Results 1 to 15 of 78
08-10-2009, 09:47 AM #1
trying to strike down the hearsay law
Drew Peterson's lawyers go back to court in Will County this morning for a status hearing on the murder charge against him in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
SEE THE MOTION
Meanwhile, WBBM's Regine Schlesinger reports they're trying to strike down the Illinois law that goes to the heart of the prosecution's case. For their case against Peterson, prosecutors are relying heavily on so-called testimony from beyond the grave.JMO
08-10-2009, 09:49 AM #2
Drew Peterson's defense team has filed a motion to have the new Illinois hearsay law, nicknamed "Drew's Law," declared unconstitutional.
Peterson’s legal team asked the Will County Circuit Court to declare the new Illinois hearsay law unconstitutional.JMO
08-10-2009, 09:51 AM #3
The motion is expected to hold up the start of Peterson's murder trial.JMO
08-10-2009, 09:55 AM #4
"The new hearsay law ... would allow gossip, innuendo, rumor and back fence scandal to come into court and masquerade as evidence," the motion states. The motion is posted on the Web site of Peterson's attorneys.JMO
08-10-2009, 10:40 AM #5Registered User
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
Ex Post facto or about time?
Never mind--Paintr beat me to the link on the Tribune's site. :-)
08-10-2009, 07:46 PM #6
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."'JMO
08-10-2009, 10:31 PM #7
If Mr Brodsky succeeds in getting this law declared unconstitutional, criminals from all over Illinois will hail him as a hero.JMO
08-10-2009, 10:36 PM #8
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.JMO
08-11-2009, 12:54 AM #9
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to mysteriew For This Useful Post:
08-11-2009, 08:45 AM #10
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.JMO
08-11-2009, 08:49 AM #11
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.JMO
08-11-2009, 03:03 PM #12
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.JMO
08-11-2009, 03:06 PM #13
In a motion filed Monday, attorneys argue the Illinois hearsay law is unconstitutional and would allow Kathleen Savio to testify from beyond the grave. The law was enacted last year.JMO
08-12-2009, 04:55 PM #14Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2007
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to closeobserver For This Useful Post:
08-12-2009, 11:37 PM #15Registered User
- Join Date
- Dec 2007
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.
By mysteriew in forum Kathleen SavioReplies: 7Last Post: 05-20-2009, 05:45 PM
By closeobserver in forum Kathleen SavioReplies: 60Last Post: 11-22-2008, 02:16 AM
By sherryggg in forum Up to the MinuteReplies: 4Last Post: 03-14-2008, 12:46 PM