Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - SHOCKER: Scott Peterson double murder sentence reversed after wife Laci and Baby murdered.

Episode Date: August 25, 2020

Convicted double murderer Scott Peterson's death sentence has been reversed by California's Supreme Court. The high court found that the 2002 trial in the deaths of Peterson's wife Laci and their unborn son was fair; those murder convictions will stand.However, the court found that potential jurors were wrongly dismissed by the judge after they expressed general objections to the death penalty on a questionnaire. What happens now?Joining Nancy Grace Today:Joining Nancy Grace Today: Lara Yeretsian - Los Angeles, Ca. Criminal Defense Attorney, Dr Debbie Joffe-Ellis - Psychologist, Adjunct Professor at Columbia University   Steven Lampley - Former Detective, Author of "12 and Murdered" available August 28th on Amazon Jennifer Shen, Forensic Pathologist, Former San Diego Police Department Crime Lab Director Alexis Tereszcuk - CrimeOnline Investigative Reporter  Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.comSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

This is an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. In a stunning appellate decision, the Scott Peterson murder conviction death penalty sentence has been reversed. This is a punch to the stomach for victims' rights advocates and for the family of the murdered mom-to-be, Lacey Peterson, her unborn son, Connor, a victim as well. I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111. First of all, take a listen to our friend at Fox News. He was convicted and sentenced to die in 2005. And now we're finding out some 15 years later today the

California Supreme Court has overturned the death sentence. Peterson's lawyers had contended all along he was not able to get a fair trial because of all the pre-trial publicity with the case, but the court rejected that argument, yet it did say that the trial judge made a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that undermined Peterson's right to impartial jury during the penalty phase and that potential jurors were improperly dismissed from the jury pool after saying they personally disagreed with the death penalty, but that they would be willing to follow it and impose it.

Peterson is now 47 years old. He was convicted of first-degree murder. From everything we understand, it seems that murder conviction will stand, but not the death penalty. Prosecutors will have the right to try again for a death penalty conviction, although keep in mind there are more than 700 prisoners on California's death row, and the last time anyone was put to death was January of 2006. You're hearing our friend Anita Vogel at Fox News and what she said is exactly correct. Over 700 people languished on California's death row. The current governor Gavin Newsom has decided against the majority of the public to put a moratorium on the death penalty while he is governor anyway. There will be no death penalties. So the reality is that right now there will be no

death penalty for Scott Peterson anyway until Newsom is out of office, even though California voters voted to keep the death penalty. But what does it all mean? I can tell you this. It all started with this. Take a listen to a 911 call by Lacey's stepfather, Ron Gransky. Yes, my son-in-law called. He went to play golf this morning at 9.30. My daughter's been missing since this morning. She's eight months pregnant. She took her dog for a walk from the park. The dog came home with just a leaf shock. And the dog came back without your daughter?

Right. What's your stepdaughter's name? Scott Peterson. No, no, no, your stepdaughter. Lacey Peterson. Lacey P-P-E-R-S-O-N, right? P-P-E-R-S-O-N. And she's white, black, Hispanic, Asian, your stepdaughter. Lacey Peterson. Lacey P-T-E-R-S-O-N, right? P-T-E-R-S-O-N. And she's white, black, Hispanic, Asian?

She's Portuguese or what? How old is she? She's 26. And what time did she leave the house and then come back? That we don't know. We just got a call from her son-in-law. Said he left this morning at 9.30 to play golf. He's just got home.

About a half hour ago. Nowhere around. Okay, so she went to walk the dog away? eight months pregnant straight out to high profile la cal., California defense attorney, Laura Uretzian. Laura, wait, did I get that wrong? Wait, Scott Peterson told his father-in-law he was playing golf, but then after he was spotted at the San Francisco Bay where Lacey's body turned up, he then said he was fishing. Did I hear that right on the 911 call? He first told his father-in-law that he was playing golf when Lacey went missing?

The call doesn't tell us what Scott Peterson told his father-in-law. The father-in-law is telling the dispatcher. The father-in-law is telling the dispatcher what? Whatever it is that he's telling him, it doesn't necessarily mean that that's what Scott told him. Scott, early on from the beginning, when talking to the law enforcement, told them exactly where he'd been. That had never been a secret. He was very truthful about it as far as where he had been. You know, that's really interesting because at the beginning, he told people that he had been playing golf, just like he told his father-in-law. The day before he was planning, the evidence was showing that the day before he talked about actually playing golf, but he changed his plans based on the weather. My recollection of the evidence is that the next day he changed his mind and decided to go to the Berkeley Marina.

