The Hearsay Law

New Posts

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=6958203

While attorneys were in the judge's chambers today, Peterson stayed in the court room and talked with reporters about his three months in jail.</p.
I asked him about the food, Peterson said," the food is not bad, I eat everything in front of me."
Peterson says he does not exercise because he does want to exercise in the same clothes he must wear all day...fighting boredom is his biggest challenge. As for reading, Peterson told me, "I hate reading", but he does watch TV. Peterson said, "I've seen Stripes several times so if I start to talk like Bill Murray you'll know why."'
 
If Mr Brodsky succeeds in getting this law declared unconstitutional, criminals from all over Illinois will hail him as a hero.
 
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/1709167,Peterson-hearsay-law_JO081009.article

To understand the law, consider this example: There is a court case, and the defendant knows a certain witness will testify. If the defendant kills the witness — or makes them disappear — to stop the testimony, the law allows statements made by the witness to be used in court.

Stacy's statements

In this case, Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson's missing fourth wife, allegedly told a minister that her husband had killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
 
Paintr said:
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/1709167,Peterson-hearsay-law_JO081009.article

To understand the law, consider this example: There is a court case, and the defendant knows a certain witness will testify. If the defendant kills the witness — or makes them disappear — to stop the testimony, the law allows statements made by the witness to be used in court.

Stacy's statements

In this case, Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson's missing fourth wife, allegedly told a minister that her husband had killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
Click to expand...

Kathleen Savio also sent a letter to I think the DA that gave details of alleged mistreatment by DrewP both during the marriage and during the time when he began dating Stacey. I think this is also included in the hearsay law.


Without the hearsay law, criminals have a motive. To get the witness quiet. So in some ways the hearsay law, if kept on the books is a form of protection for the victim. If the perp wants to quiet them, but knows they have already put their issues in writing then the value of killing them is reduced.
 
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-peterson-hearsay_11_aug11,0,1334049.story

The law was specifically drafted to meet constitutional muster, said a spokesman for the state's attorney's office, who added that similar laws have been enacted in more than a dozen states.

"Mr. Glasgow is eager to argue this motion and he believes thoroughly that he will prevail as to the constitutionality issues," said spokesman Charles Pelkie.
 
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local-beat/Drew-Peterson-Hearsay-Law-Illinois-Unconstitutional-52916302.html

Drew Doesn't Want to Hear From Dead Wife
"Drew's Law" was enacted last year

The motion was expected. After Peterson's arrest this year for the 2004 slaying of Savio, Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow said he planned to use the new law to let Savio tell jurors why Peterson wanted her dead.

Savio told several people before she died that she was afraid her husband would kill her.

...

Similar hearsay laws exist in 12 other states, including Wisconsin.
 
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/11/Peterson-lawyer-wants-hearsay-law-stricken/UPI-48451250005915/

Stacy Peterson allegedly told a minister that her husband killed Savio, prosecutors have said.

Under the new law, known as Drew's law, that statement and others allegedly made by Savio could be admitted as evidence in the murder case against Peterson, whose lawyers Monday asked Will County Judge Stephen White to find the law unconstitutional.

The U.S. Constitution guarantees Peterson the right to confront an accuser in court, something he cannot do in this case, lead defense lawyer Joel Brodsky said.
 
This is obviously something the defense has to do. It was expected that they would challenge it, so nobody should be overly concerned. We can only hope that the drafters of the legislation created a constitutionally acceptable law. It certainly makes sense.
 
I can completely understand the validity of entering Kathleen's own words in her own handwriting to the court. This seems, to me, an absolutely fair and reasonable use of the law.

While I personally loathe Drew Peterson and am certain he killed both Kathleen and Stacy, I have to wonder about the introduction of the pastor's statements about what Stacy allegedly said about Kathleen's death. If Stacy had put it in writing, that would be one thing. But quoting what someone said about what Drew said seems really iffy to me. I think that this particular item would be challenged all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and I'm not certain that the ruling would be favorable.

JMO
 
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/1721167,081809drew.article

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan wants to get involved in Drew Peterson's murder case to help Will County prosecutors defend the constitutionality of a controversial new law known as "Drew's law."

.............

White has scheduled an Oct. 2 hearing on the constitutionality of Drew's Law. In addition to Glasgow, an assistant attorney general would argue on behalf of Drew's law if White allows the office into the case.

"This motion to intervene serves a very limited purpose," Madigan spokeswoman Robyn Ziegler said Monday. "The attorney general has the responsibility of defending the constitutionality of state laws
 
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/bolingbrooksun/news/1720756,4_JO17_Madigan-weigh-on-Peterson-case.article

To understand the law, consider this example: There is a court case, and the defendant knows a certain witness will testify. If the defendant kills the witness — or makes them disappear — to stop the testimony, the law allows statements made by the witness to be used in court.

In this case, Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson's missing fourth wife, allegedly told a minister that her husband had killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Stacy Peterson disappeared in October 2007. State police have called the case a potential homicide
 
http://www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=1643&z=4

Drew Peterson's Motion To Silence "Cry From The Grave" Law Now Online
Documents filed now available for viewing online.

Drew Peterson's lawyers - Joel Brodsky, Andrew Aboodand Reem Odeh- sent their Reply Brief to the State's Attorney and the Attorney General today. Judge Stephen White is set to hear arguments on this motion on October 2, 2009.
 
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/heraldnews/news/peterson/1801662,Peterson-Drew-court-hearsay-JO100109.article

The constitutionality of law seen as crucial in the Drew Peterson case is expected to be argued Friday when Peterson returns to court.

Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, is being held on murder charges in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.



Layers for Peterson have asked Will County Judge Stephen White to declare unconstitutional a new state law called Drew's Law.
 
http://www.wbbm780.com/Could-Drew-Peterson-Go-Free-/5344656

Could Drew Peterson Go Free?


The judge is expected to rule on a defense motion for a change of venue, and the judge is expected to hear arguments on the constitutionality of the so-called "Drew's Law," hearsay testimony that would allow statements by the missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, into evidence.

Peterson's lawyer Joel Brodsky says odds that the judge will rule in Peterson's favor - and not allow the hearsay testimony - are better than even.
 
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hbfkKdZZEPQinpLBXO6Df3-5s2SwD9B36I3O0

Judge rules law in Peterson case constitutional
(AP) – 7 hours ago

JOLIET, Ill. — An Illinois judge has ruled that prosecutors can introduce statements made by former police officer's Drew Peterson's now-deceased ex-wife at his trial.

Will County Judge Stephen White ruled against Peterson's attorneys Friday in their attempt to get the state's so-called "hearsay" law declared unconstitutional. He also denied a request by the former Bolingbrook officer's attorneys to have the trial moved.
 
http://cbs2chicago.com/wireapnewsil/Judge.rules.against.2.1223925.html

A judge on Friday refused to move Drew Peterson's murder trial and said a law that prosecutors want to use to allow his ex-wife he's accused of killing to "testify from the grave" is constitutional.

...

Possible evidence in the case might include letters written by Savio, who was seeking orders of protection, in which she said Peterson would kill her to shut her up and her sister's testimony at a coroner's jury that Savio told her family it would be no accident if she died.

Brodsky said he has not decided whether to appeal the judge's decision on the hearsay law to the Illinois Supreme Court.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 101 more.
Total: 3,438 (members: 102, guests: 3,336)

Online statistics

Members online
102
Guests online
3,337
Total visitors
3,439
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,291
Messages
17,966,758
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top