Drew Peterson hearsay decision: Prosecution filed appeal too late

Pastor Neil Schori will testify that Stacy Peterson told him a ninja-attired Drew returned to the house the night that Kathleen Savio died and put women's clothing in the washer.

A state appellate court has decided not to overturn Judge White’s decision to bar some hearsay evidence against accused wife murderer, Drew Peterson. According to the opinion, the 30-day deadline for filing the appeals was missed.

The court found the following six statements admissible:

  1. portions of a letter that Kathleen wrote to the Will County State’s Attorney’s office which described a confrontation that Kathleen allegedly had with the defendant on July 5, 2002, while the divorce proceedings were pending;
  2. a redacted version of a handwritten statement that Kathleen gave to the Bolingbrook police describing the alleged July 5, 2002, incident;
  3. a statement that Kathleen allegedly made to her sister, Anna Doman;
  4. a statement that Kathleen allegedly made in late 2003 to Mary Sue Parks, who attended nursing classes with Kathleen at Joliet Junior College;
  5. another statement that Kathleen allegedly made to Parks; and
  6. a statement that Stacy allegedly made to her pastor, Neil Schori, regarding an encounter that she allegedly had with her husband on the night Kathleen died.

The circuit court ruled that the remaining eight hearsay statements proffered by the State did not meet the statutory standard of reliability and that the interests of justice would not be served by the admission of those statements.

Read and discuss today’s opinion in the comments section.

Hearsay appeal oral arguments
Read more at Fox Chicago

~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.~

Advertisements

51 thoughts on “Drew Peterson hearsay decision: Prosecution filed appeal too late

  1. Prosecutors filed too late, and the App Court upheld the lower court’s ruling; split decision.

    Now the prosecution must decide whether to further appeal.

    IDK, but I’m thinking with the outrage and the backlash that’s been coming out since Casey Anthony’s jury made their mind boggling decision, that might not bode so well for Peterson.

    In any case, it’s time to get on with the trial and let the evidence stand on its merits. Maybe, finally, this will move forward. Let’s hope.

  2. Seriously. It took how many months to figure that out? That was the Defense Team’s contention all along. You’d think they’d check the dates within days of the hearing. Instead they dragged it out for months.

  3. Appeals court upholds limits on Drew Peterson hearsay evidence

    By Steve Schmadeke
    Tribune reporter
    3:56 p.m. CDT, July 26, 2011

    An Illinois appeals court has issued its long-awaited ruling on the Drew Peterson murder case, dismissing an appeal by prosecutors to allow more hearsay statements at trial and affirming earlier rulings by the trial judge.

    The last-minute appeal filed by Will County prosecutors seeking to overturn a judge’s decision to allow only 6 of 14 hearsay statements was filed too late, according to a divided opinion today by the Third District Appellate court. Prosecutors sought to use the statements as they try Peterson for the alleged drowning murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio.

    The court also upheld decisions by Judge Stephen White, who is now retired, not to allow evidence of other alleged criminal activity involving Peterson or allow an attorney to testify about how the judge hearing Peterson and Savio’s divorce case would have ruled if Savio was alive and what Peterson’s attorney “would have advised him,” according to today’s ruling.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-appeals-court-upholds-limits-on-drew-peterson-hearsay-evidence-20110726,0,3446350.story

  4. This could very well become a fiasco of a case now that the prosecution has flubbed by filing this motion too late…Just watch…Drew will get off and file a suit for unlawful arrest/confinement…Now the waiting game begins as to when his trial will start…The public has already deemed him a “hot potato”…I just can’t see him walking with a “time served” sentence, but I guess anything is possible…

  5. So six of the proposed hearsay statements will still be admitted as evidence. I would have liked to have heard Harry Smith’s testimony at trial, but looks like it’s time to move forward.

  6. Estee, I wouldn’t worry about Drew filing any sort of suit for unlawful confinement. Remember, not only Judge White but the appellate courts twice now have found compelling reasons to keep Peterson in jail while he awaits his trial.

    As well, I don’t see Casey Anthony’s acquittal as having any relevance when it comes to Drew’s case, as much as his defense would like us to.

    1. A body decomposed to the point of skeletonization (no way to determine manner of death) vs. a body only a few days old with visible injuries and manner of death determined to be drowning.

    2. Vague motive that can only be guessed at (wants the Bella Vita?) vs. Big Motive (50% of shared assets, a million dollar life-insurance policy, control of the children, etc.)

    3. No testimony that she considered hurting the victim vs. people who can testify that Drew tried to pay them to kill Kathleen

    4. Can’t place Casey at the murder scene vs. Drew is the first one in the house, shoos people away and rearranges death scene.

    5. No one to testify (even second hand) that she killed Caylee vs. Pastor Schori’s testimony that Stacy told him Drew had killed Kathleen, which is admissible and will be heard.

    6. Caylee never told anyone that she was afraid of her mother vs. numerous letters and statements from Kathleen stating that Drew was going to kill her and make it look like an accident.

    Etc…

    If you think about it, the wide-spread anger over the Casey Anthony ruling could very well mean a conservative back-lash when it comes to Drew’s trial. I’m not saying that it should have an effect one way or another, but if the defense wants to use the Anthony decision as a barometer for the outcome of Drew’s case, then they should also be aware that what comes up must come down…

  7. The State did not show any material change in facts that would justify an untimely filing, according to the court’s ruling. Justice Carter dissenting.

