Former Juror Richelle Nice Grilled Over Book Deal, Prison Letters To Scott Peterson
SAN MATEO (CBS SF) -- Former Scott Peterson trial juror Richelle Nice returned to the stand Monday to once again defend her actions during jury selection and in the years since the high profile 2004 trial, with the fate of Peterson's conviction for the murder of his wife, Laci, and unborn son, Connor, hanging in the balance.
San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo resentenced Peterson to life in prison without parole in December after the California Supreme Court overturned his death sentence. Now, she must decide if Peterson deserves a new trial because of possible juror misconduct by Nice.
Nice, also known as "Strawberry Shortcake" because of vivid red her hair was dyed during the trial, stuck to her story despite intense questioning from Peterson's lawyer.
Monday got off on a rocky start for Nice as she was asked by Peterson's attorney Pat Harris about letters she wrote to Peterson while he was on death row, a book she co-authored with other jurors about being on the panel, and an appearance on the Dr. Oz show.
Nice broke down in tears when asked if she had profited off the case, which she denied.
After she started sobbing on the witness stand, Harris, Massullo and prosecutors met privately in the judge's chambers.
Harris is trying to convince the judge that Nice's lied on her jury questionnaire, and that she could have been a pro-prosecution stealth juror.
"There are California Supreme Court cases that say even if a juror doesn't disclose that they were a victim and they were asked on a juror questionnaire that's not enough to throw out a conviction," said Michele Hagan, a former prosecutor and Legal Analyst.
On Friday, Harris slowly began his cross-examination of Nice during her first day of testimony, asking if statements she made on her jury questionnaire were "truthful & accurate."
Then he zeroed in on the pivotal question that asked: "Have you ever been a victim of a crime?" Nice answered "No" in 2005.
Nice admitted she neglected to disclose that she had obtained a restraining order in 2001 against her then-boyfriend's ex-girlfriend for stalking and threatening her. At the time, she was pregnant with her second child. She also described for Harris a fight she had with her ex-boyfriend that resulted in his arrest. That also was not disclosed to the court.
She told the court she did not disclose those two incidents because she did not consider herself a crime victim, as the alleged stalker did not threaten her unborn baby. She also admitted to hitting her boyfriend and not the other way around.
"She didn't threaten my baby," Nice testified, saying that she included her unborn child in her application because "I was being spiteful."
"She wasn't going to deliberately hurt my child, but if we fought and rolled around like some dummies on the ground … I was in fear I would lose my child doing something stupid like that," Nice testified.
"Clearly, in her life, which let's get real is a little more rough and tumble than many of ours, in her life she would not consider that being a victim," said Nice's attorney Geoff Carr on Monday.
Later in the day, Harris brought up letters Nice wrote to Peterson once he was in prison, asking her if she brought up the name "Little Man" in the correspondence.
"I'm sure I did, because I asked him why," Nice replied.
She also told the court she had no anger toward Peterson heading into the trial.
"Before the trial, I didn't have any anger or any resentment toward Scott at all," she testified. "After the trial, it was a bit true, because I sat through the trial and listened to the evidence."
After her appearance, Nice declined to answer questions from reporters. Attorneys for both the prosecution and the defense also decided against speaking to the media afterward.
KPIX 5 spoke with former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, who weighed in on Friday's proceedings.
"For today, things are going well for the defense," Clark said. "I think this is going exactly the way the defense wants it to go. Then they'll bring in Mark Geragos and other members of the defense team to say, 'We would have never put her on the jury. This was central to our case. It goes right to the heart of what we were concerned about when we selected a jury.'"
