This article has everything you need to know about what its going in with this hearing:
Attorneys for Convicted Wife Killer Scott Peterson Grill Alleged Rogue Juror in Attempt to Secure New Murder Trial
Attorneys for Convicted Wife Killer Scott Peterson Grill Alleged Rogue Juror in Attempt to Secure New Murder Trial
"Scott Peterson, the man convicted of killing his wife Laci Peterson, 27, and the couple’s unborn son in 2002, fought on Friday for a new trial by attempting to discredit one of the jurors who convicted him.
Nice, who was dubbed “Strawberry Shortcake” due to what the Associated Press called her “dyed red hair,” has been accused by Peterson’s defense team of lying about her past status as an alleged victim of domestic violence. Peterson’s legal team claims Nice lied because she explicitly wanted to convict Peterson.
Nice testified that her a portion of her original voir dire questionnaire from the jury selection process was only “somewhat true” — but most of her back-and-forth battle with Peterson’s attorneys was a quibble over language. Specifically, Nice said she wasn’t sure she considered herself a crime victim because she once agreed to drop all potential charges in what has been described as a domestic violence incident. In part because she agreed to drop the potential charges, she did not identify herself as a “victim” on Peterson’s jury questionnaire.
...snipped...
On Friday, Nice attempted to clarify the line she wrote back in the year 2000 about the so-called “fears for her unborn child.” She said her fears were about the potential for a fight but were not a reference to “a genuine fear” that someone was actually attempting to target or “hurt” her child with any sort of specific intent aimed toward the child.
snipped....
The Friday hearing broke little new factual ground but rather gave Peterson’s defense attorneys to attempt to skewer Nice for her alleged errors and omissions in filling out the 2004 questionnaire. The hearing is scheduled to continue after a lengthy break on Friday, when this report was published, and into next week. When it concludes, a judge will decided if Peterson deserves a new trial."
The original habeas corpus filing is below, as are some of the key exhibits — including the letters Peterson and Nice wrote back and forth to one another after the original murder trial concluded.
[MUCH MORE AT LINK, INCLUDING THE JURY PAPERWORK NICE FILLED OUT AND THE COURT REPORTS]
From what I have read so far, it is probably 50/50 that a judge will order a retrial. Techinically, one could say that she was a crime victim. Yet she claims that all the charges WERE DROPPED and she never suffered from any crime, so she didn't consider herself a crime victim at the time.
So it is up to the judge to decide which way to go.
The defense is saying that she lied in order to get on the jury and be a rogue juror to find him guilty. But 11 other jurors also found him guilty, so how does that make sense that she was the key to him needing a retrial?
