Interview with State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, on Drew Peterson trial

During Drew Peterson’s trial for murder his defense team never seemed to turn down a chance to be heard and seen in the media, but the prosecution was keeping a low profile. Finally, lead prosecutor, James Glasgow, can speak out about the case, the hearsay, the trial, the defense team, and Drew Peterson; and boy does he have his say! You need to listen to this interview he did yesterday on WLS’s Roe and Roeper show.

[Partial transcript]

ROE: I think there’s been a lot of misunderstanding in the last couple of days. You explained it, I think, very well in your press conference yesterday and we’ve had a lot of people calling in with concerns about that so let’s jump into that for a second. The hearsay law is not as simple as “well now anyone can just say anything about anybody and go to court and get a conviction on somebody that they don’t like because they heard some conversation” right?

GLASGOW: Correct. There’s a very–first of all you have to prove by a preponderance of–if I have preponderance of evidence that you willfully diverted the witness, under the law that I had written, that diversion had to be murder, so I mean it was the ultimate diversion and…

ROE: Hold on. Let me back up a little. Let’s take that out of legalese. So what, basically the law that you guys drafted–and there are some other laws around the country that are similar to this–but the law that you drafted specifically said that if you kill somebody to silence them because they were going to testify against you for another crime, that hearsay evidence surrounding that individual who is now dead can be entered into court, but before you do that a judge has to sign off on this. A judge has to sign off, based on the preponderance of evidence, in kind of a mini-trial in advance.

GLASGOW: Yes. And these statements have to be relevant and probative to the issue at hand. They’re not just any statement, Roe. If someone is murdered in a bathroom and it’s made to look like an accident and they happen to have been told by the murderer, “I could kill you and make it look like an accident” that’s pretty relevant and pretty probative.

ROEPER: Jim, what about the criticism, and I agree, as Roe said, it’s been widely misunderstood and sometimes misreported but some of the defense attorneys were saying yesterday that it’s so specific that it was written for one case.

GLASGOW: Those guys don’t tell the truth about anything, now do they? In Giles v California, which was recently decided by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago–and I actually flew out and watched the argument–Antonin Scalia , who is a very conservative justice and who is a champion of cross-examination and confrontation, found that 400 years ago the concept of forfeiture by wrongdoing was in place in the common law. It was there when the drafters of the constitution wrote the constitution. That’s one of his tests to determine whether or not he’s going to go along with something in the common law. But anyway, the federal government, in 1997, enacted a law that was section 804(b) now adopted in Illinois, January first, 2011, which is basically forfeiture by wrongdoing and it’s “equitable forfeiture”. If you deliberately destroy evidence by getting this witness out of the way, you can’t come in, thumb your nose at the judge, laugh and say, “Ha,ha you can’t get me now!” That’s basically the concept.

~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

210 thoughts on “Interview with State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, on Drew Peterson trial

  1. I obviously didn’t know Glasgow from adam until following the DP saga, but I have read that some folks don’t care for him. Seems to me this guy is pretty classy and professional, certainly a refreshing break from those Defense clowns

  2. No kidding. What a contrast from the defense. I like how this guy thinks and see how his team’s strengths, including his confidence and know-how, allowed them to be so effective.

  3. LOL. not to be petty but Lopez just dropped another 10 points in his intelligence department. He just used one of my biggest pet peeve errors of grammatical use of the english language. He tweeted ‘should OF won” instead of “should HAVE won”

  4. I am glad that Glasgow did an interview to explain the hearsay law a little better to people. So many people had the wrong idea about this law that was put into place. They thought if someone just went into a police station and said, he said, she said, it would make it so against someone. That is not the case at hand here and that would be closer to Sharia law where if two people come forward against a wife per say and says she had an affair they could find her guilty and stone her to death. This law was put in place to specifically protect witnesses such as Kathleen, and Stacy, who were murdered and are allowed to speak from the grave, and have people come forward to say what they know, or heard to help convict the one that murdered them to keep them silent. I think now that he explained it better there won’t be so many people up in ruckus having a heart attack over it.

  5. Facs, I think her loyalty lies somewhere else LOL. After all, Gotta have a hubby that can bring in the money to keep you in those italian shoes

  6. I think the jurors — now that they are free to read anything about Drew Peterson if they choose — will be glad they made the decision in finding him guilty. JMO

  7. Defense wouldn’t have won half the arguments,if it wasn’t for Mr, Greenberg. The only one with a brain. IMO
    Italian shoes should ask herself, whos the one that called Harry?

  8. Wow! Ellie B is sure in attack mode. But then again, what’s new about that? I think she’s more concerned about how it will look in her “social circle.” If she only knew…
    I think Steven Greenberg is the only defense attorney who will actually profit from the exposure of this case. He seems to be the one that the news media likes to feature the best as a commentator on TV stations.
    “Coach Brodsky” may find himself demoted to the minor leagues.

  9. Neil Schori on Fox tonight:

    Neil Schori‏@neilschori

    I’ll be live tonight on FoxNews channel’s Justice with @JudgeJeanine at 8pm CST #drewpeterson

  10. Ha ha ha ha ha. Ellie Brodsky should have learned her Twitter lesson when she was busted implying DP was obviously guilty years ago. Silly woman. That looked rather like she was throwing her husband under the bus herself.
    High heels cause brain damage, obviously.

  11. Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, says his client’s life will actually improve, compared with the confined and isolated conditions Peterson must deal with at the Will County Jail.

    “In the Department of Corrections, he’ll be able to get outside; he’ll be able to use athletic equipment, I mean, all those things – his life will actually be improved when he gets to DOC,” Brodsky said, “I mean, not as good as being out, obviously, but still.”

    Brodsky says Peterson will spend at least a year in state prison before there is a ruling on an appeal of his conviction.

    http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/08/attorney-peterson-will-have-a-better-life-in-state-prison/

  12. “spewing forth his vitriolic misogyny..”
    really does describe DP’s behavior. Jim Glasgow is no one’s fool.

    Did the thing’s defense team have any clue how offensive their client’s actions were to most people ?
    If they did not know then, they sure know now.

  13. “In the Department of Corrections, he’ll be able to get outside; he’ll be able to use athletic equipment, I mean, all those things – his life will actually be improved when he gets to DOC,” Brodsky said,
    ~~~
    spin. that’s all. lets see how well drewpy fares in general population. my moneys says *no so good*.

  14. Hiya writer. Will DP be in with the rest? He won’t receive special treatment because he’s a (lying, murdering) ex-policeman? I think that’s fair. 😀

  15. I can’t help but think of how relieved, and elated Sharon, Drew’s neighbor, must feel right now. I bet she was thrilled to hear Stacy’s hearsay testimony was a big part of what put Drew away.

  16. Prosecutor James Glasgow impresses me as an attorney that’s passionate about the cases he prosecutes. He’s also extremely dedicated to following through with all aspects of the hearsay law………..going to Washington, DC to hear the California case being argued before the Supreme Court. We need more district attorneys like him!

    I watched Judge Jeanne’s program and I’m feeling very optimistic about a lot of things.

    More and more attorneys have expressed their opinion that the defense doesn’t have any appeal issues………that Judge Burmila effectively blocked anything that could later be used for appeal.

    Joe Hosey mentioned something that I feel is something to be optimistic about. Unlike Kathleens case there’s direct evidence that will be presented in a case in which Drew Peterson is charged with the death of Stacy Peterson. Tom Morphey sitting with Drew’s cell phone, waiting for it to ring, but instructed not to answer it…………him helping carry a blue container from the Peterson’s master bedroom and load it in the back of Drew’s Denali, and all the events of the evening of October 28, 2007. This isn’t hearsay evidence, but direct evidence.

    Cassandra Cales was interviewed and looked more relaxed tonight. I have to comment that she wore her hair down and looked very nice!

    Judge Jeanne’s program tonight was well balanced, even having Joel Brodsky speak. Joel thinks he has an issue for appeal in Harry Smiths testimony, but the prosecution attorneys on Judge Jeanne’s panel disagreed that there’s an appeal issue.

  17. …and JB knew perfectly well how far beyond the pale his own behaviour was, nevermind the old mommykiller. The more outrageous the language the more TV appearances, the more famous JB became. He doesn’t care. He crowed about book deals for everyone! I suspect he doesn’t even mind that “Brodsky” may well become the new term for a massive f*ck up or maybe we just have a new word for “obnoxious”. Or transparently self-serving. Or penis. (unless that’s already a “Lopez”)

  18. Never heard Glasgow’s voice before. He seemed very professional.

    As he said, Burmilla didn’t cut him any breaks. We all saw that and knew he had to fight for every single word that was uttered by a witness.

    Congratulations State’s Attorney Glasgow — you kept your head up and shoulders squared. It paid off and there are tens of thousands of Americans (millions?) who applaud you for your effort. You took a killer off the street. One who delighted in making people squirm. Hopefully this will give more victims courage to come forward and more witnesses faith that justice can prevail.

  19. We all had no doubt of Drew’s guilt because most of us knew about evidence that was suppressed. When you think of Glasgow winning with the few cards he was allowed to play, it really is amazing.

    I’m sure the jurors would love to know some of the things that were kept from them. (And, maybe some day Tom and Kris will be able to look more candidly at the things that they’ve been forbidden to know.)

    What are they?

    Here’s one: Drew owned a lock-picking set and he knew how to use it.

    Another one: Drew cut a hole into the house from Kathy’s garage to show her that she couldn’t keep him out.

    What are some other ones?

  20. I love the way Joey the Shark and Joel have gone public several times since the trial ended and stated that the State convicted Drew Peterson with “NO Evidence.”

    My question: If the State managed to obtain a conviction with “no evidence,” what does that say about the performance of the Defense Attorneys? I would suggest a big FAIL.

