Scott Peterson’s Murder Convictions of Wife and Unborn Son To Be Re-Examined

Share on Facebook

Scott Peterson’s murder convictions, concerning the death of his wife and unborn son, are going to be re-examined after the California Supreme Court ordered a re-examination of his 2004 trial.

The reasons for this controversial decision have now been outlined…

Very quickly, Peterson’s name became known by all Americans far and wide as news reports detailed the gruesome nature of his wife’s murder.

And our country has continued to come to terms with the shocking murder case.

A California court announced a huge development in Peterson’s sentence, and people are both confused and angry over the decision to re-examine his previous trial. Other important details about the jurors have now been released.

On December 24th, 2002, Laci Peterson, who was twenty-seven and 8 months pregnant with her first child, was initially reported as missing from her and Scott’s home in Modesto, California.

Many of which were lead by Peterson himself, who was portrayed as a grief-stricken husband and father-to-be.

Just a month after Laci’s disappearance, Amber Frey, a Fresno massage therapist, came forward at a police news conference and claimed that she was having an affair with Peterson, saying the affair began in November after Peterson told her he was single.

Laci’s body, along with her unborn child, was discovered in the San Fransico Bay area shore.

And was held without bail as charges of capital murder and double homicide pended.

Peterson consistently pleaded not guilty to the charges, but DNA and forensic evidence suggested otherwise.

And to ultimately avoid ever becoming a father.

Peterson was eventually found guilty of first-degree murder for Laci’s death and second-degree murder for their son, Conner’s death in November 2004. These convictions carried with them a sentence of at least thirty years behind bars.

Jurors agreed to hand Peterson the death penalty, a sentence that many people deemed as fair, considering the horrifying nature of his crime.

The forty-seven-year-old has appealed his sentencing a handful of times, once in 2012, and again in June this year.

California’s Supreme Court unexpectedly reversed his death penalty conviction.

Meaning that Peterson did not receive an impartial trial and new documents have outlined that crucial information.

“Even though the jurors gave no indication that their views would prevent them from following the law.”

But, there is a possibility that the decision could be overturned after the California Supreme Court recently ordered a re-examination of Peterson’s entire 2004 trial.

In a statement to E! Online, he said this: “We are certainly pleased that, as it did in reversing Scott’s penalty on direct appeal, the Supreme Court recognized the importance of a fairly selected jury. In particular, we agree not only with the Court’s apparent concern about juror candor during the jury selection process, but with its recognition about how central the misconduct here was to the ability of the jury to reach a fair decision in this case.”

The California Supreme Court agreed with Peterson’s legal team that there might be grounds for a retrial since a juror “committed prejudicial misconduct by not disclosing her prior involvement with other legal proceedings, including but not limited to being the victim of a crime.”

And upon hearing the news, people are furious over the decision…

With many slamming it as an act of pure injustice for Laci and Conner.

Should Peterson’s death penalty never have been revoked? Or does everyone have the right to a fair trial? This is a developing story, and we will post updates accordingly.