  8. Estee – have you researched the idea of anyone filing an unlawful arrest/confinement lawsuit? I’m just asking, because in this case, Drew Peterson has had every opportunity to plod through the court system, at the circuit and appellate levels. He’s not being denied any of his Constitutional rights, and he has very ample defense representation (by that, LOL, I mean many attorneys). If he is acquitted by a jury, that is how the process works. How many people have filed and won million dollar lawsuits after being acquitted by a jury in a criminal case? I’m curious to hear that. It doesn’t necessarily mean that the defendant is innocent, as in Casey Anthony’s case, where the jury said they thought she had something to do with the death of her baby, but it does mean that the jury wasn’t convinced beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. I haven’t heard her defense make statements that she’s going to sue the State of Florida for millions for unlawful arrest/confinement. Peterson might try and make money by selling his sorry ass story, but that’s about it, no?

    I’ve seen posts on various comment boards say he’s going to sue the asses off the State and get millions of dollars. I wonder what they base that on? Just asking…..

  9. Yes, Granny, Pastor Schori will testify as to the statements Stacy told him when she sought him out to talk one-on-one. The parts of his testimony that were barred are the discussions he had with both Stacy and Drew together, since he was serving then as Drew’s counselor.

  10. Appellate Court Shoots Down Hearsay Evidence in Drew Peterson Murder Case

    The appellate court denied a prosecution appeal to use hearsay evidence against former Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson when he is tried for the murder of his third wife.

    By Joseph Hosey
    5:05pm

    Whether or not Drew Peterson’s dead third wife predicted he would kill her, or his missing fourth wife confided in a divorce attorney that he committed murder, the jury is not going to hear about it.

    The appellate court shot down a bid by prosecutors to use hearsay evidence against Peterson, a disgraced former Bolingbrook cop charged with killing one wife and suspected by the state police of having a hand in the death of another.

    “They slammed the door in their face,” defense attorney Joseph “Shark” Lopez said of the appellate court denying the prosecution appeal.

    The 56-page opinion points out that prosecutors blew the deadline to file an appeal.

    “Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal of the circuit court’s ruling on this issue, and that appeal is dismissed,” the opinion says.

    “I don’t understand why that happened,” Lopez said of the missed deadline.

    “That wouldn’t have happened at 219 S. Dearborn,” he added, referring to the federal court in Chicago.

    Lopez’s wife, attorney Lisa Lopez, and attorney Steven Greenberg argued against the appeal during a February hearing in Ottawa.

    Greenberg, who is vacationing in Israel, commented on the decision via email, saying, “A complete victory for the defense. You can’t make new rules as you go along.”

    Shark Lopez said his wife and Greenberg spent 70 hours over Thanksgiving weekend preparing their argument for the appellate court.

    “This was a Greenberg-Sharkette attack,” he said.

    Peterson was arrested in May 2009 on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio. His trial was set to start in July 2010, but the day before jury selection was to begin, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow appealed Judge Stephen White’s decision on what hearsay evidence could be used against Peterson at trial.

    Peterson’s attorneys have tried without success to have Peterson released from the Will County jail during the lengthy appeal process. He is being held on a $20 million bond.

    Savio was found drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004. The state police determined she died accidentally and stuck to that story until Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, mysteriously vanished in October 2007.

    Stacy Peterson remains missing. The state police have called her case a “potential homicide” and identified Drew Peterson as the sole suspect in their investigation.

    Prosecutors can request that the Illinois Supreme Court hear the appeal but Lopez does not expect the higher court taking the case.

    “They blew it,” he said of Glasgow’s office.

    “It’s over for them,” he said. “I can’t see how the supreme court is going to hear it.

    Ken Grey, a top prosecutor in the state’s attorney’s office, said Glasgow was still reviewing the decision.

    http://shorewood-il.patch.com/articles/appellate-court-shoots-down-hearsay-evidence-in-drew-peterson-murder-case

  11. Granny @ 4:24 – I don’t think the State dragged it out for months. There was a decision made in a case regarding hearsay evidence, Hanson is the case.

    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.

    To clarify this issue–because of the decision in this Hanson case, its relevancy to the Peterson hearsay issues, and the timing of the IL Supreme Court’s ruling, it prompted the State to file an appeal of Judge White’s ruling on the hearsay issues. It’s not that the State did not realize the time had passed, it was because it was an important ruling that could favor the State, and they acted on it as soon as the Supreme Court’s ruling came out. It just so happened that it was beyond the State’s timeline for filing an appeal. They were prepared to go to trial until this ruling came out.

    They lost this current appeal because it wasn’t timely filed, according to the split decision of the Appellate Court. That’s their ruling.

  12. Shark Lopez said his wife and Greenberg spent 70 hours over Thanksgiving weekend preparing their argument for the appellate court.

    “This was a Greenberg-Sharkette attack,” he said.

