Illinois Supreme Court upholds Drew Peterson conviction for murder of Kathleen Savio

View this document on Scribd

Today the Illinois Supreme Court handed down their opinion on Drew Peterson’s appeal  of his 2012 murder conviction.

The court found his allegations of errors of evidence admitted to trial, ineffective counsel, conflicts of interest, and breeches of clergy privilege to be without legal merit.

States Attorney James Glasgow, himself a target of an attempt at murder-for-hire on the part Peterson, released this statement in response to the court’s decision:

Today’s ruling by the Illinois Supreme Court unanimously affirming the conviction of Drew Peterson for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, is the ultimate vindication of my decision to pursue a prosecution that had been criticized initially by many legal professionals and those in the media.
Today’s ruling completely affirms my lawful use of relevant and probative hearsay statements against Drew Peterson at his murder trial. Peterson thought the statements and threats he made had died with Kathleen Savio and had vanished with his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. He never anticipated that I would utilize the constitutionally sound concept of forfeiture by wrongdoing to allow Kathleen to testify from the grave against her murderer, and enable Stacy to bolster her testimony. This legal principle allows prosecutors to use relevant and probative hearsay statements at trial against defendants who kill witnesses to keep them from testifying.
The Illinois Supreme Court today not only affirmed the use of this principle as applied in the Peterson case, but it identified additional avenues that had already been laid out by the U.S. Supreme Court for prosecutors to use in future cases.
Today’s ruling is a victory for the families of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson against a notorious murderer who always felt he could act outside and above the law. It also is a watershed moment for police and prosecutors battling criminals who would twist the law to serve their nefarious purposes by killing the very witnesses who would help bring them to justice.

Video: Oral arguments in appeal of Drew Peterson Murder conviction

Today attorneys for Drew Peterson and the State of Illinois presented their oral arguments to the Supreme Court of the state.

Law professor Harold Krent and long-time Peterson attorney Steve Greenberg argued for Peterson, while assistant attorney general Leah Bendik argued for the state.

Attorneys are hoping for an answer from the court by Spring. Here are the arguments in their entirety.

Tuesday: Illinois Supreme Court to hear arguments in Drew Peterson’s appeal of murder conviction

Oral arguments in Drew Peterson’s appeal of his 2012 conviction for the murder of Kathleen Savio are scheduled to be heard tomorrow, November 15, at 9:30 in Springfield.

I expect Steve Greenberg (and possibly law professor Harold Krent) will be arguing for Peterson, while assistant attorneys general Michael Glick and Leah Bendik will most likely be arguing for the state.

If you’ve been following this case since it was first appealed, a lot of it is going to be familiar ground; with hearsay, conflict of interest, ineffective counsel, and attorney-client privileges being some of the points of contention.

If you want to get up to speed on the appeal in advance of tomorrow’s proceedings, then fire up those reading glasses, pop a Tylenol and power through the legal briefs filed by both the appellant and appellee teams:

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

View this document on Scribd

BTW, Stacy Peterson has now been missing for nine years. Her sister, Cassandra Cales, recently went to Facebook to state that if Stacy’s remains are found she will sue for them. She says she is still denied access to her niece and nephew who are in the custody of their half-brother, Stephen Peterson. Peterson was fired from his position as a law enforcement officer in Oak Park, after it was determined that he accepted guns and money from his father during the investigation of Stacy’s disappearance in 2007.

Listen: secretly recorded Drew Peterson prison conversations

Yesterday the secretly recorded conversations between Drew Peterson and prison snitch Antonio Smith were made public.

The hours of recordings were played in court last month during Peterson’s trial for solicitation of murder and helped the jurors decide to convict Peterson of attempting to put out a hit on State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

Glasgow was the lead prosecutor in Drew Peterson’s 2012 trial for the murder of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Here are some clips.

Drew Peterson murder-for-hire trial: Day 6 – GUILTY

Update: 12:45
The jury has reached a verdict. Just waiting on Judge Brown to return to the courtroom.

And the Verdict is…GUILTY on both counts of solicitation of murder and solicitation of murder for hire.

