Prosecution appeals hearsay ruling in Peterson case. Trial delayed. Will Drew go home?

Today the prosecution in the trial of Drew Peterson appealed Judge White’s most recent ruling on the hearsay statements they wanted admitted.

Last week State’s Attorney Glasgow asked Judge White to reconsider his decision about the hearsay evidence, citing a June 24th Illinois Supreme Court ruling, which upheld the conviction of Eric Hanson, a Naperville man sentenced to death for killing his parents, sister and brother-in-law, but the judge denied the motion.

The trial, which was scheduled to start tomorrow, will be delayed while an appellate court reviews the judge’s decision. It’s possible that Drew Peterson could be allowed to return to his home while the appeal is being heard.

A press conference is scheduled for 4 p.m.

We’ll update this post throughout the day as we hear more. Please check the comments section for the latest news.

PEOPLE v. HANSON ruling filed June 24, 2010
Rule 604. Appeals from Certain Judgments and Orders
We’re following Joe Hosey on Twitter

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~ Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

About these ads

141 thoughts on “Prosecution appeals hearsay ruling in Peterson case. Trial delayed. Will Drew go home?

  1. Judge White didn’t “budge,” but if Hanson ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, he’s defying their ruling, no?

    So, it makes sense that the State is appealing.

  2. Prosecutors: Drew Peterson trial will be delayed

    The Associated Press
    Wednesday, July 7, 2010; 2:37 PM

    JOLIET, Ill. — Prosecutors say former police officer Drew Peterson’s trial on charges of killing his third wife will be delayed while they appeal a judge’s decision to exclude some hearsay evidence.

    Jury selection was set to begin Thursday in Peterson’s trial in the 2004 drowning death of ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

    Will County Judge Stephen White ruled that he would not allow a jury to hear some hearsay – or second hand – evidence. That evidence makes up the bulk of the prosecution’s case.

    So far, prosecutors have not produced physical evidence linking Peterson to Savio’s death, witnesses or a confession.

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow said Wednesday he will appeal the judge’s decision but did not say exactly what hearsay statements were excluded.

  3. Drew Peterson trial delayed

    July 7, 2010

    BY DAN ROZEK Staff Reporter

    A last-minute appeal by Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow is expected to delay Thursday’s scheduled start of the Drew Peterson murder trial, Glasgow said today in a statement.

    The appeal comes after Judge Stephen White barred Will County prosecutors from offering some key hearsay testimony during the trial of the former Bolingbrook cop accused of drowning third wife Kathleen Savio.

    Prosecutors had hoped to introduce more than a dozen hearsay statements–including some from Savio herself–that implicated Peterson in her 2004 bathtub drowning death.

    In arguing that those statements be admitted, Glasgow cited a recent Appellate Court ruling upholding the use of such secondhand statements in criminal trials But White this week still ruled many of those statements would not be allowed at Peterson’s trial.

    “The people of the state of Illinois are entitled to a fair trial and I intend to see that they get one,” Glasgow said in his statement. “As state’s attorney, I am obligated to appeal the judge’s ruling to ensure that every legally admissible statement may be presented at trial.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2475230,drew-peterson-trial-delay-070710.article

  4. joehosey

    Thursday hearing to determine if Drew fets out.
    8 minutes ago via txt

    joehosey

    Lopez: we have to in front of (Judge Stephen) White tomorrow and ask for his release.
    9 minutes ago via txt

  5. Why would he get out? It isn’t like he is being held on a minor charge. It is a 20 Million Dollar Bond For MURDER!

    I don’t see it happening….

    Then again – What do I know?

  6. Blah, blah. More of the same:

    Peterson trial delayed as prosecutors appeal ruling on evidence
    July 7, 2010 1:26 PM

    …Glasgow said he will ask the state appellate court to consider White’s ruling in light of a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling upholding the conviction of Eric Hanson, a Naperville man sentenced to death for the 2005 slaying of his parents, sister and brother-in-law.

    The court unanimously rejected Hanson’s position that hearsay statements are not reliable enough to be allowed under common-law doctrine.

    — Stacy St. Clair

    http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/peterson-trial-delayed-as-prosecutors-appeal-ruling-on-evidence.html

  7. Wow, I was thinking….if this delay is up to six months, possibly, who will hear the case then? Judge White seemed to be pushing to get this case through before he retired in October, now, if he still plans on retiring and the case is delayed on appeal, he will be basking in the sun somewhere, not ruling inside of a courtroom.

    Lots of twists and turns in this. Would love to hear what Judge White thinks of this appeal. It blindsided most everyone — not even the defense attorneys knew about it. I believe it was a press release out of the State’s Attorney’s Office that broke the news.

  8. rescueapet :
    Judge White didn’t “budge,” but if Hanson ruling was upheld by the Supreme Court, he’s defying their ruling, no?
    So, it makes sense that the State is appealing.

    Rescue……………..it makes sense to me that the prosecution is appealing Judge White’s decision. I want to see the prosecution’s case as strong as possible going into trial. It’s disappointing that the trial won’t start tomorrow, but in the long run, this might be better if it makes for a stronger case. I wonder how the defense is going to spin this?

  9. If Peterson were to get out on bond, does this mean we go back to Brodsky parading him around in the media and joking about getting dates, or will the “new” guys rein in Peterson and his enabler? That would be another interesting aspect of this all. As it is, none of these attorneys, when they are together, seem to bond with one another, and I assume that means there are differences of opinion as to what they think about how things were handled.

    Then, as an aside, there is the interesting aspect of a mysterious search for the remains of Stacy that has been hushed. No formal press release has been put out that it’s over, or that it’s not.

    Whew, so much going on.

  10. The prosecutor’s pre-trial evidence appeal took over a year for the Oswego crash. The drive was charged with aggravated DUI and reckless homicide of 5 teens and she walked around completely free during that year.

  11. The commenter on In Session said that the time involved in the appeal can be related to whether or not the accused is jailed or free. If the defendant is still in jail they will rush it through in a week or two, but if the defendant is free they might put off the case for a month or more.

  12. Of course this is wishful thinking on my part but, let him go free…then arrest him with regard to Stacy.

  13. http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2475202,Peterson-trial-delay_JO070710.article

    Prosecutor’s appeal to delay Peterson trial

    July 7, 2010
    Sun-Times Media

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow announced today that he will appeal Judge Stephen White’s Tuesday ruling regarding which statements will be allowed into evidence under the hearsay exception in the Drew Peterson trial.

    Glasgow filed a notice of appeal on Wednesday in Will County Circuit Court. He filed the notice after personally informing White of his intentions, according to a press release.

    One of Peterson’s attorneys, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, says the prosecution’s appeal should get Peterson out of jail while the matter is sorted out.

    “It should,” Lopez said. “We’re going to do research on it right now.”

