* From November of 2009…
The House today voted 109-0 to put into law a bill that could affect a potential prosecution against former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson in the cases of either one of his last two wives.
The bill, which is backed by the Will County state’s attorney’s office, would allow a judge to admit hearsay evidence into court for first-degree murder cases if the prosecution could prove that the defendant killed a witness to prevent testimony.
The House vote followed Senate approval a week before. Their votes meant lawmakers accepted changes proposed by Gov. Rod Blagojevich that allowed the law to become effective as soon as the House approved the measure.
* But by July of the next year, Peterson’s prosecutor was asking an appellate court to dump the new law…
Saddled with a botched police investigation, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow pushed for a state law that would allow prosecutors to use hearsay statements against Drew Peterson at trial.
Dubbed Drew’s Law by legal experts and legislators, Glasgow hailed the bill’s passage as a way of letting Peterson’s third and fourth wives speak from the grave.
But now in an ironic move to convict Peterson, Glasgow finds himself fighting the law he helped create.
On the eve of Peterson’s much-anticipated murder trial, Glasgow delayed the case Thursday by appealing a ruling on the admissibility of some hearsay evidence. He argues that the judge’s decision — made under the guidelines established by Drew’s Law — should have adhered instead to less-restrictive common law.
* The appellate court sided with the prosecutor…
But in winning his appeal, Glasgow had to ask the court to disregard the law he helped create in favor of the state’s common law, which doesn’t include the reliability requirement, a fact not lost on the appellate judges.
“This change in the State’s position is puzzling,” Judge William Holdridge wrote in the appellate court’s decision.
“If the legislature intended to facilitate the successful prosecution of criminal defendants who intentionally prevent witnesses from testifying (as the statute’s legislative history suggests), it is unclear why it passed a statute that imposed restrictions on prosecutors that are not found in the common law,” Holdridge wrote. “Regardless, after passing a more restrictive statute, one would expect the State either to enforce the statute as written or act to repeal the statute, not urge the courts to ignore it.”
And Holdridge wasn’t the only one to find Glasgow’s change in course puzzling.
“There’s irony, foremost,” said Harold J. Krent, the dean of IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, who noted that Glasgow was “actually potentially undercutting the power of prosecutors” when he passed his new law.
“The common law’s power was broader,” Krent said.
* The appellate ruling was based on an Illinois Supreme Court opinion issued after “Drew’s Law” was passed by the General Assembly…
Glasgow’s spokesman, Charles B. Pelkie, pointed out that the new law was put together and passed before the state supreme court rejected an appeal by Naperville murderer Eric Hanson, who shot his mother and father in the head and bludgeoned to death his sister and brother-in-law.
Hanson appealed his conviction on the grounds that hearsay cannot be used as evidence under the common law. The state supreme court denied this, upholding Hanson’s conviction and giving Glasgow the grounds for his appeal of Judge White’s ruling.
* And that appellate court ruling led directly to Peterson’s conviction yesterday…
In the end, it was Stacy Peterson who helped convict Drew Peterson of murder.
Stacy Peterson, Drew Peterson’s fourth wife, is missing. Her family believes she’s dead and blames her husband.
But statements she made to two men before she disappeared were cited by a juror Thursday as being crucial in bringing down the brash, silver-haired former Bolingbrook cop.
It was the hearsay evidence against Peterson, the juror said, that convinced him and other jurors to convict Peterson of murder on Thursday in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
“Without hearsay evidence would I have found him not guilty? Yes. A lot of the jurors said that, too,” said Ron Supalo, a juror from Bolingbrook. “They were either on the fence or they thought he was innocent. And then with those two hearsay witnesses, bam.”
* A couple of examples of the hearsay evidence used against Peterson…
“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.
Discuss.
LIVE session coverage...