You know, what you're saying and with me is high profile defense lawyer, Laura Uretzian. So the weather was so bad he couldn't play golf. So he went out on the San Francisco Bay to go fishing with me and all star panel to break it down and put it back together again. Laura Uretzian who you've already heard from la lawyer uh dr debbie joffie ellis psychologist adjunct professor columbia university a dr debbie joffie ellis.com stephen lampley detective author of 12 and murdered on amazon at stephenlampley.com, Jennifer Shin, forensic pathologist, former San Diego Police Department crime lab director. But now to CrimeOnline.com investigative reporter Alexis Tereschuk joining me from California.

Alexis Tereschuk, you and I went through the entire trial together. We never missed a day of court. Alexis Tereschuk, as a matter of fact, the evidence did prove at trial that what the father-in-law, Lacey's father-in-law's father was saying is what Scott Peterson told him that morning. Peterson did not call to report his wife missing. He called Lacey's parents instead and said he'd been playing golf. Alexis, you're exactly right. This is Scott's first story was presented in court and it was that he was playing golf. He called his family, Lacey's mom and dad and said, I haven't seen Lacey. I've been out all day. I was golfing. I can't get in touch with her. Have y'all seen her?

And they immediately panicked. They called the police. The husband, the father of a baby who was about to be born any second, did not call the police. Guys, for those of you just joining us, a bombshell in the Scott Peterson double murder conviction. In the last hours, we learn a California appellate court has reversed the death penalty portion only. Apparently, in taking the death penalty off the table for Scott Peterson on a technicality, the California Supreme Court never says that he did not kill his wife. As a matter of fact, they make it very clear they do think he killed his wife. They go on to say in the ruling, quote, they point to considerable circumstantial evidence incriminating Peterson in themas eve disappearance and death of his pregnant 27 year old wife

lacy for those of you just joining us take a listen to our friends aka bc7 la we start with breaking news out of northern california where convicted killer scott peterson has won his death row appeal the california supreme court this morning has overturned his death row appeal. The California Supreme Court this morning has overturned his death sentence, but not the conviction on first-degree murder. 16 years ago, Peterson was found guilty of murdering his pregnant wife, Lacey, in Modesto. He challenged both the murder conviction and the death sentence, claiming widespread media attention and errors in jury selection deprived him of a fair trial. The Stanislaus County prosecutor can decide to retry the penalty phase of the case, but a decision will likely not be made until next year.

Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. For those of you just joining us, the bombshell decision by the California Supreme Court that the sentencing portion of Scott Peterson's trial alone will be reversed. He can either accept life behind bars or the state can move forward with a death penalty phase trial with an all new jury. How does it all start? Take a listen to our friends at ABC's 2020. The last time I saw Lacey, she and I were sitting side by side and Scott was sitting on the floor and we were watching TV and she said the baby was kicking. So I put my hand on her stomach because I'd never felt him kick She leaned over to me and she said mom. She says Scott doesn't like to do this she said I asked him to you know fill my stomach when

When the baby kicks and he never wants to touch my stomach That really really bothered me and that was the last time I saw her It seems as if Lacey had planned all along to have children and that was understood going into it. But if you analyze their marriage, it seems that when she got pregnant with Connor, things started going sideways. Going sideways is one way of putting it. Back to you, Alexis Tereschuk, CrimeOnline.com investigative reporter. The court made it very clear that there's a mountain of evidence to convict Peterson for the murders of Lacey and Connor, the baby. Their bodies washed ashore 24 hours apart.

And it's quite the coincidence, isn't it, Alexis Tereszczuk, that Scott Peterson is fishing in the exact same spot in the body of water where his wife's body and his baby's body are found at the time of their disappearance. And this was a place where he lied about going. First he said he was golfing. Then when there was evidence that he was there, then he messed up that he was there. This is shocking, but this is what the court did say. They are saying none of your nonsense, Scott.