    Glascow made the decision to appeal after extensive consultation and deliberation with his trial team as well as with the Illinois State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office. The appeal will delay the start of the trial, which was scheduled to begin on Thursday with jury selection.

    Glasgow will ask the Third District Appellate Court to consider White’s ruling in light of a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling in People v. Hanson, a death-penalty case from DuPage County. According to the press release, in the Hanson case the Illinois Supreme Court discussed issues with regard to applying the hearsay exception and stated that “we now expressly recognize that the doctrine (of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing) serves both as an exception to the hearsay rule and to extinguish confrontation clause claims.”

    Before making his decision to appeal, Glasgow also discussed the Hanson ruling with DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett, whose office prosecuted the Hanson case.

    In light of the new law contained in Hanson, Glasgow believes the prosecution is entitled to present additional hearsay statements at Drew Peterson’s murder trial, the release stated.

    “The people of the state of Illinois are entitled to a fair trial, and I intend to see that they get one,” Glasgow said. “As State’s Attorney, I am obligated to appeal the judge’s ruling to ensure that every legally admissible statement may be presented at trial.”

    The Illinois Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hanson on June 24. Glasgow asked White to consider his hearsay ruling in the Peterson case in light of Hanson on June 30. A hearing was conducted on the motion to consider Hanson on July 2. White denied the motion on Tuesday afternoon.

  14. facsmiley :

    The commenter on In Session said that the time involved in the appeal can be related to whether or not the accused is jailed or free. If the defendant is still in jail they will rush it through in a week or two, but if the defendant is free they might put off the case for a month or more.

    Ah, that’s interesting. Thank you, Facs. Good info.

  15. harleyjoey :
    Why would he get out? It isn’t like he is being held on a minor charge. It is a 20 Million Dollar Bond For MURDER!
    I don’t see it happening….
    Then again – What do I know?

    I sure hope DP isn’t released awaiting the decision from the appellate court. I don’t see why he would be released…….this is more like a procedural question, and has nothing to do with DP’s guilty/not guilty status. Unless it has to do with the length of time a person can be held awaiting trial?

    If released, I would worry about DP tampering with witnesses, and especially in regard to the recent search in Peoria. If Stacy’s remains are buried in that area, DP could use the simple method of deduction to ferret out who’s talking to LE and put pressure on them to stop talking.

  16. Beth Karas on InSession TV stated that an appeal to the Appellate Court could take as few as two weeks for an Appeal to be heard for an incarcerated defendant.

    This DP defendant is not the same as the Oswego defendant.

    Hopefully, the judge will take into consideration that there was testimony from a co-worker that DP offered to pay him $25,000 to “kill” Kathleen Savio.

    Which available attorney will enter into the defense case now?

  17. can you imagine, what it would be like if the courts let everyone charged with murder out, while appeals were being settled?

  18. Funny, Lopez and Brodsky. Lopez tells the press they’re going to “research” the idea of DP’s release.

    Brodsky is on his way to Joliet to DEMAND his release.

    Geesh. Bozo’s Circus is on the air.

  19. facsmiley :
    The commenter on In Session said that the time involved in the appeal can be related to whether or not the accused is jailed or free. If the defendant is still in jail they will rush it through in a week or two, but if the defendant is free they might put off the case for a month or more.

    At this point, I think it would be far better to keep DP in jail and have the matter before the appellate court heard as quickly as possible, and allow the trial to proceed in a timely matter. If it takes two or three weeks for the appeal to be heard, and the trial can get underway by, let say August 1st, Judge White can still preside over the trial and retire in October as he planned.

    I think the defense will argue for having DP released awaiting the decision of the appellate court, as they’ve sought a delay in the trial all along, and this could be the means for achieving that delay.

  20. judgin :
    Beth Karas on InSession TV stated that an appeal to the Appellate Court could take as few as two weeks for an Appeal to be heard for an incarcerated defendant.
    This DP defendant is not the same as the Oswego defendant.
    Hopefully, the judge will take into consideration that there was testimony from a co-worker that DP offered to pay him $25,000 to “kill” Kathleen Savio.
    Which available attorney will enter into the defense case now?

    Wow. Then I wonder why the Illinois Appellate Court took a year to rule on the Oswego crash. The driver was on house arrest and her parents had to put their house up for her bail. They let her off house arrest, took the lien off of the parents’ house, and let her run wild and completely free with the only deal being that her driver’s license was still revoked.

  21. grandam :
    can you imagine, what it would be like if the courts let everyone charged with murder out, while appeals were being settled?

    This only happens when the prosecution is the one who appeals. They very seldom do so because of this very issue.

  22. If I lived in Will County, or anywhere in Illinois for that matter – I would be raising a bitch fit if he does get out. He is a danger to society IMO of course.

    Granted he has not been convicted yet, but it just sounds insane to me that because the Prosecution is appealing – HE gets out?

    IF he does get out, I just hope he pulls some sort of jackassery to get him in more trouble. :)

  23. Never mind:

    ADVISORY
    State’s Attorney Glasgow Files Appeal in Peterson Case

    Press Briefing: 3:15 p.m., Wednesday, July 7
    Will County State’s Attorney’s Office
    121 N. Chicago Street, Joliet

    JOLIET – Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow announced today (Wednesday, July 7, 2010) that he will appeal Judge Stephen White’s Tuesday, July 6 ruling regarding which statements will be allowed into evidence under the hearsay exception in the Drew Peterson trial.

    State’s Attorney Glasgow filed his notice of appeal on Wednesday in Will County Circuit Court. He filed the notice after personally informing Judge White of his intentions.

    The State’s Attorney made the final decision to appeal after extensive consultation and deliberation with his trial team as well as with the Illinois State’s Attorneys Appellate Prosecutor’s Office. The appeal will delay the start of the trial, which was scheduled to begin on Thursday with jury selection.

    State’s Attorney Glasgow will ask the Third District Appellate Court to consider Judge White’s ruling in light of a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling in People v. Hanson, a death-penalty case from DuPage County. In Hanson, the Illinois Supreme Court carefully discussed issues with regard to applying the hearsay exception and stated that “we now expressly recognize that the doctrine (of Forfeiture by Wrongdoing) serves both as an exception to the hearsay rule and to extinguish confrontation clause claims.”

    Before making his decision to appeal, State’s Attorney Glasgow also discussed the Hanson ruling with DuPage County State’s Attorney Joseph Birkett, whose office prosecuted the Hanson case.

    In light of the new law contained in Hanson, State’s Attorney Glasgow believes the prosecution is entitled to present additional hearsay statements at Drew Peterson’s murder trial.

    “The people of the state of Illinois are entitled to a fair trial, and I intend to see that they get one,” State’s Attorney Glasgow said. “As State’s Attorney, I am obligated to appeal the judge’s ruling to ensure that every legally admissible statement may be presented at trial.”

