Crime Stories with Nancy Grace - SPECIAL WEEKEND CRIME STORIES UPDATE: IT NEVER ENDS! Scott Peterson to Walk Free?

Episode Date: August 20, 2022

A juror in Scott Peterson’s murder trial granted immunity to testify in a San Mateo County courtroom. Richelle Nice is accused of lying on her juror questionnaire for Peterson's 2004 trial. Nice has been accused of lying, by not disclosing that she had filed for a protective order against her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend whom Nice said was stalking her. Nice also did not disclose she had been a victim of domestic violence. Peterson's attorney accused Nice of intentionally lying to get on the jury to convict the accused husband.  After more than five and a half hours, proceedings closed. The judge tells both sides to submit memorandums, if they like, by mid-September. The jurist has up to 90 days to release a decision.  Joining Nancy Grace Today: Dale Carson - High Profile Attorney (Jacksonville), Former FBI Agent, Former Police Officer, Author: "Arrest-Proof Yourself, DaleCarsonLaw.com Caryn Stark - NYC Psychologist, www.carynstark.com, Twitter: @carynpsych, Facebook: "Caryn Stark"  Greg Smith - Special Deputy Sheriff, Johnson County Sheriff's Office (Kansas), Executive Director of the Kelsey Smith Foundation, www.kelseysarmy.com, Twitter: @KSFTIPS  Dr. Michelle DuPre - Former Forensic Pathologist, Medical Examiner and Detective: Lexington County Sheriff's Department, Author: "Homicide Investigation Field Guide" & "Investigating Child Abuse Field Guide", Forensic Consultant DMichelleDupreMD.com Alexis Tereszcuk - CrimeOnline.com Investigative Reporter, Writer/Fact Checker, Lead Stories dot Com, Twitter: @swimmie2009  See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

You're listening to an iHeart Podcast. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. Why won't he just go away? How many times do I have to say the name Scott Peterson? But Scott Peterson, convicted of murdering his wife and unborn child, Lacey and Connor Peterson, is back in court, trying his best to land a new trial, hoping that somehow a second jury will feel differently about the murder of his wife and unborn child than the first jury did. How is he maneuvering it? I'm Nancy Grace. This is Crime Stories. Thank you for being with us here at Fox Nation and Sirius XM 111.

Believe it or not, Scott Peterson is back in court with a full cadre of defense attorneys and supporters insisting somebody else, don't know who, murdered his wife and baby. Now, as a refresher, let's remember that Scott Peterson himself places his own self at the scene of the murder on the day that Lacey goes missing. Scott Peterson immediately ordered the porn channel, tried to sell the house he and Lacey shared and her car. I guess that indicates he knew she wasn't coming back. He tried to do that in the weeks after she goes missing. We know Peterson was having a full-on affair with a gorgeous young woman, Amber Fry. And either Peterson is a clairvoyant or he's guilty of murder because just before Lacey goes missing, he tells Fry, his lover, Wow, this is going to be my first Christmas without my wife. I'm going to be a widower at Christmas. And poof, he was. There's so much more evidence

to convict Scott Peterson than just that. But it's not really the evidence that he's relying on. Peterson and his defense team is claiming that there was juror misconduct. That juror, juror number seven, Rochelle Nice, nicknamed by me during the trial, Strawberry Shortcake, because her hair is such a bright red like the character Strawberry Shortcake. He says she lied, lied through her teeth. Now, listen, that's what voir dire is all about, jury selection, which coincidentally means to speak the truth. The defense and the prosecution had a 23-page questionnaire by which they could judge each juror. The juror would have to fill it out. Not only that, they both had their own individual questioning of each juror back and forth and back and forth. Yet they claim they failed to ferret out the fact that she once, years before the trial, had taken out a TRO against her

boyfriend's ex-girlfriend that Nice claimed was harassing her during her pregnancy, during Nice's pregnancy. Also, there are claims that she was the victim of domestic abuse. Well, Rochelle Nye says she did not consider herself to be a crime victim, nor did she consider the age-old TRO to be part of a lawsuit. Those are the two questions that Scott Peterson is relying on to try and get a new trial. For those of you that do not remember the case, I'll never forget it. Nine months pregnant, first child, dead, body weighted down and thrown into the dark, cold waters of the San Francisco Bay. Then weeks, weeks, weeks passed. I remember when it happened like it was yesterday. A baby washes ashore, and it's pristine. It looks like a shiny little plastic baby doll. Why? After all that time in the water. Because even in death, Lacey Peterson's uterus, one of the strongest, I guess you could say, muscles in the body,