One count carries a mandatory sentence of at least 20 years. The other at least 15 so he’ll get an addition 35 years minimum.

Sentencing will take place July 26.

**************************

Today is the last day of Peterson’s trial for allegedly attempting to hire a hit man to kill Illinois State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, while incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center in Chester, Illinois.

This morning the prosecution has presented their argument to the jury and now it is the turn of the defense.

Have you taken a look yet at the complete transcripts of the conversations between Drew Peterson and fellow inmate Antonio “Beast” Smith recorded secretly between Nov. 13-29, 2014?

I will update this blog post throughout the morning with information gathered via Twitter and various other sources. To see the latest updates, refresh your page often.

Please check out the links to these hard working journalists at the bottom of this page.

10:40

10:43 a.m. Back in session. Defense attorney Lucas Liefer up next.

Liefer: “It would have been nice to be prosecutors in this case.”

Liefer begins argument by fantasizing that he would be Randolph County State’s Attorney if Jeremy Walker weren’t around

Liefer: “State is basing their case on the word ‘gone’ and nothing more. The only thing I’m missing is a lying snitch.”

Liefer using the same words as Peterson, but applying them to SA Jeremy Walker.

Liefer: Prosecution’s recordings “prove absolutely nothing.”

Liefer: James Glasgow’s testimony was “designed to get you to hate #DrewPeterson”

Liefer: “They don’t have any other evidence in this case.”

“The state has muddied the water so much in this case to distract you.” – Liefer to jury.

“What are we left with? The recordings of a snitch. A career snitch who wanted to be an informant with the FBI.” – Liefer.

Liefer pointing to James Glasgow’s signature to get an overhear order in Randolph County.

Liefer refers to Antonio Smith as prosecutors’ “trust snitch.”

Liefer talking about letters Smith sent to Gabriel and how Smith was told by FBI to keep his mouth shut.

LIefer: Smith handed recording device to another inmate while on the yard.

Liefer says it all compromised the investigation.

Liefer quoting Smith talking about Will County: “I lied to them bitches.”

defense focuses heavily on discrediting prosecution’s key witness: Antonio Smith. Calls him to a “career snitch.”

defense say “inaudible” and “incomprehensible” recordings prove nothing

Liefer plays audio of Smith promising prosecutors “I’ll get you your conviction. I’ll drag him to the courthouse myself.”

Liefer playing recorded conversation between Smith and IA.

Liefer: Smith had “golden plan” to get #DrewPeterson and make everyone look good, and “old Beast would get another chance at life.”

Liefer quoting Smith: “Once I tell you my plan, it’s golden.” Liefer: “This was his plan, he was running the show.”

Liefer says Smith wrote letters to Will County in Aug. 2014 because he was also snitching on correctional officers.

Liefer: Smith was a “rat caught in a trap.”

Defense on Antonio Smith: If he was really worried about Peterson killing Glasgow, why did he wait months and months to tell authorities?

Liefer points to “proof positive” that Antonio Smith was lying.

Liefer: Smith said Drew confessed to Stacy death. But “twice in the recorded conversations, #DrewPeterson says she’s still alive.”

“Not a single state witness had much of anything to add to the evidence of this case.” – Liefer

State relying on word of “a lying snitch, who is so unreliable that it’s embarrassing that the state paid him money,” Liefer said

defense calls murder for hire “a crime of words,” yet Peterson never said murder or kill in recordings

“How has state met their burden of proof on solicit. of murder the when the key words of ‘murder’ and ‘kill’ are not spoken by the def.?”

Liefer: “This is how these guys cope. This is how inmates stay sane. They talk. And it’s nonsense.”

Liefer: #DrewPeterson spent more time “talking about ripping Nancy Grace” and running drugs than killing Jim Glasgow

Liefer asks if the state believed Drew Peterson about anything, why hadn’t they charged him regarding the drug trafficking plan.

“Who has the motive and intent in this case? Everything (the state) has presented is questionable.”

#DrewPeterson defense: “This case is rotten with inconsistencies…the case revolves around the recordings and nothing else.”

