GUILTY CA - Laci Peterson, 27, pregnant, Modesto, 24 Dec 2002 #2

[ilovewings]

In the court documents, Scott says I did everything the police asked. They asked him to take a Polygraph. He never did. He refused.

If Scott takes a polygraph, answers every question and passes then I would start to see him as possibly innocent. (FBI polygrapher) Not one his parents can buy off. Lol.

He knows what he did and still 20 years later still plays I'm innocent game.

Can he be put back on DR if he's granted a new trial?

I have no faith in polygraphs-- i have seen too many cases where the killer passed the polygraph, the police wrote him off , but it turns out that person was the killer and other times where an innocent
Person failed and was wrongly charged with a crime.

 

[Castle22]

I have no faith in polygraphs-- i have seen too many cases where the killer passed the polygraph, the police wrote him off , but it turns out that person was the killer and other times where an innocent
Person failed and was wrongly charged with a crime.

 

[ErinC]

I just remembered that Conner would have been 22 this past February. The case is still every bit as sad as it was 20 years ago.

 

[flowermama]

Wow, hard to fathom that it’s been so many years. I followed this case daily, catching up each evening after work with Nancy Grace. I remember watching the verdict.
Scott is 1 million percent guilty of murdering sweet Lacey and it’s just such a horrendous tragedy.
I remember reading Lacey’s mom’s book. Poor Sharon…. My heart goes out to her.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Hey! Any updates yet on his appeal? I went to this link - but get "forbidden". TIA!

Sorry for the late reply. The last thing filed was this, which make of it what you will. Can't download documents from this site.

 

[LinasK]

In answer to a previous question- no, Scott Peterson can't be put back on Death Row even if he manages to get a new trial. Gov. Newsom established a moratorium on the Death Penalty in CA. Probably why Scott was moved from San Quentin.

 

[Niner]

Sorry for the late reply. The last thing filed was this, which make of it what you will. Can't download documents from this site.

View attachment 601445

Thank you! Do you see the 5/29/25 Order? TIA!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Thank you! Do you see the 5/29/25 Order? TIA!

Yeah that was shown there, you already have it.

Hey! Any updates yet on his appeal? I went to this link - but get "forbidden". TIA!

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Good article on the LAIP's involvement in the case and all that's been going on in the case since they got involved.

A new Scott Peterson mystery: Why is the Innocence Project trying to set him free? - LA Times

 

[Megnut]

Good article on the LAIP's involvement in the case and all that's been going on in the case since they got involved.

A new Scott Peterson mystery: Why is the Innocence Project trying to set him free? - LA Times

An affiliate of the actual Innocence Project...

A small nonprofit... Innocence Project of LA...

Employing one full time attorney...

To retry as case as if there is new evidence...

Or at least give the public impression of such...

IMO Scott Peterson is nothing but a guilty headline that just won't go away.

Though it should.

JMO

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

Also @Niner, I checked on the lower court, and there have been no new filings there. The LAIP is expected to refile there soon with the claims that were rejected by the appellate court.

 

[Smelly Squirrel]

The one claim that the appellate court allowed to be heard was DENIED.

Haven't seen a news report, but the website shows it.

Appellate Case Number A167615

08/01/2025	Order denying petition filed.	Claim 1 of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in claim 1 of the original in propria persona petition, is denied.
08/01/2025	Case complete.

They still haven't filed anything new in the lower court.

 

[Seattle1]

Scott Peterson’s latest appeal largely denied, but legal options remain

Peterson continues his efforts to be set free.

www.yahoo.com

6/2/25

The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which represents Peterson, submitted a petition in a state appeals court on April 24 claiming he should be granted a new trial because of evidence and previously dismissed eyewitness testimony. The petition also included a 140-page declaration written by Peterson.

Only one of the 19 claims listed in Peterson’s petition for writ of habeus corpus — a court order to present a defendant before a judge to justify their detention — was accepted to be heard. The claim is that one of the jurors in his 2004 murder trial should have been dismissed.

Peterson has 60 days to respond to the appeals court’s decision.