    Ouch, Brodsky. A win for the defense. A win Brodsky had nothing to do with. Haaaaahaaaa

  13. As for our questions about how this decision would deal with the fact that Judge White’s decision was sealed, the justices state:

    Because the circuit court record and the parties’ briefs on appeal have been placed under seal, we have chosen not to reveal the content of these statements. We are concerned that the public dissemination of these statements could taint the jury pool. It would be particularly ill-advised to reveal the content of prejudicial statements that were excluded by the circuit court. Accordingly, we have also chosen not to discuss the details of Eric Peterson’s, Anna Doman’s, and Victoria Connolly’s testimony regarding prior crimes allegedly committed by the defendant, which the circuit court excluded.

  14. Everyone can read the opinion above but I’m pulling out a few things that stand out to me. For instance the ruling on the prior bad acts:

    …the State argued that that the testimony of Eric Peterson, Anna Doman, and Victoria Connolly regarding the defendant’s alleged prior crimes was admissible under the common law to show the defendant’s motive and intent, and was admissible under section 115–7.4 to show the defendant’s propensity to commit crimes of domestic violence. In excluding this testimony, the circuit court focused on the fact that the alleged other crimes occurred several years before the charged offense. In finding that the alleged prior offenses were too remote in time, the court implicitly found that the prejudicial effect of the State’s other-crimes evidence outweighed its probative value.

  15. DATE: July 26, 2011

    STATEMENT REGARDING PETERSON APPEAL

    JOLIET – The Will County State’s Attorney’s Office is releasing the following statement regarding the 3rd District Appellate Court ruling in the Drew Peterson case:

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s office strongly disagrees with the majority ruling in the Drew Peterson appeal. We believe that Justice Carter, in his dissenting opinion, correctly analyzed the legal issues in the appeal. Specifically, Justice Carter held that our appeal was timely filed. Furthermore, Justice Carter states:

    “The majority ruling is erroneous and irremediably flawed because it assumes a proposition that it cannot support.”

    He clearly points out the critical issue at stake here in stating:

    “I do not agree with the majority’s suggestion that the State and the court should be bound at trial by a manifestly erroneous ruling that contravenes a June 2010 decision from our supreme court.” (People v. Hanson, 238 Ill.2d 74, 99 (2010).

    The Will County State’s Attorney’s office continues to review the ruling and will make a decision about whether it will file an appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court.

    Charles B. Pelkie
    Director, Bureau of Crime Prevention & Public Access
    Office of Will County State’s Attorney
    James W. Glasgow
    57 N. Ottawa Street
    Joliet, Illinois 60432
    Phone: (815) 727-8789
    Cellular: (815) 530-7110
    Fax: (815) 774-7886

    email: cpelkie@willcountyillinois.com

    Web site: http://www.willcountysao.com

  16. Prosecutors In Drew Peterson Case Not Ready To Throw In Towel On Appeal

    A Statement released by the office of Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow says prosecutors have yet to decide if they are going up to the State Supreme Court.

    By Joseph Hosey
    7:28pm

    Thwarted by the appellate court, prosecutors in the Drew Peterson murder case may still go up the ladder in their bid to get as much hearsay evidence as possible admitted at trial.

    A statement released just moments ago on Tuesday night by Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow’s office said prosecutors continue “to review the ruling and will make a decision about whether (they) will file an appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court.”

    Earlier Tuesday, the appellate court released its opinion denying a prosecution appeal of Will County Judge Stephen White’s decision on what hearsay evidence can be used against Peterson, a disgraced former Bolingbrook cop charged with murdering one wife and suspected by the state police of having a hand in killing another.

    The appellate court ruled that Glasgow blew a 30-day deadline when he filed the appeal.

    “The Will County State’s Attorney’s office strongly disagrees with the majority ruling in the Drew Peterson appeal,” said the statement released by Glasgow’s office.

    “We believe that Justice (Robert L.) Carter, in his dissenting opinion, correctly analyzed the legal issues in the appeal,” the statement said. “Specifically, Justice Carter held that our appeal was timely filed.”

    In his dissenting opinion, Carter wrote, “The majority ruling is erroneous and irremediably flawed because it assumes a proposition that it cannot support.”

    Peterson has been jailed since May 2009 on charges he murdered his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found drowned in a dry bathtub in March 2004.

    Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, mysteriously vanished in October 2007. She remains missing.

    The state police believe she may have been killed and have named Drew Peterson the sole suspect in their “potential homicide” investigation.

    Ken Grey, a top prosecutor in Glasgow’s office, declined to comment on whether plans are in store for appealing to the Illinois State Supreme Court.

    “We’re still reviewing the decision,” Grey said.

    One of the attorneys representing Peterson in the murder case, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, doubted the state supreme court would take the case.

    “I can’t see how the state supreme court is going to hear it,” Lopez said.

    Lopez went on to question what evidence prosecutors have against his client now that they have been denied in their appeal.

    “There’s very little left,” he said. “They got what they got and that’s it.”

    http://shorewood-il.patch.com/articles/prosecutors-in-drew-peterson-case-not-ready-to-throw-in-towel-on-appeal

  17. Does anyone know how long the prosecutors have to appeal to to IL Supreme Court? After watching the Casey Anthony case – I truly hope the prosecutors come forward with the right things at trial. The hearsay statements they have are strong ones. I don’t know that having more of them necessarily makes a difference to a jury – they either will be people who will convict on circumstantial evidence or not. I am still stunned by the Casey Anthony verdict.

    I think it is more possible that Drew could get out from behind bars if the State appeals to the Supreme Court simply because of the time he has already been awaiting his trial. However, it does seem like the court system must have some key information for them to not have let him out while waiting so far.

    I am not about to bet anything either way on this case. It is impossible to guess what will really happen in the court systems any more.

  18. Agreed about being impossible to guess what will happen in court. Expect the unexpected is the rule, no?

    As to time for filing appeal, I would guess it’s 30 days.

  19. TAI, it was interesting to see that in the opinion the Justices noted that some of the hearsay statements are simply multiple people telling the same thing. I almost got the impression that they didn’t think it should be a problem to bar them since the testimony would be redundant.

    The testimony of three friends testifying to the same thing that Kathleen told her sister Anna (which is being admitted) is barred, as is the testimony of Harry Smith and Scott Rosetto, but they will be testifying to the same story that Neil Schori has to tell. So…I’m wondering if there is merit in having numerous witnesses offering up the same hearsay statements. Is it enough to just have one witness each testifying that “Kathleen told me…” and “Stacy told me…”? To me it seems like the corroboration of multiple witnesses would really build the case. Is it just me?

    I agree that I don’t know what it takes to make a jury hand down a conviction any more. At least once a day I think about the Anthony case and wonder what would have happened had the jury taken more time and asked more questions. I just don’t know. I felt the same way after the OJ acquittal.

  20. Look at what happened here – even the justices can’t agree on the issues. This was not a unanimous decision. The opinions and interpretations of the law varied.

    If the defense in the CA case thought that there might be jurors stupid enough to believe their outrageous tales tossed out in opening arguments, maybe the prosecution in this case believes there will be jurors smart enough to evaluate the compelling circumstantial evidence relating to KS’s death and vote to convict.

    I just cannot believe twelve people would unanimously believe a defense forensic expert’s contention that KS may have suffered a sudden, life ending heart attack, bounced off the wall and tub, beating herself black and blue in the process, and yet still be able to breathe in water. Members of the original coroner’s panel have spoken out and said they would have concluded differently than accidental death had they been better advised. An experienced law enforcement officer knew better than to spoil a potential death scene, but, instead, let half the neighborhood into his ex-wife’s bathroom to see her swollen body in a dry bath tub. They were days away from him losing out to her in a contentious divorce settlement, he was with a new, young wife, he found a long lost will, and he gained a large amount of money after his ex’s death.

    So, unless the jury expects recorded footage of the actual death of Kathleen, they just might use their common senses and evaluate the disturbing circumstantial evidence that may be enough to convince them that Drew Peterson should be convicted of murdering her. If not, then he’ll be free to go onto the next Mrs. Peterson victim, unless he’s charged with Stacy’s disappearance and murder.

  21. As one of the people who has been following this case for a long time and trying very hard to keep my facts straight, it really bugs me to hear inaccurate statements from the defense aped by the press.

    All it takes is one sound bite of Joel Brodsky stuttering out “Drew’s law is dead” to generate a WGN talking head stating “Drew’s law was struck down today…” which could not be further from the truth.

    It is the so-called “Drew’s law” hearsay statute that is keeping the majority of the hearsay statements out of Peterson’s trial due to its higher standards of reliability. Judge White relied solely on the hearsay statute, rather than common law doctrine when making his decision about the hearsay testimony and his decision is being upheld.

    C’mon. Is that so hard?

    So no, the law was not “struck down” nor is it “dead”. Strangely enough, the defense has the media-labelled “Drew’s Law” to thank for keeping out most of the hearsay statements.

  22. Something I just remembered when going back over the last year’s posts: The prosecutors filed three separate motions to appeal – one related to the testimony of a legal expert, one related to the prior bad acts of Drew Peterson, and one related to the hearsay statements. Judge White had handed down his decisions on different dates for each of these. Only one was outside of the 30-day deadline for appealing – the hearsay statement motion:

    1 – Testimony of Diane Panos, legal expert: “The State intended to present Panos’ opinion on the minimum possible financial impact that the marital property distribution proceeding would have had on the defendant had Kathleen lived. Panos’s proposed opinion included a prediction of what the judge would have ruled at the hearing.”
    Initial ruling barred it on July 2, 2010.
    Appealed but deemed to be speculative and not admitted.

    2 – Testimony of Eric Peterson, Vicki Connolley and Anna Doman: “Eric and Anna testified regarding an incident of domestic abuse that the defendant allegedly committed upon Kathleen during their marriage in 1993. The State also presented the testimony of the defendant’s second wife, Victoria Connolly, who was married to the defendant from 1982 to 1992. Connolly testified about three instances of threats and/or abuse that the defendant allegedly committed during their marriage and another alleged incident involving the defendant which occurred after she had divorced him in 1992.”
    Initial ruling barred it on June 18, 2010.
    Appealed but deemed to be too distant in time before Kathleen’s death so more prejudicial than probative and not admitted.

