Scott Peterson, convicted of killing his wife, appears in court as Innocence Project seeks to review case
Good morning Mr. Peterson, can you both see and hear the proceedings?
Yes, I can, thank you.
Alright, do we have your consent to proceed via Zoom this morning?
Absolutely, thank you.
So, the record should reflect Mr. Peterson has consented to appearing via Zoom. He is appearing electronically from Mu Creek State Prison. The court had requested counsel to be present this morning for a status conference. There are three motions pending before the court: a motion for postconviction discovery under penal code section 10 54.9, a motion for postconviction DNA testing, and a motion to seal court pleadings that have been filed in relation to those two motions. Because we had not yet had a hearing date set, the people’s response had not yet been due. I wanted to discuss with counsel a briefing schedule and scheduling a substantive hearing on those three motions. I also wanted to inquire about the potential meet and confer process between the parties to narrow the issues.
The defense made a detailed informal request for discovery on November 14th, four months ago. They have been waiting for specific items of discovery that they believe are easily accessible. The District Attorney’s office has known about these requests for four months but has not provided the information requested. The defense is eager to begin their investigation, as Mr. Peterson has been waiting 20 years for some of these materials.
The people have raised concerns about issue preclusion and the extensive nature of the defense’s discovery request. They believe that many of the issues have already been litigated and may be resolved through the court record. They have requested additional time to review the materials and respond accordingly.
The defense is seeking an additional 90 days beyond the briefing deadline for the Discovery motion, citing the extensive nature of the requests and the need to review materials related to the DNA motion first. The court has expressed concern about the timeline given by the court of appeal and the potential need for an extension if additional good cause is provided.
The court has set deadlines for the briefing on the DNA motion and the postconviction Discovery motion, with hearings scheduled for May 29th and July 15th, respectively. The court will also hold a hearing on the motion to seal on April 16th to address issues with redacted documents and potential media inquiries.
Overall, the court is working to address the various motions and requests from both parties while ensuring a fair and thorough process for all involved in the case.
