Chicagoist's Top Stories Of 2012: The Drew Peterson Trial

By Chuck Sudo in News on Dec 18, 2012 8:40PM

Here’s how Illinois’ so-called “hearsay law” works: If someone tells you “I heard Chuck Sudo once shot a man in Reno just to watch him die” and that person turns up dead the next day, that statement may be used against me in a trial. it's an asinine notion that shouldn't hold up in a court of law, right?

Yet it’s that form of testimony that ultimately convicted Drew Peterson for the murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio. Savio has been dead since 2004. Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy went missing five years ago. But no concrete evidence has been unearthed to implicate Peterson to Savio's death or Stacy Peterson's disappearance, no matter how much we believe the man is guilty, the noxious nature of his personality and certain members of his legal team or how many so-bad-it’s-good made-for-tv movies starring Rob Lowe are made.

So when the Third Appellate Court of Appeals allowed hearsay evidence to be used in Peterson’s trial and Peterson’s legal team dropped their client’s appeal and opted for a speedy trial, we had no idea it would set the stage for a whirlwind series of events that would lead to him actually being convicted, thanks to the very law passed by the state Legislature with Peterson in mind.

Everyone interviewed in connection with the trial—jurors, prosecutors and members of Peterson’s own legal team—believe testimony from Kathleen Savio’s divorce attorney Harry Smith and Neil Schori, the pastor of Stacy Peterson, sealed a conviction vote by a jury that made headlines for their wardrobe coordination. Smith's testimony—he said Stacy Peterson told him D-Pete killed Savio—was particularly damning. Juror Ron Supalo told the Chicago Sun-Times he would have voted to acquit if not for the hearsay evidence and so would his fellow jurors.

Peterson’s conviction also revealed the cracks in the armor of his legal team, led by the colorful Joel Brodsky. It was Brodsky who decided to call Smith to the stand to testify over the objections of his fellow attorneys and the disbelief of legal experts. It’s reasonable to conclude that decision was the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. After the trial Peterson’s defense team imploded and sniped at each other as hard as they did with Will County prosecutors and the media. Brodsky and co-counsel Seven Greenberg laid blame for the loss at each others' feet for weeks. Then Brodsky abruptly resigned from representing Peterson in October. On Tuesday Brodsky took swipes at Greenberg in a motion to remove himself as Peterson's defense attorney in the civil lawsuit filed by Savio's family, calling Greenberg "mentally ill."

The OJ Simpson dream team Brodsky, Greenberg et al. were not.

More than all of that that, it's the hearsay evidence that concerns us most. It was Springfield's way of saying "we don't like this guy, either and he deserves to face justice" and we don't believe for a second the conviction will hold up on appeal. But we've been surprised by Illinois' judiciary before. All of this is why the Drew Peterson Trial is one of Chicagoist's top stories of 2012.