Scott Peterson's Updated Prison Sentence Explained

It's been nearly a month of anticipation as to whether Scott Peterson's prison sentence would be transmuted into life without parole. In August, a California court ruled that his previous death sentence for the 2002 murder of his wife, Laci Peterson, should be overturned. Now, the judge overseeing the case has finally made a decision. 

As People reported on September 22, Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo – a key figure in the case's review for months – ruled that an automatic life sentence should be applied. The adjudication also came with bad news for those who had wished to see Peterson, who has been confined in San Quentin pending the results of the sentencing overview, retried for Laci Peterson's murder. Instead, the original 2004 guilty verdict and conviction have been upheld.

Masullo explained her rationale for the new sentence, stating to the court that the judge at Peterson's 2004 sentencing trial "made a series of clear and significant errors in jury selection that, under long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent, undermined Peterson's right to an impartial jury at the penalty phase." However, it seems even now that the ruling isn't entirely airtight, leaving room for the prosecution to feasibly pursue other avenues of recourse in the future. It could also be the final nail in the coffin for those who believe Peterson is innocent. Keep on scrolling to find out more.

For the uninitiated, the reason Scott Peterson's death penalty was re-examined in the first place boiled down to a legal question. As NBC News reported in August, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo was ordered to review the case over the possibility that jury misconduct had affected the possibility of a fair and unbiased sentence. The issue stemmed from the selection of a juror named Richelle Nice, who failed to disclose that she had been a survivor of intimate partner violence. Nice had been pregnant for a period of time during two respective domestic violence incidents on record. 

The question of whether Nice's jury placement was enough to significantly alter Peterson's sentencing was enough of a catalyst to not only have Massullo take it on for review but to leave a window wide open for the possibility of a complete retrial. From 2020 onwards, Peterson's sister-in-law and biggest public advocate Janey Peterson consistently made headlines in her mission to fight for a new trial entirely, touting alternative theories as to who else could have possibly murdered Laci Peterson, who was eight months pregnant at the time of her death. While the ruling could leave open the possibility of the prosecution pursuing the death penalty in the future, per People, it seems to have put a kibosh on an all-out retrial.

Per People, Scott Peterson's resentencing came with a caveat that could possibly prohibit any chance of a retrial for the murder of Laci Peterson, which his sister-in-law Janey Peterson has been desperate to see done. As the magazine explained, the sentence itself was intrinsically attached to maintaining the original guilty verdict, closing the months-long window of opportunity Peterson's supporters had to prove a retrial was necessary. This also seems to effectively dismiss the mountain of alleged evidence Janey Peterson claims she has amassed over the years — all of which supposedly supports her hypothesis that Laci Peterson was abducted and murdered by burglars who had been caught breaking and entering into at least one home near the Peterson residence of Modesto, California. (As the Modesto Bee reported in 2007, those men were cleared of any involvement in the Peterson case.)

Regardless of the possibly insurmountable setback Judge Massullo's ruling has imposed on Janey, the convicted murderer's sister-in-law and current law student has not commented as to whether or not she will continue to demand a retrial. Meanwhile, Peterson's next day in court is scheduled for October 10.