    The Illinois Supreme Court issued its ruling in Hanson on June 24. State’s Attorney Glasgow respectfully asked Judge White to consider his hearsay ruling in the Peterson case in light of Hanson on Wednesday, June 30. A hearing was conducted on the motion to consider Hanson on Friday, July 2. Judge White denied the motion on Tuesday afternoon, July 6.

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office reminds the public that charges are not evidence of guilt. A defendant is presumed innocent and is entitled to a fair trial at which the government has the burden of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

  24. judgin :
    Did the Oswego crash defendant offer to pay a ‘hitman’ to kill anyone?

    No. The cases surely aren’t the same in all aspects. I’m just saying that they could possibly release him and for some reason my gut is saying that they will. I never would have imagined they’d let the Oswego driver off of house arrest while her appeal was pending after she killed 5 teens. I’ve learned to expect the worst I guess.

  25. Peterson attorney Steven Greenberg said last week that the accused killer should be released because during any prosecutorial appeal because he’s neither a flight risk nor a threat to society.

    Well who determines if he is or isn’t a threat to society? Sorry Steve – I don’t take your word for it. IMO – He IS a threat to society.

  26. harleyjoey :

    Peterson attorney Steven Greenberg said last week that the accused killer should be released because during any prosecutorial appeal because he’s neither a flight risk nor a threat to society.

    Well who determines if he is or isn’t a threat to society? Sorry Steve – I don’t take your word for it. IMO – He IS a threat to society.

    I agree! My immediate concern would be for the witnesses in this case. If released, DP could tamper with witnesses. As I stated above, if Stacy’s remains are indeed in the Peoria area that’s being searched, DP could tamper with whomever is now talking with LE and giving them information.

  27. Yepper Molly. He could tamper with ALOT.

    Tamper, Intimidate, take your pick. He is in jail for a REASON. His bond is high for a REASON. UGH! I’m going to stay positive that he does not get out.

    P.S. Thanks to whoever fixed my last post! :)

  28. In my highest of hopes, I would wish that the remains of Stacy have been found, and, knowing this, the State is prepared to keep him in jail. But, that’s just me dreaming for now.

  29. I really can’t see him being let out….it’s not like the case was thrown out and they’re appealing that. Why did they pull his gun license again? He threatened suicide by cop. There’s that little matter of the 20m bail…that was meant to keep him inside.

    Yeah, that made me laugh too “We’re going to do research on it right now.” JB has already talked about it ages ago. They didn’t research it even though they said they were going to do it?

    It’s not ‘appening.

  30. SA Glasgow is well prepared to handle every situation that might arise because of his decision to file an Appeal of Judge White’s Hearsay decision.

  31. joehosey
    Brodsky says the state has no basis to keep Drew locked up. “Why, because he’s Drew Peterson?”
    half a minute ago via txt

  32. judgin :SA Glasgow is well prepared to handle every situation that might arise because of his decision to file an Appeal of Judge White’s Hearsay decision.

    I have to agree with you!

  33. No, Bratty. Not because he’s Drew Peterson, but because Drew Peterson (he) threatened to use weapons, and because he has a history of intimidation, imo.

  34. Wow, what a news day this has been. Just as we suspected, Joel and Reem have been having trouble in paradise, as we suggested when she complained to Attorney George Lenard while in the hallway of the Will County Courthouse. We half expected to see a Motion to Withdraw as Attorney, but looks like she’s still involved with the case. Or not. Who knows with that group. One thing is for sure, the Press Release names her as Brodsky’s former partner. Was this all worth it guys???? Will she do her own book?

    Now, the appeal. The step that Brodsky insisted wouldn’t happen.

    I’m confident Drew won’t be getting out, because if Brodsky says he should and says it’s so, I’ve learned to expect the opposite.

  35. Joe Hosey
    Brodsky’s going to the jail to let Drew know he’s supposedly getting out tomorrow.
    3 minutes ago via txt

  36. http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/peterson-trial-delayed-as-prosecutors-appeal-ruling-on-evidence.html

    Peterson’s trial delayed, lawyers seek his release from jail

    July 7, 2010 4:04 PM | 2 Comments | UPDATED STORY

    Drew Peterson’s murder trial will be delayed as prosecutors appeal a ruling that bars several hearsay statements they believe would help convict the retired police officer of his third wife’s death.

    “The people of the state of Illinois are entitled to a fair trial, and I intend to see that they get one,” State’s Attorney James Glasgow said in a statement. “As state’s attorney, I am obligated to appeal the judge’s ruling to ensure that every legally admissible statement may be presented at trial.”

    Defense attorney Joseph Lopez said he will ask for Peterson’s release because of the postponement. Jury selection was to begin Thursday.
    “We will be demanding the release of Drew Peterson,” Lopez said.

    Illinois law states that “a defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the state…unless there are compelling reasons for his continued detention or being held to bail.”

    Peterson attorney Steven Greenberg said last week that the accused killer should be released because during any prosecutorial appeal because he’s neither a flight risk nor a threat to society.

    State’s Attorney James Glasgow said Peterson could be released as early as Thursday morning unless his office can demonstrate why he should remain jailed on $20 million bond during the appeal.

    Glasgow’s appeal is connected to a sealed ruling by Will County Judge Steven White that barred the majority of hearsay statements prosecutors wanted to use at the trial. State’s Attorney James Glasgow asked the judge to reconsider the ruling and White rejected the request Tuesday.

    Glasgow said he will ask the state appellate court to consider White’s ruling in light of a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling upholding the conviction of Eric Hanson, a Naperville man sentenced to death for the 2005 slaying of his parents, sister and brother-in-law.

    The court unanimously ruled that common law allows for some hearsay to be used at trial.

    Lopez, who believes the appeal will delay the trial for about six months, said the Hanson ruling has little impact on the Peterson matter. Rather, he says prosecutors sought to postpone the trial because they have doubts about their ability to win the case.

    “They got cold feet,” he said. “They chickened out.”

    Glasgow angrily denied that prosecutors were unprepared.

    “Anybody that knows me, I’ve been in this person for over 30 years. There’s not a single person that would call me a chicken – it’s just not going to be done. I’ve taken some of the most difficult stands in criminal cases of any prosecutor in the state of Illinois – look at my record,” he said, referring to the Riley Fox case.

    Glasgow said his office made the tough decision to appeal so prosecutors could have as much evidence as possible to present to a jury.

    “I filed this appeal because there is evidence that I believe that we should have available to us and we’re going to ask the appellate court to consider that under the Hanson case,” he said. “We’re ready but at the same time I have an obligation to look and see if there’s anything additional that would be extremely relevant.”

    Peterson, 56, is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in 2004. Officials initially ruled the death an accidental drowning, but authorities reopened the case after his fourth wife, Stacy, vanished.

    Peterson has not been charged in Stacy’s 2007 disappearance, though he remains a suspect. He denies wrongdoing in both cases.