  21. I left the channel tuned into Fox News after Judge Jeanne, and Geraldo came on. He had Judge Stephen White, Dr. Michael Baden, and Sharon Bychowsky.

    Sharon looked very nice! She said the children were doing well and will probably be with Steven permanently. She expressed relief that there was a guilty verdict.

    Judge White said he doesn’t see an issues the defense can use for an appeal.

    Dr. Baden said that it wasn’t the second and third autopsies that determined that Kathleen’s death was a homicide. He said that just reading Dr. Mitchell’s original autopsy notes and the numerous bruising that Dr. Mitchell charted and the head wound, he knew it was a homicide. The autopsy just confirmed what he had read.

  22. @ AtlGranny

    You asked what evidence the State did not present. Here’s what I wrote on Aug 24th

    the lock picking set
    the training in immobilizing choke holds
    the pristine alibi folder
    the blue towel’s sudden appearance
    the likely murder of his fourth wife
    numerous affairs
    abuse relating to the daughter of his second wife
    the surveillance of his ex-wives
    the fact that he broke procedure to handpick the locksmith
    the restraining order

    i’m sure you can think of yet more incriminating evidence that the state was not allowed to present.

  23. The hold out juror has given another interview to the Associated Press

    Key extracts

    JOLIET, Ill. – The final juror to agree to convict Drew Peterson of murder in the death of his ex-wife says he “barely slept” one night during the proceedings because the same nagging questions kept popping into his head.

    Even after joining fellow members of the panel by casting the last vote for guilty, Ron Supalo remains troubled by the prosecution’s reliance on hearsay, statements not based on a witness’ direct knowledge.

    Peterson, the former suburban Chicago police officer, faces a maximum 60-year prison term after his first-degree murder conviction in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. It was the first case in Illinois history to permit the use of hearsay evidence, based on a 2008 state law specifically tailored to Peterson’s case.

    “I needed time to think it through,” Supalo, a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, said in a telephone interview Friday evening.Supalo said he believes the hearsay law might be unconstitutional, but he eventually realized his duty as a juror was only to assess the evidence, not the laws.

    “We (the jurors) weren’t the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “Right or wrong, this was the hearsay law, and we had to use it in this case.” ….
    …. But Saldana said the more he thought about hearsay testimony from Stacy Peterson’s pastor, the more compelling he found it.
    ….Supalo also said he had difficulty coming to terms with convicting someone based on what others claimed someone else said.

    “I’m uncomfortable with the Illinois law that allowed hearsay,” Supalo, who briefly studied law. “They made the law just for Drew Peterson — applied it to him retroactively. If there was no hearsay in his case — Drew Peterson goes free.”

    http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/drew-peterson-case-juror-troubled-by-use-of-hearsay-1.3983571

    And so the misinformation about hearsay law goes on.

    Wonder if he knows that in 2011, Illinois became the 43rd state to essentially adopt the Federal Rules of Evidence?

    And the Fed rules have for several years recognized that if you “pop off “a witness you cant turn round and claim that their statements are hearsay.

    The Illinois Supreme Court have already upheld the use of this type of evidence

    So no matter what the defense losers, the hold-out juror and the mis-informed media say, there will be no merit to Drew Peterson’s hearsay appeals at either a State or Federal level

  24. “In the Department of Corrections, he’ll be able to get outside; he’ll be able to use athletic equipment, I mean, all those things – his life will actually be improved when he gets to DOC,” Brodsky said”

    I suppose that means Drew has to be eternally grateful to Joel for facing up to 60 years in jail, as at least he will be able to use athletic equipment ……….

  25. Naw, Oxy, I’m thinking of things that are directly related to Kathy’s death. Extramarital affairs are so common that they wouldn’t be something that would make a jurist’s eyebrows raise. I’m thinking of things that are, in and of themselves, very incriminating. (Drew did a lot of things which are completely out of spite and/or meant to intimidate.) I believe that a lot of them were kept out because they were considered by the judge to be “too prejudicial.”

    One example: We know that one of Drew’s friends said that Drew had him follow Kathy every day to and from work, hoping to find her doing ANYTHING that Drew could use against her in the divorce. (He never found anything.)

    Along those lines, Rev. Shori just announced that Stacy told him that Drew followed her. When they had their talk at the coffee shop, Shori noticed a police car buzzing the shop several times. Then Drew called him to say that he saw Shori and Stacy together.

    PURE intimidation tactics.

  26. Fox had quite the line up of guests tonight. Glasgow came across well and what he said was supported by the panel and Judge White. As usual, Joel’s attempt to convince others of an appeal fell on deaf ears. I don’t think this is the coverage Joel envisioned when he took this case. Pay back is a bitch, Joel.

  27. Facs-It always amazes me how you’ve saved every detail surrounding this case. Even the ones pertaining to “hi heels.” LOL

    I think we need to nominate this site for an award.

  28. @ AtlGranny …you mean like drilling a hole in his wives bedroom door….which was also kept out of the trial

    Extramarital affairs may be “common”…but in a perfect world i think the jury should have been allowed to hear about the fact that Drew was a serial philanderer who lost interest in his wives as soon as they stopped making him “feel like a man.” The reason to introduce it would have been simply to offset the Defense’s opening comments about Drew being a great public servant and a great father. Given how much time he spent womanizing its hard to believe he had time during his shift to protect the public. And as for being a great father….don’t get me going!

    Obviously, Judge Burmilla did a great job of keeping the extramarital affairs and other innuendo out of the trial…and that’s why the defense are scrambling to create the myth of the unfair change in hearsay law.

  29. I was extremely impressed with Glasgow’s radio interview. He seems like a very compassionate man.

    Thanks for the heads up about Sharon being on Geraldo…have set my DVR. If DP had been acquitted, I can imagine how frightening that would have been for Sharon, when he came home to live. Luckily, Brodsky solved that little problem! LOL!

    Regarding Greenburg…I think he was the only one of the three with intelligence, it just seemed like the longer he hung around with Lopez, that he started to be as digusting as he was. I hope Steve realizes how idiotic he had become sounding, and straightens himself out.

    I think that Stephen Peterson is alot like his father, and I worry that Thomas and Kris have both been under DP’s influence for too long, and with Stephen as their only roll model now, I worry. I hope they can get some counselling to come to grips with all that has happened to them.

  30. Just on a housekeeping note, I’ve gotten some emails from people whose comments are ending up in the spam filter and I’ve found a few there as well.

    Not sure why some comments are going there but I’m checking from time to time and fishing out legitimate comments. Please be patient if your comment does not show up right away.

  31. For atlgranny’s list:

    The way KItty’s long fingernails were found uncharacteristically cut off short…..

    The amount of money that was at stake in their divorce…..

  32. Ellie, those defense attorneys didn’t dare act in court, like they did for the media. The jury didn’t see just how unprofessional they were acting. I really can’t fathom exactly what those attorneys thought they could achieve with that behavior. It was just like how DP was acting before he was arrested. I think that it turned most of us off.

  33. It appears that Mrs. Brodsky has some misplaced anger. Or perhaps she is trying to deal with the bizarre “Bromance” that her husband has with a convicted felon. Either way, I dont think that Twitter is the best place to vent.

    🙂

  34. Do you Fac, or anyone else here, know whether anyone of those involved in the investigation was held accountable for the incompetence of the investigation of KS?

    It seems to me that Stacy would still be alive if someone had done their job. And I can’t understand why they would have had a group of laypeople making the decision of whether KS’s death was an accident or homicide?

    When they interviewed that one member of that group, he said that one woman wouldn’t even look at the crime scene or autopsy pictures and at least he was upset that “undecided” wasn’t included in the choices for the cause of her death. I do know that using laypeople is no longer done there.

    It really bothered me that many, including the defense, kept saying that Mitchel called KS’s death an accident. He never did, did he? He just ruled drowning as the cause of death.

  35. Dear hellcats and harpies 🙂
    WOW’s 2 cents:
    exercise equiptment=bubba don’t like pasty flabby outta shape cellmates

    the numerous enablers, from LE to the document examiners and title insurers=lawsuits galore !

    demand justice for Stacy.
    peace and love to all of you !

  36. Folks, please forgive me for gushing again but this blog is positively the best. I’ve learned so much and am so greatful to all who have kept the faith ALL these years. I cannot start or end my day now without reading all the latest comments and nodding my head to so much of what is written. Thanks too for the laughs along the way 🙂 Will keep tagging along and looking forward to justice for Stacey – it’s coming.

  37. Thanks, Winsome. It’s a really great group here. 🙂

    Interview with Chris Kochs (who delieverd closing argument fro prosecution)

    “We were all free to express our opinions and our views, and the counter opinions from the others,” he said. “It wasn’t just the four of us. We had a support staff that was with us on those late nights on the weekends doing research and looking at case law. I guess what I can say is, again, when you believe as strong as we believed in, the teamwork was there.”

    Faced with mostly hearsay testimony, Koch knew it was going to be a tough fight, but he never had any doubt about the outcome.

    “We knew this case, we knew the facts in this case, we believed in this case so through all of the issues, we knew we believed strongly in this case ,” he said. “We knew if we presented it, the jury would find justice and find him guilty.”

    http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news%2Flocal&id=8803410

  38. I have zero desire to even know or read about any rant that JB or any of them has.

    I can pretty much guess without reading it, that it is basically more whining, and crying about no evidence, hearsay, and how the Felon is really innocent.

    So, Nope. Not gonna do it!

    They should all really just shush up, and go away, unless they want to speak truthfully about the FACTS. The more they cry about it, and continue to lie, the dumber they look.

    🙂

  39. Live by the sword, die by the sword.

    The Defense team is now dying a death of a 1000 cuts all over the internet, TV and printed media.