None of this pretrial, the trials, you know, blaming Nancy Grace, blaming all the recorders that were there. That had nothing to do with the fact that you are guilty. Killed your wife, killed your baby. And you lied about it. And when you were caught, you were at the bottom of the state, you had bleached blonde hair, you had $15,000 in cash, you had your brother's ID on you. You were not doing anything. You weren't out trying to help find your wife or your missing baby. Like the parents and the thousands that we know that are innocent, you know, I always just think of those people, especially I always think of Polly Klaus's dad, who was just said, do anything. I will do

anything to let you know that I had nothing to do with this. Not Scott Peterson. He was doing nothing to make people think he was innocent. And the court upheld that. He is not innocent of murder. He is guilty of murder. To Stephen Lampley, detective author of 12 and Murdered on Amazon, I want you to take a listen to really compelling evidence in my mind. This is from Fox News special, The Scott Peterson Case. Take a listen. He takes his new boat that he had purchased and he comes here to launch the boat. Her husband reported her missing after he returned from a fishing trip, a trip he took by himself.

Her husband says he went fishing at a marina the day she disappeared, so investigators are searching that marina. The mystery here in Modesto fueled in large part by Scott Peterson's alibi, which remains flimsy at best. He comes home later in the day, realizes that she's not there, figures she's somewhere else, running errands, doing something for Christmas Eve, and takes the time to put his clothes in the wash,

take a shower, have a snack, and then realizes, maybe I should call somebody. So here's what's unusual. Scott decides to call Lacey's mother. Doesn't say, have you spoken to Lacey today? Do you know where she is? He says, Lacey's mother. Doesn't say, have you spoken to Lacey today? Do you know where she is? He says, Lacey is missing. I want to go to Stephen Lampley and Dr. Debbie Jaffe,

Ella's psychologist and professor at Columbia University. You know, when I have not been able to find, let's just say, John David, I call my husband and say, do you have John David? I don't say John David is missing. That's a very critical, subtle, but critical point. Dr. Debbie? Maybe it is and maybe it isn't, Nancy. I really could only give a more substantial opinion if I heard him use or not use that phrase often. You know, sometimes we bandy around words and phrases and they may indicate something, as you're implying, or not. Interesting. make Peterson placing himself where the body is found and placing himself there at the time she goes missing? Well, Nancy, I'm guessing perhaps that he's thinking, and again, I don't know what

Scott was thinking, perhaps he knows that he was not golfing. Maybe he's making an excuse for where he really, really was at the time, an alibi of sorts to cover the fact that he was fishing instead of dumping a body, perhaps. That would be my idea. You know, he thinks he was going to be caught by not golfing. So he fesses up to the fact that he was at the ocean for whatever reason in reality he was really there. Take a listen to our friends at Fox News. I realized they were zeroing in on Scott. We just knew his actions were suspicious and something was going on. And clearly his fishing story was not adding up.

One of the things you do as a reporter is you go up and down. You talk to everybody that you possibly can. I went over to the neighbor's house that lives directly across the street. The neighbor remembered Scott coming over to her house looking for Lacey. And she said, well, where were you? It's Christmas Eve. And he said, I was playing golf. The fact that that story differed from what we then heard was his alibi and where he says he was, was very upsetting. Back out to high profile criminal defense attorney, no stranger to a courtroom, Laura

Uretzian. That makes two people he told he was playing golf that morning. What do you make of it? What I make of it is what did he tell law enforcement when he was being questioned? Those are the people he needs to tell the truth to, the people who are investigating. And he was extremely honest with them. He told them exactly where he'd been, no hesitation. And he also was very helpful.

He was searching for his wife, he was making calls. This idea that he took Lacey's body and dumped it at the bay in San Francisco Bay is ridiculous. There's zero, zero forensic evidence showing that he did it. There was nothing, zero forensic evidence in his truck, zero forensic evidence really leading and showing that there was a body or her body in that boat. Or then he was even able to dump that body from that small boat, an exposed boat, not covered. Anyone could have seen it.

So this idea that he did that. You mean anyone out in the middle of San Francisco Bay during wind and storm and rain, i.e. nobody would have seen it? Nobody was out where he was. We're assuming it was storm and rain, i.e. nobody would have seen it. Nobody was out where he was. We're assuming it was storm and rain. There was no evidence that it was storm and rain. It wasn't the greatest of the weather. I thought that's why he didn't go golfing, because of the bad weather.

Well, we're talking about bad weather where he was living in Modesto. This is not Modesto. You know, that's why you are such a great lawyer, Laura Uretzian. Because my question to you was, why did he tell some people he was playing golf, then change his story to he was fishing? And you said what mattered was what he told cops. But what I'm saying is, and my question is, why did he change his story? Not that he told cops first he was golfing. He didn't.