The juror matter was previously heard and ruled on during an appeal in county court two years ago. At that time, Peterson’s attorneys argued that Juror No. 7, Richelle Nice, was biased against Peterson. The claim was based on how she answered her juror questionnaire, where she stated she’d never been the victim or witness of a crime, or a party in a lawsuit.

[..]

LAIP’s claims of new evidence and all other claims tied to this new appeal were rejected Thursday with the court writing that Peterson’s request “does not show that any extraordinary reason exists” for it to be heard by the state appeals court.

What’s next?​

Janey Peterson, sister-in-law and advocate of Peterson, indicated LAIP likely would respond to the court’s decision. She said the appeals court process would not have any hearings, so a public appearance by Scott Peterson is unlikely.

All of the other claims rejected by the state appeals court can and should be filed in a Superior Court, according to the appeals court’s decision. Peterson also can file his claims and appeals in California’s Supreme Court and in federal court.

A federal petition would start in the U.S. Northern District Court, since the case was tried in San Mateo County. If Peterson lost his case there, it could be appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals and finally, he could seek review of the habeas petition by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Niner]

All of the other claims rejected by the state appeals court can and should be filed in a Superior Court, according to the appeals court’s decision. Peterson also can file his claims and appeals in California’s Supreme Court and in federal court.

A federal petition would start in the U.S. Northern District Court, since the case was tried in San Mateo County. If Peterson lost his case there, it could be appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals and finally, he could seek review of the habeas petition by the U.S. Supreme Court.

So he has all these 3 other courts to still go thru right? TIA!

 

[Niner]

And I am going to post this - so I can shorten it up a bit & "shelf" it for now.

