Sharon Rocha is sharing her feelings about her former son-in-law's bid for a new trial.
At Monday’s hearing, former Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager read aloud a victim impact statement written by Rocha, who is murder victim Laci Peterson's mother:
"It has been almost 22 years since I have seen or talked to my daughter. She was murdered by her husband. She was murdered by the man she loved with all her heart. Since his conviction in 2004, he has been in court numerous times trying to get his conviction overturned. Each attempt he makes for freedom feels like ripping the scab from the wound (family's trauma). He continues to file claim after claim. Time after time. I believe this is not about proving his innocence, but instead about his relentless pursuit (to be freed) from prison. When will this end?"
Scott Peterson is serving life without parole for the 2002 murders of Laci, his wife who was eight months pregnant when she died, and their unborn son. Peterson appeared at Monday's hearing via Zoom.
Following last week's arguments, it was decided that a laboratory by the name of Pure Gold Forensics may conduct DNA testing on a piece of duct tape that was found on Laci's pants when her body was found. The defense and prosecution each wanted to use labs of their own choosing, but San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Elizabeth Hill suggested a separate, independent facility. She gave the attorneys a few days to conduct their own research regarding Pure Gold's credentials, and they all agreed.
Judge Hill also ruled that a professional observer of the items would be hired at a cost of $2,500 per day. Both sides also presented arguments regarding swab tests versus tests at Microbiome Analysis Center, or MBAC. The defense asked for MBAC testing for fear that swabbing would compromise the evidence. The defense eventually agreed that they’d swab first and MBAC after.
The 15.5-inch length of duct tape is the lone piece of evidence from a long list that the judge approved for testing. Peterson, now 51, is currently represented by the Los Angeles Innocence Project, which unsuccessfully argued back in May that more than a dozen pieces of evidence deserved DNA testing.
RELATED STORY | Judge denies nearly all DNA retesting requests in Scott Peterson retrial efforts
The LAIP hopes that the DNA found on the duct tape will point to a suspect other than Peterson. If someone else's DNA is on that piece of tape, Peterson could have another chance to prove his case.
Peterson was due back in court Tuesday for a motion hearing about access to discovery materials. These materials include evidence regarding a burglary that took place at the house across from the Petersons in Dec. 2002, a missing watch that belonged to Laci and various documents.
Since taking over Peterson's case back in January, the LAIP has filed a slew of motions in order to collect as much evidence as possible. Their endgame, of course, is to secure Peterson a new trial and ultimately exonerate him.
Laci, 27, was reported missing on Christmas Eve 2002. Her body, and the fetus she was carrying, washed up along San Francisco Bay in April 2003. To this day, Peterson insists he went fishing at Berkeley Marina on Dec. 24, 2002, and that when he returned home, Laci had vanished.
The defense has requested access to all case evidence, which includes over 645 items, and says the district attorney's office withheld evidence that they have a right to access. The prosecution, meanwhile, is asking the judge not to reopen the case, arguing that the defense's sources and claims are unfounded.
In 2021, Peterson was resentenced to life without parole. In 2022, he was moved off death row and sent to Mule Creek State Prison, where he’s currently housed. That same year, Peterson was unsuccessful when his defense argued he deserved a new trial based on allegations of juror misconduct.
Peterson has maintained his innocence for upwards of 20 years. In 2005, he was sentenced to death, but the California Supreme Court overturned his sentence in 2020 when it was revealed that potential jurors were improperly dismissed from the case.
