Podcast Summary: The Megyn Kelly Show Episode: Scott Peterson May Get a New Trial - A "True Crime Christmas" Special | Ep. 975
Release Date: January 2, 2025
Host: Megyn Kelly
Guest: Matt Murphy, Former California Prosecutor and District Attorney

1. Introduction

In the concluding episode of the "True Crime Christmas" series, Megyn Kelly delves into the infamous Scott Peterson case, exploring the possibility of a new trial based on emerging evidence. Joining her is Matt Murphy, a former California prosecutor and district attorney, to dissect the complexities of the case and its potential legal repercussions.

2. Background on the Scott Peterson Case

Scott Peterson was convicted for the 2002 murders of his pregnant wife, Lacey Peterson, and their unborn son, Connor. The case garnered massive media attention, primarily due to the gruesome nature of the crime and the subsequent investigation.

3. Effort for a Retrial: New Evidence

Megyn introduces the possibility of Scott Peterson receiving a retrial, highlighting that new discovery has been granted access to evidence previously deemed inadmissible. This newfound evidence purportedly supports Peterson's theory that he did not commit the murders but rather that Lacey was a victim of a separate burglary incident.

Megyn Kelly [00:42]: “The judge has now opened up discovery again for him to start probing that theory more meaningfully. Is that about where things stand?”

4. Defense's Theory and Matt Murphy's Rebuttal

Matt Murphy expresses skepticism about the defense's theory, pointing out inconsistencies and emphasizing the robustness of the existing evidence against Peterson. He critiques the notion that burglars meticulously framed Peterson, arguing that such a scenario is highly improbable.

Matt Murphy [04:18]: “It's utterly absurd... This was a domestic violence murder, and I don't have to say alleged because the guy is convicted right now of it.”

5. The Role of the Innocence Project

The conversation shifts to the LA Innocence Project, with Matt Murphy questioning its efficacy and suggesting that it tends to focus on high-profile cases at the expense of broader systemic issues. He distinguishes it from the general Innocence Project, citing differences in standards and outcomes.

Matt Murphy [05:43]: “But since that initial flurry of kind of glory... it seems like they've really settled more into stuff like this high profile stuff that gets a lot of headlines.”

6. Nature and Validity of Circumstantial Evidence

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around circumstantial evidence. Matt Murphy defends its legitimacy, asserting that it forms the backbone of many domestic violence murder cases. He challenges the notion that circumstantial evidence is inherently weak, highlighting its critical role in prosecutorial success.

Matt Murphy [07:13]: “Circumstantial evidence is pretty much everything else. I mean, circumstantial evidence, it's like, you know, this guy had every poker tell that you could ever want during this investigation.”

7. DNA Evidence and Its Implications

The potential for DNA evidence to influence the case is explored. Matt Murphy anticipates that modern DNA testing on items like a mattress found near the crime scene could produce new leads. However, he cautions that such evidence must be directly linked to Lacey Peterson to hold significance.

Matt Murphy [09:40]: “They are going to swab it... I can virtually guarantee you will find unknown male DNA on that mattress.”

8. Behavioral Analysis of Scott Peterson

Megyn Kelly and Matt Murphy analyze Peterson's behavior during the investigation, noting his lack of visible emotion and inconsistencies in his statements. They argue that his demeanor was atypical for someone genuinely grieving, suggesting possible deceit.

Matt Murphy [19:45]: “Every moment is so real, is so tactile... But there are certainly times that I become a wreck.”

9. The Issue of Brady Violations

The discussion touches upon Brady violations, where the prosecution may have failed to disclose exculpatory evidence. Matt Murphy scrutinizes the defense's claims, asserting that the new evidence presented does not meet the threshold required to overturn the conviction.

Matt Murphy [34:44]: “Brady evidence is a tricky thing because Brady evidence has been an evolving area of the law... I feel very strongly that what the defense has come up with here is laughably short of where I believe the standard should be on that.”

10. Analyzing Eyewitness Testimonies

Megyn Kelly presents the defense's reliance on eyewitness accounts claiming they saw Lacey being forced into a van. Matt Murphy counters by highlighting the unreliability of such testimonies, especially those obtained years after the event.

Matt Murphy [32:22]: “When you talk about another big thing that the defense has raised is one of the arguments they made... 74 officially reported sightings... It’s like Elvis sightings.”

11. Comparison to Other Notable Cases

The episode draws parallels between the Scott Peterson case and other high-profile cases like Chris Watts and the Menendez Brothers, emphasizing patterns in prosecutorial practices and public perceptions of guilt.

Megyn Kelly [60:54]: “This is reminding me of Chris Watts too.”

12. Conclusion: Prospects for a Retrial

Both hosts express doubt regarding the likelihood of Peterson receiving a new trial. Matt Murphy reinforces his stance, hoping that the legal system upholds the original conviction unless incontrovertible evidence emerges.

Matt Murphy [64:32]: “Oh, God. You know, in my fair state of California... I really hope that the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office approaches this case with as much vigor that first of all, they defend and they advocate on behalf of their conviction.”

Megyn Kelly summarizes their stance, reinforcing the improbability of a retrial and reaffirming the strength of the original conviction based on the amassed evidence.

Megyn Kelly [64:32]: “So, in sum, we do not believe it is likely that they get ordered a new trial.”

Notable Quotes:

• Matt Murphy [04:18]: “It's utterly absurd... This was a domestic violence murder, and I don't have to say alleged because the guy is convicted right now of it.”
• Matt Murphy [07:13]: “Circumstantial evidence is pretty much everything else. I mean, circumstantial evidence, it's like, you know, this guy had every poker tell that you could ever want during this investigation.”
• Matt Murphy [34:44]: “Brady evidence is a tricky thing because Brady evidence has been an evolving area of the law... I feel very strongly that what the defense has come up with here is laughably short of where I believe the standard should be on that.”
• Matt Murphy [64:32]: “Oh, God. You know, in my fair state of California... I really hope that the Stanislaus County District Attorney's office approaches this case with as much vigor that first of all, they defend and they advocate on behalf of their conviction.”

Final Thoughts

The episode offers a comprehensive examination of the Scott Peterson case, weighing new developments against the established framework of evidence and legal standards. Matt Murphy's insights provide a prosecutorial perspective, challenging the feasibility of overturning a conviction built on substantial circumstantial evidence. Megyn Kelly facilitates a balanced discourse, allowing listeners to grasp the intricacies of one of America's most enduring true crime cases.