In sum: The law is clear that a capital jury may include those who, as an abstract matter, oppose — or even strongly oppose — the death penalty, though a prosecutor might seek to limit the number of such jurors. It may include those who favor — or even strongly favor — the death penalty, though defense counsel might seek to limit their numbers.

Eligibility for service does not depend on a juror’s abstract views of capital punishment.
It depends, instead, on the prospective juror’s
willingness and ability to follow a court’s instructions and conscientiously consider both penalties in light of the evidence presented by each side. This is the meaning of the guarantee of an impartial jury, drawn from the community at large, for the trial of a defendant facing the death penalty.

Under that standard, the questionnaire answers submitted by these prospective jurors did not establish they were unfit to serve. Voir dire might have painted a different picture, with the court and counsel through oral questions exploring whether each individual juror had the necessary ability and willingness to consider both life and death as options. But for these 13 jurors, there was no such questioning. Thus, we know only that in the abstract they opposed the death penalty. The record made in the trial court does not offer a basis sufficient to uphold excusal of these jurors for cause under the clear standards laid out by the United States Supreme Court.

The Court rejected Peterson's other challenges to the death penalty phase, as well as his arguments as to flaws in the guilt phase.

California must now decide whether to retry the penalty phase, or accept life in prison without parole for Peterson, if Peterson is willing to accept that. Peterson has always maintained his innocence. He has additional legal options open to him in both state and federal court. Via Yahoo News today:

Peterson can still argue that he was unfairly convicted, using evidence that was not considered at his trial, and if that fails can try again in federal court.

“While we are disappointed that such a biased jury selection process results in a reversal of only the death sentence, we look forward to the Court’s review of the new forensic and eyewitness evidence of innocence,” Gardner wrote.

Geragos said he expects Peterson will eventually be exonerated. “We’re halfway there,” he said

I frequently commented on this case on cable news channels while it was happening. I provided live coverage of the guilty verdict for the Washington Post in November, 2004, including answering readers' questions. Surprisingly, the Post still has it online here.

My personal thoughts on the guilty verdict I are here on TalkLeft:

I do not believe the charges against Scott were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence was paltry at best. He was tarred by being a liar and a cheat. Scott Peterson was tried and convicted in the media, months before the trial started.

There was no murder weapon, no cause of death, no time of death, no identifiable crime scene, no witnesses. And a reconstituted jury that deliberated less than a full business day.

This jury as much said, "Someone killed her and there is no other explanation so it must have been Scott." Shameful. That is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

Let the appeals begin. And may the jury spare his life.

Of course, the jury did not spare Scott's life, but the California Supreme Court has, at least until a retrial of the penalty phase and another guilty verdict.

Talkleft has written more than 100 posts (accessible here) on this case and the media attention it garnered, from the day Laci Peterson's body was discovered in 2003 (Scott Peterson was arrested the next day) through 2012 when Mark Geragos gave his closing argument for life instead of death (actual transcript here) and he filed his appeal.

Scott Peterson's 470 page appeal brief is here. The states's 519 page response is here.