Liefer again tells jury that #DrewPeterson “still sits there an innocent man.”

Liefer said state cannot point to one instance on recordings where #DrewPeterson asked Smith to “murder” or “kill” Glasgow.

Liefer: “This case is wrought with inconsistencies and incomplete evidence.”

“This entire case revolves around the recordings and nothing else.”

Liefer: “I want you to forget the name #DrewPeterson and everything that goes with it.”

“I am doing this because I believe in the law and care in the law.” – Liefer

Liefer closes with “enter a verdict of not guilty on both counts”

Liefer done.

11:06

Jeremy Walker up for rebuttal.

Walker: “Lucas and I are friends.” They go out to dinner and plan to get drinks tonight.

Walker shouts about claims Liefer made in closings. Then says, that’s what defense attorneys do. “I’m still gonna go have a drink with him.”

“I didn’t put him away in prison for 38 years!!! And as mad as I am right now, I’m still gonna go have a drink with him….

“For him to accuse me that I would charge him, accuse me of being under-the-table, that’s what defense attorneys do.”

Walker’s point: Liefer isn’t in prison for murder, and he doesn’t have another murder case pending against him.

Walker on Smith: “The Pope can’t buy dope. The Pope isn’t going to be contracted to kill somebody.”

Walker: #DrewPeterson had four motives: Pension, appeal, Stacy, his son.

Walker: “that man (Drew Peterson) wants James Glasgow dead”

Walker on Smith: “When did he ever get caught lying? Not one single time.”

Walker: “Snitch does not mean liar.”

Walker: Smith “crossed one of the biggest lines … He wore a wire on a fellow inmate in a maximum security facility.”

“My desk is piling up. I’ve got another jury trial in two weeks on burglary. I care more about that than that man (Peterson) right there.”

Walker: #DrewPeterson got quiet on recordings when talking about Glasgow murder. “What happens when your kids get quiet?”

“Yeah, Antonio’s asked for a time cut, but he earned his trust by asking what he could prove to you.”

Walker brings up media question regarding why Peterson was suspicious of staged photo if he wasn’t involved.

Walker: Best line of #DrewPeterson trial came when Liefer asked Smith if you can believe a snitch. “You can with evidence,” Smith said.

On Antonio Smith: “People deserve the benefit of the doubt when they can back up what they are saying.”

Walker: Smith will have to sleep with “one eye open.”

Walker: “A prosecutor deserves to go home at night and not worry about getting shot in the head because I did my job.”

Walker then finishes closing by pointing at #DrewPeterson “Find this man guilty.”

Walker is done. Jury getting instructions now.

11:35 a.m. jury is now deliberating

Twitter:
Pete Spitler – @Editor_RCHT
Matt Walberg – @mattwalberg1
Joe Hosey – @joehosey
North County News – @NCNews_RedBud
Anna Giles – @AnnaGilesWSIL
Jon Seidel – @SeidelContent
Tonya Francisco – @TonyaFrancisco

Drew Peterson murder-for-hire trial: Day 6 – Prosecution closing arguments

Drew Peterson, James Glasgow and Antonio Smith.

Today is the last day of Peterson’s trial for allegedly attempting to hire a hit man to kill Illinois State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, while incarcerated at Menard Correctional Center in Chester, Illinois.

Closing arguments will be presented by both the prosecution and the defense and then the jury will be given their instructions and left to their deliberations.

Have you taken a look yet at the complete transcripts of the conversations between Drew Peterson and fellow inmate Antonio “Beast” Smith recorded secretly between Nov. 13-29, 2014?

I will update this blog post throughout the morning with information gathered via Twitter and various other sources. To see the latest updates, refresh your page often.

Please check out the links to these hard working journalists at the bottom of this page.

9:15

Cassandra Cales, sister of Stacy Peterson, sitting in court awaiting closing arguments

Drew Peterson has entered the courtroom for closing arguments

Judge giving instructions to jury on closing arguments.

AAG Steve Nate to deliver closing statements for prosecution. RCSA Jeremy Walker to have rebuttal.

