Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part two

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
In Session The next proposed defense instruction concerns a definition of “hearsay.” Joe Lopez: “The jurors have heard us say ‘hearsay’ a bunch of times, ‘Objection, hearsay’ . . . they’ve heard about ‘the hearsay hearing’ . . . the jurors are sitting in there, wondering what is it exactly? The jurors, I think, should be instructed what it means.” Lopez then offers a definition of hearsay from a 1962 Illinois Supreme Court decision. “We don’t want them arguing over what exactly a hearsay statement is . . . the team thinks it would be wise to give them an instruction. We’d like the Court to read that into the record, and instruct the jurors so that it doesn’t become an issue later.” Griffin responds: “There is no case we have found about hearsay evidence or forfeiture by wrongdoing . . . we would object to this instruction; it highlights hearsay evidence . . . we don’t believe that this is an instruction that should be given; there’s no support for it.” Judge: “Over the State’s objection, this instruction is going to be given. I think it’s peculiarly relevant in this case.”
 
images


"Can't hold on much longer".

I will from this day forward think of Brodsky everytime I see or think of Cliffhanger on PBS.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clif...a0ygHJm4DgCQ&ved=0CAgQ_AUoAQ&biw=1024&bih=571
 
Jackson44 said:
In Session The next proposed defense instruction concerns a definition of “hearsay.” Joe Lopez: “The jurors have heard us say ‘hearsay’ a bunch of times, ‘Objection, hearsay’ . . . they’ve heard about ‘the hearsay hearing’ . . . the jurors are sitting in there, wondering what is it exactly? The jurors, I think, should be instructed what it means.” Lopez then offers a definition of hearsay from a 1962 Illinois Supreme Court decision. “We don’t want them arguing over what exactly a hearsay statement is . . . the team thinks it would be wise to give them an instruction. We’d like the Court to read that into the record, and instruct the jurors so that it doesn’t become an issue later.” Griffin responds: “There is no case we have found about hearsay evidence or forfeiture by wrongdoing . . . we would object to this instruction; it highlights hearsay evidence . . . we don’t believe that this is an instruction that should be given; there’s no support for it.” Judge: “Over the State’s objection, this instruction is going to be given. I think it’s peculiarly relevant in this case.”
Click to expand...

:tsktsk:
 
In Session The judge acknowledges that the final defense proposed instruction “is a correct statement of the law.” However, he decides to take under advisement the question of whether or not he will actually give it (wanting to check case law first).
 
LambChop said:
Well the State did make it through the Grand Jury so I don't think they were ill prepared. I believe it is possible DT may have received all their discovery but by claiming they did not received some of the material they hoped the judge would rule to keep it out. (It's very difficult for the State to prove in open court that certain items were, indeed, sent to the defense team. The State may have later been able to prove the materials were sent to the judge and that may be why there were no sanctions handed out by the judge. Sounds like a lot of postering on defense's part. The public is left with the impression that the State is not doing there job when they, in fact, have fulfilled all their requirements to the defense.

The State had a difficult task to try and keep their witnesses from saying too much. The fact that the judge was at times rude to the State's witnesses did not help the State either. The task itself was made more difficult by the process the PT had to use to get some of this evidence admitted. When you consider what they had to do to get the information out to the jury I believe they did a good job.

As far as the State meeting their burden, I think you have to first consider do you believe Kathy was murdered. Given the fact she had some bruises you could believe she fell. Taking into consideration the amount of bruising and some of the areas where she had bruising it appears more likely that they were defensive injuries. Then when you consider that her head was facing what would have been water in the tub, if she were bathing and the reason for her drowning, and put that together with the fact that she had a stream of dried blood running from the wound across her face on the side where she was cut it makes no sense her face was covered with water. After that all the hearsay evidence leaves little doubt who would have had the motive and opportunity to kill her. jmo
Click to expand...



:goodpost:

I think if the jury can start with was this an accident or murder, then there is a very good chance for conviction.
 
In Session Prosecutor Connor now addresses the Court, asking for some restrictions to the defense summation. The first involves witness Mary Pontarelli. Attorney Greenberg rejects the State’s amendment, says that what Connor has just stated about Pontarelli is “completely false.” Judge: “The State is asking me to restrict the defendant’s closing argument; the argument is restricted . . . it’s up to the jury to resolve that conflict.”
 