protected the baby. And as her body decomposed, finally, the uterus decomposed, and baby Connor floated out. I remember I was there. I was on the very back seat in the courtroom because I had been working out front of the courthouse. I ran in just in time. I was the last one in the courtroom, I'm embarrassed to say,

and I had to sit all the way in the back, and I had to sit on top of my backpack so I could see up to the front when Lacey's mother, Sharon Rocha, took the stand. And she described burying Lacey. It was just bones at that point. And in her arms, she buried baby Connor in one casket. That's something you never forget. You know those moments in life, you just never forget. The good and the bad moments, that's one of the moments I'll never forget. And now, because of alleged juror misconduct, there could be a new trial or

potentially he walks free on time served. First of all, take a listen to our friend Glenn Walker, KTLA. Following a reprieve from the death penalty, Scott Peterson has been re-sentenced to life in prison. Peterson appeared in a San Mateo courtroom this morning. His lawyer says Peterson wanted to speak, but the judge would not allow it. It's been nearly 17 years since Peterson killed his pregnant wife, Lacey, and their unborn child. He was sentenced to death in March of 2005. The state Supreme Court overturned that sentence in 2020, ruling the jury was improperly screened for bias against the death penalty. A judge is now deciding whether he will be granted a new trial.

With me in All-Star panel to make sense of what we know right now is Scott Peterson. Yet again, it's like a roller coaster. When you go over the very top hill and you fly down, and then all of a sudden there's another one. There's another one. That's what it feels like with a Scott Peterson conviction. Here's another one. Dale Carson is with me, high-profile lawyer, joining us out of Jacksonville, former FBI agent, author of Arrest Proof Yourself,

and you can find him at dellcarsonlaw.com. Renowned psychologist joining us out of Manhattan, Karen Stark at karenstark.com. Karen with a C. Greg Smith, Special Deputy Sheriff, Johnson County, Executive Director of the Kelsey Smith Foundation, and you can find him at kelseysarmy.com. Dr. Michelle Dupree, longtime friend and colleague, former forensic pathologist, medical examiner,

and author of, and this is a great book, Homicide Investigation Field Guide. But first, to CrimeOnline.com investigative reporter Alexis Tereszczuk. Alexis, does it never end with this guy? All the affairs, all the lies, the dying the hair, the trying to leave the country, the lying. You remember when he was telling Amber Frye he was, I think, in

Paris for New Year? Remember him? And he even lied. He didn't lie just to Lacey's family. He didn't lie to his own family. He was also lying to Amber. Well, one, that he was in Paris, but two, he initially said when he very first met her, his wife was dead before Lacey had even gone missing. He told Amber that his wife was dead. And this would be his first Christmas as a widow. I mean, wait a minute, Dale Carson, you're the hot shot defense attorney. No offense.

But what do you do with that? Your client is either a killer or he is clairvoyant. And you've told me before, you don't believe in clairvoyance. So I guess that means he's a killer. That's why you don't run your mouth if you're a criminal. But he did. So what do you do with that? You know, don't play look here if you're a criminal. But he did. So what do you do with that? You know, don't play look here, not there with me.

Don't even start that with me. I ask you, what do you do with that as a defense attorney? When your client says, yeah, this is my first Christmas as a widow. And guess what? A month later, it is his first Christmas as a widow. You try to discredit the alligator, right? The ledger. Are you calling Amber Fry an alligator? I know what you're doing. You know, long story short, this guy.

So Alexis Tereshak, didn't we just get out of court? Didn't we just finish a hearing for scott peterson where his death penalty conviction was knocked down to life did that not just happen that did just happen and then and you know there was a trial there was a hearing about it and not a trial there was not a trial i know there was a hearing hearing and scott had the audacity to ask are you calling him scott it's like you call oj simpson oj what are you calling him Scott? It's like you call OJ Simpson OJ. What are you going to go out and have a drink after this program? No. You think he's going to invite you over to dinner and sell Block D? What? Scott Peterson wanted to speak and the judge just

said no way but you know who did speak in this hearing? Wait wait wait wait wait wait wait. Let me think about that for a moment. Scott Peterson wants to be the center of attention. Wow. He wants to speak. He wants to open his mouth in court. Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You know what? Sometimes, you know, to you, Greg Smith, and then to you, I need to shrink big time. Greg Smith, you have seen a lot. And you got into this business, unlike myself. Well, I don't know about that.

