Drew Peterson's Trial *FIRST WEEK*

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge Burmila has just taken the bench. “Good morning everyone…the matter comes on in regard to a memorandum filed yesterday regarding a double jeopardy issue and a motion for a mistrial. Is someone going to address that?” Attorney Steve Greenberg responds: “We are still seeking a mistrial, a mistrial with prejudice. We don’t want to just simply come back and start over. I think it’s justified, because in the two days we’ve been here, not only have we got these instances like with the bullet yesterday, which I think is just so outrageously prejudicial…it’s as if they’d said to the witness, ‘Hey, do you know Mr. Peterson likes fishing?’ and the witness said ‘One day I got a box with a fish in it, it made me feel intimated.’ ‘Do you have any evidence that he didn’t send the box?’ ‘No, I don’t have any evidence that he didn’t send the box’…it’s undeniably prejudicial. They’re trying to show the fear that Kathleen Savio went through…[but] her fear is not admissible. They’re showing these instances, and they can’t tie it up.”
25 seconds ago

 

[dog.gone.cute]

You mean like putting a bullet in someone's driveway?

I think this is DP to a T. He was probably always an immature prankster and it just grew into taking care of bigger problems. You know, like wives who wouldn't do and say what he told them to do and say.

:seeya:

BBM: Yep ... "DP to a T" !

I was thinking about "the bullet" : this neighborhood was NOT the "hood", where you would probably find bullets laying around the neighborhood, plus more ...

:moo:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg continues to argue for a mistrial with prejudice. “They have no evidence that Drew Peterson made that hole [in Kathleen Savio’s bedroom door]…are they hoping that if we spend 15 minutes talking about this hole in the door maybe it’ll get lost? I know this isn’t the grand jury situation, but I know there are many cases where prosecutors present deceptive evidence before the grand jury. It’s a due process question at that point, whether the prosecutor has mislead the grand jury…they are going to try and continue at this trial to put in evidence that people were fearful of Mr. Peterson…and it has nothing to do with anything. We’re two days into this trial, and they’re doing it. And they’re trying to show her fear, trying to show his [Tom Pontarelli’s] fear…so far, we have a jury that thinks everybody’s afraid of Mr. Peterson. How is that fair to Mr. Peterson? How is that fair at all? They want to make everyone think he’s a bad guy.”

 

[fifteen89]

In Session Judge Burmila has just taken the bench. “Good morning everyone…the matter comes on in regard to a memorandum filed yesterday regarding a double jeopardy issue and a motion for a mistrial. Is someone going to address that?” Attorney Steve Greenberg responds: “We are still seeking a mistrial, a mistrial with prejudice. We don’t want to just simply come back and start over. I think it’s justified, because in the two days we’ve been here, not only have we got these instances like with the bullet yesterday, which I think is just so outrageously prejudicial…it’s as if they’d said to the witness, ‘Hey, do you know Mr. Peterson likes fishing?’ and the witness said ‘One day I got a box with a fish in it, it made me feel intimated.’ ‘Do you have any evidence that he didn’t send the box?’ ‘No, I don’t have any evidence that he didn’t send the box’…it’s undeniably prejudicial. They’re trying to show the fear that Kathleen Savio went through…[but] her fear is not admissible. They’re showing these instances, and they can’t tie it up.”
25 seconds ago

IMO that 'fish' story isn't even close to him finding the bullet in the driveway.

 

[ohiogirl]

I still don't know what is wrong with asking the witness if he felt DP put the bullet there, witness says yes, then the Defense says, do you have any proof, witness says no. Leave the jury to figure out who to believe. Put DP on the stand to deny it. That is always an option. jmo

 

[fifteen89]

In Session Greenberg continues to argue for a mistrial with prejudice. “They have no evidence that Drew Peterson made that hole [in Kathleen Savio’s bedroom door]…are they hoping that if we spend 15 minutes talking about this hole in the door maybe it’ll get lost? I know this isn’t the grand jury situation, but I know there are many cases where prosecutors present deceptive evidence before the grand jury. It’s a due process question at that point, whether the prosecutor has mislead the grand jury…they are going to try and continue at this trial to put in evidence that people were fearful of Mr. Peterson…and it has nothing to do with anything. We’re two days into this trial, and they’re doing it. And they’re trying to show her fear, trying to show his [Tom Pontarelli’s] fear…so far, we have a jury that thinks everybody’s afraid of Mr. Peterson. How is that fair to Mr. Peterson? How is that fair at all? They want to make everyone think he’s a bad guy.”

Sorry, Greenberg. Maybe you should consider that he IS a bad guy.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg continues: “Jurors can’t un-ring the bell. It’s a fallacy. If this were a bench trial, we’d have said go ahead. But it’s a jury trial…and the prosecution wants to show things they know they can’t show. To me, that’s intentional…and they want to start over. That’s why they did it, Judge. We would like a mistrial with prejudice…it’s appalling; we don’t think it’s fair that we have to continue. We don’t think your solution of striking the testimony…I couldn’t find any support for that. I have not seen any basis in a criminal case for striking testimony like this, and it won’t solve the harm that’s occurred…we tried to follow the rules, to bring all of this in pre-trial motions to the Court’s attention…you kept saying, ‘I can’t rule pre-trial, they know the rules.’ Well, they obviously don’t know the rules…this is the time to stop it…we’d like a ruling on the mistrial before we go any further.”

