Drew Peterson Trial

[Harry Chappas]

i hope some day Stacy pops up somewhere so it is no longer circumstantial

 

He was convicted of the wife they found in the bathtub I believe.

[Steve9347]

He was convicted of the wife they found in the bathtub I believe.

You mean the wife they a- never proved was murdered and b-certainly didn't prove Drew murdered?

 

This is actually quite terrifying. Do I believe Drew Peterson is a bad dude who probably killed some wives? Sure. Was there indisputable evidence to this fact? Absolutely not. The world changed a bit for the worse today, but I guess that's what appeals are for, right?

 

Seriously, there was nowhere near any amount of evidence to prove Drew Peterson murdered anyone.

[flavum]

Nick Savio: "This is better than the White Sox winning the World Series".

 

Is that a little weird to say?

[clyons]

You mean the wife they a- never proved was murdered and b-certainly didn't prove Drew murdered?

 

This is actually quite terrifying. Do I believe Drew Peterson is a bad dude who probably killed some wives? Sure. Was there indisputable evidence to this fact? Absolutely not. The world changed a bit for the worse today, but I guess that's what appeals are for, right?

 

Seriously, there was nowhere near any amount of evidence to prove Drew Peterson murdered anyone.

 

These are my feelings exactly.

 

Among many things that bother me about this entire case, it seems that the prosecution had to be scolded over and over again for violating court orders and alluding to inadmissable facts during the trial.

 

Even if justice was done in one sense, it was achieved in a manner that was suspect in a lot of ways. Hell, the jury had to ask the judge what "unanimous" met. That alone is scary.

[southsider2k5]

Nick Savio: "This is better than the White Sox winning the World Series".

 

Is that a little weird to say?

 

Yeah, that was incredibly stupid.

[SoxFan562004]

You mean the wife they a- never proved was murdered and b-certainly didn't prove Drew murdered?

 

This is actually quite terrifying. Do I believe Drew Peterson is a bad dude who probably killed some wives? Sure. Was there indisputable evidence to this fact? Absolutely not. The world changed a bit for the worse today, but I guess that's what appeals are for, right?

 

Seriously, there was nowhere near any amount of evidence to prove Drew Peterson murdered anyone.

I didn't follow it as closely as I would have liked to due to being busy as hell, but yeah, I tend to agree with this. I just don't think they had anywhere near enough for a murder conviction.

 

We'll see what happens with the appeal, that could be interesting.

[southsider2k5]

I didn't follow it as closely as I would have liked to due to being busy as hell, but yeah, I tend to agree with this. I just don't think they had anywhere near enough for a murder conviction.

 

We'll see what happens with the appeal, that could be interesting.

 

I'm still shocked they found him guilty, and I can't see it standing up under appeal.

[Kyyle23]

He was convicted of the wife they found in the bathtub I believe.

 

I know, I want them to find Stacy so that he is in jail for a proven murder, not because of circumstantial hearsay evidence

[SoxFan562004]

I'm still shocked they found him guilty, and I can't see it standing up under appeal.

I'm actually and unfortunately not shocked he was found guilty. This is the Nancy Grace-ification of our legal system. He was guilty before the trial even started. The 12 jurors weren't going back to their jobs, family and friends after letting him go.

 

I made a guess last night in talking to friends that he would be found guilty on this, even though I don't think there's anywhere near enough evidence to justify it, but get overturned on appeal. I would have to do some research on what exactly got in that was clearly made off-limits pre-trial and see what appeals court have thrown out in the past, but I'll stand by that for now.

[Soxbadger]

All of my comments are throwaway on this issue because I dont know any of the evidence.

 

That being said if they are going to attack the verdict I doubt it will be based on how much evidence there was. In order for the appellate court to overturn merely on evidence (as opposed to law) the standard is manifest weight of the evidence. Which basically means unless no one could have found Peterson guilty the verdict stands.

 

If they appeal based on law, its de novo (the court can look at anything), so the standard is much lower.

 

The appeal is going to be rough regardless, a lot of criminals who have been wrongfully convicted couldnt even win. It took exculpatory evidence to finally get them free.

 

And this wasnt a direct response to anyone, more just a comment on the potential appeal process, as I know some of you fully well understand it and dont need me to tell you the standards of review.

Edited September 6, 2012 by Soxbadger

[Kyyle23]

All of my comments are throwaway on this issue because I dont know any of the evidence.

 

That being said if they are going to attack the verdict I doubt it will be based on how much evidence there was. In order for the appellate court to overturn merely on evidence (as opposed to law) the standard is manifest weight of the evidence. Which basically means unless no one could have found Peterson guilty the verdict stands.

 

If they appeal based on law, its de novo (the court can look at anything), so the standard is much lower.

 

The appeal is going to be rough regardless, a lot of criminals who have been wrongfully convicted couldnt even win. It took exculpatory evidence to finally get them free.

 

And this wasnt a direct response to anyone, more just a comment on the potential appeal process, as I know some of you fully well understand it and dont need me to tell you the standards of review.

 

Im surprised you dont think this will get flipped. Im also kind of surprised you seemingly arent mad at the guilty verdict with the hearsay evidence presented

[greg775]

I'm just glad he has to sit in prison another year at least while the appeal is run. This is like OJ. We all know the bastard did it. Let him stew in prison til he gets off on the lack of evidence in the appeal.