    The Defense team made greater use of the new media than any defense team I can recollect. Their current demise was highly predictable and, to say the least, well-deserved.

    And as for Joel blaming the defeat on their client’s “decision” to call Harry Smith, I have rarely heard a defeated lawyer make himself seem more pathetic. Joel, you call yourself the “coach”…since when can a mere “player” make the call on the field.

    Of course, Joel, to some degree its OK to blame Drew Peterson for the conviction. But not for calling the wrong witness…for cold-bloodedly murdering Kathy Savio. I suspect that would never occur to you.

  40. Joel cries us a river (Harley, avert your eyes!):

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
    3 hours ago
    THE DANGER OF HEARSAY: I have spoken to two (2) jurors so far and two (2) things are clear. The first, is that juries are ill equipped to deal with hearsay. The two (2) jurors said that Schori was a man of God, so why would he lie, and Smith had no reason to lie (even though he did), so what they both said was credible. When I told them that the issue was not if Schori or Smith were credible, but whether or not Stacy was making up a story, it was as if a lightbulb went off in their heads. Then I gave them the analysis of the hearsay putting Stacy’s motives to fabricate into the mix and they both seemed sorry that they didn’t bring this up in the deliberations (especially the “hold out juror”). I told them not to blame themselves, that even lawyers struggle with hearsay, and as laymen they were certainly not equipped to deal with a case based solely on hearsay. This is the great danger of hearsay, that the jury will impute the witnesses credibility (ie. Schori or Smith’s) to the declarant (i.e) Stacy. Now just imagine that Stacy was a habitual liar who had a juvenile record for crimes like theft, that she was cheating on Drew, and hated Drew and wanted him out of the way so she could get his house and cars and money. These are the types of things that come out if a witness is actually on the witness stand and subject to cross-examination. What would the jury (or you) have thought about her testimony then? This is the danger of hearsay.

    The second thing I learned is that this jury was going to convict Drew no matter how the evidence came in. The best evidence of this is that the jury decided it was a homicide before deliberations even began, no matter that world renowned experts disagreed on this issue. What else could they do but pin the homicide on Drew? This case could not be won with this jury. The State should not be full of praise for themselves, a group of interns could have won this case. They couldn’t lose.

    On one point I was mistaken. I underestimated the power of the media to vilify someone. We are truly in the new era of the virtual lynch mob. Merely proclaiming your innocence in the media and exposing the lack of evidence is not enough against the power of the media. If the media wants a conviction they will turn anything and everything into something depraved, even your lawyers wearing sunglasses in the summer sun is bad, and your declarations of innocence are bravado. If you are quite you are hiding, and if you are vocal you are swaggering. You can’t win.

  41. Yeah Joel, and a group of interns would have put up a better defense also. Drew is guilty of murder, that much was clear, so get over it. Maybe if he had stayed quiet and stayed out of the media, or he didn’t feel the need to rid of the 4th wife, he might just have gotten away with it. Without your fumbled assistance

  42. All I can say is that Brodsky had three years to prepare how he wanted to challenge the hearsay statements in a courtroom.

    The fact is that he wasn’t able to do it effectively (either because the arguments weren’t good, or he didn’t argue them well) and is now approaching the jurors and trying to convince them they were wrong.

    That’s just so lame and sad.

  43. No Joel it seems YOU cant win…plenty of defense lawyers get their innocent clients acquitted…and sadly even some of their “guilty” clients.

    As for your claim, “we are truly living in the era of the new lynch mob…as stated in my previous post, “Live by the Sword, Die by Sword.”

    Welcome to Day 3 of Death by a 1000 cuts….I suspect its going to get a lot worse, the longer you keep insulting our intelligence by trying to enrol jurors on your side.

  44. Bruised egos, especially big egos, are a real pain. He should show some class, walk away and concentrate on whatever appeal he can muster if he is so convinced that DP has wrongfully convicted. But that is not going to happen with this personality. Pretty pathetic

  45. @Oxy “Welcome to Day 3 of Death by a 1000 cuts”

    I shouldn’t laugh but I did.

    Up until the verdict this was the best jury in the world, hand-picked with the assistance of that renowned jury-specialist, Drew Peterson.

    But now that they’ve lost, we’re supposed to conclude that the jurors were all along under the control of the lynch-mob media.

    Does Joel have a dog? Can someone check on it because I’m worried he’s been kicking it.

  46. Thanks for the warning Facs, I had to skip it! 😉

    I think this loss of a case is going to eat him alive

    Yep, LA I think it will. I still find his obsessive “Bromance” with the felon very bizarre. He seems to take it so personally. 😕

    But now that they’ve lost, we’re supposed to conclude that the jurors were all along under the control of the lynch-mob media.

    But, but, how could this be? We all know that the jury didn’t watch or read anything about the case! 😉

  47. “The two (2) jurors said that Schori was a man of God, so why would he lie, and Smith had no reason to lie (even though he did), so what they both said was credible. When I told them that the issue was not if Schori or Smith were credible, but whether or not Stacy was making up a story, it was as if a lightbulb went off in their heads.”

    Here’s the lie.

    When The Pastor and Harry Smith testified the jury had to be comfortable with their credibility. Because what Joel ignores is these two men not only faithfully reported what Stacy had told them, but also that they both believed what she was telling them. This was in fact underscored when Harry Smith felt obliged to warn her she could be in trouble with police for “Concealing a Homicide.”

    So if the hearsay witness had been, say, a 12 year-old junkie, the jury may have had doubts about not only the veracity of the testimony, but also whether the young, drug-filled child would be in a position to determine whether Stay was being truthful.

    But in this particular case the two critical witness turn out to be men not only of unimpeachable character, but men who during the course of their profession deal on a daily basis with distressed people and better qualified than most to assess the veracity of their statements.

    And as for light-bulbs going off…in your dreams, pal…i seem to recall that neither you or your crony Lopez are particularly good at reading the mind of the jury….were’nt you laughing and smiling as Joey the Shark did his victory jig after you both heard that the jury wanted clarification on “Unanimous”. When was that? Within two hours of the guilty verdict being handed down! Great mind-readers. What you probably saw was not light bulbs going off but unbridled disdain for your condescending line of questioning.

  48. So, is the dream Team now harrassing and bullying the jurors in order to get fodder for their Appeal? A juror might say anything just to get rid of a nutcase loser lawyer who is trying to get them to say something to support his twisted losing argument.

  49. Is that even done or allowed? That a losing team of lawyers questions the jury after its all over? I mean, it does not sound ethical to me at all

  50. Saw this on a Florida bar blog. I don’t know if it applies to Illinois as well:

    The active trial lawyer is occasionally faced with the important issue of how to handle possible post-trial contacts with trial jurors. If these contacts are not handled properly, the lawyer’s conduct may conflict with well-established ethical and legal principles…

    …In light of the ethical duty to represent zealously a client’s interests, most lawyers would feel obliged to such an inquiry. However, the courts generally disfavor lawyer contact with jurors after the conclusion of litigation except when there is a showing of illegal or prejudicial intrusion into the jury process…In fact, most jurisdictions have rules which not only prohibit attorneys from interviewing jurors after a trial without the court’s permission, but which also strictly limit the scope of any allowed inquiry.

    http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/B7F13596F612B1E885256BDC00569323

  51. @ LA…most jurisdictions allow the jurors available to meet with attorneys right after the trial. Obviously the jurors have to consent, and the attorneys have to think it worthwhile. There are even firms who specialize in post verdict juror interviews for appellate purposes.

    IMO when it comes to jurors the old maxim about loose lips sink ships holds true. Anything said can and will be used to establish juror misconduct, which can and is sometimes, (but not often), a basis for the verdict to be thrown out on appeal.

  52. Maybe Illinois does allow it. I found this on a Chicago personal injury lawyer’s site.

    Post-Verdict Jury Interviews
    After a trial a juror may speak with an attorney, investigator, or other persons about the case. It is wise to ask for court permission and for for a judge instruction so that jurors do not hesitate to speak about the case. Post-trial juror interviews are perhaps most useful in personal injury cases as a tool to improve advocacy skills. Perhaps the most appropriate way to make contact with jurors is to obtain contact information and to make contact at a later time.

    http://illinois-personalinjury.com/2012/01/post-verdict-jury-interviews.html

  53. @ Fac…the key message from the Florida rules that you mention is that attorney’s can not go on fishing expeditions to talk to specific jurors without having specific grounds for concern.

    Its hard to establish specific grounds for concern unless one juror goes rogue and starts giving interviews on his or her own, which provide the attorney with reasonable grounds for further interviews.

    As we saw on Friday when the inquiries are limited to group, the jurors tend to hide behind the “we” and avoid talking about personal actions…(although the media try to get them to talk in the first person singular) Certainly the 4 who spoke on Friday, gave an almost perfect report on their deliberations.

    However, it looks like Joel has latched on two jurors of whom we know for a fact, at least one did not participate in the official debrief, but gave several personal interviews. We do not know the identity of the second juror.

  54. Sounds to me like Joel is latching on to the one hold out… I don’t even know what to say. If Joel is trying to do what I think he is…..if he is even smart enough, then WOW…he is dirtier then I thought

  55. I don’t think any of what the jurors said to Joel will stand up to the fact that he had ample opportunity to argue whatever he wanted in court and he didn’t. Even if he had, there is no way of knowing if it would have changed their minds.

    I still think this is pathetic and it’s not going to help his client.

  56. @ fac – a general discussion of the principles involved:

    http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_privacy_exjurors.asp

    Most ex-jurors want to “fade back into the woodwork” when the trial is over. But even in routine cases that attract no public interest, often the lawyers would like to talk with the jurors to see why the jurors decided as they did. And in high-profile cases, many more people, including news reporters, often want to talk with the jurors about the case.