 

[fifteen89]

I still don't know what is wrong with asking the witness if he felt DP put the bullet there, witness says yes, then the Defense says, do you have any proof, witness says no. Leave the jury to figure out who to believe. Put DP on the stand to deny it. That is always an option. jmo

Exactly. Just like any other witness the PT has, the DT can cross-exam and do their best to neutralize their testimony. Then it's up to the jury. Works for me. Apparently not 'fair' enough for the DT.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Prosecutor Chris Koch responds for the State of Illinois: “When he stands here and argues how we’re intentionally misleading the jury, he’s intentionally misleading the ruling from Judge White.” He reads from a transcript reflecting Judge White’s previous ruling regarding prior bad acts. “This testimony the State wants to bring in has not been barred, as Mr. Greenberg has said for the last two days.” To this, Greenberg tries to interject a comment, but Judge Burmila asks him to wait until the prosecutor is finished.
13 seconds ago

 

[Moe]

Please do not let Peterson walk....

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Koch continues. “For them to stand there and say we’re intentionally trying to mislead the jury…we never did that…we never got to that point…I don’t believe their proposition that we’re intentionally trying to mislead them about the hole in the wall has any merit. Regarding the $25,000 [that Peterson allegedly wanted to pay a hit man], we will be filing a motion to admit that...we’ll be filing that motion this afternoon, and asking the Court to revisit that.

 

[~n/t~]

Ouch! WTH?



2m In Session ‏@InSession
#drewpeterson : Judge White on In Session just responded by saying the "bullet" never came up while he was trial judge.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Koch continues to argue against the mistrial request by reading a transcript from a pre-trial hearing held while Judge Stephen White was still in charge of the Peterson case. “For them to sit here and suggest that we’re trying to bring inadmissible evidence in front of the jury, Judge White has not ruled that it’s inadmissible. And in regard to the bullet testimony yesterday, you heard the explanation offered by Miss Patton…right or wrong, Your Honor gave a ruling. And the State accepts that ruling. But to sit here now and say that was intentionally done to goad a mistrial is patently absurd. They can’t have it both ways.”
A few seconds ago

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Koch: “We are two witnesses into this trial. There hasn’t been any testimony to suggest that that [bedroom] door was locked that night, and somebody broke it and broke in. The testimony has been about security. There hasn’t been testimony that she [Savio] was in fear of Mr. Peterson. The purpose of putting this testimony in is because of security. Again, they want to speculate and suggest the State is trying to do something misleading…they want to suggest we’re trying to mislead this jury; that’s absurd, Your Honor.”

In Session Koch: “The State is entitled to a fair trial, just as the defense. That’s what we’re trying to do…to support the position that the defendant is guilty of murdering Kathleen Savio. We’re asking that you deny the motion, and we are ready to proceed today. Thank you.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg responds: “Wow! This is a wow moment, because they’re trying to say that the rules of evidence don’t apply to them. I’m genuinely shocked . . . it’s our fault? We shouldn’t be up here complaining; it’s shameful that we’re up here complaining!”

 

[ohiogirl]

OK, either they are allowed to ask about the bullet or they aren't. If it was never ruled on, how could it be a "mistrialable" offense. This judge should know the answer to this.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg continues to argue for a mistrial. “The rules say they’re supposed to give us notice, 404b, character evidence, in a reasonable amount of time before trial. They have to explain why character evidence should come in. That’s the procedure. They have to give notice of it. We had hearings on it. And now they say, ‘Well, Judge White found that it wasn’t a bad act.’ Judge White said, ‘It’s out as a bad act.’ If it’s not a bad act, what is it? And why aren’t they addressing the Court outside of the presence of the jury…they were trying to sneak that in…they don’t know the rules of evidence, and I’m sorry, they don’t think they have to follow the rules of evidence, ‘that doesn’t apply to us.’ These are not intentional violations of court orders? Then what are they? They’re violations of court orders that they agreed with? You found it was intentional, Judge.”

 

[passionflower]

is this another kangaroo court?

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: “We’re going to be sitting here, ‘objection, objection, objection,’ and the jury’s going to be going on. Very specific rulings from Judge White, ‘It’s not coming in.’ We can’t object until the question comes out; that’s the problem, Judge. I’m starting to question about the bone fides of doing things the right way…I’ve never seen people who think they can ignore the rules of evidence, ignore the rulings of Court, and just go on and do what they want to do. What are the jurors going to think? The questions stick in their minds, just like the answers. They can do it on direct. And that’s what they’re going to do.”

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: “The Court was very specific regarding statements from people about whether Kathleen Savio was afraid…that was the ruling. So I don’t just make this motion based on what they’ve already done; I make it based on what they say they’re going to do also. If you let this trial go on, it’s going to be an unfair trial.”