By then he realized people had spotted him at the bay. He had to tell them. But he told other people that day, not the day before I was planning to go golfing, but that day that he had been golfing. You also mentioned that he was so forthcoming and so helpful. In fact, he told the cops what a great marriage he had, but seems like he left something out. Take a listen to our friends at Court TV. Amber tells the detective she's been seeing Scott Peterson only a few weeks, but they're already talking marriage. On December 9th, she recalls he broke down sobbing that he

had, quote, lost his wife. That's the same day Scott secretly bought his boat. Detective Brocchini knows he's on to something. I mean, he told Amber that he had lost his wife when she wasn't lost. And so, I mean, to me, that was a key. The detectives ask Amber to secretly record all future conversations with Scott. She agrees. They're also determined that no one will find out about her. That afternoon, the detectives take Amber to buy the reporting equipment. And then her phone rings.

It's Scott. He's caught everyone off guard. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. For those of you just joining us in a major bombshell to the Scott Peterson conviction, a California court has ruled the death penalty sentence is out. What are the choices? Will he now go into general population and no longer have the protections he had on death row? Will there be a new penalty phase?

Now, we saw that happen in the Jody Arias trial, if you will recall. What lays ahead? But I know this. I know that Lacey's mother, Sharon Rocha, is devastated. Now, we were just speaking to high-profile lawyer Laura Uretzian, who stated that Peterson was completely honest, forthcoming, and helpful about finding his wife. The reality is he didn't call 911. He waited for hours before he even called Lacey's parents to tell them he couldn't find her, that she was missing.

He immediately asked if his family would have grief counseling. But there's this little thing he left out when he was being so forthcoming with the cops. Listen. Hello? Amber? Yes. Scott continues to call Amber, and detectives are intent on getting him to repeat something he told her just before Lacey disappeared. Those four short but incriminating words, I lost my wife. You came and told me this elaborate lie about her missing and this tragedy and that this will be the first holidays without her?

I never said, Amber, I don't want to fight with you. You know that I never said, Amber, I don't want to fight with you. You know that I never said tragedy or missing. Oh, yes, you said you've lost your wife. No. Yes. Obviously without me saying much. I said that I lost my wife. Yes, you did.

I did. Bingo. This is what investigators needed. For us, that was a huge statement on his part because how do you predict that? I mean, you're going to come up with a lie about that to try and woo some girl into a romance that you're not supposed to be part of,

and then all of a sudden it comes true. So Laura Uretzian with me, high-profile criminal defense attorney out of L.A. Laura, do you believe in clairvoyance? So Scott Peterson said just before Lacey goes missing and ends up murdered that he had just lost his wife and this would be the first Christmas without her. And it all turned out to be true. You think he's psychic? My question is, if Scott Peterson was really planning on murdering his wife, is that what he would be telling someone who's only been dating for a couple of weeks?

And literally, that's all it was, a few weeks. And sleeping with and talking about getting married. Yeah. How many men have said that to women just to get into bed with them? I mean, it's not a surprise. Yes. Was he lying to her? Was he cheating on his wife? men have said that to women just to get into bed with them i mean it's it's not a surprise yes was he being was he lying to her was he cheating on his wife but the idea that he would tell someone who he just he'd been with just a couple of weeks that um you know and whatever he said is really

and i a glimpse into what he was thinking and that he was planning to kill his wife is ridiculous yes of course the prosecution made a huge deal out of that because it is a huge deal he says his wife is dead and that this is the first christmas he'll have without her and then a couple of days later she is dead and it's the first christmas without her she goes missing on christmas eve i don't care why he said it with him that you know what it almost doesn't matter that just just because he said that to her it doesn't mean that he was planning to kill his wife it really shows you that he'll do anything uh to be with to get laid yeah i mean yeah you know you said it you said it laura your rat said you said it. You said it, Laura Juretson.

You said it. He'll do anything, including killing his wife. You said he'll do... No. Apparently, the jury disagreed. This wasn't his first affair. So, this has to make me like him more? No, it just doesn't mean...

Just because someone's had an affair, it doesn't... Yes, it looks awful. It doesn't look great. Yeah, it does look awful. Alexis Torres-Shuck, let's talk about the other evidence. Lori Urethian is right in the sense that one nail does not a coffin seal. What else is the evidence? Well, the evidence that they had was that they had a dog that and I know that this is controversial, but there was a dog and they found the scent of Lacey at her home, obviously.