    The most fundamental principle in this context is that ex-jurors are never required to talk with anyone about the case (except in rare instances when a court holds a hearing concerning alleged juror misconduct, and requires the ex-jurors to answer questions). Just as there is a First Amendment right to speak, there is also a First Amendment right not to speak. In fact, at the end most cases, judges instruct jurors that they are under no obligation to speak with anyone about the case.

    Sometimes judges take measures beyond merely informing ex-jurors that they need not speak to anyone about the case. These measures often raise constitutional issues because of a juror’s right of free speech, and the press’s right of access to information. Examples of such measures include:

    Keeping the names and addresses of the jury members secret (an “anonymous jury”)
    Forbidding all interviews of ex-jurors by anyone
    Forbidding all interviews of ex-jurors by the press
    Forbidding interviews about the deliberations but not about the verdict
    Forbidding interviews of a hung jury that resulted in a mistrial until after the case was retried

    Usually forbidding all interviews of ex-jurors by anyone is reversed on appeal for being too restrictive of constitutional rights. But measures short of this are often upheld on appeal.

  57. I’ve been lurking at this site for a few years now…thank you for all your hard work!

    On Fox news last night, Geraldo asked Dr Baden, “Would Drew Peterson have beaten this case then if this body had been cremated instead of buried?

    Baden replied: “…and I think that if the body had been cremated, it’s very likely that a further investigation would have not have been done 3 years later.”

    So to add to altgranny’s list of things that jury didn’t hear at trial: I saw an interview awhile back where one of Kathy’s sisters (if I recall correctly) said that the day after Kathleen was found dead, Drew said to her something like, “You know, it was Kathy’s wish to be cremated.”

    Not the biggest smoking gun for sure, but it sure adds to Drew’s conscience efforts to cover up his crime.

  58. and this, too:

    July 23, 2008

    Friends say they wore a wire

    Two longtime friends of Drew Peterson — Len Wawczak and his wife, Paula Stark — tell the Sun-Times they cooperated with Illinois State Police, wearing a wire and recording seven months of intimate conversations with the former Bolingbrook cop. State Police decline to comment to the Sun-Times. “We got him,” Wawczak, tells the Sun-Times. Drew Peterson mocked investigators as “idiots,” called his third wife “a bitch” whose body he should have had cremated, and predicted he’d be tried and acquitted long before his fourth wife’s remains were found, Wawczak says in the Sun-Times interview

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/14986740-417/the-drew-peterson-timeline.html

  59. Pathetic is right, but I also believe he is never going to let it go. It was his first BIG case, and he lost. Plus he made it personal by becoming friends with the accused

  60. Actually after rereading the will its not clear if only Drew wants to be cremated!!
    “It is also the desire of Drew Walter Peterson to have his remians creamated and burried with the remains of his wife, Kathleen Savio Peterson.”

    So maybe Kathy wanted to be buried and Drew cremated.

    In which case, DP was lying!!!! (I should have guessed)

  61. @josharrk Hey Joe, what is your biggest regret you have from deciding to work on this case?

    8 Sep Joseph R. Lopez ‏@josharrk
    @PublicAgency having no control of case I will never sit in the bench again

  62. The last time I sat on a jury, the judge explained that if we wanted to speak to the attorneys after the trial, it was our option. He said that they often times they look for feedback as to the verdict that was reached, and find it helpful to hear directly from the jurors.

    I guess it may be different in each state.

    All kidding aside, if this keeps up with JB and his antics – He should seriously consider getting some professional help. To be so emotionally involved in this case cannot be healthy. He really needs to let it go…..

  63. You know what’s worse for Joel Brodsky ?

    When you Google his name it doesn’t even come up first.

    You get the celebrity photographer …………..

  64. I guess the other def lawyers will move on. This was a job to them, it stung loosing, so they sling trash around, but they made it pretty clear that they have other things going on, except Brodsky…he has taken this way to personal, maybe because this is his first real big case? And the fact that DB whooed him like he did the ladies, and Brodsky fell fort it? There are times I almost feel sorry for this man, I know he put a lot of effort into this, and then I slap myself. He needs to remove himself, treat this like the job it was, and move on to other things. My gut says, he will not let up on this one. He wants those chickenwings and beers and high fiving with DP and the young chicks hanging around, telling them how great and wonderful they are.

  65. One thing that just hit me is that Joel is probably totally broke, risking all he had and probably maxed to the hilt, because he was convinced that Drew was his ticket to fame and fortune. He saw himself as the epitome of the “media savvy” defense lawyer. Radio interviews, a publicity company, “win a date” contests, etc.

    He thought he’d be taking on so many new clients that he’d be able to pick and choose who to represent.

    Joel is so screwed right now and it’s just sinking in. It never occurred to him that he’d lose.

  66. I have to admire the ‘positive attitude’ Joel has when it comes to Drew’s incarceration.

    Initially, Drew was expected to only be locked up for the weekend and now, Drew’s life will actually improve.

  67. LOL @ noway. I actually looked to see what life was like in a state prison, and from what I read, DP’s life is about to worsen. Especially as a murderer.

  68. Ugh. Alright so I looked at his FB.. Thanks LA! 🙂

    I only wish that people who choose to comment there, would learn the difference between lose and loose. 😕

    I’m just gonna be quiet now! Not be quite! 🙂

    ** sigh**

  69. Lose and Loose are not as bad as “could of” vs “could have”. Drives me NUTS, and english is NOT even my native language

  70. Yeah, LA. but really? People commenting sound drunk or just … well, I don’t know. I would hate for JB to think he is smart compared to some of the comments. 😉

  71. After jury selection concluded on Tuesday, attorneys Joel Brodsky, Joe “The Shark” Lopez, and Steve Greenberg all feel confident heading into trial.


    Carefully crafting his selections from the jury pool, Brodsky admitted that he looked for individuals with backgrounds that would appeal to Peterson’s plight.

    http://560steve.com/2012/07/26/the-jurors-have-been-selected-and-joel-brodsky-likes-his-chances/

    And in hindsight Joel realizes he never could have won with that jury. L.O.L.

  72. He is going to delete the comments on his FB anyway, so they do not matter. Just interesting to those of us that can catch them. I have gotten very close to commenting on a number of twitters or FB posts, but refrained.

  73. LOL Noway! Yeah, I’ll bet he will be able to find someone that is willing to name themselves “Ashley” in order to make Drew “Happy” in prison~ 🙂

  74. lostacres
    September 9, 2012 at 2:03 pm

    Is that even done or allowed? That a losing team of lawyers questions the jury after its all over? I mean, it does not sound ethical to me at all

    Some years ago I was on a jury in a civil lawsuit, a personal injury case.

    After one day of deliberating, we were almost evenly divided over it, with half of us believing the plaintiff had presented a bogus case of personal injury. Fortunately one of the jurors was a nurse and she understood some of the medical language in the medical reports. As she read through the evidence and explained it to the rest of us, it was becoming more apparent that this was a bogus case.

    Then the nurse burst out laughing and said, “wait til you guys see this!” The plaintiff had tried to get a well known personal injury attorney to take her case and after sending her to his choice of a doctor, he turned her down.

    We found for the defendant, as it became abundantly clear that this woman wasn’t injured and was only using a minor auto accident to get out of work and to get money.

    After the verdict, the judge asked if the members of the jury could stay and talk with the attorneys for the plaintiff and defendant.

    Most of us stayed and the attorneys for both the plaintiff and defendant wanted to know what evidence persuaded us to give the verdict we gave.

    The plaintiff’s attorney asked me how I felt he handled the case. I told him there was a lot of evidence he overlooked. Had he read all the evidence, this case might not have gone to trial. As we talked further, I learned it was this attorney’s first case…………ever. I thought he looked pretty young! lol He was just out of law school, passed the bar, and was working for his first law firm as an attorney.

    So, I think it’s routine in civil cases for the attorneys to talk with the jurors after the trial. But it may be different with criminal cases.

  75. Today’s quiz….guess who wrote this in 2008?

    “I could go on for a long time on this issue of client media appearances, as well as spell out the problems that my clients media appearances before I came into the case created, and how our media strategy addressed these issues, (one for example which I call the white noise effect), but suffice it to say nothing we do is hap hazzard, or done for publicity or to satisfy some psychological need of my client. A good lawyer thinks like a chess player, looking 5 to 10 moves into the future for each move he does now. I am a good lawyer”

    Suffice to say the self-proclaimed “good lawyer” has now been comprehensively check-mated, and of relabeling himself from “good lawyer” to “mediocre lawyer” , he is blaming his demise on the media, the jury (who were “always going to convict”), and even the Illinois legislature.

    Denial really is a stretch of water close to a bunch of pyramids when it comes to this man who is clearly besotted with a convicted murderer.

  76. Here’s the link to that historic post on Legal Pub:

    http://legalpublication.blogspot.com/2008/05/legal-pub-is-firm-believer-in-our.html

    I’ll never forget the discussion there. Legal Pub is where Joel first attempted to publicize the 10-year-old photographs of Tom Morphey smoking something in a pipe. He claimed the photos were recent, but the ex-girlfriend who had sold Joel the photos later said they were ten years old.

    Then he tried to pull out the photos during a TV interview, after he had been told he would not be allowed to do so.

    He had to settle for publishing them in the book that Derek Armstrong wrote for Drew.

    Stay classy, Joel.

  77. Hear Hear…..Don’t we all feel sorry for JB ??? Not! It will be interesting to see how far he takes this. He will lose all credibility in the lawyer world, if he continues on this personal path

  78. No, Molly. I think it is the same for both criminal and civil. That’s the thing, whether the first case or the 500th case, they want feedback.

    JB’s problem was that he didn’t think he needed anyone, and he knew EVERYTHING!

