Scott Peterson Case Update: Convicted Murderer Moved Back to State Prison as He Awaits Next Court Hearing

After nearly four months as an inmate in the San Mateo County jail, convicted murderer Scott Peterson is heading back to San Quentin State Prison.

During the hearing on Friday, Peterson's camp asked that he be transferred back to San Quentin until the parties return to court in late June as they had trouble communicating with one another when he's inside the county jail, according to Modesto Bee.

Peterson's attorney Pat Harris told San Mateo County Superior Court Judge Anne-Christine Massullo that contacting Peterson by phone at the San Mateo County jail had been challenging.

He noted that phone calls were restricted to the 30-minute window each day that Peterson is allowed out of his cell, leaving no time for him to do other things like a shower.

Since he will be back at his Southern California office until the next hearing, Harris said he needs more frequent phone conversations and Zoom meetings with his client that are more readily available at San Quentin, Mercury News reported.

Massullo then agreed that Peterson should be transferred back to the state prison before the June 29 hearing. The judge told Harris that she knew that this was "an important time" for him to have access to his client, so "he's to be transported back to San Quentin."

Massullo also Peterson's attorneys and Stanislaus County prosecutors to submit written arguments by May 25 and reply briefs by June 9. Both parties will return to court on June 29 to provide oral arguments before the judge takes the case under submission for a later decision.

Scott Peterson was moved from San Quentin to San Mateo County jail last November for his evidentiary hearing.

Scott Peterson Evidentiary Hearing

Scott Peterson's request to be transferred back to the state prison happened amid an evidentiary hearing, where he attempts to convince the judge to overturn his 2004 murder conviction and grant him a new trial.

Peterson's attorneys and Stanislaus County prosecutors both rested their cases Friday. In seeking to overturn his conviction, Peterson argued that one of the 12 jurors who convicted him in 2004 lied when she did not disclose that she had been involved in a pair of domestic violence episodes.

In the previous hearings, Juror No. 7, Richelle Nice, maintained that she was not biased and did not lie about her past to become a juror on the case.

She testified earlier that she had never been a victim of domestic violence. She said she was the one who had been the aggressor in a fight with her ex-boyfriend a couple of years ago before she even filled out a jury questionnaire and was picked to become a juror.

Nice is accused of "prejudicial misconduct" for not disclosing that she was the victim of domestic violence and had sought a restraining order in 2000 for fears that her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend would be a threat to her unborn baby.

Peterson's lawyers claimed that Nice had kept the details of her personal life that could have been a conflict during his initial trial.

In seeking a restraining order against her boyfriend's ex-girlfriend while she was pregnant in 2000, Nice said she "really fears for her unborn child" due to threats from the woman.

But she later tried to clarify that her fears were about the potential for a fight that could result in losing her child and not a "genuine fear" that someone would actually hurt her child with any specific intent aimed toward the kid.

"She didn't threaten my baby," Nice noted, referring to her former boyfriend's ex-girlfriend.

According to Peterson's lawyers, the 2000 case is relevant to whether Nice was accurate when she filled out the juror questionnaire. They questioned Nice about stating "no" in the questionnaire whether she had "ever been involved in a lawsuit."

They reminded her that the 2000 matter, in technicality, was a lawsuit. But the former juror said she did not know her request for a protection order qualified as a lawsuit, and she "made amends" with the woman she accused and dropped her appeal.

Nice also insisted that she was truthful on the jury questionnaire despite answering improperly.

Scott Peterson Murder Case

Scott Peterson was first convicted in 2004 of first-degree murder concerning his wife, Laci Peterson, and of second-degree murder of their unborn son, Conner. He was sentenced to death in 2005.

The 49-year-old suspect remained on death row until 2020 when the California Supreme Court had overturned his death sentence after finding that Peterson's jury was improperly screened for bias against the death penalty.

In its ruling, the California Supreme Court said a judge would decide the matter in San Mateo County Superior Court.

Massullo now has the authority to overturn the suspect's conviction and grant him a retrial. After the conclusion of the evidentiary hearing, the judge has 90 days to decide if she will grant Peterson's request for a new trial.

Scott Peterson was arrested in La Jolla, California on April 18, 2003 - the same day the two decomposed bodies washed ashore in the San Francisco Bay were identified as Laci Peterson and Conner.

Investigators discovered that Peterson was having an affair with massage therapist Amber Frey at the time of his wife's disappearance.

Frey told investigators that Scott Peterson told her that he was not married, and she admitted that they had a romantic relationship. Prosecutors argued that the affair was Peterson's motive to kill his wife, allowing him to be with Frey.

This article is owned by Latin Post.

Written by: Mary Webber

WATCH: Scott Peterson Juror Testifies in Court - From Good Morning America