Scott Peterson juror denies bias in the course of 2004 demo

NEWYou can now pay attention to WHD News articles or blog posts!

The juror at the coronary heart of convicted assassin Scott Peterson’s retrial bid swore Friday that she had no animosity towards him right up until immediately after she listened to evidence that he experienced killed his expecting spouse in a scenario that grabbed all over the world notice in 2004.

“Just before the trial, I didn’t have any anger or any resentment towards Scott at all. Just after the demo, it was a bit correct, simply because I sat by way of the demo and listened to the proof,” previous juror Richelle Pleasant testified.

Peterson’s legal professionals want to show that she held a key bias towards him that prevented him from acquiring a fair trial, and that she lied on her jury questionnaire to get there.

But Nice generally trapped to her previously composed statements beneath questioning. She explained she didn’t consider herself a sufferer of domestic violence, did not straight concern for her possess unborn boy or girl and relied on the proof all through demo.

Mothers and fathers OF Teenager Charged IN College Capturing TO STAND Trial

Great served convict Peterson in 2004 of the murders of his spouse, Laci Peterson, 27, who was eight months expecting, and of the unborn son they prepared to name Conner. Prosecutors say he dumped his wife’s human body into San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002. The remains surfaced months later on.

Wonderful testified only following she was granted immunity from perjury prosecution for misstatements she could have designed in the previously sworn assertion.

In this March 17, 2005, file photo, Scott Peterson is escorted by two San Mateo County Sheriff's deputies to a waiting van in Redwood City, Calif.

In this March 17, 2005, file image, Scott Peterson is escorted by two San Mateo County Sheriff’s deputies to a ready van in Redwood Town, Calif.
(Justin Sullivan through WHD, Pool, File)

In it, and in Friday’s testimony, she discussed why she did not disclose on a pre-demo jury questionnaire that she experienced sought a restraining buy whilst pregnant in 2000, saying then that she “actually fears for her unborn kid.”

She also disputed on the stand court paperwork indicating that her reside-in boyfriend had assaulted her even though she was again pregnant, testifying that it was she who strike him.

Wonderful is remaining addressed in courtroom by title, although she beforehand was referred to as Juror 7. She also applied her identify for the duration of submit-trial media interviews and when she co-authored a reserve about the situation with 6 other jurors.

She was nicknamed “Strawberry Shortcake” all through the trial for her dyed vibrant purple hair, which is now brown on major and blondish at the base.

Peterson appeared in court donning a San Mateo County Jail uniform after Remarkable Court docket Decide Anne-Christine Massullo denied his request to dress in road outfits for what is envisioned to be a week-lengthy listening to.

Massullo is charged by the California Supreme Courtroom with choosing if Awesome committed misconduct by not disclosing her own historical past in advance of she grew to become a juror, and if she held a bias that denied Peterson a truthful demo.


Good typically claimed her past sworn created denials had been correct but with some nuances.

She failed to contemplate herself a target of domestic violence for the reason that in the scenario in 2000, her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend didn’t right threaten her unborn little one — irrespective of the wording in her software for a restraining get at the time.

“She didn’t threaten my child,” Good testified, stating that she provided her unborn little one in her application due to the fact “I was becoming spiteful.”

“She wasn’t heading to deliberately damage my little one, but if we fought and rolled all around like some dummies on the ground … I was in dread I would shed my baby performing a little something silly like that,” Wonderful testified.

And while her live-in boyfriend in 2001 was arrested and pleaded responsible, Great claimed the real truth was that she strike him and not the other way close to.

“Eddie by no means strike me, so I was not a victim of domestic violence,” she testified. “I did punch him, sure.”

It was her boyfriend who then termed the police on her, but she didn’t cooperate, and it backfired when he was arrested instead, Great testified.

She mentioned law enforcement may well have been misled into arresting the improper human being mainly because she experienced inadvertently slice her lip on the braces she was wearing at the time.

A person of Peterson’s lawyers, Pat Harris, instructed in his questioning that Wonderful may well have been biased against Peterson since her then-boyfriend was admittedly unfaithful, however she denied it influenced her.

Peterson was arrested only right after his possess paramour arrived ahead, indicating Peterson had explained to her his spouse was absent a month before her true disappearance.

Awesome usually caught by her reply on the jury questionnaire when she answered “no” to getting at any time been a criminal offense target. She expanded on her sworn declaration in 2020 that she didn’t “sense ‘victimized’ the way the legislation could possibly determine that term.”

“I’ve been in several fights, and I never consider myself a target. It might be distinctive for you or any individual else,” she told Harris.

Great stated it is “unquestionably accurate” when she explained in the 2020 written declaration that she did “not form any conclusions relating to the proof in the case right up until I was named into the jury deliberation room.”

In this April 21, 2003, photo, Sarah Kellison stands in front of a memorial in honor of Laci Peterson outside the house Laci shared with her husband Scott Peterson in Modesto, Calif.

In this April 21, 2003, image, Sarah Kellison stands in front of a memorial in honor of Laci Peterson exterior the property Laci shared with her partner Scott Peterson in Modesto, Calif.
(WHD Photograph/Marcio Jose Sanchez, File)

She denied becoming in economic difficulty at the time or borrowing $1,000 from another juror, contradicting others’ expected testimony and preceding statements.

Peterson’s lawyers system to place on witnesses they contend display that Pleasant went into the trial biased for the reason that she could relate as a mother to the dying of Peterson’s unborn newborn.

Wonderful contradicted other witnesses’ predicted testimony by indicating she by no means nicknamed any of her four sons “very little man,” nor does she remember referring to Peterson’s unborn son by that nickname for the duration of the trial or deliberations.

She mentioned she initially remembers employing the nickname immediately after the demo was about, in her initial media job interview.

Simply click Here TO GET THE WHD News Application

The judge will have up to 90 days just after the hearing to announce her ruling, which can be appealed by either facet.

You may also like