The Los Angeles Innocence Project (LAIP) took on Scott Peterson’s case in January 2024, aiming to overturn his 2004 conviction for the murders of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn son, Conner. Below is a breakdown of their efforts, the evidence they’re pursuing, and an assessment of the likelihood of success based on available information.
Breakdown of LAIP’s Efforts
The LAIP’s strategy centers on proving Peterson’s “actual innocence” through new evidence, DNA testing, and claims of constitutional violations during the original trial. Here’s a detailed look at their approach:
New Evidence and Theories:
Burglary Connection: The LAIP emphasizes a burglary across the street from the Petersons’ Modesto home on December 24, 2002, the day Laci disappeared. They argue Laci may have witnessed or confronted the burglars, leading to her abduction and murder. A witness reportedly heard a conversation suggesting Laci saw the burglars, and the LAIP claims police failed to investigate this thoroughly.
Burned Van with Mattress: A key focus is a burned orange van found near the Peterson home on December 25, 2002, containing a mattress with apparent bloodstains. The LAIP believes DNA testing could link the van to Laci’s case, potentially indicating she was alive after Scott left for his fishing trip.
Witness Sightings: The LAIP cites sworn statements from witnesses who reportedly saw Laci walking in the neighborhood after Scott left for fishing, suggesting she was alive when he was away. These witnesses were allegedly not interviewed by police.
Fetal Age Research: New medical research on fetal growth, cited by the LAIP, suggests Conner was older than the prosecution’s expert claimed, implying Laci was killed days after December 24, when Scott could not have been responsible. This challenges the prosecution’s timeline.
DNA Testing Requests:
The LAIP requested DNA testing on 14 items, including:
Duct Tape: Found on Laci’s pants, previously tested in 2003 but yielding inconclusive results due to low-quality DNA. A judge granted retesting in May 2024, citing advances in DNA technology.
Mattress from Burned Van: The LAIP sought testing to determine if bloodstains belong to Laci, which could support the burglary theory. This request was denied in May 2024, as prior testing found male DNA and no evidence linking the van to the case.
Other Items: Items like twine around Conner’s body, a Target bag, and burglary-related objects (e.g., a hammer and glove) were also requested but largely denied due to lack of proven relevance or prior testing.A hearing to discuss the duct tape testing stipulations is scheduled, with results pending.
Constitutional Violations: The LAIP argues Peterson’s due process and fair trial rights were violated. They claim the prosecution suppressed or destroyed exculpatory evidence, such as police reports and recordings, and that the Modesto Police Department’s investigation was disorganized and biased, focusing solely on Scott after identifying him as the prime suspect.
A 400-page habeas corpus petition filed in April 2025 alleges the jury relied on “false scientific evidence” and missed critical evidence due to police and prosecutorial misconduct.
Prior Legal Challenges:
Peterson’s death sentence was overturned in 2020 due to improper jury screening for death penalty bias, and he was resentenced to life without parole in 2021.
A 2022 bid for a new trial based on juror misconduct (Juror 7 allegedly hid domestic abuse history) was denied, as the judge found no evidence of prejudicial misconduct.
Key Developments
January 2024: LAIP files motions for DNA testing and post-conviction discovery, citing new evidence supporting Peterson’s innocence.
March 2024: LAIP’s Paula Mitchell argues in court that Peterson’s conviction relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, with no murder weapon, witnesses, or clear cause of death.
May 2024: Judge Elizabeth Hill denies testing for 13 of 14 items, allowing only the duct tape to be retested. Prosecutors argue the evidence against Peterson is “overwhelming” and further testing is unnecessary.
April 2025: LAIP files a habeas corpus petition with the California Court of Appeals, presenting new evidence and requesting the conviction be vacated. The court is reviewing the oversized petition’s acceptance.
Current Status: The LAIP awaits a ruling on further discovery motions and the duct tape DNA results.
Prosecution’s Counterarguments
Circumstantial Evidence: Prosecutors assert that Peterson’s lies (e.g., about his whereabouts and affair), suspicious behavior (e.g., attempting to flee to Mexico), and the location of Laci’s body near his fishing spot constitute overwhelming evidence.
Prior Testing: They argue that items like the mattress were tested in 2019, showing no connection to Laci, and further testing is a “fishing expedition.”
Burglary Irrelevance: Prosecutors maintain the burglary was unrelated, and no evidence links it to Laci’s murder.
Emotional Impact: They claim additional testing would retraumatize Laci’s family without altering the case’s outcome.