But the scent stopped. She didn't it. The dog determined that she got into a vehicle, not that she walked away. So wasn't that she was kidnapped in the park or something happened somewhere else. You know what? Let's talk about that. Hold your thought, Alexis, because I want to go through what you're saying. And then we'll have Laura Uretzi and weigh in because I'm sure she's going to discredit the dog. Guys, don't be angry with her. She's a defense lawyer. This is what she does for a living. And she is a master at it.

To Jennifer Shen, forensic pathologist, the former San Diego Police Department crime lab director, Jennifer Shin, the dog followed Lacey's scent to where the car was parked and then it seemingly cut off. The dog followed a scent all the way to the San Francisco Bay, from the home all the way to the bay. What do you make of it, Jennifer Shin? Well, the thing about the dogs is they are incredibly sensitive, and they can really give investigators a lot of information. So I think it's reasonable that if she was taken away in a car

that the dog would be able to smell her from the house to the car and then when they were at the bay that he could then pick that scent up again. And obviously they found the bodies where the dog said they were, so there certainly was a lot of validity to that. Dogs are used for this sort of thing all the time and they're very very successful but they are dogs um and you know they're they're certainly it isn't a hundred percent obviously and there's some there's some there's some talk about the fact that they aren't as scientifically valid as you might want them to be but in this case i think

the dog did a very good job to uh stephen lampley former detective author of 12 and murdered at stephenlampley.com a search dog handler testified that her canine picked up lacy peterson's scent at a pylon at the berkeley marina where scott peterson launched what he says was a solo fishing trip the day his wife vanished. The dog handler was Eloise Anderson. She was with the Contra Costa County Search and Rescue Team. Her dog was a lab named Tremble. And Tremble hit on the scent four days after Peterson reported his pregnant wife missing to her parents, not the police. What do you make of dog evidence? Stephen Lampley, I've used it many, many times in court

and it's sanctioned by the court, just like polygraphs in civil cases, just like fingerprints, just like DNA. This is a form of evidence that is court-sanctioned. What do you make of it? In fact, I've told people the best witness I've ever put on the stand was a dog. Go ahead, Steve. That's right, Nancy. Dogs have no reason to lie. So dogs are really accurate.

Now, some dogs are more accurate than others. We know that. But dog tracking and dog evidence is very reliable for the most part. It's very accurate for the most part. Again, like I said, we have some animals that are better than others. But if this dog, in this case, picks up her scent at home, then we skip to the marina or on the on the ocean and he picks her scent up there uh or doesn't uh it's it's a very reliable evidence nancy very it's very reliable okay everybody buckle your seat belt here she comes laura uretzian what's wrong with the dog well this is the same dog that failed twice out of three times in vehicle trails

right so this is not a very accurate dog and this is not one that's very reliable and you can't argue it really is far-fetched to argue that this is reliable evidence okay so let me understand something laura you agree that the death penalty that the court was right by reversing the death penalty. Of course, I disagree. But you disagree with the same court that agreed with the prosecution's version, including, as they said, dog scent and ocean current evidence. So you agree with the court, but not when it suits you. I agree with the court as far as overturning the death penalty. But clearly you are right.

I disagree with the court on their assessment. But this is the appellate court. The standard is very different than what it is for a jury in a jury trial. And it would take more than if there's enough circumstantial evidence the courts going to leave it's not going to touch the the conviction what hopefully may happen in the future is if there's some evidence that was not known at the time new evidence that's come, and that's brought in. The court can look at this again and decide based on that evidence, if we added all of that into the mix, what the jury's decision would have been.

You know what? You lost me a long time ago, and I've got a JD and a master's from NYU. So I'm going to try to figure out what that very long sentence meant. I'm talking about a rich. What I'm talking is about a future rich. A renovated Corpus. Okay, there you go. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. crime stories with nancy grace for those of you just joining us in a bombshell decision a california appellate court has reversed the penalty phase in the scott peterson double

murder conviction katie johnson at cbs News Sacramento. Today, the California Supreme Court overturned Scott Peterson's death sentence for the murder of his pregnant wife, saying the trial judge made a series of clear and significant errors during jury selection. The court upheld Peterson's murder conviction and said prosecutors may try again for the same sentence. 27-year-old Lacey Peterson was eight months pregnant when she was killed. Investigators say Christmas Eve 2002, Peterson dumped their bodies from his fishing boat into the San Francisco Bay where they resurfaced months later. Peterson is now 47 years old. Connor's body was found. As I recall, his body was found first. But my point is their bodies were drastically different.

