Not seeing a Scroll to Top Button? Go to our FAQ page for more info. Drew Peterson Pretrial Discussion Thread July 2012 - Page 3 - JusticeQuest
JusticeQuest  
-:

Go Back   JusticeQuest > And Justice for All > We the Jury > Drew Peterson

Drew Peterson Trial specific to Kathleen Savio


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 04-19-2011, 08:07 PM
sunny47's Avatar
sunny47 sunny47 is offline
JQ Registered User
All the great things are
simple, and many can be
expressed in a single word:
freedom, justice, honor, duty,
mercy, hope
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Super Boonies of Illinois
Posts: 48,654
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
:: Busy
Thread Starter
Default

Nancy Grace and Drew Peterson's attorney lock horns over the new alleged jailhouse love letters he has written.
Video.........air date 4=18=2011

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/cri...N.ATTORNEY.cnn
__________________
ATTENTION: Unless a link is supplied...These are my thoughts & opinions.
top
  #42  
Old 01-24-2012, 09:45 AM
Palomine's Avatar
Palomine Palomine is offline
JQ Registered User
On A Justice Quest.
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 21,632
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

tweets from https://twitter.com/#!/

InSession In Session
Trials in Illinois could soon be televised. This could effect high profile cases, like the #DrewPeterson murder trial.
top
  #43  
Old 01-24-2012, 10:26 AM
sunny47's Avatar
sunny47 sunny47 is offline
JQ Registered User
All the great things are
simple, and many can be
expressed in a single word:
freedom, justice, honor, duty,
mercy, hope
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Super Boonies of Illinois
Posts: 48,654
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
:: Busy
Thread Starter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Palomine View Post
tweets from https://twitter.com/#!/

InSession In Session
Trials in Illinois could soon be televised. This could effect high profile cases, like the #DrewPeterson murder trial.
Oh this is great news this made my day
__________________
ATTENTION: Unless a link is supplied...These are my thoughts & opinions.
top
  #44  
Old 01-24-2012, 10:37 AM
CatToy CatToy is offline
Banned Camp
On A Justice Quest.
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In The Sticks Baby
Posts: 5,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

that and Blago....Dear God. Blago will love this! I dk who will love it more, DP or the former nut case Blago...
top
  #45  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:07 AM
sunny47's Avatar
sunny47 sunny47 is offline
JQ Registered User
All the great things are
simple, and many can be
expressed in a single word:
freedom, justice, honor, duty,
mercy, hope
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Super Boonies of Illinois
Posts: 48,654
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
:: Busy
Thread Starter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatToy View Post
that and Blago....Dear God. Blago will love this! I dk who will love it more, DP or the former nut case Blago...
Blago is off to prison in February so I don't think he will be back in court anytime soon.
We may have it by this trial though....
Trial Date Set For Jennifer Hudson's Family Murder Case
Alleged killer William Balfour will stand trial on April 23 for slaying singer’s family members

-----
Illinois to allow courtroom cameras on ‘experimental basis’

BY DAVE MCKINNEY Sun-Times Springfield Bureau Chief [email protected]
updated January 24, 2012


snip...
The Illinois Supreme Court will open up trial courts to cameras, handing news broadcasters a major victory in a 29-year battle to bring high-profile trials to the masses.

“The Supreme Court plans an announcement [Tuesday] dealing with cameras in the courtroom on an experimental basis,” said Joseph Tybor, a spokesman for the state’s high court.

The matter has been a high priority for Chief Justice Thomas Kilbride, who has pushed the issue during his stint heading the seven-member court.

It was not immediately clear of the impact on Cook County’s court system, and Tybor would confirm no other elements of the announcement.

However, a source familiar with the matter indicated the court’s edict would set up a process by which the state’s 23 circuits could petition the Supreme Court to allow cameras to record proceedings.

Arguments before the state’s appellate courts and the Supreme Court have been allowed since 1983, but television and radio broadcasters have been stymied at the trial court level since then.

