Proceedings got off to a late start this morning in Joliet, with Drew Peterson displaying a change in demeanor from his last court appearance. As pre-trial motions were argued, Peterson sat calmly and refrained from openly joking with the court or reporters.
Before the noon break, Judge Edward Burmila decided that the State would not be allowed to suggest that a witness is more credible based on their profession. In other words, although Pastor Neil Schori will be allowed to testify as to what missing fourth wife Stacy Peterson told him, and he can be identified as a pastor, the State can’t ask the jury to weigh his testimony more strongly simply because of his role as clergy.
The prosecution also argued that defense request to bar mention of Stacy’s disappearance from trial is “premature”.
During the lunch break, attorney Joel Brodsky phoned In Session and told Vinnie Politan that Judge Burmila has set the trial date with jury selection beginning July 23rd and opening arguments starting July 31. He also stated that he does not expect Peterson to take the stand. He also laid out how the defense team is splitting up responsibilities for the trial:
Darryl Goldberg and Ralph E. Meczyk: Forensics
Joel Brodsky: Opening statements and witnesses questioned during pre-trial hearing (Andrew Abood questioned most of them originally but he has since left the team)
Joe Lopez: Law enforcement witnesses and closing statement
Steve Greenberg: Legal objections and motions
This afternoon the judge ruled that the prosecution will not be allowed to mention that Stacy Peterson is dead, is presumed dead or was killed by Drew Peterson. However, prosecutors may ask a witness a question in such a way that it could come out that Stacy Peterson is missing. For instance, Neil Schori might be asked why he didn’t talk to police immediately after Stacy told him that Drew had killed Kathleen, and he might reply that he was motivated to say something after Stacy suddenly disappeared.
Joe Hosey tweeted that it looked as if Harry Smith’s conversations with Stacy Peterson would be barred from evidence, and that the judge was as yet undecided about his conversations with Kathleen Savio.
Looks like the defense filed a few more motions today and another hearing is set for June 6th.
Please check out the comments thread for updates.
~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.~
http://www.suntimes.com/12529585-417/judge-expected-to-set-trial-date-for-drew-peterson-this-afternoon.html
Isn’t that the jurors’ job – to determine whether or not a witness is telling the truth? I don’t really see how it’s any more or less ‘peculiar’ in this case.
Vinnie Politan @VinniePolitan
Drew Peterson Trial Date: July 23rd…
Vinnie Politan @VinniePolitan
Joel Brodsky: I don’t expect Drew Peterson to testify…
Brodsky just phoned into ,in session court tv and said, jury selection will start july 23, and he’s hoping first witness will be called july 31st.
Will he be right or just another one of his guesses?
Nice of Joel to spout off before the Judge actually agrees to it in court. We shall see…
Drew Peterson was sitting, shackled, in the jury section. His attorney, Steve Greenberg, asked him how he was doing, or how he was, something to that effect. Peterson answered “I’m in jail.”
http://www.hlntv.com/article/2012/05/17/attorney-date-set-drew-peterson-trial
Maybe they could just hand over the grand jury transcripts? Looks like Joel is trying to get the State to do his job once again.
The Herald-News @Joliet_HN
Prosecutors can’t mention Stacy’s ‘death’ in #DrewPeterson trial
http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/12529585-418/judge-expected-to-set-trial-date-for-drew-peterson-this-afternoon.html#.T7VQCXf5hSk.twitter
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-set-to-go-on-trial-end-of-july-20120517,0,515564.story
Like the judge doesn’t know? Wah, wah, wah. Cry me a river!
Joseph Hosey @ShorewdILPatch
#drewpeterson jury selection 7/23 arguments 7/30
Looks like attorney harry smith can’t relate convo with stacy peterson.
Testimony from regarding talks with Kathleen Savio still undecided
That’s pretty disappointing if Harry Smith can’t testify about conversation with Stacy. I guess atty/client privilege begins at consultation and she’s not around to waive it, and can’t be proven dead at this point?
I really hope his talks with Kathleen are admitted.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/05/17/drew-peterson-back-in-court-as-trial-looms/
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/05/17/drew-peterson-back-in-court-as-trial-looms/
Geez, has Greenberg never heard of circumstantial evidence? Let the jurors decide what to make of the evidence.
