The trial judge’s decisions during the jury selection process were deemed unconstitutional.
Modesto resident Laci Peterson disappeared on Christmas Eve in 2002. She was heavily pregnant and due to give birth to a son in 4 weeks. Her husband, Scott Peterson, told police that he had left that morning to go fishing in Berkeley. Almost 4 months after her disappearance, her body and the remains of her unborn son washed ashore in San Francisco Bay. The case sparked national attention after it came to light that Scott had been cheating on Laci — and that he had told her that his wife had died. He was arrested in San Diego County and later convicted of murder. The jury sentenced him to death for the killings.
In late August, the California Supreme Court overturned this sentence after finding that the trial judge was wrong to exclude certain prospective jurors from the jury pool. While his conviction still stands, prosecutors must now decide whether to try to seek the death penalty or have his sentence commuted to life in prison without the possibility of parole.
According to a criminal defense attorney in San Bernardino, CA, the errors in Scott Peterson’s case came during the jury selection process, or voir dire. During voir dire, the trial judge excluded jurors who expressed that they were opposed to capital punishment — but were willing to impose the penalty based on the facts of the case. In other words, if a prospective juror said that they were against the death penalty, they would not be seated on the Peterson jury — even if they stated that they would fairly consider imposing it in this case.
The California Supreme Court held that this decision was against well-established rules. Under United States Supreme Court precedent, jurors cannot be excused just for opposing the death penalty — but for views that would make them unable to fairly consider imposing the penalty in accordance with the oath that they take as jurors. Instead of dismissing prospective jurors, the judge should have allowed them to be questioned further by the prosecution and the defense to explore their view points.
This case will undoubtedly receive a substantial amount of attention because the defendant, Scott Peterson, has a certain degree of notoriety. But beyond the Peterson case, it brings up an important issue about the fairness of the jury selection process. If you were on trial and facing a possible death sentence, would you want the jury to be made up of only people who fully support the death penalty — or to also include people who have reservations about capital punishment? While jurors have an obligation to follow the law, they should not be excluded from serving simply because they have a different viewpoint on certain laws. These types of questions are critically important to notions of due process and fair trials.
At the Chambers Law Firm, we have substantial experience picking juries and defending our clients at trial. We use our knowledge and skill to help our clients achieve the best possible result. To learn more or to schedule a free initial consultation, contact us today at 714-760-4088 or dchambers@clfca.com.
