05/14/2026
District Attorney Jeff Laugero announced that twenty-three years after Scott Peterson murdered his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son Conner, a San Mateo County Superior Court judge has delivered a resounding answer to Petersonâs latest bid for freedom. On April 27, 2026, the Honorable Elizabeth M. Hill in a clear and decisive 116-page ruling denied Petersonâs Third Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus in its entirety, rejecting every single one of his 14 claims. Following the denial, Peterson withdrew his Third Motion for Post-Conviction Discovery before the scheduled May 6 hearing. The prosecution team was fully prepared to challenge both the motion and the constitutionality of the recently amended post-conviction discovery statute had it proceeded to hearing.
âAs a prosecutor, conviction integrity is critical to me,â said Jeff Laugero, Stanislaus County District Attorney, âand the appellate process is crucial to the integrity of the criminal justice system. Here, once again, the process worked. Judge Hill recognized the most recent attempt to undo the juryâs verdict for what it was â nothing more than recycled, repackaged and rebranded arguments. No credible ânew evidenceâ was presented, and I found the real bombshell to be the unsealing of a transcript that contradicted the claims Peterson has made for years attempting to discredit law enforcement, the investigation and the prosecution. Petersonâs 2004 conviction has been upheld through two decades of post-conviction litigation and again with this ruling in 2026. Laci, Conner and their family deserve the finality that justice promised them."
Petersonâs Third Petition, filed in August 2025, asserted 14 claims, including a claim of actual innocence, recycling arguments that courts have rejected at every level since his conviction in 2004. For years, repeated motions and writs have required the commitment of experienced prosecutors and staff to evaluate, investigate and respond. The prosecution team has responded to each defense pleading with meticulous precision, culminating in a 903-page Informal Response that dismantled Petersonâs claims one by one with the facts, evidence and legal analysis. âThe prosecution team has been exceptional in their professionalism, thoroughness, and integrity throughout this process,â said DA Laugero. âTheir analysis reaffirmed the juryâs verdict was correct, as did Judge Hillâs rulings.â
Deputy District Attorney Ahnna Reicks, a member of the prosecution team stated, âJudge Hillâs rulings demonstrate that the court carefully and thoughtfully evaluated all of Petersonâs allegations and compared that against the entire trial record, appeal, and earlier petition. We know this undertaking was not easy because the record and filings in this case are extensive. The court arrived at an appropriate and correct decision. It is our hope that the family and friends of Laci and Conner will finally receive the closure they deserve. The entire prosecution team would also like to express our appreciation to District Attorney Jeff Laugero for his foresight in establishing and supporting this team and his consistent, unwavering support. We are also grateful to the Modesto Police Department and the California Department of Justice Bureau of Forensic Science for their continued assistance throughout this very lengthy process.â
After Two Decades, a Family's Right to Closure Moves Closer
For over two decades, Laci and Connerâs family has been forced to relive their grief each time Peterson submits new filings. Laciâs mother, Sharon Rocha, has sat through years of post-conviction hearings. Two years ago, she addressed the court through a letter and asked simply: âWhen will this end?â Californiaâs Constitution, through Marsyâs Law, Article I, §28(b)(9), guarantees crime victimsâ families the right to âa prompt and final conclusion of the case.â That promise moves meaningfully closer to fulfillment today.
One Pending Matter
One matter remains pending before the California Supreme Court: Petersonâs appeal of a 2025 ruling on his second habeas petition concerning the Juror 7 bias claim. His current defense team has vowed to challenge Judge Hillâs April 27 ruling as well.
For a detailed summary of the most recent denial, see the District Attorneyâs formal Press Release dated May 12, 2026, available at: https://www.stanislaus-da.org/pdf/news/2026/press-release-05-12-2026-SPeterson.pdf.