EVENTS:
05/17/2012 Impounded Document- Motion In Limine with Supporting Documents
05/17/2012 Motion to Dismiss Petit Venire
05/17/2012 Motion and Memorandum to Prohibit the State From Proceeding Under a
05/17/2012 Motion to Require the State to Identify Exactly What Hearsay They Wish
05/17/2012 Motion to Compel Production of a List of Witnesses to be Called at
05/17/2012 Supporting Document(s)/Exhibit(s)
05/17/2012 CF – Continuance by Defendant
05/17/2012 Matter set for
UPCOMING DATES:
06/06/2012 1:00 pm 403 Hearing
07/23/2012 9:30 am 403 Jury Trial
http://shorewood-il.patch.com/articles/judge-shuts-lawyer-s-loose-lips-in-drew-peterson-murder-trial
I am totally confused about what the defense attorneys are doing by filing a formal complaint against Harry Smith with the Illinois Attorney & Discipllinary Commission.
Kathleen is not their client, so why are they the ones that are filing an attorney-client privilege violation complaint on her behalf? Why not her children, or her sisters, brother, etc.? Or why not any other attorney but them, for that matter? I don’t understand what gives them the authority to file this complaint. If it’s not on behalf of Kathleen, then on who’s behalf are they filing it? Even if Harry Smith did violate the privilege, again, why are they able to report him? Why didn’t Judge White file a formal complaint against him with ARDC if he thought he was in violation of his oath, or was acting unethically?
Why can’t just anyone file a complaint against any lawyer that appears to be acting unethically or is violating some Code of Ethics? It just seems to me it would need to be the person that is harmed by the attorney that is representing them that should have this option/responsibility.
Lawyers. Pffft. They’ll even chew off another lawyer’s leg if it suits them or furthers their cause.
You watch….there will be a twist in case, Lenny always told us there would be one…..
Hello to everyone! Been a long time……hope all is well and lets hope this trial gets moving soon.
Hi, Appplealley. Almost didn’t recognize you!
Rescueapet: Anyone can file a complaint against a lawyer to the appropriate disciplinary committee. The system is set up so that you don’t have to be directly or even indirectly affected by an attorney’s actions before you can report him or her for a possible violation. Part of the reasoning for this is to encourage people (particularly other lawyers) to report violations they made witness. Believe it or not, but the way the disciplinary committees are set up is actually a good thing:)
As for the complaint with the ARDC, my guess is that’s a lot of hot air. Greenberg has to bluster and puff himself out and appear outraged about Smith’s coming forward because he knows exactly how compelling it would be for a jury to hear what Stacy and Kathleen told Harry Smith.
Greenberg is pretending to be morally outraged in order to keep a very credible witness from testifying to some extremely damaging facts of this case.
It’s his job, I get it. But that sneer and the snotty tone to his voice are pretty off-putting.
BTW, I checked the the ARDC and Smith has no complaints filed against him as of 5/16/12, However, Joel Brodsky still has his 4-month suspension on record.
Kris – Thanks for your input.
I have to kind of chuckle about anyone being able to file a complaint against an attorney if they are of the belief that attorney is in violation of his ethical or professional responsibilities.
I have seen enough unprofessional, strange and mind boggling actions by an attorney involved in this case that many have questioned tenfold.
In fact, this blog has a very detailed account of the lawyer’s personal liquor/food establishment promotion via his client on radio stations.
https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/drew-and-joels-payola-radio-shakedown/.
A 23 year old woman, Peterson’s last love interest prior to his arrest, claims that Drew Peterson’s lawyer, who she named as Joel Brodsky, concocted her engagement with Peterson as a stunt to gain publicity. https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2009/02/10/its-official-christina-raines-stupidest-woman-alive/. Last I heard, she had retained Attorney Gloria Alred to represent her in this mess.
IMO, I find it bizarre that a defense attorney can use his client to garner publicity for whatever personal reasons he wishes.
Again, my question remains, if Attorney Harry Smith was in violation of anything that was unprofessional or unethical, why didn’t any one of the judge’s involved in this case report him? I know I heard of that being done in the Casey Anthony case by Judge Perry. I believe he personally reported defense attorney Jose Baez (Florida).