One top journalism expert characterized the move by the Illinois high court as a victory for the public, whose only real glimpse into what transpires in courtrooms is through popular television programs.

Putting cameras in the courtroom and allowing the public to know firsthand what’s going on allows them to see how the court system works and to understand in real life what the judicial system does, rather than depending on ‘Law and Order,’ ‘Perry Mason,’ or ‘L.A. Law,’ ” said Al Tompkins, a senior faculty member at the Poynter Institute, a nonprofit journalism center.

The news media currently is not allowed to use cameras and tape recorders in federal courts, which meant that Illinoisans could not see or hear the historic proceedings that resulted in federal felony convictions against former Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

LINK..
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/1...tal-basis.html
__________________
ATTENTION: Unless a link is supplied...These are my thoughts & opinions.
top
  #46  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:09 AM
Chelle Chelle is offline
Banned Camp
and Loving Life
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 20,758
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

I wonder when the trial will begin.
top
  #47  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:12 AM
CatToy CatToy is offline
Banned Camp
On A Justice Quest.
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: In The Sticks Baby
Posts: 5,872
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Yep; but we could see Blago's sentencing couldn't we? I thought he was delaying his sentencing; claiming "illness". He is such a freak! I don't know how he was ever voted into office. Did he lose it mentally after his election; or was he always a flake? I swear he has never spoke one sentence that was fluent. Not a one!
(Ill to me has always seemed like it had way too much to hide in it's judicial system)
top
  #48  
Old 01-24-2012, 11:26 AM
sunny47's Avatar
sunny47 sunny47 is offline
JQ Registered User
All the great things are
simple, and many can be
expressed in a single word:
freedom, justice, honor, duty,
mercy, hope
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Super Boonies of Illinois
Posts: 48,654
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
:: Busy
Thread Starter
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CatToy View Post
Yep; but we could see Blago's sentencing couldn't we? I thought he was delaying his sentencing; claiming "illness". He is such a freak! I don't know how he was ever voted into office. Did he lose it mentally after his election; or was he always a flake? I swear he has never spoke one sentence that was fluent. Not a one!
(Ill to me has always seemed like it had way too much to hide in it's judicial system)
No I think he goes directly to prison no court time left for him......
-----------------------
o/t on BLAGO IN RE: TO CAMERA'S FOR ILLINOIS COURTROOMS COMING THIS SPRING!! Camera's might be in courtroom for Peterson trial, too late for Blago's case!! Just as well he would have been acting for the camera's wouldn't he!!!
Extra month of freedom for Blagojevich before prison

Tuesday, December 13, 2011

On Tuesday, a federal judge delayed the date that Rod Blagojevich should report to federal prison, giving him an extra month of freedom.

Blagojevich was to start serving his fourteen year prison term on February 16th but now has until March15th.

It has not been unusual in some of our more recent public corruption cases for a defendant to have roughly 90 days between sentencing and heading off to prison. Rod Blagojevich would still be within that window even after Tuesday's decision to delay by a month his surrender date.
The judge on Tuesday approved and moved Blagojevich's surrender date to March 15th, though if a sale is closed sooner, that surrender date could be moved up.

"The reality is a one-month delay on a 14-year sentence doesn't matter... so you give that extra month courtesy," said former Assistant U.S. Attorney Jeff Cramer, who is now with Kroll Investigations.

Where will Rod Blagojevich surrender himself to the Bureau of Prisons? His preferred choice is the low security prison at Englewood, Colorado, just outside Denver. There are two prison facilities there. One is a so-called prison camp - with no perimeter fencing. Because of the length of his sentence, Blagojevich would not qualify for that. He would go to the larger, fenced prison if the Bureau of Prisons decides to assign him there.

Why would Blagojevich ask to be located at a prison 1000 miles away from his home and family when there are two similar facilities that are closer?