Let me rephrase. You got in this business unwillingly after your daughter was kidnapped and killed. You couldn't just stand by on the sidelines. You got in the business. Does it ever surprise you how narcissistic killers are? Like, it's all about him. He wants to talk and that just irritates me no i agree nancy it irritates the crap out of me too but that seems to be um a common characteristic between all these people that do these types of things they're very sure of themselves they think they're the smartest person in the room um same thing with kelsey's killer i mean he uh you watch the uh the uh interrogation of him after he was arrested

when they're talking about Kelsey, and he honestly thought that nobody knew more than he did in that room. And, you know, I don't know what it is. I don't know why that's a characteristic, but it seems to be a common thread through all of them. You know, you brought up a thought. Remember, Karen Stark with me, New York psychologist. Remember how you and I together watched Jodi Arias singing in the interrogation room? I mean, she knew she was being watched. And I believe she did like yoga, did a headstand, just all sorts of antics. Knowing she knew darn well that she was being watched

and starts singing and then even behind bars, she won America's Got Talent behind bars. Does the narcissism ever end? And here's Scott Peterson, when he's having a gift drop in his lap, he gets cut from death penalty to life. He wants to stand up and talk? You know what? Shut your pie hole.

He always wanted to talk, Nancy. Just like you brought up the right person, Jodi Arias. Yeah. There are exhibitions. They want to get attention. They don't have a conscience. And so he's not plagued by thoughts of killing anybody. He just wants to get out there.

He believes that he's brilliant above the law and he'll be able to state his case. Don't you remember he was on television? He gave interviews. He picked up a phone call. You know, it's kind of like second verse, same as the first. It's all about him. And let me ask you this, Karen Stark. Infidelity is not punishable under the law.

So that is just an irritant in this case, the fact that he cheated so badly on Lacey. But when I say second verse, same as the first, the serial cheating, in my mind, is some kind of a narcissism because you think it's all about you and you getting some kind of gratification or pleasure. It's not just about the sex. It's something else. Nobody else matters. They're all just pawns in your game. You know, and then when you got a baby on the way, it's not just about you and your wife.

Like, there is no way I'm ever going to cheat on David. Not that I want to, but even if I ever did want to, I would risk losing the twins for Pete's sake. I mean, that's crazy talk. Is that narcissism when you are having affairs with no regard to the other people in your life? Well, there's narcissism attached to it, but it's also a sexual addiction. It's a way to overcome feelings of inferiority, not that the person is aware of that, and insecurity, depression. It's just losing yourself and being with multiple partners. It has nothing to do with true feelings. Like I keep saying, Nancy, this is absolutely what you need to know about a killer. There is no conscience. So each person he's with has no real meaning. Even if he intended to kill Lacey,

so it could be with Amber, it had nothing to do with feelings. It just was moving on to the next person. They are all dolls to him, not people. And once again, as Alexis Tereshak just pointed out, he gets in court, he's getting this huge gift of his DP knocked down to life, and he wants to take the mic. Okay, take a listen to Hour Cut 37.

Our friend Jim Ray at Inside Edition. This is what happened at the last hearing. Wife killer Scott Peterson returned to court for another day of reckoning. This just-released mugshot shows him as he looks now, age 49, little changed from 17 years ago when he stood trial for murdering his pregnant wife Lacey and their unborn son Connor in a case that riveted the nation. Peterson's family marched into the courtroom. He did see them and gave them a big warm smile when he entered the courtroom. Lacey's family was also present but came through a private

door. At today's hearing, 16 seats were allocated for Lacey's family and friends and 16 for Peterson supporters. It's the first time Lacey's loved ones have come face to face with her killer in nearly two decades. They heard the judge re-sentenced Peterson to life imprisonment and he is no longer on death row in San Quentin. His original death sentence was overturned. And I want you to hear what was said in court by Lacey's mom at our first drama with Scott Peterson post-conviction. Take a listen to our cut 38 Gemma Ray Inside Edition. At today's hearing, Lacey's mother told Peterson, I have seen no sorrow or remorse from you at all.