I agree with Facs about the way Greenberg acted like a drama queen in getting his point across in the public about his contempt for Attorney Harry Smith. Attorney Smith has some powerful information to share. But I think that the Peterson defense team can pull up their big boy pants and act like the professionals they supposedly are.
Brodsky must have had too much time on his hands for a while. At one point, Kristine McPherson, a known love struck groupie of Peterson’s, used to text and/or send him various comments from blogs and boards she read to inflame him. A supposedly high-profile, Chicago attorney, using a headcase to troll boards on his behalf, and then allow her to post crazy stuff like this:
Attorney Greenberg, who appears to be the most vocal and involved attorney now in the Peterson defense, had this to say PRIOR to becoming a team member:
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-05-10/news/0905080570_1_james-glasgow-hearsay-kathleen-savio
https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2010/04/22/drew-peterson-adds-two-more-new-attorneys-to-his-defense-team/
Steve Greenberg
No matter what one thinks…it boils down to MOTIVE…and believe me in both cases, Kathleen and Stacy, Drew had his best interests at heart…
Hi Estee. What I think matters is that all of the babble we’ve heard from the defense all these years doesn’t matter!
Yes, he had his best interests at heart, and he’s not a likeable public character, thanks to his own doing. What should matter to him is that his defense team is good at picking a fair and impartial jury!
Like I said, I understand why Greenberg is pretending to be appalled at a perceived breech of attorney ethics, but a very cursory look at the imagined misdeed reveals the truth of the matter.
Harry Smith went to the ISP twice. First when a client who expressed fear for her life suffered a strange and fatal accident, and again when a woman came to him stating that she had knowledge about that other woman’s murder…and quickly disappeared.
The fact that he then was asked to testify at a grand jury, a pre-trial hearing and now at a murder trial is just a testament to the value of what he has to offer as a witness.
If Drew’s defense wants to paint that in a “sinister” light, it’s their prerogative to do so, but when Smith’s actions are compared to those of Joel Brodsky, who trotted out his client to the media in exchange for appearance fees, created a phony engagement and then offered a video package with Drew and his fiance to the networks (for a hefty price), tried to arrange boxing matches between Peterson and Geraldo Rivera, used his client’s media appearances to market his own failing sports bar, and then finally tried to arrange a job for his “Mr. Mom” client at a brothel in Reno, there’s only one attorney who comes off as a bit sleazy…and it ain’t Mr. Smith.
And I’m sure no one reading here needs a reminder that three attorneys have left the defense team, all citing irreconcilable differences with Joel Brodsky as the reason.
His former partner, Reem Odeh, stated when she left the partnership and defense that she was looking forward to working with “real professionals with honesty and integrity”, which one can only assume means that in her opinion Joel Brodsky had neither.
Rescue brought up Kristine McPherson, who for a time was not only Drew Peterson’s champion but Joel Brodsky’s online toady. McPherson suffered occasional pangs of conscience about her role and shared them with us saying, “It appears that the truth is coming out in relation to myself and my actions over this case. I am an ethical & honest person, I do not like to be used for other people motives.”
Yet again, someone close to Joel Brodsky attests that he isn’t exactly a model of integrity.
We know that Joel Brodsky provided internal documents (a search warrant) to a blogger and private investigator named Paul Huebl. Huebl then got the name and address of a witness from the warrant and proceeded to publish both and to harass the man by phone. Brodsky also provided what he hoped would be incriminating photos of a different witness to another blogger who then published them.
What does it take for someone to file a complaint with the ARDC against this boob?
http://www.suntimes.com/12529585-418/drew-peterson-murder-trial-to-start-at-the-end-of-july.html
FYI: The remains that were found weeks ago near I-55 have been identified as Carlos Rodriguez, and the case is still pending.
BUT THE JUDGE SAID THAT THEY MAY WEAR THE BADGES OUT SIDE OF THE COURT ROOM!!!!!
William Curl’s murder trial is set to begin soon and the supporters of Toni Keller’s family are going to be wearing yellow t-shirts to show support. They’re going to be allowed to gather on the courthouse lawn as well. The judge in that trial says they will deal with “the summoning of the yellow” as the trial commences and talk with jurors when and if needed. Seems like a good approach.
