Drew loses big. Change of venue denied, hearsay law upheld in Peterson case.

Drew Peterson defense team arrives at the Will County courthouse. Photo - Warren Skalski

Hearsay law upheld in Peterson murder case
October 2, 2009 4:32 PM

A Will County judge today upheld the state’s new hearsay law, which prosecutors plan to use in their murder trial against Drew Peterson.

Under the law, which took affect in December, prosecutors plans to submit as evidence letters and statements by Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, to friends and family before she was killed in 2004.

Peterson’s attorneys have argued that the so-called “Drew’s law” violates a defendant’s 6th Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses; goes against state and federal constitutional provisions against retroactively applied laws; and “erodes the presumption of innocence” by asking a judge before the trial even starts to find that Peterson murdered Savio to silence her.

But Judge Stephen White sided with prosecutors and allowed the law to stand.

Peterson’s attorneys said they would notify prosecutors whether they intend to introduce their own hearsay evidence by Oct. 29, their client’s next court date.

Peterson, in custody at the Will County Jail in Joliet, is also considered a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

Eearlier, Peterson lost his bid to move his murder trial outside of Will County.

Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has argued that widespread publicity would make it difficult for the former Bolingbrook police sergeant to get a fair trial in Will County.

The motion cited stories about Peterson that ran in the Chicago Tribune, CNN, Huffington Post and local television stations.

Some of the stories detailed the order of protection Savio took out against Peterson and the letters she mailed out before her death. The motion argued that they exposed jurors to “highly significant information which may not be admissible at trial.”

Peterson’s attorneys also objected to a 2008 press release from the Will County state’s attorney’s office that announced that results of an autopsy on Savio’s exhumed remains concluding her death was a homicide.

The complete autopsy was not released, only the manner of death, which his attorneys said “prejudiced the jury pool in regards to the most contested fact of the entire case — namely the manner of death.”

– Steven D. Schmadeke

Read the story at the Chicago Tribune

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail 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>

Lisa Madigan and James Glasgow file objections to Peterson’s challenging of the “Hearsay law”

Lisa Madigan and James Glasgow

On September 4th, Illinois’ State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, and Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, filed separate objections to motions filed by Drew Peterson’s defense team, which challenged the constitutionality of the so-called “Hearsay Law“.

The objections maintain that the new statute violates neither ex post facto nor confrontation right principles.

Even if you normally have a hard time wading through legal documents, I’d urge anyone with an interest in this case to read through these objections. The quality of the research, the clearness of argument and the absence of silly evidence (i.e., quoting of Google searches) is in striking contrast to the motions that have been filed thusfar by Peterson’s defense.

UPDATE 9/11/09: The defense has filed a response to the objections by the State. It is the last motion to be filed regarding this issue before the hearing on October 2. Scroll down to read the reply. All of the motions can be found on the documents page.

Attorney General’s Filing of Objections to Defendant’s Motion to Declare 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 Unconstitutional

View this document on Scribd

State’s Attorney’s Response to Defendant’s Motion to Declare 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 Unconstitutional

View this document on Scribd

UPDATE – Filed September 11, 2009: DEFENDANT’S REPLY TO THE RESPONSES OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS AND THE WILL COUNTY STATES ATTORNEY TO DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 UNCONSTITUTIONAL

View this document on Scribd

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail 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>

Drew Peterson defense to file motion barring Kathleen Savio’s cries for help

DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DECLARE “HEARSAY LAW” UNCONSTITUTIONAL

View this document on Scribd

Last night on CNN’s 360, Joel Brodsky’s newest BFF, Lisa Bloom, announced that on Monday, August 10, the defense team of Drew Peterson will file a motion (see above) asking that any “beyond the grave” statements from his deceased wife, Kathleen Savio, not be admitted into court.

Looks like they are going to challenge any citing of Public Act 095-1004 (the so called hearsay-law”) on two points.

First, they will say that the law is being used ex post facto against their client.

Secondly, they are going to claim that the law is unconstitutional in that it operates upon the idea of “Forefeiture by Wrongdoing”, meaning that if it can be shown that you killed someone to keep them from testifying then you forfeit your constitutional right to confront a witness.

Strangely, this is the third time in recent weeks that Lisa Bloom has obtained defense documents days before they are filed or made public and appeared on CNN claiming to have exclusive knowledge about the case. Is this Joel Brodsky’s way of getting around Judge Stephen White’s gag order?

During last night’s interview Bloom stated, “In my opinion, this is the strongest evidence in the case. Kathleen’s statements, ‘If anything happens to me, he did it.’ There’s no DNA evidence linking Drew Peterson to this crime. There’s no forensic evidence.”

How can Bloom make a statement like that without having seen the discovery documents? Exactly what is her role in the Brodsky “White Noise” machine?

Bloom & Brodsky discuss May 8, 2009

Transcript from Anderson Cooper 360 – August 7, 2009

“Hearsay Law” Illinois public act 095-1004

~—————————————————————————————–~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Drew Peterson’s Motion to Modify and Reduce Bond

Below is the motion filed on May 18th by Joel Brodsky to get Drew Peterson’s twenty million dollar bond reduced. It makes the same assertions that we have heard the defense state during their many media appearances: Peterson is a solid citizen, not a flight risk and that the bond is uncommonly and unjustly high.