    Prosecutors submitted 15 hearsay statements that they said would allow Savio and Stacy Peterson to speak from the grave. Most had been barred by the judge, though he would have allowed Stacy Peterson’s pastor to testify about a counseling session in which Stacy contradicted the Peterson alibi she gave to police following Savio’s death.

    A spokeswoman for Stacy Peterson’s family said they approved of the appeal because they want as many of Stacy’s statements as possible to be used at trial.

    “We want the jury to hear Stacy and Kathleen’s voices,” spokeswoman Pam Bosco said.

    The family, however, does not want to see Peterson freed during the appeal. Though they understand it’s a risk taken with the appeal, Stacy’s relatives hope the judge will keep him in Will County jail.

    “The thought of him back on the street is devastating,” Bosco said.

    — Stacy St. Clair

  37. judgin :

    Joe Hosey
    Brodsky’s going to the jail to let Drew know he’s supposedly getting out tomorrow.
    3 minutes ago via txt

    If I were Drew, I’d not believe it until I see it. I mean – Brodsky also said Drew would never be arrested and that he’d only have to spend a business day in jail when he missed his arraignment hearing. ;)

  38. “State’s Attorney James Glasgow said Peterson could be released as early as Thursday morning unless his office can demonstrate why he should remain jailed on $20 million bond during the appeal.”

    Oh, that doesn’t sound good.

    I really really really feel for Kathy’s family right now, as well as Cass and Pam. Not to mention all the people who have taken time off from work to be available to testify next week.

    This really stinks. I sure hope Glasgow knows what the hell he’s doing. But if Drew gets out of jail, there is nothing good that will come of it. We all know how he intimidated prospective witnesses before. How much you want to bet that some of the Prosecution’s witnesses will suddenly decide not to testify.

    I am not seeing anything good in this. (As I have said, I believe that their case was pretty strong without the hearsay. People have been convicted on much less circumstantial evidence.)

  39. Here’s one thing that hits me about not holding someone in jail when there is an appeal by the Prosecution.

    That law would most likely only occur when there has been a trial and the defendant has been found innocent. Then it stands to reason that if the prosecution files an appeal, the defendant should be free pending the appeal as the court has “spoken” and found him innocent.

    In THIS case, there has not been a trial yet and the appeal is of a procedural nature. The defendant was denied bond for a reason and without a trial to determine the veracity of those claims, it would stand to reason that the premise that has kept him in jail all these months is still a valid one.

    No?

  40. atlgranny :

    In THIS case, there has not been a trial yet and the appeal is of a procedural nature. The defendant was denied bond for a reason and without a trial to determine the veracity of those claims, it would stand to reason that the premise that has kept him in jail all these months is still a valid one.

    Possibly. The judge will need to decide that. You can read the Supreme Court rule that applies here:

    http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/Amend/2005/MRAmend020105.htm

    This is the most relevant part:

    (3) Release of Defendant Pending Appeal. A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State, or of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a), unless there are compelling reasons for his continued detention or being held to bail.

  41. facs, I had read that earlier, but IMHO, the law could be interpreted to mean that someone can’t be held in jail once they have been acquitted. (The prosecution is appealing a case. They’d typically be appealing a finding of innocence. It stands to reason that if the court has found someone innocent the defendant should be allowed out of jail pending the result of the appeal.)

    In this case, there has been no trial. What is being appealed is a procedural decision by the judge, not a the result of a trial. I see it as a clear argument to keep Drewpy in jail.

    Does this make sense to anyone but me?

  42. atlgranny :Here’s one thing that hits me about not holding someone in jail when there is an appeal by the Prosecution.That law would most likely only occur when there has been a trial and the defendant has been found innocent. Then it stands to reason that if the prosecution files an appeal, the defendant should be free pending the appeal as the court has “spoken” and found him innocent.In THIS case, there has not been a trial yet and the appeal is of a procedural nature. The defendant was denied bond for a reason and without a trial to determine the veracity of those claims, it would stand to reason that the premise that has kept him in jail all these months is still a valid one.No?

    The prosecution cannot file an appeal after someone is found innocent. That is double jeopardy. That is why the prosecution usually files any of theirs before trial. The law that lets some people out during the appeals process is to prevent prosecutors from doing such an appeal as a method of keeping someone in jail – it is part of the speedy trial rules. Doesn’t sit well indeed but the judge will decide if the reasons for his extremely high bond is compelling enough to also hold him in jail while awaiting the appeal.

    Defendants who are found guilty usually appeal after they are found guilty in an attempt to get another crack at an acquittal.

  43. atlgranny :

    facs, I had read that earlier, but IMHO, the law could be interpreted to mean that someone can’t be held in jail once they have been acquitted. (The prosecution is appealing a case. They’d typically be appealing a finding of innocence. It stands to reason that if the court has found someone innocent the defendant should be allowed out of jail pending the result of the appeal.)

    In this case, there has been no trial. What is being appealed is a procedural decision by the judge, not a the result of a trial. I see it as a clear argument to keep Drewpy in jail.

    Does this make sense to anyone but me?

    An acquitted person would not be in jail. They would be free.

    Jail is where people are held before trial. Prison is where people go when they’ve been convicted. This law applies to people in jail – hence before conviction.

  44. Good point, facs. Let’s just pray that they can keep him locked up. The thought of him prowling the streets of Will County is not a good one.

  45. thinkaboutit2 :

    The prosecution cannot file an appeal after someone is found innocent. That is double jeopardy. That is why the prosecution usually files any of theirs before trial.

    An even better point!

  46. IMO I think the State was prepared in case it came down to this. I think they have other avenues to keep him behind bars while this is under appeal. IMO if he does get released tomorrow, it won’t be for long. The State will make sure he isn’t running loose on the streets to intimidate witnesses, or possibly make a run for it.

  47. (3) Release of Defendant Pending Appeal. A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State, or of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a), unless there are compelling reasons for his continued detention or being held to bail.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Have faith in clause 3(a)

    The State would have researched this very thoroughly and what Drews chances would be of actually getting out.

    The severity of the charges and 20 million dollar bond speak for itself.

  48. Isn’t it just par for the course that Joel Brodsky misstates the law, saying that the defendant gets out of jail absent “extraordinary circumstance” while James Glasgow correctly states that it’s barring any “compelling reasons”?

    I imagine it will be much easier to demonstrate compelling reasons than it would be to show extraordinary circumstances.

    Luckily the judge will decide based on the actual law, not the pretend law that Joel is citing.

  49. The only satisfactory way to see DP out on the street is when he is looking up from under the wheels of the bus driven by JB.

  50. I’m sure Judge White is pissed about this turn of events. He’s already invested a boatload of time on this case. If it extends a few months out then he probably won’t be the one to hear it.

    Who will determine tomorrow if Drew gets out or stays in jail?