Connor's body, according to eyewitnesses, looked like a little naked baby doll. Pristine. There on the beach. Lacey's body, however, was horribly decomposed. But even in death, she protected her baby. Some of the strongest muscle and tissue in the human body is the uterus that surrounds the baby.

And for all the months that Lacey drifted in the tides, her body slowly decomposing, that strong muscle tissue protected Connor until in the end he floated out of her uterus as it decomposed. Therefore, his little body was pristine. Her body was greatly decomposed, and the state says she was still wearing the same clothes

she was wearing the night before she disappeared. Part of the defense at trial was that someone else murdered Lacey. For what? And then framed, went to the trouble to frame Scott Peterson. That was after many, many other ploys were tested out on the public via the media, and they didn't work. For instance, drug dealers, a Hawaiian gang, a burglar across the street, thugs in the park. I mean, it went on. A mother, a woman who wanted to be a mother somewhere cut the baby out and then kept Lacey alive for a while and killed her. There were so, and then got rid of the baby too. There were so many zany theories. But finally, it was decided

the defense would go with someone else killed her and then decided to frame Peterson. Joining me in All-Star panel, Laura Uretzian, high-profile criminal defense attorney, L.A., Dr. Debbie Joffe Ellis, psychologist, Stephen Lampley, detective, Jennifer Shin, forensic pathologist, and Alexis Tereschuk, CrimeOnline.com investigative reporter. Jennifer Shin, could you explain the forensic evidence we know of in the case and how the bodies had decayed so differently at the time of their discovery? There really wasn't much forensic evidence in this case. I think one that was somewhat important was that one of Lacey's, apparently one of Lacey's hair is found on some pliers in the boat. And this was a boat she didn't know about and hadn't visited. So that was certainly of interest.

They did mitochondrial DNA on that, which is not as good as a nuclear DNA, but still, it's still a good piece of evidence. The body, the decay of Lacey's... Wait, are you saying that it was Lacey's hair in the pliers based on mitochondrial DNA? That is what the mitochondrial DNA showed, yes. And isn't it true that mitochondrial DNA is used every single day? It is based on the lineage of the mother, correct? That is correct. Go ahead, please.

It's not quite as accurate. It's not quite as accurate as identifying the DNA. Through a nuclear DNA, right, where you have the father and the mother. The decomposition of the bodies. Isn't it true, Jennifer, that you yourself have advanced cases that had mitochondrial DNA? Yes, we've definitely worked with mitochondrial DNA, both on humans and on animals. So you accept it as established science, is that correct? Oh, absolutely.

Oh, okay, because by the way you were talking, I thought there was something wrong with mitochondrial DNA. But actually, there's not. Let me go to you, Alexis Teresha. I want to clear something up. The reason for this reversal is that, not because of media, not because of blaming me. I forgot about that one. Thank you for reminding me.

It is always your fault. Don't forget. Good times. But because the court said that, while the jury was okay as far as guilt innocence, the jury was fine for that, but the jury was not okay for the penalty phase because about 13 out of how many, 13, 1400 jurors that were first gleaned were not questioned separately when they said, I don't believe in the death penalty,

but I would follow the law. Is that what happened? They were not voidired, jury questioned, juror questioned separately. Is that right? Explain to me why they're doing this. So the jurors were actually let go by the judge when they when they gave that statement that they they personally didn't believe in the death penalty, but they could consider it for this case.

He automatically let them go. And he didn't. This wasn't counted against the prosecution or the defense's number of strikes that they can have. You can't have unlimited numbers. So then you say, oh, oops, we're out of jurors. Just can't have a case. You only get a certain amount. So the judge let these 13 go. And what the appeals court has said is that that goes against everything that should be the process during jury selection. And that this is a Supreme, this is obviously something the Supreme Court has been very clear about for a very long time. The judge made an error in allowing these jurors to be dismissed. Not allowing, he dismissed them. Got it.

And that they should not have been dismissed. DeLucchi, according to them, improperly excused 13 prospective jurors in a pool of 1,500 people who had filled out written juror questionnaires. The 13 professed that they were opposed to the DP, but the court said the judge should have verbally questioned them instead of dismissing them. So what will life be like for Scott Peterson in general population? We'll see. Nancy Grace, Crime Story, signing off. Goodbye, friend. This is an iHeart Podcast.