A San Mateo County judge yesterday refused to review a fresh stack of evidence from Scott Peterson’s defense team, a move his lawyers say is a major procedural blow in their two-decade push to undo his 2004 murder convictions. The Los Angeles Innocence Project, which now represents Peterson, says it plans to take the fight upstairs to a higher court.
Judge Declines To Consider New Evidence Packet
According to defense attorneys, the court declined to take up a bundle of newly collected scientific reports and witness statements that the Los Angeles Innocence Project submitted on Peterson’s behalf. The court's ruling demonstrates a profound misunderstanding and misapplication of the law applied to habeas corpus petitions, attorney Hannah Brown said, as reported by KRON4. LAIP director Paula Mitchell also told the outlet that years of wall-to-wall publicity have complicated Peterson’s ability to secure a fair shake in court.
Defense Says New Science And Witnesses Upend The Timeline
The Innocence Project’s filings argue that new scientific analysis, including a radiologist’s review that questions the prosecution’s timeline for the death of Peterson’s unborn son, along with witness accounts linked to a burglary across from the Petersons’ Modesto home on Dec. 24, 2002, undercut the state’s case, according to the Los Angeles Times. LAIP lawyers have also asked for DNA testing and access to hundreds of post-conviction files, they say were never fully produced during the original trial.
Prosecutors Stand By The Original Verdict
Stanislaus County prosecutors have told judges they believe the underlying investigation and jury verdict remain solid and have opposed many of the defense’s rediscovery requests, Courthouse News reported. San Mateo judges have granted only limited review in recent months and have turned down most testing requests. In 2024, a judge agreed to allow retesting on just one item, a detail noted by ABC News.
What’s Next
The Los Angeles Innocence Project told KRON4 it plans to appeal the San Mateo ruling to a higher court. Court documents and public filings indicate that LAIP’s petition and related motions have already been shuttling between the Court of Appeal and the California Supreme Court, where a separate juror-misconduct claim from Peterson’s earlier appeals remains part of the record, according to case summaries on ScottPetersonAppeal.org.
Legal Implications
The trial court’s refusal typically reflects a procedural decision rather than a final ruling on the merits, and it does not automatically block appellate review. Defense lawyers can continue pressing their arguments in the Court of Appeal or the state’s highest court, Courthouse News noted. Separately, the juror-misconduct issue that prompted a 2020 California Supreme Court show-cause order remains its own live and potentially decisive line of attack as Peterson’s legal saga grinds on.