  51. Judge White will decide.

    ATL, I really suggest your read some of the stories above and/or watch the videos. Not to be bossy, but often the answers to your questions are on the very thread that you post them. :)

  52. So……

    While we’re waiting for the next shoe to drop, it’s been a high octane day. A PR officially “confirmed” that Reem Odeh and Joel Brodsky are former partners. No wonder Liz Brodsky reminded Reem Odeh how hard her husband worked over the weekend to prepare for the trial, and to be nice to him because he was on a short fuse. Strange things to be saying on a facebook page of a co-attorney/partner in the upcoming murder trial they’ve all been preparing for.

    Brodsky zoomed to downtown Joliet to “demand” that his client be released from jail. On the other hand, his defense partner, Joe “Shark” Lopez said that he was researching whether it was possible that the murder defendant could be freed pending the appeal. Sounds like the guys should confer a little better with each other.

    The State’s Attorney brought up the point that the defense team thinks everything is funny and this is all a joke. Even referred to himself as being called a chicken by Lopez. Glasgow is right. The defense has not kept these past months dignified and low key, considering it’s about the death of a mom of two sons.

    Well, stay tuned for the next chapter.

  53. http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7541896

    Drew Peterson trial could be delayed for months
    Updated at 07:09 PM today

    Sarah Schulte

    July 7, 2010 (JOLIET, Ill.) (WLS) —

    …Glasgow responded Wednesday to reports that defense attorneys have called him a chicken.

    “Anybody that knows me, I have been in this business for over 30 years. There is not a single person that would call me a chicken. It’s just not going to be done,” Glasgow said.

    Drew Peterson’s attorneys see the delay a big opportunity to get their client out of jail.

    “When the state files an appeal, which actually says they don’t have a case because of the judge’s rulings, that means they don’t have evidence. They don’t have a case. They don’t have sufficient evidence. When a state doesn’t have sufficient evidence, they shouldn’t hold the defendant in jail. That is not just me talking that. It’s the Supreme Court rule,” Peterson’s lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky told ABC7 Chicago.

    “Judge White is going to follow the rules set by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says, when there is an appeal by the state, the defendant gets out of jail absent extraordinary circumstances. There are no extraordinary circumstances in this case, unless being Drew Peterson is an extraordinary circumstance,” said Brodsky.

    When asked if the extraordinary circumstance could be that Peterson is charged in the murder of his third wife and is a person of interest in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Brodsky said:

    “I was talking to my co-counsel, Joe lopez today, and he had three prior homicide cases where the state has taken these appeals and the defendant was released the appeal.”

    Brodsky said he had not yet talked to client Drew Peterson about Wednesday’s developments.

    “I’m on my way right now to give him the good news,” Brodsky said.

    Prosecutors have filed a motion to keep Peterson in jail. Both sides likely will be in court Thursday morning.

    ABC7 Chicago had a chance to talk to Kathleen Savio’s brother, Nick. He says he is disappointed that Drew Peterson might get out of jail.

    A relative of Stacy Peterson supports the decision to appeal but is also concerned about Drew Peterson possibly being out of jail.

    During a hearing earlier this year to determine what hearsay evidence a jury would be allowed to hear, several witnesses testified Savio told them she feared Peterson would kill her and had even sneaked into her house and held a knife to her throat and threatened her life.

    They also presented witnesses who told of conversations they had with Stacy Peterson, including a pastor who testified Stacy told them she had helped Peterson concoct a fake alibi the weekend Savio’s body was found.

    /MOD edited for lenth/

  54. While we’re waiting for the next shoe to drop, it’s been a high octane day. A PR officially “confirmed” that Reem Odeh and Joel Brodsky are former partners.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    I could never understand that partnership in the first place.

    What was Reem thinking at the time ??

    Maybe we’ll find out one day – LOL !

  55. If you watch the Video it is crystal clear how professional, well researched and well versed the State is in these matters.

    The State’s Attorney is extremely knowledgeable and speaks with conviction and clarity about all matters involved and that in contrast to Joel Brodsky who let it be known he is going to ridicule and personally embarrass the States Attorney in his opening statement and that is the best the Defense can come up with !!

  56. On the video Brodsky says that the interlocutory appeal means that the prosecution does not have a case. That is so untrue. The Oswego case is proof of that. They had blood tests, they had witness statements, they had reconstruction experts, and they had the defendant’s statement to police and they still wanted the taped statement to them for the trial and did a pre-trial appeal when that was initially not allowed. So they could have gone forward without it but they did not because they wanted to ensure every possible evidence was allowed that they felt was valid. So all it means is that there is more evidence they feel adds to their case that a jury would truly take into consideration for a guilty plea.

    You hate to hear a defendant may be released but as Glasgow said – the appeals court upheld his extremely high bond so there must be something they considered extraordinary circumstances in this case to begin with.

  57. Agreed, TAI. It’s just the usual blustering and insults that Joel and now Joe like to toss out.

    And not to beat a dead horse, but remember Joel mis-cited the law when he mentioned “extraordinary circumstances”. They only need to convince a judge of “compelling reasons” to keep Drew behind bars while the appeal process goes on.

  58. On the video Brodsky says that the interlocutory appeal means that the prosecution does not have a case.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Joel Brodsky always says the State doesn’t have a case, because Joel Brodsky wouldn’t know what a case looks like.

    His idea of handling a case is to dig up dirt and hurl personal insults at people, as that is how he has gotten by so far in his stellar career (!!)

  59. facsmiley :Judge White will decide.
    ATL, I really suggest your read some of the stories above and/or watch the videos. Not to be bossy, but often the answers to your questions are on the very thread that you post them.

    facs, I really do try to keep up with the flurry of posts and videos. It wasn’t obvious to me. I hadn’t realized that “often” the answers to my questions are already posted in the same thread. Maybe I’m just obtuse.

    Part of my problem is that I’m ususally working when I read the posts — I’m working right now and will be for several more hours. I try to read as many posts as possible. And as thoroughly as time allows. Sometimes I slip up though.

  60. rescueapet :
    Wow, Brodsky, that’s a slam dunk solid argument. NOT.

    This article makes me angry! The defense reaction to the appeal is……..

    “Peterson’s attorneys said the appeal didn’t come as a surprise and they believe the case eventually will be dismissed.

    “They chickened out. They knew they didn’t have a case,” said Joseph Lopez, one of Peterson’s defense attorneys. “They’re telling the appellate court, we don’t have a case without this hearsay.”

    http://www.fox12idaho.com/global/story.asp?s=12768278

  61. “Peterson’s attorneys said the appeal didn’t come as a surprise and they believe the case eventually will be dismissed.

    “They chickened out. They knew they didn’t have a case,” said Joseph Lopez, one of Peterson’s defense attorneys. “They’re telling the appellate court, we don’t have a case without this hearsay.”

    If “they” don’t have a case, then Peterson doesn’t need his hoard of defense attorneys, does he? If there’s no case, there’s no lawyers.

