Chicagoist: Gun Charges Against Drew Peterson Dropped, Namesake Law Passes

jennyblur

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 11:39:45 -0600

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.

Ingrid

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:35:16 -0600

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.

Marcus Gilmer

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:19:01 -0600

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.

jennyblur

Fri, 21 Nov 2008 10:10:24 -0600

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.

shoretoplease

Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:12:28 -0600

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.