Lacey's dead, Scott, because she loved you. She finished up by saying, two facts remain the same all these years later. Number one, Lacey and Connor are still dead. And number two, you killed him. And then she walked off. Lacey's sister Amy told him there have been so many special occasions that Lacey and Connor should have been here for. It makes me sick being here today in front of you again. Speaking outside court today was

Peterson's sister-in-law, Jamie Peterson, who insists he is innocent. He's been in prison for over 18 years for a crime he did not commit. Yes, he did. Yes, he did. But I don't have a problem at all with Janie Peterson because if my son, my brother, my husband was charged with a crime, I wouldn't believe it. I don't think I would let myself look at the evidence. And I think that's what's happened to her, and she has been standing by her brother-in-law all this time as the family spokesperson. That doesn't mean he's innocent.

You know, I've got to ask everybody, why do we keep seeing documentaries suggesting that Scott Peterson is innocent and vilifying everyone, including the prosecutors in this case, that insists he's guilty, along with the jury. What do you make of that, Alexis Derezchuk? I think that there is a huge draw for this case because of how absolutely beautiful Lacey was. I mean, stunning, gorgeous woman. And then Scott Peterson, many people consider him very, very handsome. And he hasn't changed at all, as you can see from the recent mugshot. He looks exactly the same.

Most people don't thrive in prison. They look skinny. They look gaunt. They haven't had any time outside in the sun. Scott looks like he just got off the golf course. So I think that the physical attraction of this case and then there's just the lurid details are something that people are fascinated with. I think that it's a story that is timeless. You know, this innocent, beautiful young victim and this man and his web of lies.

Like people cannot imagine how somebody could come up with so many lies. I'm in Paris. My wife is dead. But really, I'm at a vigil for my wife and baby who are missing. And then, you remember, he did things like he sold Lacey's car before her body was even found. And ordered the porn channel. Yeah, immediately. She had been missing for like three days and he ordered the porn channel.

Hint, hint. And here we are today and there's a chance another chance and a good chance that he could walk free or get a new trial why take a listen hour cut 39 this is amy larson at kron4 today peterson's defense team asked for more time in order to prepare for that trial. They are looking into a juror who sat on Peterson's original 2004 murder trial. This juror, her name is Rochelle Nice. in order to be selected for that jury that ultimately found Scott Peterson guilty of murdering his wife, Lacey, and their unborn son, Connor. So the judge granted that extension. They're getting 60 more days to continue their investigation into juror Rochelle Nice. Now,

the prosecution opposed this. This legal process has been going on for quite some time now. We've had a lot of Scott Peterson hearings this year and the prosecution wanted to move forward with the criminal guilt phase of the trial to get a decision on whether Scott Peterson will get a new trial for the guilt phase. Before I get into the legality of what, as I named her, Rochelle Neese did, I want to ask Dr. Michelle Dupree, and keep this in mind as we discuss these esoteric legal issues. Dr. Michelle Dupree, could you explain to me why baby Connor was pristine when he was found washed up on the shore as opposed to Lacey who was basically just hair and bones? Well Nancy that's a very good question and the reason is anatomy. The baby was unborn. He was protected by the strongest muscle in our body and the thickest muscle in our body

the uterus and that protected him from all the elements including the ocean and anything that might be in it so how long does it take in water for well first of all i guess the uterus would not have been exposed to water until her outside of her body of lacy's body decomposed i'm talking about her skin and I guess there's not any bones like the ribs protect the lungs. There's not really any bones protecting the uterus. Do the hip bones protect it at all? No, not really. The uterus is in the lower part of your abdominal cavity and it's really not protected by anything except your fat and your belly fat. And so it has a lot of good insulation. And again, the cooler the temperature, the cooler the water, that's also going to be very protective,

and things will decompose a lot more slowly, especially if it is such a thick muscle like that. crime stories with nancy grace again everybody i'm nancy grace and this is crime story scott peterson believe it or not back in the headlines trying his best to get a new trial hoping there'll be a different outcome than the guilty verdict the first jury handed down. Now, he's already escaped the California death penalty because the California appellate court ruled that certain jurors were excluded, jurors that said they were opposed to the death penalty but could keep an open and fair mind. The appellate court says they

were excluded from the jury pool, and they immediately reduced the death penalty down to life behind bars. Now Peterson wants out of that sentence as well. This case has gone on and on and on. Lacey was murdered years ago. Peterson went to prison in 2004, but he and his supporters never give up. There have been cable so-called investigation specials that indicate he's really innocent, but that is not the evidence that was presented at court. And the jury agrees. Also, the California Supreme Court agrees. They made it very clear in their last decision. There is ample evidence to believe Scott Peterson murdered his wife. That's not the reason, insufficient evidence. He's trying to get a new trial.

