not a legal act.

“I didn’t interpret the circumstances resulting in the petition for a restraining order as against the law. I nonetheless don’t,” Good declared, in accordance the courtroom papers. “Minor indignities … don’t stick out to me, not to mention trigger me to really feel ‘victimized’ the best way the regulation would possibly outline that time period.”

Nevertheless, the protection scoffed on the characterization as “minor,” saying the restraining order case alleged that Good’s boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend had “dedicated acts of violence in opposition to” her and she or he “actually fears for her unborn youngster.”

The protection mentioned that by concealing information and offering false solutions, the juror undermined the jury choice course of and dedicated misconduct that harmed Peterson’s proper to a good trial.

“Mr. Peterson was entitled to be tried by a jury of 12 neutral jurors, not 11,” protection legal professionals wrote.

A lawyer for Good didn’t return a message looking for remark.

The protection mentioned Good “bent over backwards” to be seated on the jury.

“She was keen to sit down on the jury for 5 months with out pay, though she had 4 minor youngsters to take care of, and although it triggered her such excessive monetary hardship that she needed to borrow cash from a fellow juror,” the protection wrote. “Juror 7’s conduct throughout jury choice was so uncommon that the choose commented that she ‘stepp(ed) up and virtually volunteer(ed) to serve.’”

Laci Peterson, 27, was eight months pregnant with their unborn son, Connor, when she was killed. Investigators mentioned Peterson took the our bodies from their Modesto house on Christmas Eve 2002 and dumped them from his fishing boat into San Francisco Bay, the place they surfaced months later.

Peterson was convicted in 2005 in San Mateo County after his trial was moved from Stanislaus County due to worldwide pre-trial publicity.

Legal professional Pat Harris claims that he has new proof to indicate there was a close-by housebreaking on the day Laci Peterson disappeared. He mentioned she was killed when she stumbled upon the crime.

If a brand new trial is ordered, prosecutors mentioned they won’t search the demise penalty.

Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *