Illinois Supreme Court decides Drew Peterson is better off in jail

I apologize if everyone is tired of this graphic, but what can I say? Once more, it’s been decided that Drew Peterson is better off staying in jail while the prosecution appeals a decision about evidence in the case of Kathleen Savio’s murder.

Peterson’s defense team has tried repeatedly to spring his release during the appeals process because Illinois law states,”a defendant shall not be held in jail or to bail during the pendency of an appeal by the state–unless there are compelling reasons for his continued detention or being held to bail.”

It’s most likely that the compelling reason is the evidence and testimony presented at the historic hearsay hearings that took place in the winter of 2009. One could suppose that Judge Stephen White, the appellate justices and now the Illinois supreme court justices have seen and heard enough to make them believe that Peterson killed one or more of his wives. Of course, the decisions have been sealed in order to protect Peterson’s right to a fair trial.

We still wait to see if the Illinois Supreme Court will hear the prosecution’s latest appeal. That decision should come by the end of the month.

Bolingbrook Patch Story
Chicago Tribune Story

Joel Brodsky’s motion that failed to convince the justices.

~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

33 thoughts on “Illinois Supreme Court decides Drew Peterson is better off in jail

  1. Oh heavens, looks like we aren’t the only ones to notice Maksym’s filings are a little…um…lacking.

    Drew Peterson attorney criticized by federal appeals court for his work on another case
    Lawyer filed ‘unintelligible’ papers on behalf of McHenry County landing strip, judges say

    By Steve Schmadeke, Tribune reporter
    September 20, 2011

    A federal appeals court on Monday took one of Drew Peterson’s attorneys to task for the way he handled a McHenry County case, finding in a strongly worded opinion that the lawyer repeatedly filed “unintelligible” court papers that were “riddled with errors” and “flagrantly disobeyed” court instructions.

    A 7th Circuit Court of Appeals panel said it was forwarding its ruling to Illinois’ disciplinary body for attorneys and ordering Peterson attorney Walter Maksym to show why he shouldn’t be barred from practicing before the court.

    “Much of (Maksym’s) writing is little more than gibberish,” the panel found, ruling that Maksym’s appellate filings raise “serious concerns about his competence.”

    “It was an isolated period where I was suffering from health problems that affected my ability to practice,” Maksym said in an interview. Maksym, who was a cancer patient at the time, said he has an “impeccable record” over his 38 years of legal work and plans to demonstrate to the appeals court that he is fit to argue cases before it…

    …The appeals court found that a federal court judge properly dismissed Stanard’s case after giving Maksym three chances to file a lawsuit with clearly stated legal claims. It also noted that Maksym’s efforts on the case and appeal were “alarmingly deficient.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-peterson-attorney-0920-20110920,0,5069222.story

  2. I guess the Supreme Court must be in the conspiracy too. In my opinion the compelling arguments are not the pending hearsay evidence but witness testimony that they have as well via Morphey and I still think there could be forensic evidence such as the cell phone records or something else like that which was presented and sealed along with the appeal and the initial requesf for such a high bond. Joel has to remember that in reality Drew could get out if he convinced a bail bondsman to pony up the cash. There were bondsmen who were willing to risk their money on Casey Anthony. Why are none willing to believe he isn’t a risk??

  3. H. Stanard v. Keith Nygren, 09-1487 (7th Cir. 2011)
    Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    Date Filed: Monday, September 19th, 2011

    …The motion recounted Maksym’s strenuous efforts to get the computer fixed. He said he visited Apple “Genius” teams in both Los Angeles and Chicago and took the computer to a “Macspecialist.” Though these efforts eventually resolved the immediate problem, he claimed that intermittent data losses persisted. Maksym also alleged that he was suffering from bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome, severe back and hip pain, and a serious infection….

  4. … On October 31, at 4:41 p.m., Maksym filed another motion for leave to amend, along with a second amended complaint inexplicably titled “First Amended Complaint.” Again, few of the many errors in the earlier complaints were fixed. The district court rejected Maksym’s latest effort, outlining at length the many pleading defects in the second amended complaint. To illustrate its basic incoherence, the court quoted verbatim from a number of its paragraphs, including one that contained a staggering and incomprehensible 345-word sentence. The court also took note of the “grammatical and spelling errors” throughout the complaint, which it said were “too numerous to add ‘[sic]’ where required.” Noting that the purpose of Rules 8 and 10 is to provide “ ‘fair notice’ of the claims and the grounds upon which the claims rest,” the court held that the second amended complaint was “so poorly drafted and obviously not in compliance with” the rules of pleading that the defendants were lef“gt to uess which actions apply to each claim.” Rather than give Maksym yet another opportunity to replead, by this time the court had had enough…

    In short, Maksym’s entire approach to this case was alarmingly deficient. For all the foregoing reasons, we hold that the district court was well within its discretion to deny leave to file the second amended complaint and to dismiss the case with prejudice. We also order Maksym to show cause within 21 days why he should not be removed or suspended from the bar of this court or otherwise disciplined under Rule 46(b) or (c) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. We also direct the clerk of this court to send a copy of this opinion to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of Illinois for any action it deems appropriate.

  5. thinkaboutit2 says:
    September 19, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    I guess the Supreme Court must be in the conspiracy too.

    Exactly! The Drew defenders would have you believe that it’s Drew’s (well-deserved) poor press that is to blame for his remaining behind bars, but do they honestly think that justice after justice is relying on public opinion when making their decision? I mean, these people have careers to think of as well and they have to put the basis of their decisions in writing. They have to state legal reasons.

  6. Well, if Maksym gets disbarred from Illinois maybe he can sidle up to Baez or Macaluso in their practices. He’s got the excuses down pat. 😕

    LOL! That picture of the egotist is perfect for putting the DENIED across it…

  7. The Supreme Court decision…did not address whether the high court will consider the hearsay issue at the heart of the murder charges against him.

    “It has nothing to do with the merits of the appeal,” said attorney Steve Greenberg, another member of Peterson’s defense team.

    But…

    “We’re obviously disappointed that Mr. Peterson won’t be released but we’re also hopeful that this is an indication that the Supreme Court is not going to hear the state’s appeal,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said.

    Do these boys even talk to each other?

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/7758522-418/illinois-supreme-court-wont-free-peterson.html

  8. Good to know you care, Debbie. 🙂
    Thanks for the comment about the pic, Sherry. I tried putting the “denied” over his face five times but then you couldn’t see Drew. Oh wait…

  9. I am so confused. What kind of logic and reasoning is there that the Supreme Court keeping Drew behind bars is an indication the courts aren’t going to hear the prosecutor’s appeal?? If anything it would be the opposite. They’d want him out ASAP if they felt that. Backward logic. Never ever will half of this make sense to me.

  10. Well, it’s obvious to see that the Queen of Stupid must have gone through whatever local men were available to her over the past couple of years, leaving her to lower herself once again. If that’s possible.

    The Peterson case . . .

    Here we go again.

    Drew Peterson , who is awaiting trial for the murder of third wife, Kathleen Savio , and is a suspect in the disappearance of fourth wife, Stacy — is back in the romance department.Sneed is told Peterson’s former girlfriend, Chrissy Raines — who called off their engagement during his imprisonment — is back in the picture.

    “She came back to see him several weeks ago for the first time in at least eight months, and I’m told the fire has been rekindled,” said a top source.

    ◆ P.S. Sneed also hears Peterson prefaces phone calls to family and friends with: “It’s Groundhog Day” — referring to the hit film about a day that keeps repeating itself. Peterson has been incarcerated for nearly 28 months at Will County Jail awaiting trial.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/sneed/7757503-452/sneed-is-back.html

  11. No wonder Attorney Lopez said yesterday that Drew is holding up well in spite of being held in detention while all of this appeal stuff is going on, heh? He’s concentrating on what’s important. His women folk.

  12. Hey – if there’s anyone who reads here that writes to Peterson while he’s in detention, I’d like to help out by recalling a very wise statement made by his son, Thomas, in the Chicago Tribune:

    “Him going away was very disappointing, but I feel like if he came back I’d have to have a stern talk with him about the things that he’s doing because he’s really kind of lost in his ego, I want to say. I’m not going to lie,” Peterson said. “‘Dad, you do not need to talk to these people right now. You need to stay home and take care of your family.'”

    Could you like send that to him to jolt him back into the reality that he has young minds that need his moral guidance.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-03-19/news/ct-met-drew-peterson-son-valedictoria20110319_1_drew-peterson-bolingbrook-police-sergeant-stacy-peterson/2

  13. This is very serious. The trial judge, the appellate judges and the Illinois Supreme Court judges have continued to rule that Drew Peterson should remain jailed. Five attempts to get him released have failed.

    Now, to borrow an absolutely ridiculous previous comment made by his head attorney on his Facebook page, in light of the fact that his client is fighting for his freedom and for his future:

    I guess denial isn’t just a river in Egypt.

    It’s good to see that Mr. Peterson has such a witty guy as the leader of his defense team. One that thinks just like him in so many winning ways.

    😉

  14. Seriously, Christina probably thought Drew was getting out soon and could help pay rent or something.

    The idea of a rekindled romance for the accused murderer sounds like the usual gossip story that Sneed helps spread whenever the defense suffers a set-back.

  15. It’s good to see that Mr. Peterson has such a witty guy as the leader of his defense team.

    You mean, the guy who thinks that puns work when they are written out? Yeah, that guy. 😉

  16. One of Peterson’s attorneys, Joseph “Shark” Lopez, said it is extremely difficult to win a defendant’s release above the level of the trial court and that the state Supreme Court’s decision was not a surprise.