Tuesday, July 16, 2024
*Motions Hearing [continued] (see below) (@ 9am PT) – CA – Laci Denise Peterson (27) & Connor (unborn) (missing Dec. 24, 2002, Modesto; found April 13, 2003 in the San Francisco Bay) - *Scott Lee Peterson (30 @ time of crime/31/now 52) convicted & found guilty (11/12/04) of 1st degree murder (Laci) & 2nd degree murder (Connor) & sentenced (3/16/05) to death by lethal injection. Death penalty was reversed & sentencing to life in prison without the possibility of parole (Laci) & concurrent sentence of 15 years to life (Connor). San Mateo County Case #SC055500A / Stanislaus County Case #1056770 / Appeal #S132449/Habeas Corpus #S230782/ California 1st Appellate District as case #A167615
His case is currently on automatic appeal to the Supreme Court of California. Sits on San Quentin's death row. Calif. Supreme Court denied a new trial in the guilt phase but reversed the death penalty sentence for Stanislaus County. Also the San Mateo Superior Court will now consider whether there was jury misconduct. Stanislaus County district attorney’s office said it won’t seek the death penalty if there is a new trial.
Re-Sentencing Hearing on 12/8/21. Peterson was moved to San Mateo County jail on 11/29/21 for sentencing hearing. Ordered Peterson to serve life in prison without the possibility of parole for the 1st degree murder of Laci & a concurrent sentence of 15 years to life for the 2nd degree murder of Connor. Peterson was transferred from San Quentin State Prison (~10/21/22) to Mule Creek State Prison.
Motion (12/21/22) for new trial was denied.
California Court of Appeals: 6/5/25 was denied on Thursday. Only one of the 19 claims listed in Peterson’s petition for writ of habeus corpus — a court order to present a defendant before a judge to justify their detention — was accepted to be heard.
California Court of Appeals: 8/1/25 was denied on Friday. Claim 1-denied. Case closed.
Court info from 5/14/20 thru 7/11/24 reference post #68 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...-pregnant-modesto-24-dec-2002-2.707395/page-4
7/15/24 Update: Ex-DA Birgit Fladager read a victim impact statement written by Sharon Rocha to the judge [see post #64]. Prosecutor Ahnna Reicks told the judge that LAIP has no solid new evidence nor witnesses to build a new case on. LAIP merely wants to go on a “fishing exhibition,” fishing through the DA’s old case files and police reports, Reicks told the judge. The DA’s office is asking Judge Hill to deny all of LAIP’s requests for accessing case files and evidence. Paula Mitchell, director of the LA Innocence Project, shook her head in disagreement at times during Reicks’ lengthy argument. Mitchell told the judge that crucial items of evidence, including tapes of police interrogations with Peterson in 2002, were never provided to his defense team before nor after his murder trial. Arguments will continue inside the courtroom on Monday afternoon before the hearing wraps up on Tuesday, 7/16/24 morning. Judge Hill will not make a ruling Monday.
7/16/24 Update: Judge Elizabeth Hill has wrapped up a hearing that began on Monday regarding Peterson‘s ongoing fight for a new trial. Tuesday’s hearing tied up loose ends, including how DNA testing of a piece of duct tape found on Laci’s pants would proceed. On Monday, the defense & prosecution came to an agreement on which lab would conduct the tests. The hearing also addressed the defense’s motion for access to discovery materials. The L.A. Innocence Project, which took over Peterson’s defense earlier this year, wants Judge Elizabeth Hill to grant them access to over 600 pieces of evidence which were gathered during the original murder investigation over 20 years ago. Judge Hill has 90 days to make her ruling on those outstanding pieces of evidence that the defense is seeking access to. [Maybe October/November].
10/8/24 Update: Peterson has been granted access to crucial evidence by a California judge in a bombshell ruling that could open the door to reevaluation of the case that has captured nationwide attention. Peterson is now allowed a discovery period on the basis of California Penal Code 1054.9 - which gives discovery rights to defendants who were convicted of serious or violent felonies & sentenced to 15 or more years in jail. The code allows the defendant access to materials 'in possession of the prosecution & law enforcement authorities to which the same defendant would have been entitled at the time of trial.' Whether or not Peterson, who is incarcerated at Mule Creek State Prison in Ione, will be granted a retrial depends on how the discovery process proceeds.
4/21/25 Update: The Los Angeles Innocence Project has filed a petition in court presenting new evidence & witness statements they claim prove Scott Peterson did not kill his wife Laci Peterson & their unborn son, Conner. “Had the jury heard this evidence, it is highly likely they would not have reached a guilty verdict,” the LAIP said in a statement on Monday, April 21. On Friday, April 18, lawyers with the LAIP filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus with the California Court of Appeal seeking to overturn Scott's 2004 conviction for the 2002 murders. New evidence the LAIP claims it has includes a witness who allegedly “overheard a conversation among the burglars about Laci seeing & confronting them,” according to the petition. “This evidence exonerates Peterson because it shows Laci was alive when he left home on December 24, since the burglary took place.” They claim to have new evidence about a van they believe belonged to the burglars that was set ablaze near the Petersons’ home — and they believe Laci was actually killed in the van, according to the petition.