In Session Connor then moves to the issue of a certified copy of Kathleen Savio’s death certificate. “The date on the certificate should not be brought out during closing statements; that is irrelevant . . . they’re attempting to argue that the official position of the coroner’s officer is that the death is still an accident; it is now a homicide, and that’s certified by the coroner’s office.” Greenberg: “I’m offended . . . for them to accuse us of a defense stunt is an insult. We have engaged in no stunt . . . there is a procedure for changing a death certificate . . . they’ve never done anything to try to change anything or correct anything . . . they cite no authority for their position, not a single case.” Judge: “The request that I restrict the defense closing argument in that regard is denied.”
 
travel8* said:
The artist, Christine, on In Session said that Drew Peterson was visibly shaking when Harry Smith testified. She was immediately asked about something else so no time was spent discussing what she saw. I hope the jury saw it too.
Click to expand...



I'm glad something made DrewP visibly shake. He should have to 'taste' the fear Kathleen and Stacy felt in their last minutes.
 
In Session The defense requests to able to mention in its closing that Harry Smith looked repeatedly at the State’s table during his testimony. Judge: “The State’s request that the defense be restricted from mentioning that is denied.”
 
In Session Finally, Judge Burmila also rejects a State request that the defense be precluded from arguing that hearsay evidence is lesser evidence. “Are we done with the jury instructions?” “Yes.”
 
Jackson44 said:
In Session Connor then moves to the issue of a certified copy of Kathleen Savio’s death certificate. “The date on the certificate should not be brought out during closing statements; that is irrelevant . . . they’re attempting to argue that the official position of the coroner’s officer is that the death is still an accident; it is now a homicide, and that’s certified by the coroner’s office.” Greenberg: “I’m offended . . . for them to accuse us of a defense stunt is an insult. We have engaged in no stunt . . . there is a procedure for changing a death certificate . . . they’ve never done anything to try to change anything or correct anything . . . they cite no authority for their position, not a single case.” Judge: “The request that I restrict the defense closing argument in that regard is denied.”
Click to expand...

:denied:

Ouch. I think I agree with this decision, but it doesn't mean I like it.
 
AbbieNormal said:
I am pages and pages behind...I keep getting company dangit. Anyway did y'all hear the artist yesterday, she said Drew was physically quaking- she demonstrated with her own hands/ arms. She said it was so pronounced she elbowed an artist next to her and said "look at Drew", or words to that effect.
I would pay money to see that $@&%!!! quaking.

Good, Drew, be scared. Be very scared. YOU ARE GOING DOWN!!!

abbie/ moo
Click to expand...


I wonder what Christine, the artist, would have given it on the richter scale. That had to be priceless to watch! Simply priceless!
 
Jackson44 said:
In Session The defense requests to able to mention in its closing that Harry Smith looked repeatedly at the State’s table during his testimony. Judge: “The State’s request that the defense be restricted from mentioning that is denied.”
Click to expand...

We the people, request the judge to just say denied even before the defense finishes their sentence with each request.
 
Jackson44 said:
In Session The defense requests to able to mention in its closing that Harry Smith looked repeatedly at the State’s table during his testimony. Judge: “The State’s request that the defense be restricted from mentioning that is denied.”
Click to expand...

:denied:

Jackson44 said:
In Session Finally, Judge Burmila also rejects a State request that the defense be precluded from arguing that hearsay evidence is lesser evidence. “Are we done with the jury instructions?” “Yes.”
Click to expand...

:denied:

Seems like the judge was pretty fair to both sides on the jury instruction requests as a whole. What do you guys think?
 
Jackson44 said:
No wonder why I was waiting:
In Session The State objects to the next proposed defense instruction, saying it’s irrelevant. Brodsky responds: “This goes to correct a misstatement of the law that Mr. Smith gave from the stand.” Judge: “I will say that when Mr. Smith made this statement in front of the jury about concealing a homicidal death . . . at the time, you did not cross-examine him any further when he made the statement. Is that correct?” Brodsky: “I only cross-examined him on his prior statements that it was extortion.” Judge; “So you had an opportunity to cross-examine him on whether the information he was giving the jury was incorrect?” Brodsky: “I was a bit taken by surprise.” Judge: “How does the fact that you were surprised and did not cross-examine him on this issue, how does a jury instruction cure that?” Brodsky: “Because it would advise the jurors that the law he told them was wrong. They could use that in evaluating the weight and credibility to give his testimony.” Greenberg: “The jury should be advised that it was an incorrect statement of the law. To do otherwise is to leave the jurors with an incorrect understanding of the law.” Griffin: “The correct understanding of the law they need to have is the law of this case.” Judge: “You’re not disputing that what he [Smith] said was wrong?” Griffin: “All Mr. Smith was doing was clarifying that he was not talking to her about extortion.” Judge: “But Mr. Smith says he was advising her about a crime that she could not have committed.” Griffin: “This is not something that should be included in a jury instruction; it should have been addressed at the time that Mr. Smith was testifying.” Judge: “I believe everybody will believe that what she told him did not constitute the crime of concealing a homicidal death . . . that’s a separate issue from whether or not a special instruction is curative. What Ms. Griffin said is correct; if you abandon that line of questioning, I don’t know if you can come back and ask for a jury instruction later.” Greenberg: “The fact is that he was wrong, and it is the Court’s obligation to advise the jury on the law, not a witness’ obligation . . . it would be unjust to have the jury have an incorrect understanding of the law simply because maybe something should have been said or done earlier.” Judge: “You [the defense] called him . . . you called this witness . . . there’s nothing I can see that the State did to augment or embellish Mr. Smith’s testimony. The defendant’s proposed instruction is denied . . . there was no request for a sidebar, no request that the Court correct the information. So the relief the defendant seeks in the form of a jury instruction is denied.”
Click to expand...