Nate: #DrewPeterson received a prison sentence in 2013 “that was basically a death sentence.”

Nate talking about Glasgow being the one person who changed #DrewPeterson’s life. Pauses for effect.

Glasgow responsible for that change

Nate now fiddling with his laptop that’s in the middle of the courtroom. “Best laid plans,” he jokes

Closings now paused to deal with technical difficulties

Nate playing recording of #DrewPeterson sentencing rant.

It was a recording of #DrewPeterson telling Glasgow he orchestrated the “largest railroad job that ever took place in this country.”

Nate: “Make no mistake about it. He hates James Glasgow”

Audio is when Peterson challenged Glasgow to “look him in the eye.” Nate asks jury to consider the hatred in Peterson’s voice.

Nate highlighting Nov. 15 recorded conversation between Peterson and CI Antonio Smith.

“It’s from that hate, from that anger, from that rage that (Peterson) came up with an idea that he thought would solve all his problems.”

Day #DrewPeterson sentenced in 2013 was “the day his life changed forever. He was 59 – it was basically a death sentence for him,” Nate said

Nate now arguing against the defense’s tactic of attacking Smith’s reputation

Nate: Smith didn’t ask for sentence reduction or money until after recordings of #DrewPeterson were made

Nate: You know Smith told the truth “because his testimony is corroborated by the defendant’s own words.”

Nate: #DrewPeterson “can’t get around the recordings, ladies and gentlemen. They can’t get around his own words.”

“Why did the def. spend so much time talking about Antonio Smith and attacking his reputation? Because they can’t get around the recordings”

Nate arguing that the attacks on Smith’s reputation were to distract jury from recordings.

“There was no mistake (Peterson) chose Antonio Smith. He thought he had someone he could manipulate.” – AAG Nate

Nate: #DrewPeterson is the one who picked Antonio Smith

Nate: “It was no mistake that he chose Antonio Smith. He thought he had somebody that he could manipulate.”

Nate talking about how Smith became a protector for Peterson by standing up for him at Menard.

“…despite all the attacks on the character of Mr. Smith, the defendant (is) the one that chose Mr. Smith as a witness…” AAG Nate said.

Nate: #DrewPeterson “kept talking about it. Kept wanting it done.”

Meanwhile, Smith had no intention of having Glasgow killed, Nate says.

“He thought he had this young gang banger who was in for a long sentence for attempted murder, and he thought this is a guy who could get the job done,

“..but he also thot he was a young guy and he thot he could charm him,” Nate said. “But he underestimated Antonio Smith.”

Nate: Will County took minimal role in investigation. It was FBI’s investigation, “not Will County’s.”

Nate: “The FBI and the Will County State’s Attorney’s Office were the only ones who knew about it.”

“You had the opportunity to hear James Glasgow testify. You saw his demeanor when he testified about Drew Peterson.” – AAG Nate

Nate on Glasgow: “Did he strike you as somebody that was obsessed with

Nate: “Who’s obsessed with who? I submit it’s the defendant who’s obsessed with James Glasgow, not the other way around.”

Nate: This case is about “those words that came out of his mouth, the defendant’s mouth.”

Prosecution says Will County States Attorney played minimal role in this murder for hire investigation

Nate: This case is about “those words that came out of his mouth, the defendant’s mouth.”

Nate: #DrewPeterson told Smith “the only way to link me to the whole thing is you.”

“Peterson was counting on Smith being the only one who knew about (the murder plot) and was hoping nobody would believe Antonio Smith.”

Nate: “He was counting on Smith being the only one who knew anything about this.” But #DrewPeterson didn’t know he was being recorded.

“His voice would get lower and more secretive when he talked about James Glasgow” – Prosecution says about #DrewPeterson

Nate acknowledges listening to recordings was “tedious.” Said he knows jury wanted to “throttle” him when he pulled one out.

Nate: #DrewPeterson only talked to Smith on recordings about Glasgow plot. “There’s a reason for that. Because this was real.”

“This was real, this wasn’t just prison talk. He wanted Glasgow dead and because of that, he’s going to limit who he’s going to talk to.”

