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>
So arrested on murder, next wife missing, and he MIGHT go home? Illinois is the most ridiculous when it comes to priorities.
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.
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?
Blah, blah. More of the same:
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/peterson-trial-delayed-as-prosecutors-appeal-ruling-on-evidence.html
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Of course this is wishful thinking on my part but, let him go free…then arrest him with regard to Stacy.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/2475202,Peterson-trial-delay_JO070710.article
Ah, that’s interesting. Thank you, Facs. Good info.
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.
Whos holding the press conference at four and which channel is broadcasting it??
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?
“Demand.” that is a mighty word.
can you imagine, what it would be like if the courts let everyone charged with murder out, while appeals were being settled?
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.
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.
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.
This only happens when the prosecution is the one who appeals. They very seldom do so because of this very issue.
Did the Oswego crash defendant offer to pay a ‘hitman’ to kill anyone?
FYI:
Grabbed this from TAI’s post on another site:
http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/Amend/2005/MRAmend020105.htm
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.
I’d really like to see the Pelkie press release. I assume it has details about the press conference. Anyone got it?
Never mind:
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.
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.
It’s all in the judge’s hands now. All we can do is wait to hear his decision.
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!
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.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/live
4:00 pm abclocal news station – if there’s a live conference, you should be able to see it.
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.
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.
Yay Good Guys
I have to agree with you!
Wow, Brodsky, that’s a slam dunk solid argument. NOT.
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.
20 million for a reason.
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.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/07/peterson-trial-delayed-as-prosecutors-appeal-ruling-on-evidence.html
– Stacy St. Clair
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.
“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.)
SA Glasgow News Conference 7.41 minutes
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/video?id=7542351
He’s not getting out.
Please tell us you know something we don’t!!
I’ve added the video of Glasgow’s press conference now to the main post. (up top)
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/video#global
Prosecutors: Drew Peterson trial will be delayed
Former police officer Drew Peterson’s trial on charges of killing his third wife will be delayed while a judge’s…
VIDEO 3.55 minutes
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/video?id=7542459
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?
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:
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?
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.
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.
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.
An even better point!
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.
(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.
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.
N.B. If they let him out, they will never get him back in (!!)
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.
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?
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.
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.
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7541896
/MOD edited for lenth/
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 !
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 !!
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.
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.
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 (!!)
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.
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
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.
“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 ??
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?
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.
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/
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.
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.
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 (!)
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 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)
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.
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…
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.
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 !!
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.
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2476862,4_1_JO08_PETERSON_S1-100708.article
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!
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.
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
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.
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)
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.
Cyrhla – Hi – welcome back. Hope all is well with you.
I really don’t think he’s getting out.
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.
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.
If found the JC/WP link to when Drew waived his right to a speedy trial back on 7/14/2009 – http://tinyurl.com/lvpz73.
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.
Interview with Joe Lopez on WGN radio (Greg Jarrett) this morning:
http://media.trb.com/media/mp3file/2010-07/joe-lopez-attorney-drew-peterson-greg-070810_54824235.mp3
[right click and save link as]
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Thanks for the gentle correction, TAI! I hadn’t read it that way, but I see what you’re saying — makes sense.
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?
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.
Well, yeah, we all figured that. Otherwise, there’d be no question it would be a speedy decision. Duh.
Resurrected gun Case? The prosecution is coming on with barrels ablaze. He is not getting out!!!
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.
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.
Peterson to remain in jail during appeal, judge rules
http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=392734&src=2&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
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.
Praise the Lord!
WBBM780 just said that Drew Peterson will stay in jail due to compelling reasons.
What a relief …
Let’s move this over to the new post…and CELEBRATE!
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/07/08/drew-peterson-to-remain-in-jail/
Wow – Poor Drew has learned again that what Joel says doesn’t seem to come true.
My gut just admitted to me that it was wrong…
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?
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.
So now that the prosecution has brought forth the gun case again are they going to have to simultaneously go forward with it?