Checked the ARDC again today for complaints about Harry Smith:
Public Record of Discipline
and Pending Proceedings: None
Looked up Joel Brodsky. Yup, still there:
Disposition: Suspension for a specified period
Effective Date of Disposition: January 31, 2004
End Date of Disposition: April 30, 2004
Definition of Disposition: Suspension for a specified period reflects a determination that the lawyer has engaged in misconduct and that the misconduct warrants an interruption of the lawyer’s authority to practice law during the suspension period, which is a fixed period of time identified in the Supreme Court’s order. The lawyer is not authorized to practice law during the period of the suspension.
I know a few of the cops that work either with drew peterson or knows him and they all seem to think he wont do any time…but I am hoping and praying he is found guilty…..It wont be much confort for Stacy sister Cassie ( hope nickname is ok?) but at least in this life he will hang for Kathleen death and in the next life he will burn forever in hell for Stacy death….My heart goes out to all of the families even the peterson kids, losing two mothers in one life time is just wrong, but he wanted his money more then happiness for his kids. …..Any ways moving on Id like to say to the ower of this site its a great site and I surf it at least 3 times a week and have ya book mark on my desktop LOL Keep up the great work.
Thanks, angelleea. We’re looking forward to the trial and hopefully some justice for Kathleen. Then it will be Stacy’s turn!
Peterson has stated that he reads the bible these days. Maybe he could linger a little over these verses today:
John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
James 5:16:Therefore, confess your sins to one another and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person has great power as it is working.
Proverbs 28:13:Whoever conceals his transgressions will not prosper, but he who confesses and forsakes them will obtain mercy.
If anyone wants to remind Peterson of those verses or urge him to confess in other words, here’s his address:
Drew W. Peterson
Will County Adult Detention Facility
95 South Chicago Street
Joliet, Illinois 60436
Things to remember when mailing letters to an incarcerated person:
All mail coming into the Will County Adult Detention Facility is opened and searched for contraband.
Mailing contraband to an inmate is a crime.
All mail must be received through the United States Postal Service; you may not drop off letters or envelopes at the reception desk.
Envelopes may be no larger than 8.5 by 11 inches. Oversized greeting cards are not permitted.
Do not affix any type of stickers or labels to the envelope. Do not tape or glue anything to the envelope or contents.
Do not put any glitter, confetti, locks of hair, or any foreign substance in the envelope.
Do not spray perfume or cologne on the envelope. Do not make lipstick impressions on the envelope or contents.
Please do not include any laminated items, hard plastic cards, new envelopes, blank paper, or postage stamps.
Do not send cash. You may include a money order made payable to: W.C.A.D.F. – ( Inmate’s Name ).
You may send a photograph. However, photos may not show: Nudity, Guns, Gang Signs or Affiliation, Drugs, Criminal Acts, No Polaroid Photos
I was reading up a little today on attorney-client privilege. I know that exceptions vary between jurisdictions but this seems to be a common one:
Judge Burmila decided that Atty Smith violated his a-c privilege with Stacy Peterson when he testified about Drew killing Kathleen but she, in fact, told at least two other people the same information (Neil Schori and Scott Rossetto). Wouldn’t that mean that she waives the right to confidentiality in regards to those statements? Again:
http://voices.yahoo.com/the-exceptions-attorney-client-privilege-342047.html
I understand that Judge Burmila might want to bar Atty Smith’s testimony because Stacy has not given him permission to disclose their discussion but I was under the impression that the pre-trial hearing regarding the hearsay testimony proved to Judge White to a certain degree of reliability, that Stacy is dead. Yes, the decision was sealed but it was also leaked and there is some reason why Drew Peterson was denied permission to wait out the appeals at home. What else could it be?
Let’s say for argument’s sake, that Judge White believed Stacy to be dead. You might say that the attorney-client privilege continues even after death. True, but a family representative can then give permission to waive the privilege:
Why couldn’t atty Smith’s testimony be approached in that way? Let Cassandra Cales give permission to waive the confidentiality.