“If all inmates talk about killing the prosecutor, why is (Peterson) only talking to Antonio Smith about it?” – AAG Nate

Nate playing another recording.

Nate: “There is no doubt about his guilt.”

Nate says recordings confirm that Peterson and Smith talked about hit man plot in 2013.

Nate says jailhouse “kites” — or letters — also confirm that #DrewPeterson and Smith had previous discussions about killing Glasgow

Nate playing conversation when Smith asks Peterson what would happen if Glasgow is gone by Christmas.

(Audio on Nate’s microphone goes out)

Pros play recording where Smith tells #DrewPeterson there “ain’t no turning back.” Then Peterson says they’ll get some booze to celebrate.

Prosecution: Even though Peterson never said “murder” or “kill” in recordings, there is no doubt that’s what he’s talking about.

Nate: “Is there any doubt in your mind what the defendant was talking about?”

Nate: #DrewPeterson believed he would be charged with murder of Stacy Peterson. “This is a real fear that he has.”

Nate talking about how Peterson thought Glasgow would charge him with Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.

Now moving on to Nov. 16 conversations.

Nate: #DrewPeterson talked about getting charged in Will County because that’s where he thought Glasgow’s murder would happen

“it would just be his word against Smith,” Nate sed. “But he was wrong, b/c he was linking himself to the whole thing on the recordings…”

…He was linking himself to the whole thing with his own words.” AAG Nate said

Nate: “You heard the defendant talking about how he’s going to watch the news after Glasgow’s dead.”

Nate: “All these conversations he had about Glasgow being dead prove he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“There is no doubt that he requested Antonio Smith to find someone to kill James Glasgow.” “He said it, he meant it and he’s guilty.”

Nate: #DrewPeterson “assumed the old role of a cop interrogating a suspect” when he became suspicious of Smith.

Nate now playing conversation that includes “Spidey senses” statement.

“Why is he concerned with all that if this was a joke? Why does he care? Because this is real. He wanted James Glasgow killed.”

Prosecution: Peterson’s tone and mannerisms during recordings prove the murder for hire plot wasn’t just a joke, he took it seriously

Nate now beginning to go over the elements of the crimes.

Nate talking about tools jurors will have during deliberations – including common sense, exhibits and juror instructions.

Nate tells jurors it also doesn’t matter that Smith never intended to arrange the hit. The key intent belongs to Peterson

“The law recog. that the intent is (Peterson’s) intent, not Smith’s intent….this crime was complete when the words came out of his mouth.”

Nate to jurors: “No steps had to be taken to kill James Glasgow,” in order for #DrewPeterson to be guilty

“There’s no doubt, ladies and gentlemen, that his intent was to have Glasgow murdered.” – AAG Nate

#DrewPeterson’s arms are crossed as Nate continues his closing — and begins to tell jurors about circumstantial evidence.

Nate comparing a rainstorm to circumstantial evidence.

Nate: #DrewPeterson “has a deep hatred for James Glasgow” and showed it at his February 2013 sentencing

“Why all this paranoia if all of this is a joke?” – AAG Nate

Nate asking jurors to rely on common sense. “There’s no other way to interpret those recordings. He said it, he meant it and he’s guilty.”

Nate is done and jury takes 15-minute mid-morning break.

Twitter:
Pete Spitler – @Editor_RCHT
Matt Walberg – @mattwalberg1
Joe Hosey – @joehosey
North County News – @NCNews_RedBud
Anna Giles – @AnnaGilesWSIL
Jon Seidel – @SeidelContent

Illinois Supreme Court to hear Drew Peterson’s appeal. Former attorney intends to sue for defamation

A smiling Drew Peterson in his current mug shot

I apologize for not updating the blog last week but, unlike Drew Peterson, I was sitting by a pool in the shade of a palm tree.

On March 30 the Illinois Supreme Court announced it would hear ex-Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson’s appeal of his 2012 conviction for killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004.

The decision came as a bit of a surprise to the legal community, as the Illinois appellate court upheld Peterson’s conviction in November, 2015, stating in their opinion that “since we have found that no errors occurred, defendant’s claim of cumulative error must be rejected.” The chances of the appeal making it to Illinois’ highest court also seemed slim because historically only 5% of petitioned cases are heard.

