In Session The prosecution says that it has, so the first of the two instructions will be added to the packet. Attorney Joel Brodsky then addresses the second proposed instruction, which involves "dissolution of marriage." "To a lay jury, it may seem unwieldy . . . so I slightly modified it, added four or five words to make it clearer." This involves the fact that the defendant and Kathleen Savio had a bifurcated divorce, with the property settlement to follow. Prosecutor Colleen Griffin, however, disagrees with the wording. "We believe the jury instruction as proposed by the defendant would draw attention to facts not in evidence . . . I believe it would allow the defendant to argue to the jury that Drew Peterson did not have any motive or intent to kill his wife . . . we believe the instruction is inappropriate." Judge Burmila: "I find the State's argument to be persuasive. It will not be given."
CLOSING ARGUMENTS (Tues 09/04/2012)
- Thread starter Kimster
- Start date
- Status
In Session The order of the jury instruction is now being finalized. The defense asks the judge to order the spectators in the gallery to show no displays of approval or disapproval during the closing arguments. The prosecution takes no position on this matter. Judge: "One can only assume the people in the gallery understanding they're in a courtroom… I don't think I need to make any further admonitions than that."
WindyCityGirl
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 0
I will pitch in whenever I can! 
In Session Attorney Steve Greenberg addresses the judge, says that the State should not be allowed to argue during its summation that the defendant did not want Kathleen Savio to gain anything once the divorced settlement was completed. Prosecutor Chris Koch disagrees, saying such evidence was indeed introduced during the trial. Judge: "The parties understand they can draw inferences from the evidence introduced during the trial . . . if they make an argument that the other party doesn't agree with, you're certainly free to object, and we'll deal with it at that time."
WindyCityGirl
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 0
In Session Attorney Steve Greenberg addresses the judge, says that the State should not be allowed to argue during its summation that the defendant did not want Kathleen Savio to gain anything once the divorced settlement was completed. Prosecutor Chris Koch disagrees, saying such evidence was indeed introduced during the trial. Judge: "The parties understand they can draw inferences from the evidence introduced during the trial . . . if they make an argument that the other party doesn't agree with, you're certainly free to object, and we'll deal with it at that time."
LambChop
Former Member
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2008
- Messages
- 21,160
- Reaction score
- 29
I guess it means today they are serious about what they are about to do. jmo
WindyCityGirl
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 0
Tweet
In Session ‏@InSession
Judge Burmila and the attorneys have finalized the jury instructions and what the State can say in its closing arguments. #DrewPeterson
In Session ‏@InSession
Judge Burmila and the attorneys have finalized the jury instructions and what the State can say in its closing arguments. #DrewPeterson
In Session The jurors are now in the courtroom. Judge Burmila: "Good morning, everyone. We've reached the point of closing arguments . . . the parties now have an opportunity to make inferences from the evidence that was produced in this case . . . the State will have two opportunities to address you, because they have the burden of proof."
WindyCityGirl
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2012
- Messages
- 498
- Reaction score
- 0
The jury is now in the courtroom and Chris Koch is presenting the State's closing argument. #DrewPeterson
Prosecutor Chris Koch begins the prosecution's closing statement: "'I'm going to kill you' . . . that is the statement the defendant told Kathleen Savio just weeks before her death. And on Feb. 29, 2004, that became a reality, as she lay dead in that bathtub at the hands of Drew Peterson . . . you bring with you your common sense, and your life experiences . . . I ask you to keep in mind common sense, common sense. Because it is clear that this man murdered Kathleen Savio."
Livingthedream
New Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2012
- Messages
- 219
- Reaction score
- 1
Key words: Common sense.
sorry but "LOL" state rest. :floorlaugh:
In Session ‎"There are two things the State has to prove, and that we have proved beyond a reasonable doubt for you to find the defendant guilty: that he performed the acts that killed Kathleen Savio, and that when he did so he knew that his acts would cause death or great bodily harm to Kathleen Savio. The evidence in this case shows we did prove it, that he did commit this act, and that he did cause the death of Kathleen Savio. What was the cause of the death of Kathleen Savio? That's not really in dispute . . . the cause was drowning; everyone has agreed that the cause was drowning . . . so the issue becomes did she drown at the hands of the defendant? The answer to that is yes."
- Status