  79. Any thoughts why the desperate Defense team are not bringing up Drew’s Savio polygraph results? I would have thought it would have been their strongest card in the post-conviction court of public opinion. Presumably its because he failed the Stacy polygraph…but I still expected them to bring up the Savio segment after the verdict came out.

  80. LA…polygraphs are not allowed in court…you’re correct.

    But there is nothing to stop the defense talking about results post verdict to build sympathy for Drew in the media.

  81. Joel is really giving us a hint as to just how a sociopath thinks. Clear and convincing evidence showed that the bruising — which had been noted by the original pathologist — could not have happened with a simple slip in the tub. There were too many of them and at different parts of the body — most notably NONE of them were on the back, where you would expect them to be. ALL twelve jurors quickly concluded that Joel’s “expert” witness was blowing smoke and Kathy’s death was a homicide. The jurors stated that this unanimous decision was reached within the first ten minutes.

    Joel constantly bemoans that there was no evidence in this trial and everything hinged on hearsay. The bruising evidence was clear and unmistakeable and there was a lot more evidence that was not hearsay.

    Originally I thought he was just pushing a theory in order to try and cause reasonable doubt. Now I’m convinced he actually believes his own lies. That’s a sociopath for ya.

  82. And Oxy, thanks for the reminder of Joel Brodsky’s media saturation strategy. He blames “the media” for vilifying his client…but who took it upon himself to keep his client in the public eye, even hiring a PR firm to make sure that no one ever had a chance to forget the name, face or voice of Drew Peterson?

  83. More evidence that was suppressed:

    – Joel originally hired a big-time pathologist who ended up stating that Kathy was murdered. Joel refused to pay him and (I believe) the pathologist had to sue Joel for his fees.

  84. @ Atl…as you mentioned, the 12 lay people used their common sense to look at the pics and immediately concluded this was no accident.

    Don’t you wish those smoke-blowing , so-called defense experts should be held accountable for their sworn testimony about her “slip and fall.”

    Of course, that will never happen and they will go on their merry way causing chaos, pain and anguish throughout our judicial system, probably being rewarded with 8 to 10 grand per appearance.

    I say hold the expert BullSh–ers accountable.

    End of rant.

    Any thoughts?

  85. I’ll play devil’s advocate and just mention that I’m sure DiMaio and Jentzen have testified at lots of trials where their opinions were on the winning side.

    So what do you do, fine expert witnesses every time the verdict goes against them? In that case you wouldn’t have any expert witnesses, because no one would get on the stand. I can’t imagine that Baden, Blum, and Dr. Case have a 100% record of testifying on the winning side.

  86. Oxymoran, I’ll answer your question by just saying that people in all walks of life will prostitute themselves for a price —– some of them, that is. They get away with it by calling it their “professional opinion.”

    Obviously, the first pathologist that Joel hired was too ethical for that.

  87. @ Fac…wonder who did pay for Drew’s experts…probably Joel?

    @ Atl…i hear you…and i recognize that legal prostitution is a lucrative profession in the US.

    OTOH, it makes you sick that certain professions seem to do a lousy job of self-regulating which allows their members to get up and say black is white if the price is right. You’d think other honest pathologists would want to disassociate themselves from the “prostitutes”…but I guess no-one wants to upset the gravy train.

  88. Is Drew going to pay the main pro bono lawyer now that the driver of the bus has lost the case for him ?

    Be interesting to see how that stellar arrangement is going to pan out now …….

  89. @ Hen…this may explain why since Thursday, Joel has taken time off from his campaign to blame everyone but himself for the loss, to turn his attention to protecting DP’s pension. I bet Drew owes Joel a ton of cash, not for his time, but for the out of pocket expenses for all those lawyers, experts and sunglasses…and I bet that the 70k annual pension figures into Joel’s plans to get some of his money back.

  90. wow. wish i had stopped by here before going to a Yahoo article about the juror and the hearsay last night. i was up until 6:30 this morning arguing for hours with “people” there who totally misunderstand what this hearsay evidence is all about.

    Even people who said they hated Peterson and believed he killed his wives said they would rather he be out roaming the streets than be convicted on this evidence. The vast majority of them said the courts will overturn the conviction and he will walk free because of this.

    Actually, the Yahoo article was very misleading and only gave the jurors point of view without explaining the forfeiture by wrongdoing rule. The vast majority of them thought it was just plain, old, everyday hearsay that got Peterson convicted and that the verdict would be overturned by the courts. Because the juror appears to have misunderstood it, that distorted view was most prominent in the article

    I tried to explain to them exactly what Glasgow says here. Showed them Illinois Public Act 095-1004, the federal rules of evidence 804 b 6, and the Giles v. California case in which the Supreme Court upheld this hearsay exception as long as it was determined that the defendant’s intent was to keep the witness from testifying.

    Most of them didn’t even know that there are a variety of exceptions to the hearsay rule, and one of them said that someone cannot testify in court to what a defendant told that person in because it’s hearsay. Needless to say, as always happens on the internet and in jury deliberations when someone realizes he or she is wrong and won’t concede, the discussion devolved into an argument about the meaning of a simple word, and I had to give the clown the definition of a word he should have known – accomplice.

  91. Oxymoran
    ” – and I bet that the 70k annual pension figures into Joel’s plans to get some of his money back.”

    IMO – that almost goes without saying, since there are now no book deals, endorsements and other fringe benefits on the horizon for Joel.

  92. Oh yeah, If I lived in Bolingbrook, Il – You had better believe that there is no way that a convicted felon would be recieving a cent of his pension.

  93. @ Hen…of course there is nothing to stop Joel writing his own book…and at a minimum self-publishing.

    It seems, as Robert Frank discovered last night on Yahoo, there is a surprisingly large constituency that want to believe Joel’s nonsense about a man in the middle of a nasty divorce being convicted of murder based on the uncorroborated tittle-tattle from nosey neighbors. This obviously plays into their preconceived notions about the USA turning into a police-state

    Of course, nothing could be further from the facts, the law and the truth…but since when did any of those three matter on the internet, where he who uses the biggest font usually wins the argument.

  94. It worries me how many people around the internet are commenting on the “unfair Drew’s law” that was “created just to convict him”.

    This is going to turn out just like the West Memphis Three (who are guilty as hell). Lots of mis-information and re-writing of history, for which the media is to blame for the most part. Just like the WM3, I fear a wave of crazed and zealous supporters will be spawned. I watched Jeanine Pirro interview Ron Supalo. I wish she corrected him when he was making incorrect statements about the hearsay law.

  95. It certainly is widespread, aussienat. I was shocked by the number of people who thought he should not have been convicted on this evidence. The media is doing a poor job of getting the truth out and is allowing a lot of people to be misinformed about this evidence. It’s causing a lot of people to sympathize with this serial killer

  96. Which is exactly what happened with the WM3 Robert.

    I can only hope and pray this case doesn’t go the same way. The media really have a lot to answer for!

  97. It seems, as Robert Frank discovered last night on Yahoo, there is a surprisingly large constituency that want to believe Joel’s nonsense about a man in the middle of a nasty divorce being convicted of murder based on the uncorroborated tittle-tattle from nosey neighbors.

    That’s exactly what they thought, oxy…in addition to believing that a court will believe anything your spouse says about you. It really is incomprehensible how so many people can be so ill-informed

  98. @ AusNat – While i understand your concerns about a groundswell rising up to overcome the verdict…i don’t believe it will happen. DP is simply too unpopular to be at the center of such a movement. By contrast the WM3 were merely teenagers when convicted…totally unknown to the public,…and therefore easier to root for as innocent victims for as time went by.

    In any case, the WM3 are already free and it looks the police are already locked-on the man who is likely the real perp.

  99. I don’t think it would matter anyway what they think. I doubt the courts are going to make a decision just because a lot of folks want a particular result. The feds also have a hearsay exception that allows this kind of testimony if the defendant’s intent was to keep the witness from testifying. Peterson made too many incriminating statements in that regard for a rational person to believe otherwise.

  100. A lot of them were concerned about what they called the ex post facto problem with this, but I think that only applies to laws and not rules of evidence. It’s not like they created a law and charged Peterson with a crime that wasn’t a crime when he committed the act. This is a rule of evidence rather than a new law, and ex post facto relief probably doesn’t apply

  101. LOL… Hey Y’all need to stop!

    Poor old Joel can only handle one fact at a time!

    Y’all are gonna give him a heart attack!

    Let him call everyone else a liar one at a time… please…:)

  102. Agreed Robert…I do not believe the WM3 precedent has any relevance to forecasting the future of this conviction. Wm3 came down to fresh DNA evidence etc

    By contrast the DP appeal comes down to the application of some complex evidence rules The issues have already been debated and settled in other cases at the highest levels…so Joel is yet again whistling into a hurricane.

    Anyways, there is nothing the establishment does better than adjudicate appeals to safe-guard a jury conviction of an obviously guilty man.

  103. Anyways, there is nothing the establishment does better than adjudicate appeals to safe-guard a jury conviction of an obviously guilty man.

    Very true. peterson is not going to get the benefit of even a close call

  104. I tried to tell them that last night. told them that unless they kill someone to keep that person from testifying against them in court and a judge believed that by a preponderance of the evidence, they had nothing to worry about. They just didn’t get it because that’s not what the article said. Most of them got their “knowledge” about this from the media rather than actually looking at the facts behind the story.

  105. The hold out juror continually doing interviews on Fox and other channels play right into JB hands . I saw him last night and he continues to make it sound like he is not comfortable with his decision. IMO there is something strange about him and JB, they seem to be singing the same tune! Why is he the only juror doing individual interviews and was not present during the other juror interviews.

