Here’s what happened at Scott Peterson’s latest hearing on his appeal for a retrial

During final arguments Thursday in Scott Peterson’s bid for a new trial, Judge Anne-Christine Massullo peppered the attorneys with questions that challenged their claims.

It was a preview of how she might interpret the evidence when she decides whether to uphold or overturn Peterson’s convictions for killing his wife Laci and their unborn son Conner in 2002.

Massullo also cited a jury instruction about how jurors should decide whether a witness is credible. The instruction says they should consider that people sometimes honestly forget things or make mistakes about what they remember.

The crux of the juror misconduct claim by Peterson that could lead to a new trial is whether juror Richelle Nice is an honest and credible person.

Nice failed to disclose on her jury questionnaire in 2004 that she’d been the victim of a crime and party in a lawsuit.

Peterson’s attorneys alleged Nice, juror 7 in Peterson’s 2004 trial, lied in order to serve on his jury so she could punish him for killing his son. They say she was biased against Peterson because she, like Laci, was the victim of crimes while she was pregnant and that she took a special interest in Conner, who she gave the nickname “little man.”

A 23-page questionnaire

Stanislaus County prosecutor Dave Harris said during his final arguments Thursday that the questionnaire was 23 pages and contained more than 100 multiple-part questions.

“She testified that when she filled it out, she did the best that she could,” Harris said. “So what we have here … is a person who filled out the questionnaire who made lots of mistakes … but being wrong does not necessarily make it false or make her a liar.”

He gave several examples of times she improperly filled out forms and said repeatedly, “Ms. Nice is not very good at filling out forms.”

During the March hearing, Nice was questioned on the stand about an incident in which she was threatened by her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend while she was pregnant and another time when that boyfriend was arrested for domestic violence after a fight that she testified was “probably” about him cheating on her.

While she was listed as a victim in police reports related to both incidents, Nice said she never considered herself a victim and testified, “When I filled out that questionnaire — honestly and truly — nothing of this crossed my mind.”

Judge Massullo asked Peterson’s attorney Cliff Gardner about Nice’s perception of victimhood. “Her life experiences are very different from your experiences and perhaps my experience, agreed?” she asked, to which Gardner replied that he did.

Massullo also questioned Gardner about the responsibility of the attorneys to ask follow-up questions to potential jurors about the answers to the questions that “are crafted by attorneys.”

“Would it not be important for the attorneys to clarify?” she asked, saying Peterson’s trial attorney Mark Geragos never did.

Nice has said she didn’t know the restraining order she got against her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend was a type of lawsuit and didn’t consider a lawsuit she later filed against the ex-girlfriend for lost wages because she ultimately dropped it.

In the 2001 incident with her boyfriend, Nice testified she was the aggressor and she hit him, not the other way around. He called police and she refused to cooperate with officers when they showed up.

Nice has said what she experienced with her boyfriend and his ex-girlfriend was nothing akin to being murdered.

Juror considered problems ‘minor indignities’

In a declaration filed with the court, Nice described the situation with the ex-girlfriend as “minor indignities,” saying she had been in many fights before and never called police.

But Peterson’s attorneys point out that she did call the police in 2000 when the ex-girlfriend sprayed her boyfriend with mace, slashed his tires, broke down the front door and subsequently stalked Nice.

“By Ms. Nice’s own definition, then, these were anything but minor indignities for which she ‘didn’t need the police,’” the brief reads.

Harris said that no evidence of bias or intentional omission of information was presented at the evidentiary hearing. He said Nice was a credible witness who denied every accusation and was believable and sincere.

“Her explanations were in line with her character and utterly reasonable. She was unshakable in her belief that she had done nothing wrong ... the past had just never crossed her mind,” Harris said in a court document. “It was Petitioner’s obligation to prove his claims and not merely engage in character assassination of Ms. Nice.”

Peterson’s attorneys say prosecutors’ assertion that she is a credible witness, “is made not by relying on the record, but by ignoring it almost entirely.”

In her petition for a restraining order against the ex-girlfriend, Nice wrote that she feared for the life of her unborn baby but during her testimony in March she said that was not true, rather she was “being spiteful.”

Nice either lied under oath in the 2000 petition or during the evidentiary hearing in March, Peterson’s attorneys said.

Gardner said during Thursday’s hearing that “stark inconsistency” between Nice’s testimony in March and other statements she made in court documents or at the time of the incident “that is directly relevant to her credibility.”

“Nice’s testimony not only substantially departed from the documentary evidence, but these departures appear to have been surgically directed to areas on which Mr. Peterson relied in making his juror misconduct claim,” he said in a court document.

Judge Massullo questioned Gardner about other inconsistent statements Nice gave on her questionnaire, like about her education. Gardner agreed with Massullo that there were inconsistencies that Geragos was aware of but didn’t question at the time of jury selection and chose Nice to stay.

Massullo delved further into the jury questionnaire and asked Gardner about one of Nice’s answers that hadn’t yet been discussed in court.

Attorney Geragos failed to follow up

To a question about whether she could set aside any preexisting attitudes and base the case on the evidence presented, Nice checked ‘no,’ yet Geragos didn’t question her about this, Massullo said.

“The whole reason for these questions is for the attorneys to look at these answers carefully and follow up,” Massullo said.

Gardner agreed, calling it “astonishing” but pivoted saying, “It seems absolutely consistent with the idea that she had some predetermined biased in the case.” He said he believes that if a trial lawyer were to not address a question like that he must have assumed it was a mistake.

Both attorneys finished their arguments by quoting Shakespeare.

Harris said, “Do not cast away an honest man for a villain’s accusation.”

“I believe she holds the oath cheaply,” Gardner said, referring to Nice.

Both sides have until Sept. 16 to submit post hearing briefs, after which Massullo will have 90 days to issue her decision.