"That was his personal choice," said Blagojevich attorney Sheldon Sorosky. "I don't know why he chose that place."
LINK..
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?sec...cal&id=8465403
__________________
ATTENTION: Unless a link is supplied...These are my thoughts & opinions.
top
  #49  
Old 04-12-2012, 04:12 PM
ccnsd ccnsd is offline
MIA
On A Justice Quest.
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: So.Cal
Posts: 1,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Drew Peterson lost his appeal. Court allows heresay evidence against him

Dealing a crucial setback to Drew Peterson, an Illinois appellate court has ruled prosecutors can present additional hearsay evidence implicating the former Bolingbrook cop in the drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

The new ruling released Thursday could mean eight more secondhand statements — including some purportedly made by Savio before her 2004 death — will be used against Peterson by Will County prosecutors when he stands trial on murder charges.

The 3rd District Appellate Court previously had upheld a lower court ruling barring those statements as evidence because their reliability was suspect.

The ruling means Peterson’s attorneys can’t challenge the reliability of the dispute hearsay statements. But his attorneys still can raise other legal challenges to using the hearsay statements at Peterson’s murder trial.

One of Peterson’s defense attorneys dismissed importance of the ruling.

“All the statements are hogwash made by Johnny-come-lately media wannabes,” attorney Steven Greenberg said.

The ruling likely clears the way for Peterson, who’s been jailed since May 2009, to stand trial later this year.

http://www.suntimes.com/11862844-417...-peterson.html
top
  #50  
Old 04-12-2012, 04:17 PM
sunny47's Avatar
sunny47 sunny47 is offline
JQ Registered User
All the great things are
simple, and many can be
expressed in a single word:
freedom, justice, honor, duty,
mercy, hope
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Super Boonies of Illinois
Posts: 48,654
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
:: Busy
Thread Starter
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccnsd View Post
Drew Peterson lost his appeal. Court allows heresay evidence against him
http://www.suntimes.com/index.html
this is great news now lets see the trial begin!!

-----------------------------
Victory for prosecutors: Court allows hearsay statements in Peterson case
2:36 p.m. CDT, April 12, 2012



Will County prosecutors have scored a significant victory in their case against Drew Peterson, with an appellate court granting their request to use several hearsay statements at the former Bolingbrook police officer's murder trial.

In a divided opinion by the Third District Appellate court, the justices ruled the trial judge cannot bar the so-called second-hand testimony because he found the statements unreliable. The Will County state's attorney's office contends the statements are crucial to their efforts to convict Peterson of the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

The case, which has drawn national media attention, has been put on hold for nearly two years as State’s Attorney James Glasgow pushed for the statements to be declared admissible. The trial judge retired while the case was on appeal.

Peterson, 57, is charged with killing Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in 2004. Officials initially said the death was an accidental drowning, but authorities reopened the case after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007. He remains a suspect in her disappearance but has not been charged.
Glasgow largely has built his case around pathology reports and 13 hearsay statements that he says would allow Savio and Stacy to speak from the grave. He even pushed for a new Illinois statute -- dubbed Drew's Law -- to allow secondhand testimony at trial if the judge finds it reliable and if the bulk of evidence shows that the defendant made the witness unavailable.

Will County Judge Stephen White had sided with prosecutors in finding that the preponderance of evidence showed Peterson's wrongdoing, but he still barred the majority of hearsay statements because they did "not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability."

Glasgow argued that the courts do not need to consider the reliablity of hearsay because it's not required by common law. The ruling called Glasgow's reasoning "puzzling."