  106. geez, this guy must be from pinellas county. he sounds like a dohdoh, and he’s infecting others with his own ignorance by doing interviews in the media. That will come back to bite him in the ass like it always does with jurors from pinellas county.

  107. Hi, Robert. Nice to see you back and thanks for trying to set people straight.

    I talked to someone today who said that even in the overflow room full of reporters you could probably count on your hand the amount of people who had actually read the appellate court’s ruling and understood what it was that cleared the way for some of the hearsay statements to be admissible (under the common law – not the statute).

    I have so much respect for the people who have taken the time to delve a little deeper than a headline and actually try to get to the truth about this stuff.

    I think part of the problem is that the prosecutors, as is usually the case, had to be tight-lipped before and during the trial, in order to stave off the threat of appeals post-conviction.

    The team can talk now, but the facts are kind of complicated and I have a feeling that the specter of “Drew’s Law” might haunt this case for years to come.

  108. hi facs. i’ve been resting a lot lately and haven’t been on as much. nice to see you.

    That sounds about right. It seems that many in the media still don’t understand it and just label it as “hearsay” without any explanation of what it is all about, thus misleading a lot of folks who are very easily misled.They are not really capable of digesting anything “complicated” so they remain clueless about what it’s really all about, and the media is not doing a whole lot to help them understand it.

  109. That “hold-out” juror just wants his own 15 minutes of fame. He immediately went to the media after they left the courthouse. Media whore.

  110. yeah, the pinellas idiots did the same thing and found out that all they were doing was hanging themselves, so they ultimately decided it wasn’t such a good idea to make fools out of themselves on national TV and stopped doing interviews. This idiot is going to have to learn the hard way too

  111. @ fac : you wrote

    “facsmiley
    SEPTEMBER 7, 2012 AT 1:04 AM
    I made a promise to myself that I was not going to allow any stalking or trashing of jurors here on the blog in the case of an acquittal.
    It didn’t even occur to me that it might happen with a guilty verdict.”

    Please let me know if you have changed your mind…I’ve been biting my tongue so hard about the rogue juror since 1.04 am last Friday, that there’s blood all over the keyboard.

  112. Please bite your tongues a bit longer. I’ll admit the guy doesn’t seem too bright, but that may be all there is too it and I don’t think he should be attacked as if he’s part of some defense conspiracy (unless it can be proved otherwise).

    As it is, he helped convict Drew Peterson and I doubt very much that it will be overturned, no matter what he’s saying at this point.

    If you’re unsure about putting something out here on the thread, just e-mail me at petersonstory@gmail.com

  113. Actually Oxy, I don’t want to get into a debate about the WM3 here as it’s not the place, but “the most likely man” is NOT Terry Hobbs. The WM3 did it. There is no way they didn’t do it. I have read every single case document – it takes weeks to get through it all.

  114. Yes, let’s please keep discussion of unrelated cases off of this thread. I’m sure there are blogs/forums related to those cases where the conversation would be appropriate. It isn’t here. Thanks!

  115. “I needed time to think it through,” Supalo, a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, said in a telephone interview Friday evening.

    Supalo said he believes the hearsay law might be unconstitutional, but he eventually realized his duty as a juror was only to assess the evidence, not the laws.

    “We (the jurors) weren’t the U.S. Supreme Court,” he said. “Right or wrong, this was the hearsay law, and we had to use it in this case.”

    Other jurors acknowledged that comments Stacy Peterson, Peterson’s fourth wife, made before her 2007 disappearance played the decisive role in convincing them to convict her husband of killing his ex-wife.

    The prosecution’s strategy grew largely from a lack of physical evidence collected in the case after investigators initially deemed Savio’s 2004 death an accident. Prosecutors claimed the hearsay would allow Savio and Stacy Peterson – who is presumed dead – “to speak from their graves” through family and friends.

    It worked.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/08/drew-peterson-conviction-_n_1867335.html?utm_hp_ref=chicago

  116. I was sooo uncomfortable when, I listened to that” hold out” juror on Judge Jeanine the other night. Can’t put my finger on it but something wasn’t right. I’m very good at reading people if I have to say so myself.

    It’s scary when you have such a high profile case and you have to depend on 12 humans to make a decision and the right one. Heck, in God I trust but not in people. And we live in an age where people are willing to slam their bikes into a wall to get on TV.

    I can’t say that I wasn’t totally sure that having that jury pool out for years, one wasn’t bought by that cocky defense team. They constantly acted like no matter what they did, how they acted, the outcome of this trial was in the bag. Don’t tell me that that thought didn’t cross your minds also. The lawyers even said that DP picked these jurors out himself… even worse. Around those parts, DP seemed to have more than a little influence.

    DP’s gaggle of lawyers, “the Gaggle” as I call them, are just going through the grief process. It’s tough. I’m afraid we are all going to have to go through it with them.

    A question, people inside the courtroom observing kept mentioning one juror who seemed to be always looking around the room, not paying close attention and not taking note. Was Mr. Hold Out that juror? Anyone know?

  117. Robert Frank (Hi!)
    Re: Yahoo articles Yahoo is desperate for copy (like many others) and will publish almost anything. Now I don’t want to drag this OT, but yahoo is one of several sites that are used by PR worker ants to slant the news. Ground Report is another. Thankfully, I don’t think JB et al can afford that kind of propaganda, but he’d love to mobilise the great uneducated in his ‘outrage’ against ‘hearsay’.

    I’ve see PR pros at work corrupting the news bigstyle.

  118. Susie and I want to thank all of you for the support you have gave and a special thanks too Jim Glascow and his team for convicting that MURDERING BASTARD !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  119. From Neil Schori’s blog:

    Drew Peterson post-verdict work to do—Crisis Management

    Last Thursday around 2:30 PM, I received a call from the Will County State’s Attorney, Jim Glasgow. He told me that he had done all that he could do and that now, there was a hold-out juror. There was one juror that was not ready to say that he believed Drew Peterson had killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Mr. Glasgow told me that he needed something beyond himself to do the work to get justice in this case. So we prayed over the phone and then Mr. Glasgow told me to pray like I’d never prayed before. I did just that. And about 5 minutes later, I read the #drewpeterson twitter feed and saw that the jury had reached a verdict. At that moment, I knew that they had come to a conclusion of guilt. They did, and I believe that justice was served after 8 long years for the Savio family…

    http://neilschori.com/2012/09/10/drewpeterson-post-verdict-work-to-do-crisis-management/

  120. Nice story from Neil…he really is a stand-up character and deserves a great deal of recognition for his brave efforts.

    On the whole looks like the excitement is starting to die down. No new news in the print media, Twitter is at an inane trickle.

    The media has moved onto the teachers strike and the general election. Trial followers are checking out flight schedules to Florida to get seats at the Zimmerman trial.

    The Peterson jurors are likely struggling to reenter the world of work. The Dream Team is licking its wounds, counting it losses and pointing middle fingers at each other. But most important, the Perp is likely starting to recognize that not only will the sentencing ruin this Xmas, but he’ll likely be in solitary for 23 hours a day for the rest of his life.

  121. If you are really jonesing for coverage you might want to listen to this interview with IIT Chicago-Kent Clinical Professor of Law Daniel Coyne.

    The interview is a bit dry and his voice might put you to sleep, but he does have some interesting points from a legal perspective:

    http://tinyurl.com/93kkrjn

  122. BTW, in case anyone hasn’t seen it, this is the amendment to the criminal code which was dubbed “Drew’s law”.

    (725 ILCS 5/115-10.6)
    Sec. 115-10.6. Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness.
    (a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant in violation of clauses (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.
    (b) While intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.
    (c) The murder of the declarant may, but need not, be the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered. If the murder of the declarant is not the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered, the murder need not have ever been prosecuted.
    (d) The proponent of the statements shall give the adverse party reasonable written notice of its intention to offer the statements and the substance of the particulars of each statement of the declarant. For purposes of this Section, identifying the location of the statements in tendered discovery shall be sufficient to satisfy the substance of the particulars of the statement.
    (e) The admissibility of the statements shall be determined by the court at a pretrial hearing. At the hearing, the proponent of the statement bears the burden of establishing 3 criteria by a preponderance of the evidence:
    (1) first, that the adverse party murdered the

    declarant and that the murder was intended to cause the unavailability of the declarant as a witness;
    (2) second, that the time, content, and circumstances

    of the statements provide sufficient safeguards of reliability;
    (3) third, the interests of justice will best be

    served by admission of the statement into evidence.
    (f) The court shall make specific findings as to each of these criteria on the record before ruling on the admissibility of said statements.
    (g) This Section in no way precludes or changes the application of the existing common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing.
    (Source: P.A. 95-1004, eff. 12-8-08.)

    http://tinyurl.com/8wwee4h

  123. Thanks for digging this up for us, Facs.
    All the conjecture about what the jury thought and the hows/whys (useful for defense and prosecutors alike) is dealt with splendidly in other systems. In some places with the inquisitorial system the jury/judges must produce a written judgment with the that explains exactly their reasoning. That’s got to be more satisfying for everyone involved.

  124. Thanks for the link, Grandam:

    Peterson was found guilty Thursday of murdering Kathleen Savio in 2004. The couple’s two sons have asked to be removed from a civil lawsuit filed on their behalf by Savio’s estate. During the second week of Peterson’s murder trial, Kris Peterson visited the Will County Courthouse the day after his 18th birthday to file paperwork in the civil case. Kris spoke briefly with his father during a break in the murder trial, leaving the courtroom before testimony re-started.

    Kris’ older brother, Thomas, also filed to be removed from the case when he turned 18, and Peterson’s lawyers have said that under Illinois law, the wrongful death case cannot move forward because only a victim’s children — or spouse — can make a claim for compensation in a wrongful death case. The civil case has been on hold while the criminal trial was pending.