Peterson’s appeal is based on claims of ineffective counsel on the part of attorney, Joel Brodsky, the admission of several hearsay statements admitted under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, and that evidence given by Pastor Neil Schori at trial violated confidentiality.

Meanwhile, Peterson’s murder-for-hire trial is amping up for May, based on charges that he solicited an inmate to kill Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, who prosecuted the Savio case.

Peterson appeared in court on Friday for a short case management conference. Randolph County State’s Attorney Jeremy Walker announced the prosecution would tender its official discovery to the defense on that day, and the date of April 22nd was set for the next case management conference.

Reem Odeh posing with a book about the Peterson case

In a strange turn of events, former Drew Peterson attorney, Reem Odeh, is asking Cook County to order to Google to supply her with information about the origins of what she says are libelous reviews left on one of her law practice’s social media pages.

According to the petition, Odeh said she intends to sue for defamation the party or parties responsible for the posts, published in January and February 2016.

According to the Cook County Record,

The petition cited one such post, purportedly posted under the alias of “Drea Sanchez,” which called her a “horrible, lying and deceitful woman claiming to be a great lawyer” who “is an embarrassment to all members of The Bar Association.” The post further called on the Illinois Supreme Court to suspend Odeh’s legal license.

Other posts, submitted under other aliases including “Abdullah Mubarak,” “William Levi” and “Nura Galaski,” allegedly accused Odeh of having “a reputation of getting around;” of having come to court “late as usual smelling like cheap beer;” of having made “bad remarks about the Latin/Polish community;” and of never being prepared for court, among other accusations. The post from “Mubarak” also described her using the term “sharamoota,” which the petition said was a derogatory Arabic term for “prostitute.”

Odeh’s petition said the reviews “are rife with false accusations regarding (Odeh), a married woman, including allegations that (Odeh) attends court appearances under the influence of alcohol; that she is adulterous; that she lies to the court and opposing counsel …; and otherwise incompetent at her profession.

Of course I have no idea who is behind the posts but I do remember that Odeh’s break with her former law partner, Joel Brodsky, was acrimonious to say the least and that a spate of negative comments cropped up about her after she testified that Brodsky had attacked her when she left with a copy of a contract between Joel and Drew at Peterson’s pre-sentencing hearings. Brodksy’s wife, Elizabeth, was especially candid when commenting on her husband’s former law partner.

Whether Mrs. Brodsky still carries a grudge, or Odeh has new enemies remains to be seen. Presumably, all could be revealed if Cook County rules in her favor and Google cooperates.

View this document on Scribd

Drew Peterson takes murder conviction appeal to Illinois Supreme Court. Murder-for-hire trial set for next month.

Drew Peterson’s new mug shots for 2016

UPDATE 1/27/16: Despite having denied a motion to delay the beginning of the trial just last week, after a conference call between Judge Brown and attorneys Walker and Liefer, the judge agreed to continue Drew Peterson’s upcoming murder-for-hire trial in order to give both sides more time to prepare. The trial was originally set to begin the end of next month. The new trial date is May 6.

*******************************************************

Two months after his appeal was denied by the Illinois appellate court, Drew Peterson’s attorneys have taken his case to the state Supreme Court in hopes of overturning his 2012 conviction for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Case No. 120331

People v. Peterson, Defense leave to appeal granted 3/30/16 from 2015 IL App (3d) 130157

Whether the Appellate Court erred by finding that a decision in a prior appeal precluded it from considering whether evidence was properly admitted under the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine, where the prior appeal concerned only a different aspect of the doctrine – the possible application of a new statute. (§2-6(a))

Defense counsel: Stephen Greenberg, Chicago

Penned by attorneys Steve Greenberg and Harold Krent, the petition to appeal covers familiar ground, alleging that the admission of hearsay and “former bad acts” evidence to his the trial should not have taken place and resulted in the erroneous conviction of Drew Peterson.

