SANTA ANA, CA – A former Orange County judge was convicted of second-degree murder on Wednesday, following a retrial that gripped the local community. Jeffrey Ferguson, who once presided over courtrooms in the same county, was found guilty of fatally shooting his wife, Cheryl, in their Anaheim Hills residence in August 2023.
The case, which has drawn significant attention, initially ended in a mistrial earlier this year when the jury could not reach a unanimous decision. This time, however, the jury reached a verdict, concluding that Ferguson intentionally killed his wife during a heated argument over financial matters.
Prosecutors detailed a tumultuous evening that escalated from a dinner table disagreement to a tragic confrontation. During the argument, Ferguson allegedly made a hand gesture resembling a gun, which he pointed at Cheryl. As tensions rose, Cheryl reportedly challenged him, suggesting he might as well point a real gun at her. It was then, prosecutors argued, that Ferguson drew a firearm from his ankle holster and shot his wife.
Throughout the trial, Ferguson maintained that the shooting was accidental. In his initial trial, the jury was split, with 11 jurors favoring a conviction and one holding out, resulting in a deadlock and the need for a retrial.
The case was emotionally charged, particularly for those familiar with the Fergusons. The district attorney, who has known the couple for over three decades, expressed personal difficulty with the proceedings but affirmed respect for the jury’s decision. “We have the greatest system of justice in the world,” he said, acknowledging the jury’s role in delivering the verdict.
Despite the conviction, Ferguson’s legal team announced plans to appeal the decision, maintaining their client’s innocence. Ferguson, who had been free on bail during the trial, was taken into custody immediately following the verdict.
Sentencing is set for June 13, and Ferguson faces a potential maximum sentence of 40 years, considering both the second-degree murder charge and an additional gun enhancement.
The case highlights the delicate balance of personal and professional relationships in the pursuit of justice, as well as the ongoing debate over gun control and domestic disputes.