Sorry. Even my dog is :what: :floorlaugh: :what: :floorlaugh: at this one.
 
Attorney Greenberg renews his motion for a directed verdict in this case.
 
In Session
“Now you’ve have to consider the defense case . . . we are still at a point in this case where we have no evidence that Mr. Peterson went into that house this weekend. Harry Smith said Stacy Peterson wanted to know if she could use the fac
t that Drew killed Kathy as leverage in the divorce. There are no facts to back that statement up, so that statement by itself is no evidence in itself. It means nothing. Then you have very prominent experts from both sides. Dr. Case only believes something if she wrote it . . . how can you give any weight to her opinion? And then they recalled her yesterday, and you go to observe her demeanor on the stand, her combativeness. She was defensive, to say the least. We had Dr. Baden, a very nice man, very personable . . . but, again, he didn’t tell you how Ms. Savio died. I still sit here and go, ‘How did this person die?’ They have not shown any evidence that Mr. Peterson broke into the house, was let into the house, was in the house that night. They have not put him in the house . . . they have not had a witness who can tell you he went to that house that night, and there’s not evidence from which you can infer it . . . the State says that he staged a crime scene to make it look like an accident, something that no one ever said. They have to say that, because they don’t want to accept it’s an accident. If he had staged the scene, then how did he get the scene wrong? He’s such a mastermind that he’s sitting there indicted for murder? . . . they have not shown one piece of evidence that was missed . . . was she hit over the head with a candlestick? Hit over the head with a billy club? A gun? There’s no defensive wounds on her, nothing under her fingernails. Her best friend said if she was attacked, she would have fought back . . . there’s nothing on Mr. Peterson, no mark on Mr. Peterson at all. There’s no confession. There’s just no evidence at all. If there is not sufficient evidence, then our motion should be granted . . . they may want to believe this, but the fact is that nothing changed from 2004 until the time this indictment was brought in 2009 except that two doctors decided in their opinion it was a homicide instead of an accident. The only other thing that changed was that Stacy was gone.”
 
In Session Prosecutor Koch responds to the defense motion. “Harry Smith puts Mr. Peterson in the house . . . it corroborates Neil Schori’s statement about when Mr. Peterson came home that night . . . you heard the clavicle injury could have been caused by being pushed down on a hard surface . . . the circumstantial evidence, all the evidence taken together, could convince a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty . . . the prior bad acts on the intent, the motive and intent . . . ‘I will kill you,’ those statements that came in . . . the expert testimony from Dr. Case; it’s for the jury to decide the credibility of these witnesses . . . there is sufficient evidence for this case to go to the jury, and we ask that you deny the motion for a directed finding.”
 
Cubby said:
So, the 3 <modsnip> who are hammering it up for the camera's non stop are complaining about what has been leaked to the media? This defense team has more temper tantrums than all the 3 yr olds in Will County combined. For a group that instigates and then cries foul, they've done it endlessly throught the trial and it has not gone unnoticed.


on an OT note, anyone interested in seeing how Brodsky will be ostracized by his profession after the trial is over? I have the sinking feeling that is exactly what is going to happen after that cliff dive he took putting Smith on the stand.
Click to expand...

So quick they were to point out Prosecutions mistakes. And yes mistakes they did make. LOL That was the biggest blunder of all (Smith) and not even take the opportunity to do some damage control with the witness??? Will be most interesting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 268 more.
Total: 4,297 (members: 269, guests: 4,028)

Online statistics

Members online
269
Guests online
4,028
Total visitors
4,297
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,552
Messages
17,954,700
Members
228,531
Latest member
OwlEyes
Back
Top