4/26/25 update: Peterson said in a declaration seeking to overturn his murder conviction that he had "absolutely nothing to do with the disappearance & deaths of my wife & son." Peterson detailed his recollection of Laci's disappearance in a 126-page declaration included in a petition filed last week by the Los Angeles Innocence Project. In his declaration, Peterson said authorities "targeted" him from day one & immediately labeled him as a suspect. He accused police of either misrepresenting his statements or failing to record or document them.
California 1st Appellate District as case #A167615 updates:
4/21/25 Docket updates: Application filed to: Application for Permission to file Brief in excess of 25,500 words (in amended petition; to court for permission to file amended petition). 5/1/25 Docket update: Motion filed. Respondent's Motion to Summarily Deny Claims 2 thru 19 of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus & Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof. 5/7/25 Docket updates: Opposition filed. Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Summarily Deny Claims 2 thru 19 in Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus & Declaration of Counsel. To court. Respondent's Motion to Summarily Deny Claims 2 thru 19 of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus & Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof. Reply filed to: Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Motion to Summarily Deny Claims 2 thru 19 of the Amended Habeas Petition (filed w/permission). 5/8/25 Docket update: Opposition filed. Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's Motion to Summarily Deny Claims 2 thru 19 in Petitioner's Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus & Declaration of Counsel. Scheduled actions: Reply filed to: (due 60 days after appointment of counsel - see 7/28/23 order)***No further extensions of time will be granted*** Petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed. Amended (NFE-see 4/4/25 order) due 4/18/25. Note: 5/22/25-action on Application for Permission to File Brief in Excess of 25,500 Words (in amended petition; to court for permission to file amended petition). Note: 5/22/25-action on Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend & Supplement Claims Filed in Pro Se Petition. 5/22/25-action on opposed Respondent's Motion to Summarily Deny Claims 2 thru 19 of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus & Memorandum of Points & Authorities in Support Thereof.
6/5/25 Update: The majority of convicted murderer Peterson’s latest petition to be set free was denied by the California Courts of Appeal on Thursday. Only one of the 19 claims listed in Peterson’s petition for writ of habeas corpus — a court order to present a defendant before a judge to justify their detention — was accepted to be heard. The claim is that one of the jurors in his 2004 murder trial should have been dismissed. Peterson has 60 days to respond to the appeals court’s decision. From Court site: 5/29/25 Order denying petition filed. Petitioner's "Application for Permission to File Brief In Excess 25,500 Words" and "Motion for Leave to Amend & Supplement Claims Filed in Pro Se Petition," both of which are unopposed, are granted. The clerk of this court is directed to file the amended petition and lodge the exhibits forthwith. The court construes Respondent's "Motion to Summarily Deny Claims 2 Through 19 of the Amended Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus," which is opposed, as a request for the court to exercise it discretion to deny those claims without prejudice to Petitioner initiating them in a new petition for writ of habeas corpus filed in San Mateo Superior Court. So construed, the request is granted. (In re Steele (2004) 32 Cal.4th 682, 692; In re Hillery (1962) 202 Cal.App.2d 293, 294.) Petitioner does not show that any extraordinary reason exists for initiating clams 2 through 19 in this court.
Respondent acknowledges that claim 1 of the amended petition is appropriately before this court because it was already fully litigated in the superior court and does not rely on any purported new evidence. Accordingly, the court retains claim 1 of the amended petition for disposition. The court hereby deems Respondent's July 28, 2023 informal response to Petitioner's original pro per petition for writ of habeas corpus as its informal response to claim 1 of the amended petition. Petitioner may file an informal reply in this court, addressing only claim 1 of the amended petition, within thirty (30) days of this order.
6/27/25 Docket update: Reply filed to: (Due 60 days after appointment of counsel-see 7/28/23 order) No further extensions of time will be granted. As to claim 1 of amended petition-See 5/29/25 order).
8/1/25 Docket update: Order denying petition filed. Claim 1 of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which realleges & incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in claim 1 of the original in propria persona petition, is denied. Case complete. All of the other claims rejected by the state appeals court can & should be filed in a Superior Court, according to the appeals court’s decision. Peterson also can file his claims appeals in California’s Supreme Court & in federal court. A federal petition would start in the U.S. Northern District Court, since the case was tried in San Mateo County. If Peterson lost his case there, it could be appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals and finally, he could seek review of the habeas petition by the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