"This change in the state's position is puzzling," the ruling states. "If the legislature intended to facilitate the successful prosecution of criminal defendants who intentionally prevent witnesses from testifying (as the statute’s legislative history suggests), it is unclear why it passed a statute that imposed restrictions on prosecutors that are not found in the common law."
LINK...
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/l...,7453508.story
__________________
ATTENTION: Unless a link is supplied...These are my thoughts & opinions.
top
  #51  
Old 04-12-2012, 04:20 PM
hopefully-pink's Avatar
hopefully-pink hopefully-pink is offline
JQ Registered User
On A Justice Quest.
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: New Orleans
Posts: 1,182
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
:: Cheerful
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccnsd View Post
Drew Peterson lost his appeal. Court allows heresay evidence against him

Dealing a crucial setback to Drew Peterson, an Illinois appellate court has ruled prosecutors can present additional hearsay evidence implicating the former Bolingbrook cop in the drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

The new ruling released Thursday could mean eight more secondhand statements — including some purportedly made by Savio before her 2004 death — will be used against Peterson by Will County prosecutors when he stands trial on murder charges.

The 3rd District Appellate Court previously had upheld a lower court ruling barring those statements as evidence because their reliability was suspect.

The ruling means Peterson’s attorneys can’t challenge the reliability of the dispute hearsay statements. But his attorneys still can raise other legal challenges to using the hearsay statements at Peterson’s murder trial.

One of Peterson’s defense attorneys dismissed importance of the ruling.

“All the statements are hogwash made by Johnny-come-lately media wannabes,” attorney Steven Greenberg said.

The ruling likely clears the way for Peterson, who’s been jailed since May 2009, to stand trial later this year.

http://www.suntimes.com/11862844-417...-peterson.html

Thank You for this update ! I cannot wait for this Trial to start !

top
  #52  
Old 04-12-2012, 04:20 PM
sunny47's Avatar
sunny47 sunny47 is offline
JQ Registered User
All the great things are
simple, and many can be
expressed in a single word:
freedom, justice, honor, duty,
mercy, hope
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Super Boonies of Illinois
Posts: 48,654
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
:: Busy
Thread Starter
Default

Appellate court rules in prosecutors' favor in Peterson case
April 12, 2012


Will County prosecutors have scored a significant victory in their case against Drew Peterson, with an appellate court granting their request to use several hearsay statements at the former Bolingbrook police officer's murder trial

In a divided opinion by the Third District Appellate court, the justices ruled the trial judge cannot bar the so-called second-hand testimony because he found the statements unreliable. The Will County state's attorney's office contends the statements are crucial to their efforts to convict Peterson of the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

The case, which has drawn national media attention, has been put on hold for nearly two years as State’s Attorney James Glasgow pushed for the statements to be declared admissible. The trial judge retired while the case was on appeal.

Peterson, 57, is charged with killing Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in 2004. Officials initially said the death was an accidental drowning, but authorities reopened the case after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007. He remains a suspect in her disappearance but has not been charged.

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-appe...,7692493.story
__________________
ATTENTION: Unless a link is supplied...These are my thoughts & opinions.
top
  #53  
Old 04-12-2012, 04:40 PM
Chelle Chelle is offline
Banned Camp
and Loving Life
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: U.S.A
Posts: 20,758
Mentioned: 5 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ccnsd View Post
Drew Peterson lost his appeal. Court allows heresay evidence against him

Dealing a crucial setback to Drew Peterson, an Illinois appellate court has ruled prosecutors can present additional hearsay evidence implicating the former Bolingbrook cop in the drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

The new ruling released Thursday could mean eight more secondhand statements — including some purportedly made by Savio before her 2004 death — will be used against Peterson by Will County prosecutors when he stands trial on murder charges.

The 3rd District Appellate Court previously had upheld a lower court ruling barring those statements as evidence because their reliability was suspect.

The ruling means Peterson’s attorneys can’t challenge the reliability of the dispute hearsay statements. But his attorneys still can raise other legal challenges to using the hearsay statements at Peterson’s murder trial.

One of Peterson’s defense attorneys dismissed importance of the ruling.

“All the statements are hogwash made by Johnny-come-lately media wannabes,” attorney Steven Greenberg said.