[Soxbadger]

Im surprised you dont think this will get flipped. Im also kind of surprised you seemingly arent mad at the guilty verdict with the hearsay evidence presented

 

I cant get mad about something I dont know. Without actually knowing what happened, it would just be a knee jerk reaction. Hearsay is arguably one of the most difficult aspects of evidence, so I really dont know whether or not it was a good ruling or a bad ruling. The hearsay evidence is something that could work on appeal as that would be a question of law.

 

I have no idea whether it will get reversed. What I do know is that there are many people wrongfully convicted every year, and very few of them get it overturned on appeal.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

The hearsay evidence was a joke and absolutely should be overturned on appeal. This thing needs to be retried. It's a crime against a criminal (i think it's clear he's guilty...too much funny business in that bathroom from what I read for it to be an accident) that someone like a shrink could testify about what a dead client said without any chance to cross. An excited utterance? Sure, I buy that. An offhanded remark that may or may not have been a joke or completely fabricated? No way.

[Soxbadger]

Did they give any rationale why that would be an exception?

 

The only thing I can hypothetically think of is that they somehow argued that wasnt for the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore it was outside of hearsay to begin with.

 

But who knows, without seeing the transcript its hard to tell, especially since I didnt follow the case at all.

[StrangeSox]

I'm actually and unfortunately not shocked he was found guilty. This is the Nancy Grace-ification of our legal system. He was guilty before the trial even started. The 12 jurors weren't going back to their jobs, family and friends after letting him go.

 

Casey Anthony is a counterpoint to that. Nancy Grace didn't shut up about it for two years, but she was still found not guilty.

[Soxbadger]

If youre interested this article has some information about appeal difficulties.

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,4196697.story

[clyons]

Did they give any rationale why that would be an exception?

 

The only thing I can hypothetically think of is that they somehow argued that wasnt for the truth of the matter asserted, and therefore it was outside of hearsay to begin with.

 

But who knows, without seeing the transcript its hard to tell, especially since I didnt follow the case at all.

 

Remember that Illinois changed its rules of evidence in 2008 specifically in response to the Drew Peterson case. "Drew's Law" created brand new hearsay exceptions basically crafted for use against him.

 

The exception:

 

http://www.lawserver.com/law/state/illinoi...ilcs_5_115-10-6

 

Examples of reported statements that came in at trial under the new exception:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/exa...8849_story.html

 

 

“’I could kill you and make it look like an accident.’”

 

— The words of Drew Peterson to Savio as he put a knife to her throat, according to Savio friend Kristin Anderson.

 

___

 

“She said that Drew told her he was going to kill her, she was not going to make it to the divorce settlement, she would not get his pension or his children.”

 

— Anna Doman testifying about what Savio, her sister, told her six weeks before she was found dead.

 

___

 

“’Why don’t you just die?’”

 

— The words of Drew Peterson after he broke into Savio’s house, grabbed her by the throat and pinned her down a year before she was found dead, according to Savio friend, Mary Parks.

 

___

 

“Kathy told me that her husband ... had told her that he could kill her and make her disappear.”

 

— Mary Parks testifying about what Savio said Drew Peterson told her.

 

___

 

“She wanted to know if the fact that he killed Kathy (Savio) could be used against him.”

 

— Divorce attorney Harry Smith testifying about a conversation with Stacy Peterson days before she disappeared in 2007. She told him she was convinced Drew Peterson killed Savio three years earlier.

 

 

Edited September 7, 2012 by PlaySumFnJurny

[Y2HH]

I don't like that he was convinced by hearsay evidence...at all. No matter how much I believe this guy is a slime bucket, it sets a terrible precedent.

[Jenksismyhero]

Yeah I was gonna say, they passed legislation in the middle of the case to allow it. But still, I don't see how that's constitutional. Here's my big problem:

 

(a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant in violation of clauses (a)(1) and (a)(2) of Section 9-1 of the Criminal Code of 1961 intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.

 

Whether someone kills someone else is the whole point of the case! How can that just be assumed to be true?

 

I mean at the end of the day Peterson's attorneys already took this up to the IL Supreme Court, so i'm sure the appeal will be on other grounds, but still. Total lack of due process here IMO. There is simply no way of knowing whether she was joking or just pissed off at her husband and wanted to get back at him by talking bad about him. Just because she's an alleged murder victim shouldn't suddenly change the rules of evidence.

 

[Soxbadger]

Okay so this is getting really odd:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,7992995.story

 

Lawyers posting facebook attacks amongst co-counsel?

 

If Peterson is really that clever, could this be all to set up the ineffective counsel argument against Brodsky and hope that is grounds for a re-trial?

 

Just strange.

[farmteam]

Okay so this is getting really odd:

 

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/c...0,7992995.story

 

Lawyers posting facebook attacks amongst co-counsel?

 

If Peterson is really that clever, could this be all to set up the ineffective counsel argument against Brodsky and hope that is grounds for a re-trial?

 

Just strange.

How high is standard for ineffective counsel? I know a 6th amendment right-to-counsel claim is really tough to succeed in.

 

[southsider2k5]

It is only fitting that Peterson got a team that is big of media whores as he is, for his representation.