    “The attorneys expected it but the public didn’t,” Lopez.

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/drew-peterson-stays-put

    So, what was the reasoning behind filing the motion for his release? Just to clog up the courts with another frivolous motion?

    If Drew’s defense team didn’t expect him to get an “out of jail” card, they sure didn’t make it sound that way to the press. What was the point of Joel Brodsky doing the news shows and bemoaning the situation? Oh right…more camera time for Joel.

  17. I wish every person who starts to feel badly for Drew Peterson being detained until trial would just re-read stuff like this.

    The amount in contention in the divorce settlement between Peterson and Savio includes nearly $324,000 in Peterson’s police pension, a portion of which Savio would have been entitled to.

    Prosecutors submitted the financial documents at the ongoing evidentiary hearing for Peterson in an attempt to show Peterson killed his third wife because he stood to lose a significant amount of money.

    Although their marriage legally ended in the fall of 2003, the couple had not settled contentious financial and child custody issues.

    In addition to sharing his pension with Savio, the law would have required Peterson to pay more than $15,000 a year in child support or about 28 percent of his police salary after taxes and other deductions, according to the financial records.

    Peterson and Savio also were battling over their Montgomery bar, “Suds,” which was valued at about $219,000 when Savio was found dead in the bathtub of her Bolingbrook home in March 2004.

    Savio also had life insurance totaling more than $1 million at the time of her death. That money was placed into trust funds for her two children with Peterson.

    Peterson also had non-marital assets worth more than $528,000 in 2004 and his projected pension at the time was estimated to be more than $97,000 annually.

    Earlier in the day, William Green testified that cable contractor co-worker Jeff Pachter told him in July 2003 that “Drew would like me to ask you if you would kill his wife.”

    He said Pachter told him that Peterson said he wanted it to look like an accident and that Peterson wanted to be out of town when it happened.

    https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/02/09/drew-peterson-hearsay-hearings-day-15/#comment-57943

  18. Facs@12:42. Thanks for the point-on information that seems to get lost in this nonsense about Peterson’s rights being violated. And his right to a speedy trial denied. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

    I’m still wondering why a decades-experienced law enforcement officer, who came upon death scene after death scene himself, didn’t know the proper procedure for handling one himself when stumbling upon the death scene of his ex-wife. You know, without having any prior knowledge about how she died. The scene where he let half the people milling about Bolingbrook that fateful evening walk through and trample upon any valuable evidence to be discovered should her death have been at the hands of an intruder. But, oh wait, he didn’t expect that to be the case, did he? He expected the neighbors to have found her dead in the bath tub, poor thing, the victim of a terrible slip and fall accident.

    Never mind.

  19. Dum di dum dum. Guess someone shared this pissy news with the murder defendant, and he wasn’t none too happy.

    Drew Peterson criminal defense team says allegations against civil attorney has ‘no impact whatsoever’ on criminal case
    Criminal defense team releases a statement.

    (PR NewsChannel) / September 20, 2011 / CHICAGO

    The following is a statement from lead attorney Joel A. Brodsky, and the criminal defense team representing Drew Peterson.

    “While Walter Maksym has represented Drew Peterson in two unrelated civil matters, he is not, and never has been, involved with Drew Peterson’s criminal defense case. The situation Mr. Maksym now faces with the federal courts has no impact whatsoever on the criminal defense of Drew Peterson.

    “While acknowledging the excellent civil law work Mr. Maksym has done for him, Mr. Peterson has decided to ask Mr. Maksym to temporarily step aside on the one remaining civil law matter while he focuses on his personal issue.”

    SOURCE: Joel A. Brodsky, Esq.

    http://tinyurl.com/42bjw5z

  20. “While acknowledging the excellent civil law work Mr. Maksym has done for him…”

    Guess no one told Drew about that Lifetime movie cease and desist fiasco in which Maksym makes it abundantly clear that he has no comprehension of the Illinois Right of Publicity Act (765 ILCS 1075/35).

  21. Facs @ September 20, 2011 at 2:36 pm

    To quote a certain recently denied jailed moron,

    “Never happened, No, that never happened, didn’t happen”

  22. Moron.

    That’s an interesting word. I’ve seen it used on Brodsky’s Facebook page recently by one that comments there. But, alas, someone monitoring the page had the common sense to nip that in the bud. Twice. Poof. Gone.

    🙂

  23. Brodsky urged the court to quickly reject the prosecution’s appeal over Savio’s statements so the trial can get underway.

    Yeah, and we know how much stock the Illinois Supreme Court puts in anything lawyers say or do in the media, right???? However, urged is just so compelling. They might just roll over and listen.

Comments are closed.