I see two good arguments for an exception to attorney-client confidentiality here. I hope the State has argued both of these…
http://tinyurl.com/6ql8rbj
Honestly, I’m not even sure how the confidentiality is an issue with Atty Smith’s testimony. Everything I’m reading has to do with “information relating to the representation to the disadvantage of the client” and none of what Harry Smith has to relate about his conversation compromises either woman. His testimony is all about the bad actions of Drew Peterson who was definitely NOT his client.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/il/narr/IL_NARR_1_06.HTM
The Lifetime movie “Untouchable” depicted Stacy Peterson telling people that Drew Peterson had killed Kathleen Savio. The premiere of that movie had 5.8 million viewers. Exactly how many people need to hear about something before the information qualifies as “generally known”?
I thought Judge Burmila was a big fan of the law who enjoys doing his own research rather than letting lawyers do it all. I wish he would delve into this a little more before making a final decision on Atty Smith’s testimony. In my opinion, the matter of attorney-client privilege has been twisted around and does not fit the context of this testimony.
I would think that Atty Smith coming forward in these cases would be acting on behalf of his client.
Hi Charmed. I think that’s true for Kathleen Savio since she asked him to speak out if anything happened to her. AFAIK, that wasn’t the case with Stacy. According to Smith, when he talked to Stacy she was not afraid of Drew because she felt she had so much on him that he couldn’t hurt her and she never asked him to speak out if anything happened to her. But still, what about the exception that says an attorney can disclose if he thinks it’s what his client would have wished?
That said, I’m just baffled that he can’t testify to something that is at this point common knowledge. I may be new to this stuff, but it looks as if confidentiality is only an issue if the information is a secret. Stacy told at least two other people that Drew killed Kathleen and it’s been common knowledge for years that she told people this. He isn’t breaking his client’s trust if he discloses something that is already out there.
While it may be true that she didn’t ask him to speak out, she is missing. The information that she had and shared was more than enough reason for Drew to want he out of the picture. To me by not saying anything he would be allowing a criminal act, which (in Pennsylvania at least) nulifies ACP.
From what I’ve been reading an attorney can speak out if they think that what they’ve heard in confidence amounts to the threat to the safety of a person, but damned if I can find anything that relates to speaking out after your client is murdered. You’d think that would be a given!
For instance in Illinois, this is an exception:
Every state seems to have exceptions for prevention of a crime.
The main point of the confidentiality rule would seem to be to give the client some assurance that they can speak freely and even confess to criminal activity without their representation then turning and using it against them.
I don’t see any of that being applicable to what Kathleen and Stacy told Harry Smith. Their incriminating statements were about Drew Peterson, not themselves.
I guess if you want to nit-pick you could say that Stacy’s asking if she could get more money from Drew in a divorce settlement if she threatened to go to the police with what she knew about Kathleen’s death doesn’t paint her in a great light, but as far as I know it’s not illegal. Asking about something is not the same as engaging in illegal activity.
Here are Illinois’ Rule of Professional Conduct if anyone else wants to delve into this.
http://www.state.il.us/court/supremecourt/rules/art_viii/default_new.asp
Since Stacy is not involved in any wrong doing and the nature of her discussions would be protected until she said otherwise, doesn’t this supercede that since she is a missing person.
I guess I’d have to ask what law is requiring Atty Smith to disclose the information.
AFAIK there’s no law in Illinois compelling him to come forward with what he and Stacy discussed – even though she is missing.
To me, and I’m certainly nobody, the decision of no testimony from Attorney Smith’s re:counsel with Stacy, is a foreshadowing of Judge Burmila’s wont to side with the defense. You gave us quotes and opinions on this before, and I’m afraid I still harbor doubts about his being totally fair to the prosecution. I sincerely hope I’m wrong.
Also, Brodsky is a fine one to talk about someone wanting his “15 minutes in the sun”, isn’t he? Good Lord, that man’s had 3 YEARS’ worth!
I couldn’t agree with you more, Cheryl. I don’t think this bodes well. 😦
http://www.suntimes.com/news/12726326-418/even-the-motions-in-drew-peterson-murder-case-are-getting-snarky-now.html
Or perhaps Drew asked one of Kathleen’s sons for the pass code to the garage door which is how they always accessed the house.
And exactly what would the evidence be after he had gained entry by way of Kathleen opening the door for him? They don’t even bother trying to make sense, it seems.
No evidence that Drew Peterson had a key to the house? What person would imagine he would have hung onto it for four years after murdering his wife?
