Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

[katydid23]

Maybe a mistrial is the best way to go for the state too. I think starting over would be helpful.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

Where did the Judge go? WTH? The defence asks for a mistrial and he leaves the bench? :what:

Well, he's probably in his chambers, looking at case law to see if this warrants a mistrial. Judges don't like to call mistrials, and will try remedial measures if they can to save the case.

 

[Madeleine74]

This is getting very interesting. Why would DP turn "white" upon hearing about a bullet in someone else's driveway? Unless he left it, that is. I say DP is not a good poker player! And the bullet was sitting up? Yeah, that's so not random.

 

[~n/t~]

1m In Session ‏@InSession
RT @facsmiley: Pontarelli testified about .38 bullet intimidation from #drewpeterson at hearsay hearings 2 years ago. http://wp.me/p93nv-1db

 

[Lera213]

wonder if he turned white because maybe he thinks that the bullet is still around and ballistic's can verify it.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge Burmila is back on the bench. Greenberg: “On behalf of Mr. Peterson, we’re asking for a mistrial…with jeopardy attached…it was mentioned at the prior hearsay hearing, a question was asked, there was an objection, there was no follow-up. There’s no way of showing that Mr. Peterson did this///this is not negligence, inadvertence, or overzealous advocacy; this is intentionally bringing before the jury evidence the court had excluded…evidence that everyone knows is improper in a criminal trial. It’s intentional…the only reasonable sanction is for you to find a mistrial with prejudice, and that’s what we’re asking for.”

 

[audie]

IS just said that DP was stunned after the witness said that about the bullet in his driveway.

Quite the actor IMO.

 

[Coldpizza]

There's a chance he could walk on this one. A slim chance but a chance.

 

[katydid23]

'with prejudice..' Does that mean with no future trial ?????????

 

[Lera213]

how can they prove it was intentionally done?

 

[Lera213]

'with prejudice..' Does that mean with no future trial ?????????

YEP double jeopardy meaning he can never get a fair trial so cannot be retried.

 

[Shelby1]

According to Beth K. on IS the Defense asked for mistrial with prejudice meaning DP would never be tried for this murder again.

PLEASE don't let this happen.

 

[katydid23]

OMG. This cannot happen.

 

[outofstatelawyer]

Personally, I don't think this was egregious enough to grant a mistrial, and certainly not warranting a dismissal with prejudice.

 

[Cappuccino]

I hope they do declare a mistrial without prejudice, so he CAN be tried again. This prosecution has messed up, they'd be better off starting over with a new jury.

 

[~n/t~]

2 minutes ago

In Session Prosecutor Kathy Patton responds. “To say that we were somehow trying to lead the jury…clearly, we were not ever going to suggest to this jury that that door was cored that evening. So I don’t know how you can lump that in with this. We wish to show her [Savio’s] fear, that’s why she had the door done. And counsel brings up the hit man…we are preparing a motion; we believe we had good reason to bring that evidence into this case. We certainly have a good argument to make to get that evidence in. In regard to what happened this morning, I was just asking questions about what happened…we did not deliberately try to put that in. But counsel continues to impress upon the jury how close these people [Peterson and Pontarelli] were, how he held nothing against him…at the end of the day, you’d think they were so close…this witness told them in this report that he was intimidated by the defendant, because of this incident that occurred. He said he had a conversation with Drew, and he told him he didn’t change the lock. ‘I got your message last night’…he would not have been intimidated if he completely trusted Drew, if he had this wonderful relationship with him. But because he did not, the first thing that came to his mind was that it was Drew. That’s how he responded to something that he saw.”

 

[~n/t~]

about a minute ago

In Session Patton denies that “a bell has been rung that can’t be un-rung.” She says that an instruction from the judge to the jury can take care of this situation. “We would ask the Court find this is not reason for a mistrial in this case, that this can be cured either by allowing the State to finish the examination, to show that this witness did see something and thought Drew did it, even though he had no idea if he did. Or the Court can ask the jury to disregard that statement; it was in no way intended for any other reason than to rehabilitate this witness and his relationship with the defendant.”

 

[CarolinaMoon]

The witness should have been reminded NOT to mention the bullet as it was declared too prejudicial at a previous hearing. This is the second time the prosecution has had this happen. Once, in the opening with the mention of $25,000 hit man and this. Sloppy, sloppy prosecution.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg responds to Patton’s comments. “What is the relevancy of the scratches around the door? If the State knew it was there since 2003, why are they bringing it up? Had Mr. Lopez not asked that one question, this jury would be back there thinking she was locked in that bedroom and someone came in…that hole in the door had absolutely nothing to do with this case. They want to benefit from this…there’s been rulings; they shouldn’t be able to benefit by goading us into asking for a mistrial.”

In Session Greenberg repeats that the State has “absolutely no evidence” that any bullet in Tom Pontarelli’s driveway was placed there by Drew Peterson. “We’re asking for a mistrial with prejudice, that they not be allowed to benefit from their own actions…it’s absurd, and we’re asking for a mistrial.” Patton responds, insists “there is no intent here.”

 

[Shelby1]

anyone remember how old DP is now?

Wiki says he was born January 5, 1954, so 58.