    Geesh. What a bunch of jerks. They’re merely tainting as many potential jurors as they can, which they wouldn’t be doing if there was no case for a jury to hear. If there’s no case for a jury to hear, then you have a bunch of media-whore attorneys who didn’t get much of a chance to do jack squat, except for opening up their pie holes in the papers and on the news. No chance to hear what skillful lawyers they are. Seems kind of contradictory to me for this group to howl at the moon, when this is their bread and butter.

  62. “Peterson’s attorneys said the appeal didn’t come as a surprise and they believe the case eventually will be dismissed.

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Hmmmmm, didn’t Joel Brodsky once state good lawyers are like chess players, they anticipate their next move well beforehand, so if this appeal was no surprise to them why did it still come as a surprise, considering the Shark stated he was “going to research” the possibility of Drews release and Joel raced to Joliet to “demand” Drews release, before the actual appeal is even lodged-

    How well prepared does that make them look ??

  63. First, thank you for the continual updates and ongoing cover of this.

    Despite common knowledge that he is – well what he is.

    Is anyone else as stunned by this as I am?

  64. atlgranny :
    Here’s one thing that hits me about not holding someone in jail when there is an appeal by the Prosecution.
    That law would most likely only occur when there has been a trial and the defendant has been found innocent. Then it stands to reason that if the prosecution files an appeal, the defendant should be free pending the appeal as the court has “spoken” and found him innocent.
    In THIS case, there has not been a trial yet and the appeal is of a procedural nature. The defendant was denied bond for a reason and without a trial to determine the veracity of those claims, it would stand to reason that the premise that has kept him in jail all these months is still a valid one.
    No?

    I agree! The basis for the $20 million dollar bond remains the same. There’s been no change in the reasons for DP being held on that $20 million dollar bond.

  65. Interesting snippet from an article in the Daily Herald:

    “Much of the barred hearsay, in the view of DuPage County State’s Attorney Joe Birkett, whom Glasgow consulted in light of the Hanson ruling, is crucial. White’s ruling disallowing much of it “gutted the prosecution’s case,” Birkett said
    .”

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=392506&src=2

    /MOD edit to correct quote/

  66. facsmiley :

    atlgranny :
    In THIS case, there has not been a trial yet and the appeal is of a procedural nature. The defendant was denied bond for a reason and without a trial to determine the veracity of those claims, it would stand to reason that the premise that has kept him in jail all these months is still a valid one.

    Possibly. The judge will need to decide that. You can read the Supreme Court rule that applies here:
    http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/Amend/2005/MRAmend020105.htm
    This is the most relevant part:

    (3) Release of Defendant Pending Appeal. A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State, or of a petition or appeal by the State under Rule 315(a), unless there are compelling reasons for his continued detention or being held to bail.

    Thanks Facsmiley………….now reading the rule, it does sound like Drew won’t be held in jail pending the appeal, unless the prosecution can present Judge White with compelling reasons to continue holding him. As much as I don’t like the idea of Drew being out of jail, I guess there’s a good chance he’ll be released.

  67. Maybe the thought of bolting for parts unknown, if Drew Peterson is released, is a very compelling reason to keep him just where he is. He’s got a boatload of legal issues to deal with besides this case, and his life is never going to be his own.

    After all, if he can say his wife left her children, her family, her friends, her whole life for one guy, and we’re supposed to believe that b.s., then I guess we can believe that Peterson would take off and blend in with the sandy beaches to save his sorry butt. Leave behind his children, his family, his friends, his life, just like that.

  68. The defendant was denied bond for a reason and without a trial to determine the veracity of those claims, it would stand to reason that the premise that has kept him in jail all these months is still a valid one.
    No?

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    It would appear the Prosecution weighed up the importance of inclusion (as in the quoted Hanson case) of currently excluded hearsay statements in the Savio case, against the possibility of Drew being released and with the severity of the charges against him, the amount and conditions of his bond, it would have had to be a viable proposition to lodge the appeal or the State would not have risked it (!)

  69. The amount of the bail has nothing to do with keeping Drew incarcerated.

    Remember, the law stipulates, “…A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State”

    So the amount of bail shouldn’t count as a “compelling reason” to keep Drew in. That said, there could be some other compelling reasons that would.

  70. I really don’t think an appeal by the Prosecution is an automatic “get out of jail” card for Drew as Joel Brodsky leads us all to believe.

    I am sure the type of charges, the amount and conditions of his Bond etc etc are all going to be taken into account when the Judge makes his decision + the State has already put in a motion to this effect as well (that Drew shouldn’t be released)

  71. The amount of Bail was set due to the severity of the charges.

    The Judge can therefore also see by the amount of his Bail, how severe the charges are and if it is a good idea to let him out or not.

  72. facsmiley :
    The amount of the bail has nothing to do with keeping Drew incarcerated.
    Remember, the law stipulates, “…A defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the State”
    So the amount of bail shouldn’t count as a “compelling reason” to keep Drew in. That said, there could be some other compelling reasons that would.

    I don’t think it has to do with the exact amount – but they must have had some pretty darn compelling reason to have him held with such an extraordinarily large bail. That is not a usual amount for a murderer so it is possible there are other things that helped push the bail to be so high that will meet the “compelling reason” test…

  73. There’s two reasons for letting a defendant out of jail pending an appeal. One is the defendant’s right to a speedy trial. The second is that when the State appeals a ruling, it’s a ruling that is favorable to the defense.

    As Lopez just mentioned in a soundbite, one of the reasons to detain Peterson is for the prosecution to show he is a flight risk.

  74. Drew would have (amongst other things) 20 million reasons for never wanting to go back to his jail cell again.

    Even if they would put all sorts of restrictions on him, that is not worth the paper it is written on.

    Once he’s out, they’ll never get him back in !!

  75. Yeah, I’ll cede that the reasons for the high bond might be the same reasons to keep him in jail. I just wanted to make sure people weren’t thinking that the bail itself was going to keep him there.

    Carry on! LOL.

  76. From jailbird to free as a bird for Drew?
    Defense says judge has to release Peterson while prosecution fights to get hearsay evidence admitted

    July 8, 2010
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com

    JOLIET — Is Drew Peterson getting out of jail? At least one of his lawyers says there’s no doubt the accused wife-killer will be a free man by the end of today, the very day his murder trial was supposed to start.

    “That’s the law,” said Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky, who on Wednesday afternoon hand-delivered to Judge Stephen White a motion for Peterson’s immediate release while a prosecution appeal is sorted out.

    Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow addresses the media Wednesday afternoon on his decision to appeal the judge’s hearsay ruling in the Drew Peterson case. Glasgow also fought back against knocks the defense made about him.

    Just hours earlier, State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed his own notice to send a decision White made on hearsay evidence to the appellate court. Glasgow’s appeal was based on a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling upholding a DuPage County death penalty case in which hearsay evidence played a key role in the defendant’s conviction.