- Ron Burgundy - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:09 am:
I think Drew Peterson is a killer. However, I am troubled by the machinations and use of hearsay to convict him, and was surprised that reasonable doubt was not found here. Chances of success on appeal will still be slim, but may be better than most given all the hearsay issues and prosecutorial line-crossing which resulted in numerous instances of testimony being stricken and mistrial motions. That said, Mr. Peterson’s attorneys have to take the full responsibility for Mr. Smith’s hearsay statements from Stacy getting before the jury. They called him, they swung that door wide open, and will be hard pressed to complain about that statement getting in now. Right result here, but I am a bit troubled by the process.
- Esteban - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:10 am:
It’s sad to think that anyone could be convicted on the basis of what someone else said the person
was capable of doing.
- DeKalb Dragon - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:11 am:
Thank you for the explanation! It has been frustrating listening to his defense attorneys and various news outlets saying the evidence was let in under the statute and that will be the basis of an appeal. The hearsay evidence was admissible under the common law.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:12 am:
I was watching an out-of-town Fox local newscast this morning. The conservative commentator said he’d normally be bothered by the incompetent prosecutors and the hearsay evidence. But he was so happy that the smirk was wiped off Drew’s obviously guilty face that he didn’t care.
- OneMan - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:20 am:
I think of a line from a movie about Klaus Von Bulow Revseral of Fotrune
Someday it is going to be some guy who does not come across like a jerk, who could not afford good representation who is going to face a politically attractive prosecution.
Opening the hearsay box does not do justice a favor.
- wordslinger - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:21 am:
Try not to get in any trouble in Will County. They roll strangely down there.
- Aaron - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:36 am:
I’ve got to agree with Ron Burgundy on this one. The strange lengths to which Glasgow went to convict Peterson on hearsay is as odious as several other episodes of Will County “justice” including the Kevin Fox case and the Honey Bee Killer incident.
- Loop Lady - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:38 am:
You know, I never thought of Drew and Rod as birds of a feather, until this post. Abuse of power, grandiosity, those smirks…
- Cincinnatus - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:40 am:
Not a stitch of physical evidence yet somehow the verdict feels right.
- Bemused - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:42 am:
Having sat on a jury for a murder trial I am also bothered by this one. What I have seen of this guy on TV does not give me warm fuzzy feelings but trial by media is something else I dislike. It may be the right outcome in this case but I see this going badly for some poor slob down the road.
- Anonymous - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 10:42 am:
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding of hearsay evidence. While there is a general rule against hearsay - because it is often not subject to cross-examination and therefore thought to be unreliable - there are loads of exceptions to the hearsay rule. Each exception ties to some other indicia of reliability. In this case, any instance of admitted hearsay evidence tied to some exception that has developed in the common law on the basis of reliability. So there is nothing wrong, or even unusual, with someone being convicted on the basis of hearsay evidence.
- DOWNSTATE DEM - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:03 am:
There is right and then there is wrong. You’ve got a killer who needs to go, but the law established to do just that, could convict virtually anyone for anything under the right circumstances. Do our legislators ever consider constitutionality in the laws they pass?
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:08 am:
===Do our legislators ever consider constitutionality in the laws they pass? ===
This law has survived so far. It just proved counter-productive because common law was expanded even further by the IL Supremes.
- Anyone Remember? - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:09 am:
Given that government informants who lie may not be revealed as government informants for decades (only within the last month has it been revealed that Eldridge Cleaver and Huey Newton were armed by an FBI informant who gave him the idea, and those weapons were used to kill police officers), that fact combined with the allowing in of hearsay testimony sets a really bad precedent. I shed no tears for Drew Peterson, but the law used to convict him is a really bad one.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:16 am:
===but the law used to convict him is a really bad one. ===
Sigh.
You really need to go back and re-read this post.
- Leave a Light on George - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:39 am:
The crappy police investigation bothers me most. ISP was called in to do a job the locals couldn’t because of conflict of interest issues. I hope the incompetent investigator issues have been addressed.
