Potential Juror Misconduct in High-Profile Trial. Is a New Trial Warranted?

In 2004, Scott Peterson was convicted of first degree murder for his wife and unborn son. The tragic murders were widely publicized and many viewed Peterson's conviction as justice served. After the jury rendered the conviction, Peterson was sentenced to death. 

But Peterson's defense team strategized various legal challenges to the death sentence, and in 2020, Peterson's death sentence was overturned. The California Supreme Court found grounds for the reversal because of errors in the jury selection process, such as improperly turning away potential jurors for service.

With momentum on their side, Peterson's defense team has been strategizing to reverse his murder conviction altogether. The grounds? An alleged single juror's misconduct before the trial. For example, Juror No. 7 who served on the original trial has now been offered immunity in exchange for their truthful testimony regarding their own potential juror misconduct. 

The allegations against Juror 7 revolve around the jury selection process. The allegations are that Juror 7 withheld and falsely stated information during the jury selection process and juror questionnaire. If the court finds the evidence sufficient for juror misconduct, the court could grant a new trial for Peterson. 

Specifically, Peterson's defense team is accusing Juror 7 of lying on the jury questionnaire, about whether Juror 7 had been a victim of domestic violence. Furthermore, the defense team alleges that Juror 7 was pregnant, a victim of domestic violence, and had previously been involved in legal proceedings which were undisclosed during jury selection. Because of the allegations, a California state Court recently ordered a hearing for Juror 7 to testify to these allegations and for the court to determine if a new trial is warranted. 

Standard for a Juror Misconduct Motion

Although Peterson's motion for alleged juror misconduct takes place in California, the comparable juror misconduct rule in Texas is found in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 327. Rule 327 is a motion to the court, and outlines the governing standard for courts in evaluating whether a new trial is warranted from juror misconduct. 

The motion must be supported by an affidavit, and must allege the specific facts of misconduct by a juror during voir dire. Ultimately, in Texas, it is up to the court to determine whether the juror misconduct arose to materially impact the outcome of the trial. 

Thus, Peterson's defense team may be able to meet the standard for a new trial. But the defense team would need to prove that under the California standard (which is similar to Texas), that Peterson's rights were materially impacted by Juror 7's misconduct.

Finally, Peterson's defense team has also been adding other facts to their motion to show that Juror 7's actions were collectively juror misconduct. For instance, Peterson's defense team is alleging that Juror 7 had ulterior motives to be on the jury for profit. This is because Juror 7, along with six other jury members, wrote a book about their experience of serving on the jury in the Peterson trial. Additionally, Peterson's defense team intends to introduce evidence of seventeen letters which Juror 7 wrote to Peterson after his conviction. In the end, it will be up to the Court to determine whether all of the alleged juror misconduct evidence resulted in an unfair trial for Peterson.