Scott Peterson may not appear at hearing in Modesto Friday

Convicted double-murderer Scott Peterson is scheduled to appear in a Modesto courtroom Friday for the first time since publicity caused his 2004 trial to be transferred to San Mateo County.

The purpose of the hearing is to determine whether Peterson needs to be appointed a public defender or has retained private trial counsel, said Stanislaus County District Attorney Birgit Fladager.

However, because of the pandemic, it's unclear if Peterson, who is at San Quentin State Prison, will appear in person or remotely, if at all, Fladager said. Prison officials were ordered this week to reduce the population of San Quentin by 50% to prevent another outbreak after the virus spread through the facility this summer.

Fladager is considering whether to retry the penalty phase of the case after the California Supreme Court unanimously reversed Peterson's death sentence on automatic appeal in August

"My speculation is that they're going to ask the court on Friday to give them more time to make a decision about whether to retry the penalty phase," said Eugene P. Harris, Peterson's co-counsel at trial, in an interview Wednesday. "And they're going to base that on asking the court to say, 'Look what's happening over in San Mateo.' If that motion is granted, the entire case gets retried."

Harris said he'll be representing Peterson in his sentencing matters along with other counsel.

Peterson's recent successes at the state's highest court revolved around the questions of whether the jury that convicted him of first- and second-degree murder and sentenced him to death was properly selected and was impartial. Peterson has maintained his innocence in connection to the Christmas Eve murders of his pregnant wife, Laci, and unborn son, Conner, in 2002.

In throwing out his death sentence in August, the high court held that Peterson's trial judge, the late Alameda County Superior Court Judge Alfred Delucchi, improperly dismissed more than a dozen prospective jurors because they wrote in questionnaire responses that they opposed the death penalty. But his convictions were upheld. People v. Peterson, 2020 DJDAR 9221.

On a separate appeal just last week, however, the high court hinted it had concerns about the validity of his convictions based on one of the 19 claims raised in Peterson's petition. A juror who was originally seated as an alternate who Peterson's attorneys argued "worked hard to get on the jury" failed to disclose material information that may have prejudiced the outcome, the court held in sending the matter back to San Mateo County. In re Scott Peterson, S230782.