I don't think it's quite that simpel as we saw the same thing with the Susan Smith trial. She committed an extremely cold-blooded act of murder (putting your two sleeping kids into a car, pushing the car into a lake, and watching the car slowly sink while you have ample time to change your mind and save them.) She admitted to the crime after her alledged story of a car jacking was disproved, and there was plenty of evidence against her. She was also having an affair (ala Peterson) at the time. Yet, it only takes her father coming into court and claiming that he had severly abused Smith as a child (despite the fact that there was no history, record, or observation of this abuse prior to his appearance in court) to generate reasonable doubt as to if she's guilty and should be executed. She did get convicted, but got life. If her husband had been the killer he would be stokin' the fires of Hell by now.
There was a mountain of reasonable doubt in the Peterson trial, and he ends up guilty and sentenced to death. Why? Because he's a guy!
but interesting grounds for an appeal though... Law and Order tv show :shrug: 
In cases like this, it'd be nice if the judge could simply recall the jurors and say, "Okay, this one little bit of information was inaccurate. That said, does it change your opinion in any way?" Odds are, it wouldn't. She's still a nut who killed her kids.