Peterson and his defense team is claiming that there was juror misconduct. That juror, juror number seven, Rochelle Nice, he says she lied, lied through her teeth. Now, she once, years before the trial, had taken out a TRO against her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend that Nice claimed was harassing her during her pregnancy, during Nice's pregnancy. Also, there are claims that she was the victim of domestic abuse. Well, Rochelle Nice says she did not consider herself to be a crime victim, nor did she consider the age-old TRO to be part of a lawsuit. Those are the two questions. And the defense is dancing in the hallway. Take a listen to our cut 41, K-R-O-N-4. The defense team of Scott Peterson is trying to have his conviction overturned,

and they are seeking a new trial. They claim one juror committed misconduct. They say she lied in order to make it onto the jury panel that ultimately found Peterson guilty of murder and sentenced him to death. That juror is Rochelle Nice. You may recognize her from the highly publicized 2005 trial. She was nicknamed Strawberry Shortcake for her fiery red hair. I spoke with Rochelle Nice's attorneys to hear her side of the story. They say she's been unfairly

painted as a monster and they deny any allegations of misconduct. Scott Peterson's defense team has lodged a petition of habeas corpus and one of the counts in that petition has alleged that our client Rochelle Nice purposefully lied on her questionnaire in order to get on the jury because she wanted to you know convince Scott Peterson. Okay to to you, Alexis Sherezchuk, CrimeOnline.com investigative reporter, explain to me what's happening. So all of the other legal avenues for Scott Peterson have been exhausted. His attorneys have tried everything under their power to get this case overturned because of legal things, but they haven't been able to find it. So they are focusing on this one juror who over the years has kept in, kept in contact

sounds the right word. She has written letters to Scott in prison. And so they have focused in on her and say that she has lied. She lied on her juror application, not an application question. Why is she writing him behind bars? Well, she said she wanted to find out why he did this, that she was so traumatized and horrified by what had actually happened that she hoped that he would explain to her what the reasoning was behind what happened. I don't believe he's ever written her back and said, here are the reasons why I killed Lacey. said repeatedly over the years the reason she didn't put these the in her application or her questionnaire what had happened to her personally was it wasn't the same thing she said she was she never thought she was going to be murdered by the boyfriend that she was filing a restraining order again she didn't think it was a in any way shape or form the same. She just didn't think that she was going to end up being murdered.

It was just a bad domestic situation. Hold on. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. I thought that the defense is claiming that she lied as to whether she's ever been a crime victim and whether she's been a party to a lawsuit. Both of which she answered no. no now it's my understanding that the lawsuit the defense is claiming is when she had a restraining order uh taken out against the boyfriend is that because i don't really consider that a lawsuit correct there actually was a lawsuit it's a little more complicated she ended up there was

there was a boyfriend's new girlfriend and the two of them were arguing back and forth. And so that was where I believe that she... Arguing back and forth, complete. Go ahead. What was that lawsuit about? I believe it was like a defamation lawsuit. A restraining order that she obtained against her then boyfriend's former girlfriend for stalking and threatening. Correct. But again, she didn't at the time believe that this had anything to do with the Lacey trial.

That is what she has said over the years. That's why she left it off, because I believe the questionnaire was something very close to what had happened to Lacey. You know, were you ever a victim of a crime? And she thought, well, I am not at all like this. I never thought anybody was going to kill me when I was pregnant. That is her story. Exactly. So is it the defense contention that the only time Rochelle Neese would have been a crime victim under their, the defense

definition, is when she was being harassed by the ex-girlfriend or is there something else, Alexis Tereschuk? There is also, she took out a restraining order against a boyfriend at the time because they were

again having a domestic dispute. There are two cases, two situations with her, yeah. 20 years ago, that would have been civil, not criminal. Yes, thank you. You're right. Go ahead, Dale. 20 years ago, that would have been civil, not criminal. And the result is that she probably answered appropriately. And there are three reasons why the court would even consider this. And the first is it's got to be directly relevant and material.

And the second is that the disclosure has to be absolutely intentional. And the last and most important here is that if defense counsel failed to ask the appropriate questions, then it turns into a problem with his ineffective assistance of counsel. So it's a huge problem, and the court's not going to change this outcome of this trial, in my view. You do know we're in California, right? Ah, I had forgotten. So who knows what's going to happen?

