Illinois Is Getting Fatter
Kuma's Pats Itself On Back With Block Party
Mayor Blames Violent Holiday Weekend On Booze, Heat
Chicagoan Involved In Mount Rushmore Ruckus
Gun charges against Drew Peterson stemming from a semi-automatic weapon police seized were dismissed this afternoon after prosecutors refused to cooperate with a judge's ruling. The judge had ruled that prosecutors had to turn over to the defense all documents they compiled before they arrested Peterson on the gun charge. Attorneys for Bolingbrook's Most Notorious Ex-Husband™ claim the charge was a case of vindictiveness. So it looks like we will be prevented from seeing the awesomeness of John Travolta testifying on behalf of Drew.
Not that it was all good news for Peterson today. The law allowing hearsay to be admitted in murder trials, dubbed "The Drew Peterson Law" was passed last night by the Illinois House after previously being passed by the Senate.
Will County State's Atty. James Glasgow, who's sought the law for months, said, "This is a bill that will help prosecutors across the state to utilize the statements made by murder victims . . . that previously would have died with them."Essentially, Drew's "current" wife - for now, anyway - Stacy apparently told her priest that Drew admitted to her that he killed wife #3, Kathleen Savio. This is now potentially admissible in a court of law. As much as we loathe Drew, we this new law seems...we don't know...dangerous and illegal? Either way, Drew has yet to be charged with anything and is still free man as of today, so...yeah.Glasgow declined to comment on whether the law directly pertains to the Peterson case, but did say that he would "use it aggressively wherever it applies."
The House voted 109-0 on the bill, which allows hearsay evidence into court in first-degree murder cases if the prosecution can prove to the judge at a pretrial hearing that there is a preponderance of evidence the defendant killed a witness to prevent his or her testimony. The House vote followed Senate approval a week before.
add to digg
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
Yeah, not to get too legal-ish here, but I really don't see this law surviving a constitutional challenge. It raises pretty significant 6th Amendment confrontation clause issues, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in recent years, has been very strict in enforcing those confrontation rights.
No fucking way will this law pass a constitutional review. You have the right to CONFRONT YOUR ACCUSER. Also: is this not an "ex post facto" law? How can they make a law apply retroactively?
Fucking lemmings in the HoR.
Jennyblur - In this specific case, the Governor said the law would go into effect as soon as the HOR passed it. Charges have yet to be brought against Drew, so I suppose that's how they'll play it, though it seems to me that it violates the "rules of evidence", no? So...still pretty unconstitutional.
This is neither here nor there, but as much as I want this scum to face the music, I just don't see him fessing up to anyone that he murdered wife #3.
Ingrid:
That's the point. Apparently Drew told now-missing Stacey that he murdered wife #3. Stacey then told her priest this info. Priest can't testify under current rules of evidence. Now, presumably, he could.
This is bullshit.