Mark Geragos said Scott Peterson should get another look from the courts, arguing that there is not enough evidence tying Peterson to the 2002 killing of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child. Speaking at CrimeCon 2026 in Las Vegas, Geragos told Fox News that Peterson is not “capable” of committing the murders and said the case deserves renewed scrutiny after more than 20 years.
Geragos said the California Court of Appeal and the L.A. Innocence Project both believe there is enough reason to review the case again. He argued that no evidence he has seen supports a criminal conviction and said the prolonged time since the original trial makes further examination appropriate. His comments come as Peterson’s case remains a focus of public attention and legal debate more than two decades after the killings.
The attorney also criticized the handling of evidence in the original case. He said the trial court was wrong to deny DNA and forensic testing and claimed the prosecution is now resisting testing because of what he described as hidden evidence. According to Geragos, the fact that prosecutors do not want the material tested suggests confidence in the conviction rather than confidence in the evidence.
Geragos’ remarks reflect a long-running defense argument that Peterson’s conviction should be revisited in light of additional forensic review. He suggested that testing could be key to challenging the outcome of the case, especially if previously unexamined or undisclosed evidence proves significant.
Peterson was convicted in 2004 for the murder of his wife, who was eight months pregnant when she disappeared in December 2002. The case drew national attention at the time and has continued to generate headlines because of appeals, claims of innocence, and questions over evidence handling.
At CrimeCon 2026, Geragos framed the case as one that should not remain closed simply because of the passage of time. He maintained that the courts should consider whether the original conviction was reached without a full and fair forensic review. His comments underscore the continuing legal fight over one of the most widely followed murder cases in recent U.S. history.