The ruling likely clears the way for Peterson, who’s been jailed since May 2009, to stand trial later this year.

http://www.suntimes.com/11862844-417...-peterson.html
I wish there were cameras in the court room for this trial but I doubt there will be.
top
  #54  
Old 04-12-2012, 04:57 PM
Jubie Jubie is offline
JQ Registered User
On A Justice Quest.
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 468
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Sadly many husbands and boyfriends murder their wives and girlfriends but Drew Peterson was so arrogant and smug when he was still free I look forward to following his trial and subsequent jail sentence! He was so sure no one would ever find Stacey
top
  #55  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:01 PM
sunny47's Avatar
sunny47 sunny47 is offline
JQ Registered User
All the great things are
simple, and many can be
expressed in a single word:
freedom, justice, honor, duty,
mercy, hope
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Super Boonies of Illinois
Posts: 48,654
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
:: Busy
Thread Starter
Default

It's up to the indiviual courts in Illinois to say camera's can be in the courtroom, so if Will County has applied where DREW"S TRIAL WOULD TAKE PLACE THEN WE WILL HAVE THE Camera's!! I live in the next county from Will Co. and they don't have camera's in our courtrooms here.
------------------------------
Appellate Court overturns hearsay decision. Drew Peterson finally going to trial
April 12, 2012


The appellate court has finally reconsidered the eight barred hearsay statements on their merits and have decided to reverse the earlier appellate decision. They have decided that the statements are reliable and admissable at trial which can now go forward. We could be seeing a trial as early as June!

However this doesn’t mean that the earlier barred evidence will necessarily be heard at trial. The new decision makes it clear that,


…We do not mean to suggest, however, that the circuit court is required to admit those eight statements during the trial. Rather, we merely hold that the statements are admissible under Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) and should be admitted under that rule unless the circuit court finds they are otherwise inadmissible.

In other words, the statements have been ruled admissible under the common laws of forfeiture, which is what James Glasgow had argued back in February 2011.

Although this decision is a huge win for the state, it did not come without some chastisement over the hearsay statute (which has been referred to as Drew’s Law) that James Glasgow penned but then ultimately begged the court to toss aside:


…one would expect the State either to enforce the statute as written or act to repeal the statute, not urge the courts to ignore it.
These are the hearsay statements that have now all been deemed admissible. The statements in red are the ones that were originally barred.

1. Kathleen Savio’s letter to then-Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale complaining of Drew Peterson’s abuse, including an alleged July 2002 attack when he put a knife to her throat.

2. Kristin Anderson’s testimony that Savio told of her fears that Peterson would kill her while her family briefly rented Savio’s basement in 2003.

3. A fellow student at Joliet Junior College, Mary Park’s testimony that she saw red marks on Kathleen’s neck that Savio attributed to Peterson in 2003.

4. Savio’s co-worker, Issam Karam’s testimony that Savio told him Peterson came into her home and held a knife to her throat.

5. Kathleen’s sister, Susan Savio’s testimony about her sister’s fears that Peterson would kill her.

6. Kathleen’s sister, Anna Doman’s testimony that shortly before she died, Savio asked Doman to care for her children if she died, saying Peterson wanted to kill her.

7. Savio’s handwritten statement attached to a Bolingbrook police report on the July 2002 incident.

8. Six audio excerpts from a June 13, 2003, taped conversation Savio had with an insurance company over a claim she put in for allegedly stolen jewelry.

9. Savio’s Aug. 6, 2003, statement to the insurance company

10. Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith’s testimony that Stacy contacted him about divorcing Peterson shortly before she vanished.

11. Stacy’s friend, Scott Rossetto’s testimony that she told him Peterson coached her as an alibi witness in Savio’s death.


12. The Rev. Neil Schori’s testimony that Stacy told him Peterson returned home dressed completely in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing in the late morning on the day Savio’s body was found. Stacy also told him Peterson coached her to provide his alibi.