    3 – Certain hearsay statements: ((1) statements that Kathleen allegedly made to her other sister, Susan Doman;
    (2) a statement that Kathleen allegedly made to her attorney, Harry Smith;
    (3) statements that Kathleen allegedly made to her friend, Kristen Anderson, regarding the alleged July 5, 2002, incident;
    (4) a statement that Kathleen allegedly made to Issam Karam, one of her former coworkers;
    (5) statements that Stacy allegedly made to Michael Miles, whom she had met at Joliet Junior College in 2002;
    (6) a statement that Stacy allegedly made to her friend, Scott Rossetto, in the fall of 2007 regarding her alleged encounter with the defendant on the night Kathleen died;
    (7) portions of an audiotaped statement made by Kathleen to an insurance agent; and
    (8) portions of statements that Kathleen made under oath during an examination conducted by a Country Insurance agent on August 6, 2003.
    )
    Initial ruling barred them on May 18, 2010.
    Appealed when the Hanson ruling created a “change in facts” but justices deemed the appeal to have been filed too late.

    This doesn’t change anything but I did find it interesting.

  23. I saw an article today somewhere that said something like the prosecution didn’t bring forth any hard evidence – just the hearsay evidence and that was why the case was in jeopardy. Well – duh! The pretrial was only for the hearsay evidence. The prosecution didn’t put forth all of their evidence for that part of the trial. We still do not know what evidence the prosecution has in their hands. I do think that they will need more than the hearsay to get a conviction and still wonder if they were able to get the cell phone records that would show what time Stacy was calling Drew that night.

    I think the 30 days sounds right on the timing on an appeal. Thanks for reminding me.

  24. I’ve seen snippets of Brodsky over the past couple of days saying the prosecution admitted early on they needed all of the hearsay to come in in order to go forward with their case, and that because they lost this court ruling, it’s time to drop the case. If I recall correctly, the case was set for trial and the State was prepared to move forward.

    In fact, the trial was set to begin in July, 2010. The defense asked Judge White for a continuance:

    A judge dealt Drew Peterson’s defense team a setback by denying their request to delay the trial until late August. They say they need the time to get two newly recruited attorneys up to speed on forensic evidence to be used from the death of Peterson’s third wife Kathleen Savio….

    Forensic evidence? I thought Brodsky says there is no evidence. Yet, the team needed a delay in the start of the trial to prepare for this non-evidence.

    Now, defense attorneys say they have grounds for an instant appeal if Peterson is found guilty.

    Just prior to the trial set to go forward with jury selection:

    The people are ready to go anytime Judge White calls this case to trial,” said James Glasgow, Will County state’s attorney.

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=7474331

    Prior to the start of the trial, but after what is said to be the timeframe in which the State could file an appeal, the Hanson ruling by the IL Supreme Court came out.

    “I only get one trial. There’s a concept called double jeopardy. I’m obligated as the state’s attorney of Will County to make sure that when I go into court, I have all the evidence that I can possibly garner,” Glasgow said.

    Contrary to what Drew Peterson’s attorneys say, Glasgow says he was ready to go to trial– even without the crucial hearsay statements. But a recent Illinois Supreme Court ruling prompted his decision to appeal. In that case, the court upheld a conviction of a Naperville man who killed four family members and rejected suspect Eric Hanson’s arguments that hearsay statements from his sister should not be allowed.

    Prosecutors say that means hearsay should be allowed in the Peterson case, too.

    “I filed this appeal because there is evidence that I believe we should have available to us, and we’re going to ask the appellate court to consider that under the Hanson case,” said Glasgow.

    “It means the state has declared that, absent this questionable, unconstitutional, and I think immoral, hearsay, they don’t have a case,” Peterson’s defense Attorney Joel Brodsky said.

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

    So this is Glasgow saying he doesn’t have a case and it will fall apart without this hearsay evidence? Looks to me like Brodsky said it and is continuing to say it, one year later. But that’s because I can think for myself, not like a fast-fading, washed up lawyer, who has been relegated to sit and watch the real attorneys fight for Drew Peterson. 🙂

  25. Thanks for the reminder of the facts, Rescue.

    As usual, it’s the situation where Joel is feeding lines to the media and those without a brain taking a defense attorney’s sound bite as if it’s gospel.

    Naturally, Drew’s defense is going to try to batter the prosecution in the media. It’s that same bluster that they bring to the courtroom as part of their job (the ugly part, unfortunately). But that doesn’t mean we have to buy into the blather.

    A reporter once told me that when they get quotes from Joel Brodsky that they first vet the info with another member of the defense team before printing them. Seems like a very wise practice.

  26. A rookie mistake is made when the ground work is not done, in this case the paperwork missed the dead line. Those comments were made by the gentleman that wants the job for States Att. of Will County. No hearsay, no case. The Associated Press is stating as of last night that theres a big chance that Drew will be released. Also there is questional practices in alot of big cases mentioned, why does this county have issues? It all lies with that office and not doing the job properly.

  27. Marilee – As I recall the facts of the case, the prosecution decided to appeal Judge White’s opinion about the eight barred hearsay statements when the Hanson decision (which involved hearsay evidence) was handed down by the Illinois Supreme court.

    The Hanson decision was delivered on June 24, 2010, which was of course more than 30 days after Judge White’s decision regarding the hearsay statements (May 18, 2010).

    Glasgow was aware of this fact but argued that the Hanson decision constituted a change in the law which, if the justices agreed, would be an exception to the 30-day limit.

