A jury that was convicted of murder Scott Peterson pleaded guilty to a retrial. She said she did not feel animosity towards him until she heard that he had murdered his wife, in a case that captured worldwide attention in 2004.
“Before the trial I didn’t feel any anger or resentment towards Scott. Richelle Nice, a former juror, testified that it was somewhat true after the trial.
Peterson’s lawyers claim that Peterson was protected by her secret bias and prevented him from a fair trial. They also claim that Peterson lied to them about her jury questionnaire.
Nice tended to stick to her written statements when she was being questioned. She stated that she did not consider herself to be a victim of domestic violence and didn’t fear for her unborn child.
Nice assisted in the conviction of Peterson in 2004 for the murders of Laci Peterson (27-year-old) and Conner, their unborn child. Prosecutors claim that he dumped his wife’s body in San Francisco Bay on Christmas Eve 2002. The remains were discovered months later.
Nice only testified after she was granted immunity against perjury for any misstatements she made in her earlier sworn statements.
She explained in it and Friday’s testimony why she did not disclose to a jury questionnaire in advance that she had obtained a restraining or temporary order in 2000 while she was pregnant. She stated then that she “really fears” for her unborn baby.
She also refuted the court documents that indicated that her boyfriend was living with her during her second pregnancy.
Nice is now being addressed by her name in court, although she was previously referred to as Juror 7 In post-trial media interviews, Nice also used her name. She also used it when she co-authored a book on the case together with six other jurors.
During the trial, she was called “Strawberry Shortcake”, because her bright red hair is now brown and blondish at both ends.
Peterson was seen in court wearing a San Mateo County Jail uniform. This was after Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo refused Peterson’s request to wear street clothes during what is expected be a one-week hearing.
The California Supreme Court has charged Massullo with deciding whether Nice committed misconduct by failing to disclose her history before becoming a juror and if she had a bias that denied Peterson fair trial.
Nice said that her previous denials of sworn writing were true, but there were some nuances.
She did not consider herself to be a victim domestic violence, as her boyfriend’s ex girlfriend didn’t threaten her unborn child in the 2000 case.
Nice stated that Nice didn’t threaten her baby. Nice also testified that she included her unborn baby in her application because she was “being spiteful.”
Nice testified that although she wasn’t intending to intentionally hurt my child, if we fought and rolled like dummies on a ground… I was afraid I would lose my child doing stupid things like that.”
Although her boyfriend, who was living with her at the time, was arrested in 2001 and pleaded guilty to the charges, Nice stated that she had hit him, and not vice versa.
She testified that Eddie never struck her, and she was not a victim to domestic violence. “Yes, I did punch him.”
Her boyfriend called the police on her. She didn’t cooperate and he was arrested instead. Nice testified.
She claimed police could have been misled into arresting a wrong person, because she had accidentally cut her lip while wearing braces at the time.
Pat Harris, one of Peterson’s lawyers, suggested that Nice might have been biased against Peterson due to her ex-boyfriend being admittedly unfaithful. However, she denied it had influenced her.
Peterson was only arrested after his paramour spoke out, claiming that Peterson had told his wife he was gone one month before she disappeared.
Nice generally stayed true to her jury questionnaire answer when she said “no” that she had never been a victim of crime. In 2020, she expanded on her swear declaration that she did not feel “victimized” in the sense that the law might.
“I have been in many fights and I don’t consider myself a victim. Harris told her that it might be different for her or someone else.
Nice stated it was “absolutely true” when, in 2020’s written declaration, she stated that she had “not formed any conclusions regarding evidence in the case before I was called to the jury deliberation area.”
She claimed she was not in financial difficulties at the time and that she borrowed $1,000 from another juror. This contradicts previous statements.
Peterson’s lawyers plan to call witnesses to prove that Nice was biased because she could relate to Peterson’s unborn child’s death as a mother.
Nice contradicted the testimony of other witnesses by claiming she didn’t call any of her sons “little men” and that she doesn’t recall calling Peterson’s unborn child by that name during trial or deliberations.
In her first media interview, she said that the nickname was first used by her after the trial ended.
The judge has up to 90 days to issue her ruling after the hearing. This decision can be appealed by either party.