- D.P. Gumby - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:43 am:
The issue is not just that it was a conviction based on hearsay, but that hearsay and circumstantial evidence has been so typically the type of evidence found in so many wrongful convictions…along w/ the disfavored nature of the defendant. Virtually everyone has said that Peterson is guilty and therefore is satisfied w/ the verdict, but that’s what all the prosecutors have said about the wrongful convictions, too (and many still say even after exonerations). In a existential sense, does this end justify this means?
- Zool - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 11:53 am:
Peterson was convicted - in large part - because Glasgow’s frequent fumbles and missteps were exceeded only by Brodsky’s (not Greenberg or Lopez’s) blunders with Harry Smith and his inability to effectively cross-examine Smith when Smith gave testimony which was inconsistent with his earlier statements. Amazingly, even as the defense was trying to put Smith on the stand and hand Glasgow what he later described as a “gift from God” Glasgow was OBJECTING to Smith’s testimony. So though the prosecutors deserve kudos for doggedly pursuing the case, their courtroom work was subpar, particularly for such a high profile case where substantial resources were used.
- Liz - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:13 pm:
Some of the comments indicate confusion about what happened in this trial and there is a huge amount of misunderstanding in the media. Its important to note that there are a number of exceptions to the rule against hearsay. The particular exception applied in this case was explained in People v. Peterson 2011 IL App (3rd) 100514, which involved the appeal of Judge White’s (original trial judge) ruling on the admissibility of the hearsay statements made by Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson. These hearsay statements were held admissible under the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing, which was recognized by the US Supreme Court 130 years ago. The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Stechly, 225 Ill.2d 246 (2007)adopted the common law doctrine as the law of Illinois and expressly recognized that the doctrine was coextensive with Rule 804(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rule 804(b(6) was adopted in 1997. The Supreme Court adopted the Rules of Evidence in 2010, which codifies the common law exception as Rule 804(b((5). The common law exception as codified in the federal and state rules of evidence do not require a showing of reliability, as the “Drews Law” does. So, since the use of this evidence was approved at the appellate level, it would seem very unlikely that defense arguments about reversible error on this ground would be successful.
- Cowboy Up - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 12:22 pm:
Better question would be what didn’t Rod Blagojevich botch? Blagojevich, Ryan and Peterson are all where they deserve to be. End of story!
- MrJM - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 1:30 pm:
Bottom line: They tried to frame a guilty man.
– MrJM
- Lobo Y Olla - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 2:43 pm:
Hearsay evidence is frequently used in child sex assault cases as well…. Another codified hearsay rule. Statements made by children identifying their abuser is still admissable at trial EVEN IF the child cannot remember the assault at trial. As Liz noted, hearsay evidence is used daily in criminal trials.
- wishbone - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:47 pm:
“Bottom line: They tried to frame a guilty man.”
Priceless, and they succeeded.
- Jim - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:52 pm:
Rich, Thanks for the tutorial. Most instructive.
- amalia - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 3:54 pm:
What Zool said, that is why Drew is in for years, idiot lawyers. also, the description of Kathleen Savio’s injuries was very troubling to me. where was a decent investigation back then? This case feels like the old days, married to a cop, forget about any help on domestic violence issues. one death, perhaps Drew gets by. followed by a missing wife, bye bye Drew.
- What - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:05 pm:
How did Rod Blagojevich almost botch the case? He wanted the law passed right away and passed it. The hearsay law helped convict Drew Peterson. I don’t follow your headline.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:10 pm:
===The hearsay law helped convict Drew Peterson. I don’t follow your headline. ===
Well, you have to actually read the post, dude.
- girlawyer - Friday, Sep 7, 12 @ 4:12 pm:
I was feeling an acute need to explain “forfeiture by wrongdoing” till I got to Liz’s post. Nicely done, Liz. It does seem, though, that a prosecutor should know the law before trying to change the law. Sheesh.