Crime Stories with Nancy Grace. You know, very often issues on appeal, Dale Carson, will turn on but for. But for her alleged lie, which I don't know that I see it as a lie, but because when you lie, you assume to be it's intentional, but for the lie, would the outcome of the trial have been different? Very often, you see that weighed on appeal, and if not, then it would be deemed harmless error.

What do you make of that? Well, that's exactly right, and ultimately, it's probably going to be harmless error because this is just a last dying attempt for the lawyers to figure out some manner in which to bring this before the court and into the public view, which is precisely what's happened here. But it doesn't mean that Scott Peterson is innocent of the crime, as you say. And when you talk about the poor body of the child floating up in the out of the ocean, you know, the adipose tissue around the body is going to protect it well into death. And it's just horrifying. horrifying that's why there's such an interest in this case when you have a woman who's killed and her unborn child floats up to draw the line directly to the killer i want to advise everybody and alexis correct me if i'm wrong prosecutor's response to the defense is that the questionnaire asked if Rochelle Neese had ever been the subject of a

lawsuit and that Neese did not understand that a restraining order could be construed as a sort of lawsuit. Correct. Regarding the domestic violence incident. Now see now that restraining order was against her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend, who she says was stalking and harassing her. Then you've got part two, a domestic violence incident. Niece filed a declaration describing that incident as a quote, heated argument. She says it was her then boyfriend, not her, who called police and she did not consider herself a victim. Karen Stark, does that change things? I think it changes everything, Nancy. I don't even understand how it got to be as far as it is at this point,

that she's able to testify if she is about this, because the story is not the same. It just doesn't make any sense to me. As you keep saying, it's not really that kind of a crime. It has nothing to do with murder. And whatever she read, she read that it was not the same to her. And that makes sense to me. I want you to take a listen to my TV home, Fox News special, our cut for on the Scott Peterson case.

When you think about what it would be like for you with the person that you love the most, what would you be doing? You know, most of us would say I would be out pounding on the doors. I would be out screaming from the rooftop, where is she? I would be out calling her name. He wasn't at the forefront. He wasn't the one kind of leading the search

for his missing wife. You see it from the other family members, that desperate grief, that desperate fear. Where is she? Is she cold? Is she okay? Does somebody have her? How do we get her?

We've been through so much these last days that I'd like to make a plea to the person or persons who have my daughter. Please bring our daughter home. I miss your beautiful smile and your fun-loving personality. Every time we were together, I could feel the unconditional love between the both of us. And then you cut to what he looked like, what he sounded like. Today, how are you remembering your wife and your son? That's, you know, very personal to me. I continue to look for, obviously, at times when it's difficult to go on, obviously, because of state. Thanks very much. So, right now, again, the state and Lacey Peterson's family are in the fight of their life trying to hold this conviction.

And back to you, Dale Carson, I remember there would be times when I would work in our appellate division and, of course, wrote all the appeals of my own cases where I got a guilty verdict and argue them to the appellate courts. But this is where the appellate division is so critical in the district attorney's office. Now, the state AG also has an appellate division that will be writing an amicus curiae brief, which is a friend of the court brief, to hold murder convictions as well. So you've got two people writing to hold this conviction and not allow a motion for a new trial to succeed. Because, again, Dale Carson, you named three of the critical rationales

for whether there will be a new trial granted and the previous guilty conviction vacated. And what are the considerations again, Dale Carson? and the previous guilty conviction vacated. And what are the considerations again, Dale Carson? The first point here is that during the vote ire, the information that this woman delivered to the court has to be relevant somehow. In other words, she has intentionally lied, intentional isal is the word here in order to be on the panel. And the third is that defense attorneys are required to ask the appropriate questions. and elicit from her information that they wanted that might disqualify her, and they fail to do it, then it's on them.

And as you well know, Nancy, the criteria or the basis for winning something like this is an objective standard of reasonableness. It's not maybe or if possibly, because as you say, this would be harmless error. Guys, we are all on pins and needles as we wait. To you, Alexis Tereschuk, what is the next step in this process to Scott Peterson potentially walking free? Well, Rochelle has been given immunity. So when there's going to be the new sentencing phase, I'm sorry, not the sentencing phase, just another trial, basically, she has been given immunity and she will be able to talk without the risk of self-incrimination.

