A new California parole board policy has victims’ families, including those connected to the Laci Peterson case, sounding the alarm and taking legal action. The regulation, set to take effect in October, could open the door for serial killers and mass shooters serving life without parole to potentially seek resentencing or clemency.
Anne Marie Schubert, a former Sacramento District Attorney now leading the Criminal Justice Legal Foundation, is at the forefront of a lawsuit against the policy. She argues the board is overstepping its authority.
“We’re talking about people that would have been qualified for the death penalty,” Schubert said. “So they are the worst of the worst.”
She highlighted cases like Scott Peterson, convicted of murdering his pregnant wife Laci and their unborn son. Peterson was initially sentenced to death, but that was overturned, and he was resentenced to life without parole in 2021.
The policy could also affect others, including a gang member who fatally shot a San Francisco police officer in 2004. Schubert also pointed to a case where a man was granted early release under a different law, only to allegedly 𝓀𝒾𝓁𝓁 again.
The lawsuit, filed in Sacramento Superior Court, claims the board is bypassing the state legislature. Schubert noted that a similar bill failed to pass last year, and now the board is using a bureaucratic process to achieve the same goal.
“They backdoor it, and they go through a bureaucratic process that’s not just under 26, it’s everybody,” she said.
Sharon Rocha, Laci Peterson’s mother, released a statement expressing her frustration. She believed her daughter’s killer would never be free again.
“Justice demands finality,” Rocha said.
Kim Juarez, a close friend of Laci, described the emotional toll of the ongoing legal battles. She said the family has watched appeals and resentencings, and now this new policy feels like another wound.
“The only certainty that we had when Scott was put away was that he wasn’t ever going to get out,” Juarez said. “That’s what, to me, is aggravating.”
She described the trauma as a cloud that hangs over every memory of her friend. Even years later, the possibility of Peterson’s release remains a source of fear.
The parole board has defended its policy, stating that state law does not explicitly exclude those serving life without parole from consideration. They argue they have the discretion to evaluate these cases.
Schubert disagrees, saying the law only grants the board authority over parole, and life without parole means exactly that.
As the legal battle heats up, victims’ families are left wondering what comes next. Will this policy stand, or will the courts shut it down before it ever takes effect?
