Appellate Court Gives D-Pete Legal Win

AP Photo/M. Spencer Green

An Illinois Appellate Court yesterday ruled against Will County prosecutors in their attempts to use hearsay evidence against Drew Peterson in their case against him.

Attorneys for the former Bolingbrook policeman with the mustache that won't quit called for prosecutors to drop charges against D-Pete in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, now that the Appellate Court ruled that they can't use eight statements supposedly linking Peterson to Savio's murder. Peterson's attorney Joel Brodsky said after the ruling, “If there’s insufficient evidence to prosecute, they ought to do the right thing and drop the case."

The controversial hearsay law was passed by the State Legislature in 2008. Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow said of the law at the time, "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." Although all signs seemed to point that the bill was passed with Peterson in mind, Glasgow at the time refused to confirm that he would use the law to enter hearsay evidence in his case against Peterson. Both a Will County judge and the 3rd District Appellate Court in Ottawa held hearings on allowing hearsay evidence in the upcoming trial. Both times, the decisions were favorable to Peterson's case.

After yesterday's ruling, Glasgow said he was considering appealing the decision to the Illinois Supreme Court. If that does happen, Glasgow could find himself in the unenviable position of arguing against the law he helped to write, since Will County Judge Stephen White originally ruled against him in 2010, citing the hearsay law.

Contact the author of this article or email tips@chicagoist.com with further questions, comments or tips.

By Chuck Sudo in News on July 27, 2011 9:14 AM

Comments [rss]

Nicholas

The hearsay law was created specifically to prosecute Drew Peterson and it is blatantly unconstitutional. I'm surprised it took so long to get it pulled. I think he is a guilty scumbag, but unless they come up with some actual evidence, the time he has spent in jail these past 2 years will be the only time he does.

twocee

Amen. Any appellate court in the country is going to throw out any conviction that might be obtained using the hearsay law. And without the hearsay, they simply don't have a case.

Sad to say, but I think he'll get away with murder twice.

chicagoist_tips

The law hasn't been repealed. Both the Will County judge and the Appellate Court have used it to limit the amount of hearsay evidence that can be used. In this case, it's the most damning evidence.

Using the law to limit the amount of hearsay evidence that can be heard probably isn't what Glasgow and others had in mind when they drafted the law. - Chuck

Nicholas

Since the law was drafted specifically for this case, it is the first case to go in front of courts where it can be ruled on. If it goes as far as Illinois Supreme Court, I have no doubt they will find this particular use of hearsay unconstitutional.

ChicagoD

On confrontation grounds? Because all hearsay exceptions are theoretically unconstitutional on the same basis. I am not arguing in favor of the law (I haven't even read it), I am really asking the academic theory question.

slickpoetry

Overall, in the grand scheme of justice and jurisprudence, this is a very good thing.

That it means this ass might skate out of jail is hard to take. But the law was flawed and wrong-headed and should not have been made.