    The appellate justices disagreed that the Hanson decision constituted a change in the law (well actually it was NOT a unanimous decision. One justice did agree with Glasgow) and so upheld the time-limit and decided not to consider the appeal

    So…not a mistake, rookie or otherwise, but a justified attempt to get more of the hearsay statements admitted. As Glasgow stated (and Rescue quoted upthread), “I only get one trial. There’s a concept called double jeopardy. I’m obligated as the state’s attorney of Will County to make sure that when I go into court, I have all the evidence that I can possibly garner,”

    http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?xmldoc=in%20ilco%2020100624326.xml&docbase=cslwar3-2007-curr

    As for the rest of your comment I would just advise you not to get overly excited about any speculative stuff you read in the media. We’ve been seeing “Peterson could get out of jail soon” since day one of his detainment, and it still hasn’t happened yet. Legal pundits are asked to make conjecture based on their expertise but it’s not as if they have a crystal ball.

  28. Facs said…

    A reporter once told me that when they get quotes from Joel Brodsky that they first vet the info with another member of the defense team before printing them. Seems like a very wise practice.

    That is a wise reporter. As can be seen of late, Mr. Brodsky is more of an onlooker than a participant. In fact, of the many motions that have been filed by the defense over the years, especially since Drew Peterson has been incarcerated, this is one of the first they won. Won without the participation of Joel. It was Atty Greenberg and Atty “Sharkette.” See where this is going?????

    As to Brodsky wanting the State to drop their case based on the assumption they have no evidence to proceed to trial, I would imagine that Mr. Glasgow, along with the other SA’s involved in the case, would imply whatever it is they thought it would take to get the Appellate Court to reverse Judge White’s ruling. Isn’t that what all attorneys do? Say what they think the judges want to hear in order to rule in their favor. 😉

    I beg to differ that this was a “rookie” mistake. I thought I had explained, through extensive research and statements to validate my reasoning as to how I see why the appeal was filed late, but I guess there are those that will throw anything out there without explanation. That’s the way it goes.

  29. Marilee, Are you running for that office? Your comment sounds purely like a DP defense attorney or political statement not based upon any facts! Since the Prosecutor’s office has not gone around making tv appearances blabbing like fools, no one knows what evidence is in the Prosecutor’s trial case file! Those articles are speculative good only for newspaper filler. 😀

  30. Another thing I noticed going back over old papers: The certificate of impairment that the state filed a year ago (saying that they would not be able to proceed to trail without certain evidence admitted) mentioned ONLY the prior bad acts testimony, NOT the hearsay statements evidence NOR the expert witness testimony of Diane Panos.

    The certificate mentioned only the testimony from Eric Peterson, Anna Doman and Vicky Conolly who were all going to testify about previous domestic abuse by Drew Peterson.

    That said, the appellate justices decided to uphold Judge White’s decision to bar that testimony so it remains to be seen what the prosecution wants to do now. I don’t know if such filings are ever done as a bluff or what…

  31. If you have the time and inclination, it’s worth it to take the time to read the whole ruling. (What else have we got to do?). I’ve been wading through it and am struck by this:

    Keep in mind that the decision to uphold White’s ruling when it comes to the 30-day limit on appealing the hearsay statements was NOT unanimous. It was a 2-1 majority.

    If you start at page 39 you can read Justice Robert Carter’s very detailed dissenting opinion.

    I respectfully dissent from the majority’s conclusion that we lack jurisdiction to hear the State’s appeal with regard to the admissibility of the eight hearsay statements of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine.

    He references the State’s “motion to reconsider” in which Judge White was asked whether or not he had taken into consideration the common law doctrine when it comes to forfeiture by wrongdoing (this was written into the hearsay statute) and Judge White responded:

    “I didn’t even get to that. There was no request as to any of the others. I ruled strictly pursuant – there was a hearing pursuant to the statute.”

    Since he never even considered the common law doctrine then there couldn’t have even been a motion to “reconsider” since it had never been considered at all–and therefore no such thing as a 30-day countdown from the point of his decision, since in essence he didn’t decide. Not completely.
    Carter says:

    To understand why the majority’s ruling on this issue is erroneous, it is necessary to understand the procedural history of this case….The State’s June 30 motion as to the common law basis could not have been a motion to reconsider the May 18 order, as the circuit court could not reconsider something that it never considered in the first place.

    Reading this 1/3 dissenting opinion, I wonder if the state will take the matter all the way to the Illinois Supreme Court.

    http://www.state.il.us/court/opinions/AppellateCourt/2011/3rdDistrict/July/3100513.pdf

  32. And poor Drew has to remember not to jump too fast to believe Joel. I mean – Remember when Joel was on vacation when Drew was arraigned? Didn’t Joel say that Drew would be in there just a couple of business days?? Yikes.

    Somehow there is enough information for more than one judge and more than one appeal which has kept Drew in jail. I still think he could have cooked his own goose by appearing like a flight risk when he was ready to jump on the plane to the Bunny Ranch. Plus they have to have more than hearsay evidence IMO or they wouldn’t hold him this long. Time will tell though. His lawyers will do their job and appeal for his release again based on this ruling. It is part of the chess match.

