SANTA ANA, Calif. — A jury was seated Tuesday for the retrial of a 74-year- old Orange County Superior Court judge accused of fatally shooting his wife in their Anaheim Hills home.

Last month, a jury deadlocked at 11-1 in favor of conviction on a second-degree murder charge in the case against Jeffrey Ferguson, who is accused in the Aug. 3, 2023, of killing his 65-year-old wife, Sheryl.

Attorneys are expected to return to court Thursday to work on motions regarding evidence to be used in the trial. Opening statements and testimony are expected to begin Monday.

Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Eleanor Hunter knocked down every one of defense attorney Cameron Talley's reasons for seeking a delay in the retrial.

Talley said he had two other potential trials that he had told other judges he was ready to go on, but Hunter said since those cases were not in trial yet the Ferguson matter took precedence with a large group of potential jurors waiting for the retrial to begin.

Talley also noted that his second-chair in Ferguson's first trial, Kaveh Newmen, has struck out on his own and would not be available for the retrial. Talley said he had another attorney who has agreed to help him in the retrial, and Hunter said it was not a good reason to delay the retrial.

Talley also explained that he had subpoenaed a couple of doctors who could testify about the shoulder injury that Ferguson blamed in part for the shooting. Ferguson testified that he felt a "shooting pain" in his shoulder as he was trying to set the gun down — it caused his arm to give out and, as he was fumbling to regain control of the weapon, it was triggered and killed his wife.

Talley said he needed more time to find a new expert who could testify about the injured shoulder.

"It's obviously critical," Talley said.

Senior Deputy District Attorney Seton Hunt told Hunter he had no doubt that Ferguson has an impaired shoulder, but he said he would dispute the defendant's claim that he could not hold the gun without the shoulder giving out.

"You've had time to look for another doctor," Hunter said.

"I had two doctors subpoenaed, but they went south on me," Talley said.

"When I subpoenaed them they wanted $7,500 in the morning and $7,500 in the afternoon," Talley said. "I explained to them that they're under subpoena."

"I've only had 28 days since the last trial" to find another expert, Talley said.

"You've had the time since the crime happened," Hunter said. "This isn't anything new."

Talley also said he needed more time to find a ballistics expert to testify for the defense on the theory that the cartridge discharged from the weapon couldn't have landed where it did under the prosecution's theory of the case. Hunter rejected that argument as well.

"You had a gun expert on call last time," that wasn't used, Hunter said.

Talley also said his ex-wife, the mother of their son, was gravely ill and he needed to be available for that, but Hunter said, "If something happens during trial then let us know."

Talley said he called the state Bar hotline to seek advice on how to proceed if he felt he wasn't ready for trial and he was told he could face sanctions if he went to trial not ready. Hunter had no sympathy for that argument as well.

"We're in a different posture now," she said. "We've tried this case before... There's very few things in dispute in this case... It is not a complicated case in any shape or form."

Hunter also criticized Ferguson for doing multiple interviews with reporters after the mistrial.

"I know Mr. Ferguson went on a press tour" after the hung jury led to a mistrial, Hunter said. "One of the things that piqued my interest is he was looking for it to be resolved."

Hunter said if Ferguson wanted a plea deal without doing any time behind bars, then the answer was no.

Hunter also warned Ferguson that he may have run afoul of judicial ethics that prohibit judges from commenting on pending cases.

"He's not allowed to comment on a case that is open," Hunter said.

She said the only reason she could see for Ferguson doing the interviews would be to taint the jury pool.

"And that's got to be a violation of the code of ethics," Hunter said.