View this document on Scribd

The motion also begins to attack the case of the prosecution, calling it “weak and circumstantial at best”. It questions whether or not a crime was even committed, and attacks the so-called Hearsay Law which State’s Attorney James Glasgow has said will be part of the prosecution arsenal.

The motion is accompanied by an Exhibit A: Kathleens Savio’s Death Certificate and strangely enough, Exhibit B: an anonymous editorial and comment from the Sun-Times.

One interesting claim made in the motion is that Peterson is on a small, fixed income–something that Joel Brodsky denied less than two weeks ago during an appearance on WLS radio, Mancow and Cassidy show.

From the Motion to Reduce Bond.

“13.  Mr. Peterson is retired and his only source of income is his pension from the Bolingbrook Police Department which is approximately $6,000 per month. He has no substantial savings or investment accounts.”

From the Mancow and Cassidy Radio Show.

Mancow Muller: He’s broke! You’re never going to get paid.

Joel Brodsky: Oh, I’ll get paid. Drew not only was a police officer but he was a business man. He owned a bar. He had a printing company. He had a photography company. He had, if I recall, five different businesses. All were profitable.

 
Peterson’s on-again off-again fiancée, Christina Raines, also seems to think he’s good for the two million dollar bail. At least, that’s what she told her father.

Thanks, Bucketoftea for finding the document.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Drew Peterson pleads not guilty to murder

Former police officer Drew Peterson pleaded not guilty at his arraignment Monday on first-degree murder charges in the 2004 slaying of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

9:47: The prosecution has asked for Judge Richard Schoenstedt be removed from Peterson’s case.

10:01 According to MSNBC Brodsky is challenging the move to change judges, and Will County Chief Judge Gerald Kinney is slated to hold a hearing on the issue Thursday.

10:03: The request sent the hearing into a recess, and it is going to be continued until Thursday.

10:14: Press Conference: Brodsky says Drew is going to get a vigorous and zealous defense.

Now that the charges have been brought, it will limit what they can say. They’ll try to be as open as possible.

Calling the proceedings gamesmanship and says the State doesn’t want to try this case on the merits. Says they want to try it on technicalities.

Says it shows the State’s weakness.

10:15: Abood says the motions says prosecution believes the judge is “prejudiced against the state.”

10:16: Reporter: Savio’s familoy says that Drew was smirking and waving at them today. Abood says he was with Drew and didn’t see it.

10:17 Reporter asks Joel about being paid for interviews. He skirts it by saying “News agencies don’t pay for interviews”.

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~

Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML is allowed if you want to use some: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

The Peterson Grand Jury: Weighing the Witness Testimony

MORPHEY’S GRAND JURY WORTHINESS

Comments have come up recently about Grand Jury appearances, after Tom Morphey went public with his knowledge of the events leading up to and after the disappearance of Stacy Peterson.  Mr. Morphey has stated that he has not given testimony before the Grand Jury.  Drew Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, has offered the reason for this, based on his own interpretation.  He has determined, in his ultimate wisdom, that Mr.  Morphey is not credible, and that he “has a documented history of severe mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction.”

While Brodsky may say he’s relying on information provided to him, he seems to be the only one in the public that has specifically mentioned multiple suicide attempts by Mr. Morphey.  When doing an appearance at one time on Fox’s OntheRecord, Brodsky said that Thomas Morphey had attempted suicide “many” times in the past, and was not reliable. While he was on TV saying that, Greta got an email from Thomas Morphey’s sister, who said that was a blatant lie. He had “never tried suicide before.”  We have not found any references to Mr. Morphey’s “many” suicide attempts in the media, other than coming from Brodsky himself.  Wouldn’t it just be wiser, sound more reasonable, to say if and when Mr. Morphey does testify at a potential trial, Brodsky will submit evidence that disputes these implications?  No, instead, a man’s mental stability, references to medication he has been prescribed, and name calling is the rule of the day.  “Fantasy.”  “Delusional.”

CONFIDENTIAL MEDICAL RECORDS

Funny guy, that Brodsky is, since we are all covered under the HIPAA Privacy Rule, which “provides federal protections for personal health information held by covered entities, and gives patients an array of rights with respect to that information.”  In other words, unless one specifically gives another a Medical Authorization to freely obtain one’s medical records, they are private. Confidential.  We here assume Mr. Morphey did not give Brodsky a Medical Authorization to legally obtain his medical records, so we must assume Brodsky is full of himself and is merely making up the accusations of Mr. Morphey’s multiple suicide attempts to deflect attention from his  crime-suspect client. What is the word that comes to mind, the one  defense lawyers hate?  Oh, yeah, “hearsay.”  Brodsky must be relying on “hearsay” to make those bold statements repeatedly about Mr. Morphey’s “many suicide attempts”.  Unless Brodsky comes out with proof and can verify he has legally obtained authentic medical records relating to Mr. Morphey, we can just assume it’s all smoke and mirrors, once again. 

Health Information Privacy