  33. Thanks for the reminder, TAI.

    But Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, cannot be too happy in the county jail; his attorney, Joel Brodsky, faxed in a motion to get Peterson’s $20 million bond reduced.
    Brodsky didn’t make it to Peterson’s hearing Friday, as he was vacationing in New York. So the arraignment was postponed — with Peterson forced to wait in jail — for another 10 days to accommodate Brodsky.
    “Nothing is going to happen without your lawyer being here,” Judge Richard Schoenstedt told Peterson as he delayed the arraignment until May 18.

    “Vacationing in New York” = Hitting the talk show circuit.

  34. Haha, that’s probably why Brodsky is watching the big guns argue on behalf of Peterson now. Between faxing in motions and trying to stay awake during testimony, one has to wonder if his client is a little less than thrilled with him. I think so……

  35. I just watched a video of Drew Peterson’s lawyer bringing up some rare case of a person suddenly turning up alive after years of being missing. He loves to haul out these News of the Weird stories to suggest that Stacy Peterson could still be alive somewhere.

    It always occurs to me to ask how large were the cash rewards being offered for information about these obscure cases?

    Because Friends of Stacy Peterson are offering a $35,000 reward and Peterson himself is offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the whereabouts of Stacy. That’s $60,000 for any person who knows and wants to tell us where Stacy Peterson is – no small chunk of change.

    Stacy’s face is well known to the public (which may be the one positive aspect of all the hideous self-promotion Peterson, his lawyer and publicist have engaged in for the last few years).

    Does Peterson’s lawyer really expect the public to believe that Stacy is somehow blithely living out her days, without thought or word for her small children, no interest in testifying against Drew for the murder of Kathleen, in a place where no one has ever recognized her, and where no one is interested in the $60k reward money?

    It’s almost laughable.

  36. And naturally if you want the facts of a story do NOT go to Brodsky for them. Here’s what he has to say about this latest case:

    Here is proof that people do run off, abandon their children and families, disappear and are still alive after many years.

    The truth of the case he’s referring to is that the woman in question was an unwed mother who was having trouble taking care of her children. In the midst of a custody conflict she was told by her two older sisters to leave and never come back, which is what she did. The sisters then raised the children.

    How do you compare a young married mom whom everyone describes as being an excellent and doting mother, to an unwed, unfit mother whose children were essentially taken from her?

    And of course, Joel got it wrong about this woman “running off” since she was actually thrown out of the house and told never to return.

    More blather, more erroneous information. More of the same from Brodsky.

    http://m.jacksonville.com/news/crime/2011-07-08/story/missing-mom-found-jacksonville-4-decades-after-she-left-illinois-home

  37. Thanks for clearing that up, Facs, about this latest story that Brodsky is trying to fit to his client’s situation. He’s a blubbering idiot. No one pays any attention to him. He’s some obscure boob, with, what, 38 people on his professional facebook list? And those are the ones that will set his client free with this goofball information? Yeah right. Can you guess why his co-counsels don’t want him to be involved in arguing any motions involved with this case? His head got too big for his own good, and he’s a mean, spiteful, lawsuit-threatening crazy putz.

  38. So…….

    The deadline has come and gone, yet the Lifetime movie, Unstoppable, based on Joe Hosey’s book, Fatal Vows, is still in production. Still putting out pictures of the Rob Lowe lookalike appearance of Drew Peterson.

    Since this boogie man threat has not scared the pants off of the producers and all involved with the movie, what could the big, bad Walter Maksym have up his sleeve to get them to turn over the moolah to be made, and make a check payable to the order of Drew Peterson, murder defendant, for the use of his “story?” After all, according to Wally and Joel, if it wasn’t for Drew, there’d be no Lifetime movie, based on Joe Hosey’s book. It’s his story and he should be rewarded for it…….

  39. Ah, what class. Low class, but class, nonetheless:

    “First and foremost we want to make sure Drew gets an unbiased jury pool,” said Peterson’s defense attorney, Joel Brodsky. “But even after the trial, if these people are making money from the use of his name, why shouldn’t Drew get some of that money? It’s his story.”

    Umm, because it’s not a hard and fast rule that just because this attorney’s client is sitting in jail for the charge of murder, doesn’t mean he’s automatically entitled to profit from a recreation of the circumstances that depict his sorry life, unless there’s a law the rest of us haven’t yet heard about.

  40. Will Co. State’s Attorney James Glasgow could face primary competition
    Last Modified: Aug 8, 2011 12:27PM

    Incumbent Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow might have some competition in the March primary.

    Frankfort DUI attorney and “Kennedy Democrat” Ronald Rodger kicked out a press release last week that said he “is exploring” a run for the office. In the release, Rodger took a swipe at Glasgow for his office’s handling of the Drew Peterson murder case.

    “The office … is in jeopardy of losing another high profile case,” he said. “The courts recently ruled crucial evidence of the Drew Peterson case inadmissible because (prosecutors) missed a deadline for filing motions.”

    Rodger added that he is a former supporter of Glasgow’s but now believes the office has been politicized and is ineffective.