    Brodsky insisted that the appeal could linger for as long as six months, and that Peterson, who is charged with murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, should be released from custody and remain free while the matter is pending.

    Brodsky said he came to this conclusion after having his “crack legal team working on it” Wednesday and that “the consensus is yes, (Peterson should be freed) immediately, without bond.”

    But one member of the crack legal team, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, wasn’t so sure.

    “I’ve been doing some research on it. It’s not so clear-cut,” Lopez said.

    “It’s an uphill battle,” he added. “We expect the state to come out blazing to keep him in (jail).”

    Not playing chicken
    One thing Brodsky and Lopez agreed on was that by filing the appeal, Glasgow “chickened out” just before he was supposed to start the most notable murder trial in the history of Will County.
    “The day before the trial, on the eve of the trial, when they’re eyeball to eyeball, they blinked,” Brodsky said of the prosecution team.

    Glasgow lashed back when told of the chicken talk, angrily snapping, “What else would they say?”

    “They think everything’s a big joke, everything’s funny,” Glasgow said of Peterson attorneys, who have kept the wisecracks coming while their client has sat in jail for a year and a month.

    “There’s nothing funny about this,” Glasgow said, pointing out that, no matter what, Peterson’s third wife is dead and his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, has been missing and presumed murdered for nearly three years.

    “There’s not a single person who’s going to call me a chicken. That’s not going to happen,” Glasgow said.

    But Brodsky was not put off by the state’s attorney’s angry pledge.

    “You know how much I care if Glasgow’s pissed (off)?” Brodsky asked. “If he doesn’t have a thick skin, he picked the wrong lawyer in Joe Lopez to go up against.”

    Lopez said he and Brodsky will argue for Peterson’s release this morning. Brodsky had already headed over to the county jail Wednesday afternoon to tell Peterson he was going home the next day.

    “Drew gets to go back home with his kids,” Brodsky said. “Where he belongs.”

    http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2476862,4_1_JO08_PETERSON_S1-100708.article

  77. Just sickening it really is! They are heartless, classless, individuals! To sit there and make joke, and light, out of all of this is just pathetic, and disgusting! I am glad Glasgow made sure to say something and make it known how ruthless, and low these guys are!

  78. From article @ #95

    But Brodsky was not put off by the state’s attorney’s angry pledge.

    “You know how much I care if Glasgow’s pissed (off)?” Brodsky asked. “If he doesn’t have a thick skin, he picked the wrong lawyer in Joe Lopez to go up against.”
    ———————————–
    This is such an incredibly stupid thing for Brodsky to say. It’s like a little kid saying, “if you pick on me, my big brother is going to beat you up.” He’s pathetic.

  79. It’s pathetic. Yep, he’s a graduate of the Bart Simpson Hollywood Blvd Upstairs Law School, alright. It’s right there on his business card:
    Joel Brodsky, partner
    Brodsky Odeh.
    nyah n’ nyah n’ nyah nyah

  80. I, myself,have faith in Jim Glasgow. I believe Glasgow and Team did the right thing.You have 1 chance and 1 chance only to try this case,and after coming this far, We all want a conviction. I just pray that Drew isnt released. Thoughts and Prayers to the families of Kathleen and Stacy.

  81. I have faith, too, that all will be well. Glasgow is doing a favour for future victims by pressing this evidence before the State court. I thought the recent Harmon ruling was pretty clear, but maybe there’s more to it. Belt and braces, as they say here. (belt and suspenders)

  82. Hi, everyone :)

    The first person to be afraid of letting Drew out of jail should be Brodsky himself. He will never be paid for his services if Drew goes free and runs away… ;)

    But seriously, Judge White would make a terrible mistake. If Drew run away, that would be a horror for the people involved in the case for the rest of their lives. He had clearly said to Paula and Lenny about such a possibility and it should be taken under consideration very seriously. No way, Drew would like to voluntarily come back to prison in a week or two after the appeal.

    I hope Judge White will make a proper decision.

  83. cfs7360 :From article @ #95But Brodsky was not put off by the state’s attorney’s angry pledge.“You know how much I care if Glasgow’s pissed (off)?” Brodsky asked. “If he doesn’t have a thick skin, he picked the wrong lawyer in Joe Lopez to go up against.”———————————–This is such an incredibly stupid thing for Brodsky to say. It’s like a little kid saying, “if you pick on me, my big brother is going to beat you up.” He’s pathetic.

    Did Brodsky really only say that he picked the wrong lawyer in Joe Lopez to go up against?? Does that mean Glasgow picked the right lawyer to go up against in Brodsky?? Much of the anger that Glasgow vented was aimed directly at Brodsky and him making jokes through this entire case. I don’t think Glasgow cares if Brodsky cares that he was ticked off by that comment. Glasgow knows it is just more white noise by the defense to get people to take their eye off of the ball.

  84. I heard Lopez on WGN radio this am. He said, one of the reasons Peterson should get out is, He has a right to a speedy trial. I guess he doesn’t know that DP waved his right to a speedy trial, A long, long time ago.

  85. grandam :
    I heard Lopez on WGN radio this am. He said, one of the reasons Peterson should get out is, He has a right to a speedy trial. I guess he doesn’t know that DP waved his right to a speedy trial, A long, long time ago.

    So wait a minute. The defense has been trying as hard as they can asking again and again and again for a delay and then they are going to say that Drew has a right to a speedy trial?? That is actually funny.

  86. So wait – if Drew didn’t waive his right to the speedy trial back in 2009 and they went forward with the trial at that point in time, the Hanson case wouldn’t even be an issue. The original plan was for the trial to be held in August of 2009 but the defense needed more time. It has been almost a year now and they have still asked for more time.

  87. thinkaboutit2 :

    grandam :
    I heard Lopez on WGN radio this am. He said, one of the reasons Peterson should get out is, He has a right to a speedy trial. I guess he doesn’t know that DP waved his right to a speedy trial, A long, long time ago.

    So wait a minute. The defense has been trying as hard as they can asking again and again and again for a delay and then they are going to say that Drew has a right to a speedy trial?? That is actually funny.

    I’m telling ya! These clowns obviously don’t realize how ridiculous they sound in front of a microphone. It’s as if the left hand NEVER knows what the right hand is doing with the defense, even (and especially) with this new bunch. Would be more beneficial to them to stay off the airways until they get their stories straight, or just plain shut-up altogether. Hopefully, their courtroom skills will match their out of court skills, or lack thereof. What time do the fools go before the judge today? By the way Rescue, I hope you’re right.

  88. I realize it’s not their fault because there are three years of history and then complicated legal stuff on top of it…but why oh why are so many of these interviewers completely unprepared for these interviews?
    /Rant

    That said, Lopez for once has no snide remarks or snotty one-liners in this brief interview and when the co-anchor cluelessly says, “So we can expect to see him a free man, pretty much today” Lopez actually corrects her and says they need to head down to the courthouse and battle it out.