13. Stacy’s Joliet Junior College classmate, Michael Miles’ testimony that Stacy told him before Savio’s 2004 death that Peterson wanted to kill his ex-wife but that Stacy talked him out of it

LINK>>>>>
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2...oing-to-trial/
__________________
ATTENTION: Unless a link is supplied...These are my thoughts & opinions.
top
  #56  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:07 PM
Court Jester's Avatar
Court Jester Court Jester is offline
Sleuthing in my Bathrobe
Just glad to be here
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: North Carolina (California/Michigan)
Posts: 3,957
Mentioned: 8 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Well, THAT'S good news!!

I certainly hope that the DA can pull it off. You KNOW the Defense will be all over these statements.

And I certainly hope this trial will be televised or live streamed. I want to see this creep go down so much I can taste it!

I also hope this trial is NOT at the same time as the Jodi Arias trial...THAT one I am looking forward too as much as I did CA.
__________________

top
  #57  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:14 PM
ccnsd ccnsd is offline
MIA
On A Justice Quest.
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: So.Cal
Posts: 1,162
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MzChelle View Post
I wish there were cameras in the court room for this trial but I doubt there will be.
I thought I read somewhere that we would get to see it. I sure hope we do.

Thanks sunny for the additional links.

One step closer to slamming the creep down!!
top
  #58  
Old 04-12-2012, 05:45 PM
wasalurker's Avatar
wasalurker wasalurker is offline
Fantasia Sparkleheatheat
On A Justice Quest.
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 20,766
Mentioned: 3 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Default

Damn...I was called for Jury duty last year and was afraid at the time that the trial was going to be held then. Now I wish I was called for jury duty.....ssssshhhhh I didn't say that did I?

Anyway I do feel that they will get the jurors they need. And I believe that they will all adhere to the rules of the court, as much as Drewski's lawyers are hoping that they don't. They want that one tweet, FB post, etc but they won't get it. JMOO
top
  #59  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:07 AM
sunny47's Avatar
sunny47 sunny47 is offline
JQ Registered User
All the great things are
simple, and many can be
expressed in a single word:
freedom, justice, honor, duty,
mercy, hope
 
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Super Boonies of Illinois
Posts: 48,654
Mentioned: 27 Post(s)
Tagged: 4 Thread(s)
:: Busy
Thread Starter
Default

Apr 13, 2012 10:54am
Drew Peterson Trial: Words From Grave


snip....
An appellate court granted prosecutors’ request to use hearsay testimony from friends and family of two ex-wives of Drew Peterson, the ex-Illinois police officer who was charged with murder in one of their deaths and is the sole suspect in the other’s disappearance.

Peterson, 57, was charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, whose body was found in a bathtub in 2004, and was named a person-of-interest in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. He has been imprisoned since his May 2009 arrest on charges of killing Savio, but denies involvement in either case.

Steven A. Greenberg, one of Peterson’s lawyers, said the appellate court’s ruling is disappointing.

“We’re disappointed but we’re not afraid of the case and it doesn’t change anything because the trial court already found many statements were unreliable,” said Steven A. Greenberg, one of Peterson’s lawyers.

A lower court ruled to exclude many secondhand statements as testimony on the grounds that they were unreliable.

“As a lawyer and an American, it’s pretty scary when courts say that we can try to convict people beyond reasonable doubt based on evidence that’s unreliable,” Greenberg said. “This should not be a game of chance or gotcha.”

The prosecutors, who have based their case on hearsay testimony, took the ruling as a victory.

“It’s very good news,” Charles Pelkie, a spokesman for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow, told The Associated Press. “We anticipate a trial later this spring or early in the summer.”
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headline...ds-from-grave/
__________________
ATTENTION: Unless a link is supplied...These are my thoughts & opinions.
top
  #60  
Old 04-13-2012, 11:20 AM
magenta's Avatar
magenta magenta is offline
JQ Registered User
Serious addiction to trials!
 
