It’s been more than two decades since the murder trial of transfixed the nation following the grisly 2002 death of his pregnant wife, Laci Peterson, and their unborn child, Conner Peterson.

Now, as part of the In Touch Investigates new true crime video series, a legal expert exclusively tells In Touch’s why he believes the case against the convicted killer, 52, was deeply flawed and did not result in a “fair trial” weeks after a 400-page petition to the California Court of Appeals was filed by the Los Angeles Innocence Project, arguing that Scott’s conviction should be overturned.

“I know the Innocence Project down in L.A. They go through a very rigorous process of vetting the cases that they’re going to take and in this situation, I would imagine they spent months if not years taking a look at the Peterson case,” legal expert says in a video interview as part of In Touch Investigates, a new series covering true crime cases. “The fact that they have decided to take this case isn’t going to mean much to the Appellate Courts. I mean it happens, not a lot, but enough times.”

“The public might think ‘oh if they took it, maybe there’s something there.’ Well, there might be something there, but it doesn’t mean that the Appellate Court will give any weight at all that the L.A. Innocence Project took this case,” he explains.

In a nearly 400-page petition, the L.A. Innocence Project argued that Scott is innocent, claiming he was denied his rights to due process and a fair trial because jurors did not get the whole story.

It was further alleged that police and prosecutors did not fairly investigate the case, and possibly destroyed critical evidence, citing two nearby crimes that took place around that time including a burglary at a neighbor’s home and a burned van in Modesto’s Airport District.

Within the filing is a 126-page declaration from Scott, in which he maintains that he was wrongfully convicted.

Laci was 27 years old and eight months pregnant when she disappeared on Christmas Eve in 2002. Her body was tragically discovered in San Francisco Bay in April 2003.

Scott was arrested and charged that same month with first-degree murder in the death of his wife and second-degree murder in the death of their unborn son.

Prosecution said during the six-month trial that Scott had several motives for killing Laci — that he wanted a way out of his marriage and the responsibilities that came with her pregnancy, that he wanted to continue his extramarital affair with and that he was facing extreme financial pressure.

Furthermore, Scott allegedly told his mistress that he had “lost his wife” and that he was about to spend his first Christmas without her two weeks before she was murdered, the lead detective in the case testified.

Scott was ultimately found guilty in 2004. He was initially sentenced to death, but that was overturned and he was resentenced to life without parole.

When asked if this petition could change anything, Cardoza tells In Touch, “I mean there’s been a lot of criticism of how the police investigated this case because a lot of us think that they made up their minds early on.”

He mentions “confirmation bias” and says beliefs remain that police may have been looking solely for evidence to prove that theory, addressing claims that investigators didn’t do what they “should have done.”

“Will that alone prove that Scott didn’t do it? No, that’s going to be enough alone,” he says.

Cardoza offers his speculation as to why the District Attorney’s office is “resisting” the appeal to In Touch, explaining, “Honestly, I think they’re afraid it might get reversed. You have no scientific evidence, no eyewitnesses, nothing but circumstantial evidence.”

“The emotional charge of this trial was off the hooks. I mean I’ve tried over 50 murder trials and I’ve never seen how emotionally affected this jury panel was. I don’t know whether Scott did it or not. I don’t know. But I do know, to my mind, this wasn’t a fair trial.”

He tells In Touch that looking ahead, the Court of Appeals will look at the case and then decide whether or not they should grant Scott a new trial, revealing Scott will need to be cross-examined if they proceed.

“It’s going to take a while,” Cardoza says. “The voluminous transcripts, the voluminous evidence in the case. We’re going to be in it at least a year I would think, if not more.”