[Seattle1]

So he has all these 3 other courts to still go thru right? TIA!

Yes.

A federal petition (alleging a civil rights violation) would start in the US District Court-- Northern CA (the same Court as Elizabeth Holmes case). If he did not prevail here, he could appeal the decision by the federal court in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I don't think he has to worry about the Supreme Court because he'll never be granted release!

The Supreme Court's review of a habeas corpus petition is a process where the Court examines the legality of a person's detention by a lower court or government entity. Habeas corpus, often called the "great writ," is a constitutional right that ensures individuals can challenge their imprisonment if they believe it's unlawful. The Supreme Court's review is a crucial part of ensuring the government doesn't detain individuals without due process of law.

With almost ten thousand petitions filed per year, and a paltry 3.2% success rate, federal habeas petitions occupy a unique role in the criminal justice system.

Let’s Talk Federal Habeas: What Is It and Why Is It So Hard to Win?

By: Shmuel Wyckoff Jose Morales accomplished something thousands before him failed to do. He succeeded on a federal habeas petition. Jose Morales was a teenager from the Bronx in the late 1900s. In…

cbaatthebar.chicagobar.org

 

[Niner]

Yes.

A federal petition (alleging a civil rights violation) would start in the US District Court-- Northern CA (the same Court as Elizabeth Holmes case). If he did not prevail here, he could appeal the decision by the federal court in the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

I don't think he has to worry about the Supreme Court because he'll never be granted release!

The Supreme Court's review of a habeas corpus petition is a process where the Court examines the legality of a person's detention by a lower court or government entity. Habeas corpus, often called the "great writ," is a constitutional right that ensures individuals can challenge their imprisonment if they believe it's unlawful. The Supreme Court's review is a crucial part of ensuring the government doesn't detain individuals without due process of law.

With almost ten thousand petitions filed per year, and a paltry 3.2% success rate, federal habeas petitions occupy a unique role in the criminal justice system.

Let’s Talk Federal Habeas: What Is It and Why Is It So Hard to Win?

By: Shmuel Wyckoff Jose Morales accomplished something thousands before him failed to do. He succeeded on a federal habeas petition. Jose Morales was a teenager from the Bronx in the late 1900s. In…

cbaatthebar.chicagobar.org

Thanks (again!) for this info!

 

[Seattle1]

So he has all these 3 other courts to still go thru right? TIA!

OK, make that 2.

He was just denied on Friday his Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on 4/19/23.

08/01/2025	Order denying petition filed.	Claim 1 of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in claim 1 of the original in propria persona petition, is denied.
08/01/2025	Case complete.

 

[Niner]

OK, make that 2.

He was just denied on Friday his Petition for a writ of habeas corpus, filed on 4/19/23.

08/01/2025	Order denying petition filed.	Claim 1 of the amended petition for writ of habeas corpus, which realleges and incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in claim 1 of the original in propria persona petition, is denied.
08/01/2025	Case complete.

I thought this claim 1 was with the California Court of appeals? So next would be the California Supreme court - or was that this one?
Next would be federal petition with US. Northern District Court, then U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals - and the U.S. Supreme Court.
Sorry - if I'm not getting it right!

 

[Megnut]

Scott Peterson’s latest appeal largely denied, but legal options remain

Peterson continues his efforts to be set free.

www.yahoo.com

6/2/25

The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which represents Peterson, submitted a petition in a state appeals court on April 24 claiming he should be granted a new trial because of evidence and previously dismissed eyewitness testimony. The petition also included a 140-page declaration written by Peterson.

Only one of the 19 claims listed in Peterson’s petition for writ of habeus corpus — a court order to present a defendant before a judge to justify their detention — was accepted to be heard. The claim is that one of the jurors in his 2004 murder trial should have been dismissed.

Peterson has 60 days to respond to the appeals court’s decision.

The juror matter was previously heard and ruled on during an appeal in county court two years ago. At that time, Peterson’s attorneys argued that Juror No. 7, Richelle Nice, was biased against Peterson. The claim was based on how she answered her juror questionnaire, where she stated she’d never been the victim or witness of a crime, or a party in a lawsuit.

[..]

LAIP’s claims of new evidence and all other claims tied to this new appeal were rejected Thursday with the court writing that Peterson’s request “does not show that any extraordinary reason exists” for it to be heard by the state appeals court.

What’s next?​

Janey Peterson, sister-in-law and advocate of Peterson, indicated LAIP likely would respond to the court’s decision. She said the appeals court process would not have any hearings, so a public appearance by Scott Peterson is unlikely.

All of the other claims rejected by the state appeals court can and should be filed in a Superior Court, according to the appeals court’s decision. Peterson also can file his claims and appeals in California’s Supreme Court and in federal court.

A federal petition would start in the U.S. Northern District Court, since the case was tried in San Mateo County. If Peterson lost his case there, it could be appealed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals and finally, he could seek review of the habeas petition by the U.S. Supreme Court.

He's preposterous. And indefensible.

And worst if all, not only did he murder his wife and unborn son, he's WASTING the oxygen they should still be here bbreathing.

Does he never shut up?