So she's I guess they think that this is a good thing that she nothing she's going to say is going to affect what happened. It's not going to be overturned because they're not going to see that she was intentionally trying to get on this jury to throw it against Scott's favor. So there will be a new trial coming up. And I don't believe that it has been scheduled. I think there's something coming up at the end of February. I wouldn't call it a trial. I would call it an evidentiary hearing. Okay. Because the next phase,

to my understanding, Alexis Tereschuk, is there's going to be testimony at which Rochelle Neese will testify with immunity about why she answered the questionnaire the way she did. Is that correct? Yes, that is.

As of right now, that evidentiary hearing has not happened. Is that correct? Yes, that is. As of right now, that evidentiary hearing has not happened. Is that correct? Correct. It has not. So when you say trial, that means you have a jury pool of about 100, 200 people, and you get 12 plus alternates, and then you put up evidence. That's not what's going to happen. Correct? Correct. So right now, we are looking at a February date for, hopefully, for an evidentiary hearing at which Rochelle Neece Strawberry Shortcake, the GRR, will likely testify with immunity to explain why she answered the questionnaire, the GERR questionnaire, the way that she did. Do you agree with that, Alexis Tereschuk? I do. And I think that the prosecutors are very confident that whatever she says is not going to change what happened, that she is not going to have some bombshell confession that she did plot to get on this trial. I think that she's going to explain exactly why she answered the questionnaire the way she did,

and they feel like that this is solid and this will not overturn Scott's guilty verdict. Take a listen to our Cut 20. If you have any further doubts, again, my TV home, Fox News special, the Scott Peterson case. Scott Peterson reportedly had $10,000 in cash, his brother's ID, and a smart aleck attitude when cops busted him for the murder of his pregnant wife. And then there's the change of appearance, the new blonde hair and goatee, making you wonder if he was getting ready to run. He had tried to alter his appearance, dyeing his beard, he had cash,

he had a weapon, camping paraphernalia, water purifiers, everything that looked like a man on the run. He had way too much stuff to be just casually going out of town. That was being prepared to be on the run for a while. They catch him, they got him,

they're taking him in, he says, I heard that there were bodies, Tell me it wasn't them. He knows that it's them. And off he goes, back up to jail in Northern California. This case has been through so many twists and turns. Karen Stark, what toll is this taking on Lacey's mother, Sharon Rocha? Well, just think about it, Nancy. As Sharon says herself,

not a day goes by where she doesn't think about her daughter Lacey and Connor. And now all of this is coming up again. So she's being re-traumatized without any kind of wonderful solution that Scott is confessing or saying he's sorry. So this just keeps going on and on for her, for the family. It is very, very sad and unfortunate.

I'm trying to figure out, Dr. Michelle Dupree, forensic pathologist, you and I have dealt with so many murders and so many murderers. I don't think they have in their mind what could happen to them if they're caught. But a lot of planning went into the disposal of Lacey's body. Explain. But, Nancy, I think you're right. They don't think about what happens if they get caught. They think they're going to get away with it.

They have absolutely no regard for anyone, really, I think, except themselves. And so they just don't think they'll get caught. You know, to you, Alexis Tereshchuk, the amount of planning it took to dispose of Lacey's body was overwhelming. Explain. Well, it started with Scott's alibi or excuse as to where he was. You know, he told the whole family he was golfing the next day. So he is gone all day, comes home he told the whole family he was golfing the next day. So he is gone all day, comes home. Lacey's family has not heard from her all day. The mom and dad, stepdad, talk to her repeatedly.

They haven't heard from her since 8.30 p.m. They're wondering where they are, wondering where they are. And then Scott tells them, oh, I've been golfing all day. Scott was not even the one in the very beginning to call the police. Lacey's stepdad was the first person. So you come home, your pregnant wife is missing. My husband would have had a heart attack. He would have called everybody under the sun, not Scott.

So the father is the first one that called the police. And he said, my son, or I probably called him son because they were so close, but my daughter's husband was out golfing. He came home and she is missing. Well, it turned out Scott then told the police, well, I wasn't really golfing at all. I was fishing. He wasn't fishing. He was dumping Lacey and Connor's body in the San Francisco Bay.

Will it ever end for Lacey's mother, Sharon Rocha. Life has moved on, but this wound for Sharon Rocha can't heal as Scott Peterson continues to insist he's innocent. He's back in court trying to get a new trial. Will he? We wait as justice unfolds. Nancy Grace, Crime Story, signing off. Goodbye, friend. You're listening to an iHeart Podcast.