The Illinois Appellate Court is also called out for having not seriously considered all of the arguments raised in the earlier appeal.

The appeal also, once again points the finger at Peterson’s former counsel and friend, Joel Brodsky, who they insist created a conflict of interest when he wrote a contract with Peterson that gave him a percentage of any money earned by media appearances. They also maintain that he erred when calling lawyer Harry Smith to the stand to testify that Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, had asked him if she could get more money from a divorce arrangement if she threatened to tell how he had killed Kathleen Savio.

Interestingly, last week, a former client of Steve Greenberg’s, Albert Domagala, had his sentence overturned and was granted a new trial after a judge agreed that he had been granted ineffective assistance by Greenberg at his 2005 murder trial.

Joel Brodsky, naturally, took to Facebook and called it a case of “the pot calling the kettle black”.

In Peterson’s case, the filing does not ensure that the Supreme Court will hear the new appeal. The Chicago Tribune points out that the higher court “typically hears a small percentage of such petitions. For example, justices agreed to hear arguments in less than 5 percent of the nearly 1,500 petitions filed in fiscal 2014.”

Meanwhile, on Tuesday, Randolph County Circuit Court Judge Richard A. Brown denied Peterson’s request to delay his trial in the solicitation of murder case.

Peterson’s attorney, Lucas Liefer told the judge that the defense and prosecution were still exchanging discovery in the case, “I don’t think we need a lot of time, but I don’t think it is realistic to say we will be ready to go to trial in a month,” he said.

Judge Brown replied that the calendar for March was already full, telling Leifer, “if you have to move cases aside to get ready for this, then do so.”

At least forty-six witnesses have been subpoenaed in the case, including experts in finger-print and audio recording evidence.

Jury selection for the trial will take place on February 26 and his trial will begin on February 29th in Chester, Illinois where he is incarcerated.

Drew’s prison correspondence continues to be of interest. Joel Brodsky took to Twitter to share his taunting of his former client via the postal service.

A man (with his own notorious past) who claims to be distantly related to Staacy Peterson, also wrote to Peterson in prison, and claims to have received an acerbic reply.

Stacy’s sister, Cassandra Cales, continues to search for her sister and to consult those claiming to be psychics for help in locating Stacy Peterson’s remains.

Most recently Stacy’s family has turned to a woman named Sharon Pugh, who calls herself the “Southern Style Medium”. Hugh was provided with items belonging to to Drew and Stacy Peterson, and by holding the items she says that Stacy joined them and told her that she had been wearing a heart shaped necklace when she died, which was removed before the disposal of her body. She hopes to have more sessions with the family.

Drew Peterson’s watches

Stacy Peterson’s cap

Today is Stacy Peterson’s birthday. She would have been 32.

 

Her youngest child turned 11 this month and celebrated with a trip to an indoor rock climbing facility and a lobster dinner.

Stacy with the children: Kris, Lacy, Anthony and Tom

New Drew Peterson documentary

For the last month or so CNN has been working on a new documentary about the Drew Peterson trial, his new conspiracy charges and the lives of Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson.

For weeks they were doing research here on the blog and I was contacted by a producer named Max Newfield for help with source materials.

Sue Savio, sister of Peterson’s third wife, was interviewed for the special report and went to Facebook with her hope that her interview will help in her fight against domestic violence.

Pastor Neil Schori, who was the confidant of Stacy Peterson, had a positive experience with the production as well, stating that correspondent Jean Casarez was “great” and that she gave him “a chance to talk about how we can help victims” of domestic violence.

Even Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s controversial lawyer,  seemed to have enjoyed his involvement.

But not everyone was thrilled to see the cameras. When Drew’s son, Stephen, spotted them in front of his father’s Bolingbrook house, he referred to the crew from CNN as “F’ing vultures” and bemoaned that “it never ends.”

From the ad on CNN’s site, it looks as if Stacy’s Aunt Candace Aikin was interviewed as was Joe Hosey, author of the book Fatal Vows: The Tragic Wives of Sergeant Drew Peterson which was adapted for the Lifetime Movie, Drew Peterson:Untouchable.