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/6864758-418/will-co.-states-attorney-james-glasgow-could-face-primary-competition

    It’s not my job to defend Glasgow’s office, but stating that the Will Co. State’s Attorney’s Office “missed a deadline” is pretty lame, seeing that the Illinois Supreme Court ruling in Hanson, the case on which the SA’s office based its appeal on, didn’t come out until after the deadline passed. We’ve mentioned that here a gazillion times. Maybe certain politicians think they’ll appeal to the idiots, judging by the way they throw statements out there that defy logic. Guess those are the idiots they hope will vote them into office. Tomczak, Glasgow’s predecessor, didn’t do much to review Kathleen Savio’s death. Glasgow is taking the opposite approach. Who’s right, who’s wrong? All I know is, I don’t, not for a minute, think Kathleen Savio flung herself against walls and a smooth edged tub while accidentally falling and hitting her head, causing her death. After hearing many of the circumstances leading up to and after her death, one only needs to use common sense to get to a place that points to a logical suspect in determining that her death was quite suspicious. Let a judge and jury figure it out. Finally!

  41. Well here it is Mid-August, and still no word on when this trial will begin….I understand that the wheels of justice move slowly but, this is moving at a snails pace…It’s coming up on 4 yrs that Stacy went missing, and 7 yrs since the death of Kathleen. What in the world is going on in Will County?

  42. Hi Irish. AFAIK Glasgow has 30 days to decide whether or not the state wants to follow up the appellate decision with an appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court.

    Even though it would mean yet another lengthy delay, my opinion is that he ought to try. I find it interesting that the appellate decision was 2 to 1. To me that means that there’s a chance that the supreme court might agree with the dissenting justice’s opinion and decide that the hearsay evidence decision needs to be re-evaluated.

    I think Justice Carter made a very good point that since Judge White never actually considered common law doctrine when deliberating on the hearsay evidence, the state was never even in the position to ask for him to reconsider. In his opinion, there was no decision made so the whole “filed too late” issue is moot.

    If there is a chance of getting more of those witness’ statements into the trial maybe he should pursue it. On the other hand, it’s taken forever for this trial to get underway and everyone is pretty eager to get on with it. I’m hoping we hear by the 26th what the State decides to do.

  43. By Neil Schori

    Just a few weeks ago, an appellate court in Illinois made a dangerous ruling. They decided that most of the “so-called” hearsay evidence against former police sergeant Drew Peterson would not be admissible in his upcoming murder trial. Some people felt as though this was a victory for Joe and Jane Citizen. I would agree if this were normal hearsay. But this is not normal hearsay.

    The judge in this case ruled that it was likely that Drew Peterson caused his wife, Stacy, to disappear so that she would be unable to testify against him for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. This is certainly not normal hearsay, which should not and would not ever make it into a courtroom. But there is a problem here. Rulings like these will do nothing but hurt women in cases of domestic violence. Why? Because their abusers will become emboldened. They will actually be motivated to do more harm to those few who know of their horrible violent tendencies. Why? Because if they kill the ones that know the truth, then everything else can be labeled “hearsay,” which we all know is not admissible in court.

    So what is the solution?…

    http://timesupblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/injustice-system.html

  44. Rob Lowe: ‘Drew Peterson character was transformative’
    Tuesday, August 23 2011, 12:22am EDT

    Rob Lowe has described the experience of portraying murder suspect Drew Peterson in an upcoming Lifetime biopic as “transformative”.

    In an interview with Parade, the Californication guest star said that he is grateful for the opportunity to portray Peterson as an actor and promised that viewers would be “surprised” at the final product.

    Lowe explained: “It’s a real transformative character for me to play. It took six hours of getting my hair dyed to get my hair grey. What I learned is, I’m glad I’m not actually grey!

    “It’s just a very different style than anything I’ve ever done before and I think people are going to be surprised.”

    Lowe also revealed that the crew shot two different endings to accommodate the results of the real-life trial, adding: “Drew Peterson is awaiting trial for the murder of one of his wives, and he could very easily be off by the time the movie comes out in January. In fact, we shot two endings just to protect ourselves.”

    Peterson recently filed legal documents against Lifetime Entertainment in an effort to prevent the network from creating and airing the biopic.

    http://www.digitalspy.com/tv/news/a336545/rob-lowe-drew-peterson-character-was-transformative.html

  45. Looks like Joel and Maksym need to break out the filing forms again. Dr. Dan is making a movie! LOL

    Chandler Foster, Managing Director of Hollywood East Film Finance, has been holding onto a big announcement to add to his impressive list of projects: “The Drew Peterson Family Saga as experienced by celebrity shrink Dr. Dan will be coming to a theater near you soon, exclaimed Foster. “The screenplay is based on the book, “Analyzing Monsters – The Drew Peterson Saga”.

    http://pr.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=143349

  46. Ha! Holding onto a big announcement? Yeah, the announcement is Budenz is sucking off of Drew Peterson’s name once again to further his own agenda.

    The deadline for filing an appeal of the Appellate Court’s ruling by the SA’s office is nearing, so we should expect to hear whether or not the trial will be moving forward, or if it’s going to continue to be delayed.

  47. Doesn’t Dr. Dan claim to be a friend of Drew’s? You would think that he would have asked permission before undertaking such a venture. Well…maybe he has, and 100% of any and all profits will be going to Drew Peterson, right? 😉

Comments are closed.