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Chicago
Posts: 19,718
Mentioned: 7 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
:: Awesome
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sunny47 View Post
It's up to the indiviual courts in Illinois to say camera's can be in the courtroom, so if Will County has applied where DREW"S TRIAL WOULD TAKE PLACE THEN WE WILL HAVE THE Camera's!! I live in the next county from Will Co. and they don't have camera's in our courtrooms here.
------------------------------
Appellate Court overturns hearsay decision. Drew Peterson finally going to trial
April 12, 2012


The appellate court has finally reconsidered the eight barred hearsay statements on their merits and have decided to reverse the earlier appellate decision. They have decided that the statements are reliable and admissable at trial which can now go forward. We could be seeing a trial as early as June!

However this doesn’t mean that the earlier barred evidence will necessarily be heard at trial. The new decision makes it clear that,


…We do not mean to suggest, however, that the circuit court is required to admit those eight statements during the trial. Rather, we merely hold that the statements are admissible under Rule of Evidence 804(b)(5) and should be admitted under that rule unless the circuit court finds they are otherwise inadmissible.

In other words, the statements have been ruled admissible under the common laws of forfeiture, which is what James Glasgow had argued back in February 2011.

Although this decision is a huge win for the state, it did not come without some chastisement over the hearsay statute (which has been referred to as Drew’s Law) that James Glasgow penned but then ultimately begged the court to toss aside:


…one would expect the State either to enforce the statute as written or act to repeal the statute, not urge the courts to ignore it.
These are the hearsay statements that have now all been deemed admissible. The statements in red are the ones that were originally barred.

1. Kathleen Savio’s letter to then-Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Elizabeth Fragale complaining of Drew Peterson’s abuse, including an alleged July 2002 attack when he put a knife to her throat.

2. Kristin Anderson’s testimony that Savio told of her fears that Peterson would kill her while her family briefly rented Savio’s basement in 2003.

3. A fellow student at Joliet Junior College, Mary Park’s testimony that she saw red marks on Kathleen’s neck that Savio attributed to Peterson in 2003.

4. Savio’s co-worker, Issam Karam’s testimony that Savio told him Peterson came into her home and held a knife to her throat.

5. Kathleen’s sister, Susan Savio’s testimony about her sister’s fears that Peterson would kill her.

6. Kathleen’s sister, Anna Doman’s testimony that shortly before she died, Savio asked Doman to care for her children if she died, saying Peterson wanted to kill her.

7. Savio’s handwritten statement attached to a Bolingbrook police report on the July 2002 incident.

8. Six audio excerpts from a June 13, 2003, taped conversation Savio had with an insurance company over a claim she put in for allegedly stolen jewelry.

9. Savio’s Aug. 6, 2003, statement to the insurance company

10. Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith’s testimony that Stacy contacted him about divorcing Peterson shortly before she vanished.

11. Stacy’s friend, Scott Rossetto’s testimony that she told him Peterson coached her as an alibi witness in Savio’s death.


12. The Rev. Neil Schori’s testimony that Stacy told him Peterson returned home dressed completely in black and carrying a bag of women’s clothing in the late morning on the day Savio’s body was found. Stacy also told him Peterson coached her to provide his alibi.

13. Stacy’s Joliet Junior College classmate, Michael Miles’ testimony that Stacy told him before Savio’s 2004 death that Peterson wanted to kill his ex-wife but that Stacy talked him out of it

LINK>>>>>
http://petersonstory.wordpress.com/2...oing-to-trial/
Wow this is great news!!! We should meet up at the courthouse to watch Sunny! I hope it starts his summer!
__________________
"RIP Toby"
top
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Tags
2012, discussion, drew, july, peterson, pretrial, thread

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Template-Modifications by TMS
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging v3.1.5 (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
© justicequest.net 2016
no new posts