Likelihood of Success
Assessing the LAIP’s chances involves legal, evidentiary, and practical factors:
Legal Hurdles:Habeas Corpus Standard: Overturning a conviction via habeas corpus requires demonstrating a constitutional violation or new evidence that “undermines the entire prosecution case” and points “unerringly to innocence.” This is a high bar, as courts are reluctant to revisit settled cases.
Prior Rulings: Multiple appeals, including the 2020 death penalty reversal and 2022 trial denial, have upheld the conviction, suggesting judicial skepticism of Peterson’s claims.
Judicial Discretion: The May 2024 ruling denying most DNA tests indicates judicial caution, though the duct tape testing offers a narrow opportunity.
Evidentiary Challenges
Duct Tape DNA: If the duct tape yields DNA from someone other than Scott or Laci, it could suggest another perpetrator, but it must conclusively point to innocence to sway a court. Inconclusive or irrelevant results (e.g., degraded DNA) would weaken the case.
Burglary and Van: The denied mattress testing limits the LAIP’s ability to link the burglary to Laci’s murder. Without new forensic evidence, this theory remains speculative.
Witness Statements: New witness accounts of seeing Laci alive are compelling but face credibility issues after 20 years. Courts often view late-emerging testimony skeptically, especially if not corroborated by contemporaneous police reports.
Fetal Age Evidence: The new fetal growth research could challenge the prosecution’s timeline, but it relies on overturning established expert testimony, which requires robust scientific backing and judicial acceptance.
Statistical Context:The Innocence Project and similar groups have overturned 375+ convictions nationwide since 1989, with DNA evidence playing a key role in 40% of cases. However, success is rarer in high-profile cases with strong circumstantial evidence.Most successful exonerations involve definitive DNA linking another perpetrator or proving the defendant’s absence from the crime scene. Peterson’s case lacks such direct evidence so far.
Laci’s family, particularly her mother, Sharon Rocha, strongly believes in Peterson’s guilt, which may influence prosecutorial resistance.
Practical Considerations:
- The LAIP’s reputation for exonerating wrongfully convicted individuals (e.g., through partnerships with forensic institutes) lends credibility, but their success depends on uncovering game-changing evidence.
- Prosecutorial opposition and judicial rulings suggest a conservative approach, limiting discovery and testing. The LAIP’s 400-page petition is under review, but oversized filings sometimes face procedural delays.
Estimated Likelihood
Short-Term (DNA Testing Outcome): The duct tape testing, if it yields clear DNA from an identifiable third party linked to the crime, could strengthen Peterson’s case for a new trial. However, the 2003 test’s inconclusive results and potential DNA degradation lower the odds of a breakthrough. Likelihood: 20–30% for significant findings.
Medium-Term (New Trial): Securing a new trial requires the habeas petition to convince the California Court of Appeals that new evidence or constitutional violations warrant revisiting the conviction. Given the circumstantial nature of the original case, credible new evidence (e.g., DNA or corroborated witness accounts) could sway a court, but the high legal threshold and prior denials reduce chances. Likelihood: 10–20%.
Long-Term (Exoneration): Full exoneration demands evidence that “unerringly” proves Peterson’s innocence, such as DNA conclusively implicating another suspect. Without such evidence, and with strong circumstantial evidence against him (affair, lies, body location), complete overturning is unlikely. Likelihood: 5–10%.
Critical Perspective
The LAIP’s efforts highlight valid concerns about the original investigation’s focus on Peterson, potentially overlooking alternative leads like the burglary. However, the prosecution’s case, while circumstantial, aligns with patterns of intimate partner violence—55% of murdered pregnant women are killed by partners, per U.S. studies.
Peterson’s behavior (e.g., affair with Amber Frey, inconsistent alibis) fits this profile, and courts have consistently upheld the conviction. The LAIP’s theories, while plausible, rely on speculative connections (e.g., the van) and face skepticism due to the passage of time and prior testing. The duct tape DNA is their best shot, but even a favorable result may not meet the “actual innocence” standard unless it directly contradicts the prosecution’s narrative.
Conclusion
The LAIP is pursuing a multi-pronged strategy to challenge Scott Peterson’s conviction, focusing on DNA testing, new witness statements, and claims of investigative misconduct. While their involvement lends credibility, the likelihood of success is low due to stringent legal standards, limited approved testing, and the strength of the original circumstantial case.
The duct tape DNA results and the habeas petition’s reception will be critical. If you’d like to explore specific aspects (e.g., the burglary theory or fetal age evidence) or need updates on recent rulings, let me know!