Is this situation really this funny to Peterson’s defense team? One woman dead, one missing. Four children with no mom and essentially no dad for the last three years. What a laugh riot.
Yeah, beamed him up, alright. My gosh, is nothing serious with these boobs? This is about a man on trial for his life, and a woman now determined to have been murdered. What is wrong with them? I thought at least one of them would show some class. I was wrong.
You know, Rescue, I’m torn. This is moronic enough to have been written by Brodsky, but the snide a-holeishness of it seems more Greenberg.
Now that I think about it, is that going to be Brodsky’s opening statement? Because, if it is, the other guys better get on the stick and knock him down a few pegs. I doubt anyone is going to think mentioning Scotty from the Star Ship Enterprise beaming Drew up is something that should be coming from Drew’s lawyers. If it’s meant to be what the author of the motion thinks it is, meaning being funny, I shudder to think a sitting jury is waiting for the next punchline from the mouth of anyone on that defense team.
Judge Burmila doesn’t want the victim’s family to wear buttons that support Kathleen. I hope Judge Burmila doesn’t want the defense lawyers making jokes at the expense of a dead mother of two. Someone act like they’re a credit to their profession. It certainly isn’t the defense team.
I am hoping that the ST reporter, who decided to write about the defense and their “snarky” comments, is as appalled as most anyone else would be that reads it. If so, thank you Mr. Seidel!
Yeah, Atty Greenberg has shot off a few snarky comments, but I am assuming it was written by Brodsky, since he’s the one that’s been spewing that the defense is coming out with a slew of motions pre-trial to knock out the hearsay statements. Besides, it is very common for him to kick into stuck-on-stupid mode when it comes to making totally unrelated, stupid comments that have absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand. I’ve seen him post snarky comments on his past favorite blog, on facebook, and even Geoff Pinkus’ facebook page, so it’s not something that is beyond him doing it. Greenberg makes snarky comments, but they’re more in line with being serious rather than this crap. If it was Greenberg, then he’s the putz and I apologize for blaming Brodsky as being the stupid idiot he sounds to be.
🙂
I was thinking today about stuff that will never be heard at trial. If and when Drew Peterson is tried for killing Stacy, you know what will absolutely never be heard at trial? The fact that her mother also went missing and was never found.
For years Joel Brodsky has trotted that out as if it has some sort of bearing on Drew’s guilt or innocence, but of course it has no relevance to what went down between Stacy and Drew and no judge would ever admit any testimony about that to trial.
So what was the point of harping on that all these years?
“I am a good lawyer!” LOL
From Steve Greenberg’s FB page (who is taking credit, I guess, for the snarkyism):
(with a link to the story posted above)
Why can’t they use one of those lie detector things on him? If he’s so confident in not being guilty why not give Peterson a run for
his money..?
I still hope and pray they can find Stacy. If there is that small chance she is still alive and well, just too afraid to come out, I give her my best wishes.
Drew Peterson actually did take a polygraph test, but it was arranged by and in the office of his defense lawyer and he was only asked the questions that his lawyer had written specifically for the test.
This was at the time that Drew’s PR people were looking for an author to write a pro-innocence book. They were working with Canadian author Derek Armstrong who required Drew to take a polygraph before he would agree to write the book. Armstrong later admitted that he was not allowed to submit certain questions. For instance, he couldn’t ask whether or not Drew had paid or attempted to pay someone to kill Kathleen.
These are the four questions that were asked about Kathleen. Drew showed no deception in answering them:
However, Peterson did show deception in his answers to three out of six questions about Stacy Peterson:
Drew’s friend, Mike Robinson, who helped him out after Stacy’s disappearance by bringing Drew a cell phone and who was said to have communicated with him by notes which were shredded after reading was given the option of taking a polygraph test by State police , but he refused.
Polygraphs are not admissible evidence in the State of Illinois, regardless.
05/23/2012 Emergency Notice
05/23/2012 Impounded Document- Motion to Limit Electronic Communication to
Wonder what this is about. Defense team doesn’t want reporters to text from courtroom or…?
New court date for it as well:
New Post up now:
https://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2012/05/24/emergency-motion-court-date-tomorrow-for-drew-peterson/