CNN Special Report, Married to a murderer: The Drew Peterson Story, airs on Tuesday, June 30 at 9:00 Eastern and Pacific time. Check your local listings for channel.

UPDATE JULY 7: Peterson’s trial for the solicitation of murder (of State’s Attorney, James Glasgow) has been rescheduled for November 13. His lawyer wants to hire an expert witness and give them time to research, etc.

06/18/2015 Motion to Continue on file. Petition to Approve Expert Witnes Retention and Funding on file.

07/07/2015 Parties appear; motion hearings continued to 9-1-15, 9am; case set for jury trial selection on 11-13-15, 9am; jury trial set 11-16-15, 9am. Agreed Case Management Order on file. *copies given to all parties.

Video: Drew Peterson murder conviction appeal oral arguments

Part 1: Argument for the appeal by attorney Steven Greenberg

Part 2: Argument for the appeal by attorney Harold Krent

Part 3: Argument against the appeal by assistant state’s attorney Marie Czech (1)

Part 4: Argument against the appeal by assistant state’s attorney Marie Czech (2)

Part 5: Rebuttal by attorney Steven Greenberg

Last week Drew Peterson attorneys Steve Greenberg and Harold Krent presented arguments to three Illinois appellate justices in hopes of overturning Peterson’s 2012 conviction for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

The appeal centered around a number of points – namely the admittance of hearsay statements under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, the question of counselor-client and lawyer-client privilege and allegations of conflict and ineffective counsel on the part of Joel Brodsky.

Last week also saw a change in date for Peterson’s murder-for-hire trial. Originally he had asked for a speedy trial and the date was set for July, but his attorney, Lucas Liefer, decided that they could not be ready by then. The trial is now set for August 28th.

Attorney Steven Greenberg who unsuccessfully defended Peterson against murder charges at trial in 2012, and is now one of his appellate lawyers, was interviewed about the oral arguments as well as Drew’s more recent murder case

Attorney Joel Brodsky, who is named in Peterson’s appeal as providing ineffective assistance and having a per se conflict of interest, replied to the charges via “The Publicity Agency”. The PR firm is run by Glenn Selig who is also named in Peterson’s appeal.

“I was amazed and shocked at the flagrant lies told, and the blatant hypocrisy demonstrated by Attorney Steve Greenberg during oral arguments before the Illinois Appellate Court on Drew Peterson’s appeal of his murder conviction. As to the accusations about my seeking publicity during the Peterson case, Steve Greenberg’s hypocrisy is beyond all bounds. The provable truth is that Attorney Steve Greenberg begged me to let him come onto the Peterson case to work for free and he wanted to do so for the publicity. He certainly did not want to work for free out of the goodness of his heart. Further, for Greenberg to complain about me seeking publicity from the Peterson case is the height of dishonesty when the provable fact is that I had to stop him from appearing on a truTV segment called “Karas v. Greenberg”, which he attempted to do during the trial! Rather than preparing for the days hearing or appearing in the courtroom during the trial, Greenberg was on truTV giving away the defense’s strategy while seeking publicity for himself. During the trial, he even used his daughter to set up his own personal media interviews. It is the height of hypocrisy for Attorney Greenberg to accuse me of wanting publicity.

Furthermore, Attorney Steve Greenberg told blatant lies during the oral argument. He stated that Drew Peterson’s media interviews were played during the trial and were used as evidence against him. Perhaps Greenberg was too busy doing the “Karas v. Greenberg” TV bits during the trial to remember, but not one video of Drew giving a media interview was ever played at trial. Not one. The only thing related to Mr. Peterson’s interviews that was used as evidence was a written transcript of three (3) questions that Drew was asked during interviews. The questions were as follows: (1) what happened to Kathy” (Drew said “I don’t know”), (2) Were you surprised that Kathy’s body was exhumed (Drew said “yes”), and (3) Were you separated at the time? (Drew said ‘yes”). Hardly evidence against Drew. This shows that Attorney Steve Greenberg lacks any credibility and engaged in gross misrepresentations and hypocrisy during his oral argument to the appellate court.”