    Martin Glink, the attorney for Savio’s estate, said this morning that the civil case can still move forward, and he speculated that Savio’s sons may have been pressured into withdrawing from the case. Since Peterson’s arrest in 2009, both lived with their older half-brother, Stephen Peterson, Drew Peterson’s son from a previous marriage. Thomas Peterson is now a student at University of Pennsylvania.

    “It’s a very interesting question” whether the case can move forward with neither of Savio’s sons apparently interested in pursuing the case, Glink said.

    “I know (Savio’s sons) would deny they were manipulated, but we all know Drew Peterson is a master manipulator,” Glink said.

  125. just read thru the civil complaint

    Another detail that should be added to AtlGran’s list of incriminating evidence that was not introduced into the trial.

    Pastor Schori stated in an interview with Mark Fuehman

    “Defendant Peterson told Stacy how he hit Kathleen on the back of the head, making her death look like an accident.”

    Also of interest is the assertion

    “… on the day of Kathleen Savio’s funeral, rather than attend a reception for family and friends afterwards, defendant Peterson pulled a truck into the driveway of Kathleen Savio’s residence, and removed a large amount of personal property that had not been inventoried yet, nor which he had any claim to.”

    The word ‘scumbag’ comes to mind but is immediately rejected as way too mild.

  126. William Green, the cable worker who testified at the Hearsay hearings that Jeff Pachter told him in July 2003 that “Drew would like me to ask you if you would kill his wife” was never called, either.

  127. Does anyone think that appeals by the defense are going to go anywhere? other then taking years? I so hope that this conviction cannot be overturned. Its not going to have any effect on his sentencing on Nov is it?

  128. I think there will be appeals, but I agree with some of the legal guys who said that they don’t think they’ll get far. All the hearsay statements were hashed out over two years of appeals. The statute was even challenged on its constitutionality and survived. I s’pose they could go after the “bullet in the driveway” slip, the mention of an Order of Protection and Blum talking about getting in the bathtub, but all that was objected to and the Judge told the jurors to disregard. The jurors who have spoken out said that theywere convinced by the pathologists that it was homicide, and then the hearsay from Neil Schori and Harry Smith proved that it was Drew who killed her. None of them said that the prosecution goofs were a basis for anything. If they are interviewed and indicate that they were able to put the barred stuff aside and not consider it, then how can that be cause of appeal?

    Could this really be correct that the next court date in the Wrongful death suit is Feb 2013?

    09/10/2012 9:00 am WCCA 311 Case Management
    02/13/2013 9:30 am WCCA 311 Hearing

  129. Didn’t Stacy also tell Neil Schori that both the sleeves of Drew’s black clothes appeared to be wet before he put them into the washing machine the night he killed Kathy? If so, that was also kept out of testimony.

  130. Yeah, F Lea. Was it Rossetto who was going to testify to that? He didn’t even get a chance to corroborate Neil Schori’s testimony, much less mention the wet sleeves.

  131. @lostacres

    Does anyone think that appeals by the defense are going to go anywhere?

    Only those who are misinformed about the hearsay exception and those don’t know the meaning of the word “unanimous.”

  132. @ Lost Acres

    I’m fairly confident the appeals relating to hearsay are doomed to failure. The issues have already been resolved in the supreme courts of the United States and Illinois.

    Equally, the missteps by the prosecution in the early days don’t amount to a hill of beans when looked at through appellate eyes. In any case the Defense made an explicit tactical decision to not apply for a mistrial unless it was with prejudice. This occurred after the bulk of the prosecution missteps …so its almost as if the Defense team chose to keep going despite all their protestation because they liked the look of the jury. They cant turn round and say they changed their mind because they lost.

    Based on the IS transcripts there were no obvious fundamental errors by the Judge during the proceedings…in fact as we all know Burmilla at times seemed to bend over backwards to help the defense. Jury instructions did not deviate far from standard. Key artifacts like the bath, many gruesome pics etc did not make it to the jury. Burmilla was even careful to make sure jury deliberations could not be construed as unreasonably lengthy.

    It will likely be real hard for the defense to prove a fundamental miscarriage of justice occurred when several times judges have ruled that based on the preponderance of the evidence its likely Drew murdered Kitty and Stacy. Additionally Burmilla ruled twice a reasonable juror could conclude on the evidence that DP was guilty of murder.

    So what appellate issues does that leave. While I’d love to see DP claim ineffective assistance of counsel and be forced to articulate how JB screwed up ….that simply isn’t going to happen.

    Which, imo, leaves one major risk…the stuff that took place off the record…eg jury misconduct or jury selection procedures. That is the wild card.

    For example it looks like Scott Peterson’s death sentence may well be overturned in California, because the county where the trial took place allowed jurors to avoid jury service by paying $50. (Scott will likely instead serve life in prison if he wins his appeal).

    Of course the general rule is the less the jury talk, the less likely their behavior will be challenged. OTOH they all their first amendment rights to say whatever they want about the trial.

  133. In any case the Defense made an explicit tactical decision to not apply for a mistrial unless it was with prejudice. This occurred after the bulk of the prosecution missteps …so its almost as if the Defense team chose to keep going despite all their protestation because they liked the look of the jury. They cant turn round and say they changed their mind because they lost.

    This.

    Judge Burmila even had Drew Peterson stand and tell him that it was his choice to drop the motion for a mistrial.

  134. It was also addressed at the Supreme Court as well, oxy, in 2008 – Giles v. California.

    Giles was confronted with hearsay testimony in state court that was admitted because he murdered his girlfriend before she was able to testify against him in court. It went to the Supreme Court because of the hearsay. The court granted relief to Giles because it was not proven that he killed the woman to keep her testifying. He had made a number of statements to the effect that if she kept f___ing around on him, he was going to kill her, which he did do before he went to trial.

    In writing their opinion, the majority (6) stated that if the state had been able to prove that Giles killed her to keep her from testifying, there would have been no error, but the state could not prove that, especially given the statements Giles made about killing her for messing around on him. The conviction was tossed out, but the court did affirm that this kind of hearsay is allowed if the prosecution can prove that the defendant killed the witness specifically to keep that person from testifying.

    In this case, it’s almost a no-brainer given the circumstances and the things Peterson said about killing Kathleen in the past.

  135. IMO, The defense can’t possibly appeal based on jury selection. From what I’ve seen, the defense had a lot of input regarding the jury selection, with prosecution asking very few questions. Not only that, but the defense team positively crowed over how pleased they were with the final choices and stated in public (both before and during the trial) that they felt the jurors would be fair and just.

    And I know a lot of people feel suspicious about this hold out juror, but the reality is that he eventually voted to convict. If even this hand-picked, hearsay-questioning, Bolingbrook citizen reversed his vote and went along with the majority based on the evidence, then that goes to prove just have VERY fair this jury could be.

  136. re oxymoran’s post above that included the snip about Drew not attending the funeral luncheon, I thought it was stated during the trial that he had attended?

    But maybe it was only questioned why they would invite DP if they thought he had killed Kathleen.

    Nick (14 yo neighbor) testified that he had seen Drew Stacy and Stephen IIRC at Kathleen’s house the morning after she was found so maybe that is what it refers to.

  137. @ Fac: I’m not suspicious about the hold-out juror.
    .
    But I am curious why he chose to ignore the official juror press conference and seems to be building his own relationships with media and the defense attorney.

    He’s also made public statements about several aspects of the deliberation which made my hair stand on end. So far he has not yet crossed the line (or even got particularly close)…but the less he talks about specifics the better. Just saying.

  138. Oxymoran,
    I agree it is all circumstantial (LOL) but his behavior in court ,so quick to speak to the media , the fact that he appears to be a single voice about what happened rather than a part of the jury team. Now he says he studied law? If you look just at the events it is very strange ! It is not that I don’t trust the hold out juror, rather I think the DF team especially JL & JB are low life and also associate with the less desirable in Chicago. JL is the lawyer for the mob!

  139. The reference to Drew going to Kathleens house on the day of Kathleens funeral and taking items that were not inventoried yet/he had no claim to, is at point 19 in the wrongful death suit.

    The family wouldn’t have put that in if it didn’t happen.

    Drew obviously did spend some time at the funeral/ wake, like lots of wife/ex wife murderers do, but then he obviously had some urgent business to attend to as stated in the wrongful death suit (!!).

  140. With everybody at the wake, he used that golden opportunity to raid his dead ex wife’s house for the umpteenth time, even bringing a truck this time…..

  141. I have been following this case since the very beginning..From the site that Casandra and friends developed, to that nut case who had a site that invited Joel Brodsky to hold Q and A sessions (was he’s name Mike? you know the one, that called us all Hens?) Then on to that other site who the mentally ill woman who was always paranoid that someone was after her and she would kick everyone out of her site until she got a handle on her meds (my opinion) What was her name? Ummm, the G. Mumpher woman…? And then we all came to this site, when a reporter ran it, and then Facs took it over.. (WOW! I can’t believe I remembered all that!) Anyway, my question is.. Whatever happened to that woman who interjected herself into Drews life.. The one who used the name “ExLawenforcement” or something like that.. You old timers gotta remember her.. She was madly in love with Drew and would show up at his little hearings and state her and Brodsky and Drew were all close knit.. What ever happened to her? Did Drewsky break her heart ?? 🙂 OH! I almost forgot the funniest site of all.. Remember one of Drew’s ex pals posed as a women and had Drew baby eating out of his hands or panties I should say! I have all these other sites and pages on my other computer, but have been using laptop for last 3 yrs. And maybe, some of you remember my name.. I don’t know.. But truly I have been following the case from the beginning…

  142. MsTeal…I was a member of most of the sites you mentioned, plus a couple more. Funny how most of them imploded! Ah, those were the good old days! LOL! I wonder how I ever kept up back then, but I tried. Websleuths and here with Facs are the very best now.