    You can listen on line here if you don’t want to download that MP3:
    http://www.wgnradio.com/shows/gregjarrett/wgnam-joe-lopez-attorney-drew-peterson,0,7654433.mp3file

  89. I believe the “right to a speedy trial” has to do with the delay due to the ruling by the judge. The ruling barring certain hearsay is “favorable” to the defense, so to speak, so keeping him confined due to a ruling that was pro-defense is what this is about. It has nothing to do with other rulings, IMO.

  90. cfs7360 :From article @ #95
    But Brodsky was not put off by the state’s attorney’s angry pledge.
    “You know how much I care if Glasgow’s pissed (off)?” Brodsky asked. “If he doesn’t have a thick skin, he picked the wrong lawyer in Joe Lopez to go up against.”———————————–This is such an incredibly stupid thing for Brodsky to say. It’s like a little kid saying, “if you pick on me, my big brother is going to beat you up.” He’s pathetic.

    The really stupid thing about that statement is that Glasgow doesn’t get to “pick” the defense attorney. Glasgow’s been on the case since the beginning. Lopez is the new addition. Glasgow had nothing to do with “picking” Lopez.

  91. Atlg – Joel meant that Glasgow picked Lopez to be angry at not picked him for the defense team. Funny thing though is I think Glasgow was talking about the antics of the defense team from the get-go. Joel must have forgotten about how he and Drew used to joke and laugh about this case all the time before Drew was put behind bars.

  92. Didn’t the defense file a motion to have Judge White removed from the case? Wouldn’t that be because parts of his ruling were favorable to the prosecution, and he would have had to find, by a preponderance of the evidence, that Drew killed Kathleen and Stacy?

    Why, then, would the Judge not feel “compelled” to keep Peterson in jail? That would be an unusual situation, I think.

    JMO.

  93. rescueapet :
    I believe the “right to a speedy trial” has to do with the delay due to the ruling by the judge. The ruling barring certain hearsay is “favorable” to the defense, so to speak, so keeping him confined due to a ruling that was pro-defense is what this is about. It has nothing to do with other rulings, IMO.

    I think you are right. However, on the flip side (as pointed out by Red at SYM) the fact that any hearsay statements were going to be allowed means that the judge did think that Drew was guilty by a preponderance of the evidence which may be a compelling reason to hold him. IDK – Just batting this back in forth in my head until the final word is out. My gut still says he will be let out.

  94. My bone of contention is if Judge White had revealed his decision three months ago instead of waiting until just before trial, all of this could have been sorted out a long time ago. It’s not like is was kept secret until trial anyway. The defense has leaked it (imo) to who knows how many outlets? But, he’s the judge, so what do I know?

  95. thinkaboutit2 :Atlg – Joel meant that Glasgow picked Lopez to be angry at not picked him for the defense team. Funny thing though is I think Glasgow was talking about the antics of the defense team from the get-go. Joel must have forgotten about how he and Drew used to joke and laugh about this case all the time before Drew was put behind bars.

    Thanks for the gentle correction, TAI! I hadn’t read it that way, but I see what you’re saying — makes sense.

  96. During the interview Lopez says the prosecution will have to dismiss their case if they lose the appeal bcause they’ve already filed a Certificate of Impairment saying they can’t go forward without the evidence. I’m not sure that’s true. I get what’s he’s saying but it sounds like more defense bravado, no?

  97. I think that is the name of the document they must file to appeal any suppression of evidence. It doesn’t mean they don’t have any other evidence but it does mean they think the evidence is critical to the case.

  98. rescueapet :

    joehosey
    Lopez says whoever is on the short end of the appeal will go to the Illinois Supreme Court, and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Well, yeah, we all figured that. Otherwise, there’d be no question it would be a speedy decision. Duh.

  99. joehosey
    Judge Schoenstedt will be in later for the suddenly resurrected gun case. Thirty one jurors are in the courthouse now with 30 more comin .

  100. rescueapet :

    joehosey
    Judge Schoenstedt will be in later for the suddenly resurrected gun case. Thirty one jurors are in the courthouse now with 30 more comin .

    Resurrected gun Case? The prosecution is coming on with barrels ablaze. He is not getting out!!!

  101. rescueapet :

    rescueapet :

    joehosey
    Lopez says whoever is on the short end of the appeal will go to the Illinois Supreme Court, and possibly to the U.S. Supreme Court.

    Well, yeah, we all figured that. Otherwise, there’d be no question it would be a speedy decision. Duh.

    Lopez seems to forget that if the defense is the one pushing for an appeal that means Drew is subject to his bail terms no matter what – the question of release only happens when the prosecution is appealing pre-trial.

  102. Sure looks like the prosecution is pulling out every stop to try to keep him behind bars. The judge isn’t rushing to a decision either. Drew has to be on the edge of his seat.

  103. Peterson to remain in jail during appeal, judge rules

    Drew Peterson isn’t going home, at least not anytime soon.

    Will County Circuit Judge Stephen D. White ruled Thursday morning that prosecutors presented reasons sufficiently compelling to continue holding the former Bolingbrook police sergeant. He has been jailed on a $20 million bond since May 2009 after he was charged with killing his third wife in 2004.

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=392734&src=2&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

  104. facsmiley :
    During the interview Lopez says the prosecution will have to dismiss their case if they lose the appeal bcause they’ve already filed a Certificate of Impairment saying they can’t go forward without the evidence. I’m not sure that’s true. I get what’s he’s saying but it sounds like more defense bravado, no?

    Facs, it will depend of how the C of I is written, and who knows if Lopez has actually seen it or read it? For instance, if it states the State needs this testimony/evidence to meet the charges filed against Drew and/or have a chance at conviction, and the Appellate Court rules that they have don’t need the hearsay evidence to do so, then the State can use the other evidence they have and proceed to trial. At least that’s my understanding, but I’m not an attorney. However, I tend to agree with your opinion that Lopez is just talking big.

  105. facsmiley :
    Peterson to remain in jail during appeal, judge rules
    Drew Peterson isn’t going home, at least not anytime soon.
    Will County Circuit Judge Stephen D. White ruled Thursday morning that prosecutors presented reasons sufficiently compelling to continue holding the former Bolingbrook police sergeant. He has been jailed on a $20 million bond since May 2009 after he was charged with killing his third wife in 2004.

    Praise the Lord!

  106. I still always go back to Joel missing the arraignment and then telling Drew it will just be a day – how many days has it been now?

  107. A good defense attorney should always prepare his/her client for the worst-case scenario and not get their hopes up IMO. They s should fight the good fight for their client with all their might and spend as much time as possible gathering relevant legal decisions that show precedent for their arguments. Drew has to be pissed.

  108. So now that the prosecution has brought forth the gun case again are they going to have to simultaneously go forward with it?

Comments are closed.