  143. Excerpt from story above:

    .
    …“When he gets in there, those people are going to eat him alive. Absolutely,” says Bill Pederson, a former Drug Enforcement Administration officer who served time in prison. “He’s got such a big ego, and if you go in and you’re cocky, they’re going to wail all over you, and there’s no safe place in prison.”…

    ..because Peterson has not yet been evaluated by the department, IDOD spokesperson Kayce Ataiyero told NBC News that there is no way of determining at this time whether he will be housed with or segregated from the general prison population.

    But experts say there’s a strong likelihood that the prison will err on the side of safety.

    “They’ll take precautions because it is a former law enforcement person who may have dealt with these individuals that may be in there or they have friends or families of people in there,” Frank Bilecki, Cook County (Ill.) Sheriff spokesman, told NBC News. “You don’t want to put them in harm’s way of being around any of those individuals. My guess is that he’ll be in protective custody and he may have requested that.”
    Peterson was kept in segregation at the Will County Adult Detention Center in Joliet, Ill., for the duration of his trial due to the high-profile nature of the case and will continue to stay there until his sentencing.

  144. Hi, can someone help me please. I am looking for the video of James Glasgow press conference her gave after the verdict out side the court house. Not this one here, the one he gave, the prosecutor. I heard bits and pieces on In Session,I remember him talking about what a lazy cop he was or something lol. I keep finding the defense video;s (ugh)

  145. Here’s an interesting post, written by a public defender, of how the hearsay evidence was admitted to Drew Peterson’s trial.

    Isn’t this fascinating? The issues, as I see them are:

    1. Which version of the “forfeiture by wrongdoing” doctrine applies? The more liberal common law version or the more restrictive statutory version? It is slightly amusing to think that the legislature, by passing “Drew’s Law”, did the exact opposite of what it set out to do.

    2. Does Giles apply? If it does (and I’m pretty certain it does), then is there this “transferred-intent” subtext? If there isn’t, then is any statement admissible?

    3. Under what theory can wife #4′s statements be salvaged, if at all?

    http://apublicdefender.com/2012/09/09/evidence-is-exciting-you-dont-say/

  146. Another excellent blog post where someone with way more legal knowledge than myself does their level best to explain how hearsay figured in this case:

    [EXCERPT]

    Now I might qualify as an expert on criminal law generally. But if I were to pick a particular area within criminal law that is my wheelhouse, my specialty, it would be hearsay/Confrontation clause issues. You know, the issues central to the trial of Drew Peterson. And so nothing makes me crazier, really, than all the armchair experts and slick tv pundits who talk and talk and talk with tremendous certainty about how the trial was a farce or the hearsay so clearly inadmissible or the guy so obviously guilty or etc., etc. Because the truth is almost none of those people have the first freaking clue what they’re talking about. Yet not knowing all the facts or procedural history or law won’t stop people from spewing their opinions…

    …11) And the United States Supreme Court has explicitly approved this doctrine only 4 short years ago. In the 2008 case, Giles v. California, the Court said that, yes, forfeiture by wrongdoing remains a valid doctrine even after Crawford. The Court, though, did narrow the scope of the doctrine. Some states wanted to apply the doctrine any time the defendant made the victim unavailable, which would basically mean any statement by any victim in any murder case ever would be admissible at trial. The Court insisted that it could only apply where the defendant got rid of the witness because s/he was a potential witness. The district court in Drew Peterson’s case made the requisite finding, so we already know that the US Supreme Court shouldn’t have any problem with this case.

    12) In my view, the best appellate avenue is to argue that the appellate court was wrong to say that the more expansive common law doctrine could apply to the case even after the legislature passed the more restrictive statute. I don’t know enough about Illinois law to know whether the Illinois Supreme Court will be receptive to that argument or whether they will agree with the lower appellate court’s decision. But that question is purely a question of state law that has nothing to do with the federal Constitution and so would not be reviewable by the US Supreme Court. And given that Drew Peterson’s own lawyer is still screaming about Drew’s Law when the appellate court decision pretty clearly says this case doesn’t come down to Drew’s Law, I don’t have a whole lot of faith in his defense making the right argument on appeal that applying Drew’s Law would actually help his client.

    13) And finally, I just can’t let the CNN author’s claim that these hearsay statements wouldn’t come in in any other state go ’cause that’s just not true. Not even close, as you ought to be able to guess if you follow all of the steps I have laid out above…

    http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/2012/09/in-which-i-explain-all-of-drew.html

  147. And…if you want to read some more…

    Common Law: Why Drew Peterson Shouldn’t Be Able To Appeal His Verdict Based On The Unconstitutionality of “Drew’s Law”

    Yesterday, a jury finally convicted Drew Peterson of the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Many articles discussing the verdict made reference to hearsay statements by Savio and Stacy Peterson (Drew Peterson’s fourth wife) being admitted under “Drew’s law,” a state counterpart to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) enacted specifically for the Peterson prosecution (see, e.g., here and here). Indeed, many articles discussed how these hearsay statements were the key pieces of evidence in a trial that was otherwise based upon circumstantial evidence (see, e.g., this article with quotes from a holdout juror). But here’s the thing: Unless I’m missing something, these statements were not admitted pursuant to “Drew’s law,” contained in 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6.

    As noted, by enacting “Drew’s Law,” Illinois created a statutory counterpart to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6). This new law created a new hearsay exception, with the admissibility of statements under the exception being determined by the court at a pretrial hearing. At the hearing, the proponent of the statement bears the burden of establishing 3 criteria by a preponderance of the evidence:

    (1) first, that the adverse party murdered the declarant and that the murder was intended to cause the unavailability of the declarant as a witness;
    (2) second, that the time, content, and circumstances of the statements provide sufficient safeguards of reliability;
    (3) third, the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence.

    But here’s the thing: In addition to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(6) and “Drew’s Law,” there is the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, which allows for the admission of the same type of statements admitted under Rule 804(b)(6) and “Drew’s law,” but without a predicate showing of reliability.

    And, according to the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District, in People v. Peterson, 968 N.E.2d 204 (Ill.App. 3 Dist. 2012), it was this common law doctrine that applied in the Drew Peterson prosecution and not “Drew’s law.” In Peterson, the circuit court had found that some of the statements eventually admitted at Peterson’s trial were inadmissible under “Drew’s law.” In reversing, the Appellate Court found that

    In contrast to the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, reliability is an element of the statutory hearsay exception for the intentional murder of a witness, under which the circuit court ruled on May 18, 2010. See 725 ILCS 5/115–10.6(e)(2) (West 2008) (providing that the party seeking the admission of hearsay statements under the statute bears the burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that “the time, content, and circumstances of the statements provide sufficient safeguards of reliability”). Thus, the statute stands in direct conflict with the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing in Illinois.

    The Appellate Court accordingly deemed the statements by wives #3 and #4 admissible “because the statute neither trumps nor supplants the common law.”

    Therefore, unless I’m missing something, Drew Peterson can’t challenge “Drew’s law” on Ex Post Facto or Confrontation Clause grounds because it was the common law and not “Drew’s law” that led to the admission of the subject statements.

    http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/evidenceprof/2012/09/yesterday-a-jury-finally-convicted-drew-peterson-of-the-murder-of-his-third-wifekathleen-savio-many-articles-discussing-th.html

  148. I need to catch up but need to post while I have connection.

    Can Tom and Kris change their minds about removing their names from the wrongful death suit?

  149. Nice research, facs. The Giles case pretty much tells the tale of Drew’s appeal. I have also been looking into another case from 2006 or 2007 where the supreme court said virtually the same thing as they did in giles; it is a domestic violence case – Davis v. Washington. I found one site that had a paragraph from Scalia’s opinion that addressed the issue, I cannot find the quote in any of the actual cases. If you find anything on it, please post it.

  150. Thanks FaceSmiley it’s bringing tears to my eyes. What a great man, he isn’t doing this for politics, for him to admit the state made a mistake, (although he said in experienced state police in the other interview) but still, what a great man.
    Wow, see Burmilla that ass, rejecting everything, Appeal is going to blow up in your face defense team.

    Not often a State Attorney actually prosecutes, usually the DA and or Assistant State Attorney!

    James Glasgow you’re a hell of a man, good for you! If something ever happened to me, my family or someone if someone I cared about, I want you prosecuting the S.O.B.

  151. This is the website and what they claim the court said in davis v washington, but when I look up the actual case, I can’t see this quote anywhere

    The Supreme Court addressed the issue of forfeiture by wrongdoing in the context of domestic violence cases at the conclusion of its opinion in Davis:

    “This particular type of crime is notoriously susceptible to intimidation or coercion of the victim to ensure that she does not testify at trial…. [W]hen defendants seek to undermine the judicial process by procuring or coercing silence from witnesses and victims, the Sixth Amendment does not require courts to acquiesce…. While defendants have no duty to assist the state in proving their guilt, they do have a duty to refrain from acting in ways that destroy the integrity of the criminal-trial-system. We reiterate what we said in Crawford: that ‘the rule of forfeiture by wrongdoing … extinguishes confrontation claims on essentially equitable grounds.’ That is, one who obtains the absence of a witness by wrongdoing forfeits the right to confrontation.”
    — 126 S.Ct. at 2279-2280.

    http://www.njep-ipsacourse.org/DevelopingIssues/ForfeitureByWrongdoing.php

  152. May I ask what happens with this site after sentencing and appeals? Wish I would of found it sooner.
    Also, did you know either of the victims? I’m sorry if I already asked, I can’t remember if you answered or my wifi cut out and my comment didn’t go through. My room mate comments on this site as well, so if there is 2 ip are the same that is why.

Comments are closed.