Question of the day
Friday, Aug 22, 2008 - Posted by Rich Miller
* The setup…
Gov. Rod Blagojevich will likely send legislation back to lawmakers that could affect the possible prosecution of former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson after an oversight left out the measure’s effective date, according to the bill’s sponsor.
“The governor’s likely going to do an amendatory veto, and the amendatory veto is going to make it clear that the bill is effective immediately,” said Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi (D- Joliet). “It’s unfortunate that this got left out, but we’re making sure that the bill . . . is corrected.”
The bill, pushed by Will County State’s Atty. James Glasgow, would allow a judge to decide at a pretrial hearing whether hearsay testimony could be admitted into court if the prosecution could prove that the defendant made the witness disappear. The bill would apply only to first-degree murder cases.
But without an effective date written specifically into the bill, the law wouldn’t take effect until July 1, 2009, said Brian Williamsen, a spokesman for the governor’s office. He declined to comment on whether Blagojevich will send the measure back to lawmakers through an amendatory veto, adding that it was still “under consideration.”
Wilhelmi said he hopes the legislature can reconsider the measure in September. Both Wilhelmi and Glasgow are confident the issue will be resolved. [all emphasis added]
* You can find the legislation in question by clicking here.
* More background…
Critics of the proposal argue that it runs counter to the 6th Amendment, which states, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him.”
Last month, however, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that hearsay testimony could be admitted into trial if it is proven that the defendant’s wrongdoing made the witness unavailable to testify.
* Question: Do you think that Gov. Rod Blagojevich ought to call the General Assembly back to town in September to fix this bill? Or should it wait until November? Explain.
- VanillaMan - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 11:27 am:
You mean Blagojevich might have a real reason for calling a special session?
We’re old pros at this now - yes.
- Ghost - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 11:39 am:
No, its improtant but it can wait until Novemeber. No need to rack up extra spending and costs with a special session.
- wordslinger - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 11:40 am:
No. Why a special session? Is there an emergency need? Clean it up at the veto session. That’s what it’s for.
Is this legislation specifically designed for Drew Peterson? And why is the GA so interested, because it’s a television spectacle?
Priorities.
- Esteban - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 11:46 am:
How can you prove that the defendant made the
witness unavailable if the witness can’t be
questioned?
- Anonymous - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 12:00 pm:
This legislation wasn’t even passed until July 10 and was not sent to the Governor until August 8. I am pretty sure that the research staff people in both chambers knew that there was no effective date, and that it would be July next year when the Senate sat on the concurrence of HA1 for so long. If the GA sees no rush, let it be; OR the Governor could do a “Do Right” AV on some other bill that needs immediate attention.
- Hope - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 12:28 pm:
I believe this AV will be done soon , as I think Drew’s days of freedom are less than the total number of his fingers and toes. Have fun Drew.
- David Starrett - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 12:37 pm:
I can use the extra money, but this Special Session stuff is already way-way out of hand. This can (and should) wait.
If we’re going to have a year-’round legislature, then let’s just call it that.
- Black Ivy - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 1:54 pm:
Uhh.YES. This and other pieces of legislation need to be resolved. The people of the state deserve nothing less.
- Capitol View - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 1:56 pm:
If I were the defendant’s attorney, I would argue that this new law should be considered irrelevant to the Peterson case by its enactment after his alleged crime was commited and his subsequent arrest & charging.
Why should rules of evidence be allowed to be retroactive?
- Ghost - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 2:01 pm:
CV, why shouldn’t they? It effects the admissability of evidence in court, not what conduct constitutes a crime.
- DuPage Dave - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 2:02 pm:
The bill is a joke. It is targeting one individual in a very public case, which makes it almost impossible that it would be applied to Peterson, if he is indeed ever prosecuted for anything.
The law’s potential application is for a one-in-a-million situation and it looks, again, like showboating on the part of the Governor. It will have no real impact on the lives citizens of Illinois, so naturally Blago supports it.
The fact that the implementation date was left off the original bill is just another indication of how half-baked everything is with this administration.
- Rich Miller - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 2:09 pm:
DD, the governor didn’t write the bill, so he didn’t leave off the date.
Your RRB hatred is showing right through. Save it for when it’s backed up by facts.
- Law Enforcement - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 3:54 pm:
Sorry DuPage Dave, it ain’t the Blago administration, but the Democrats in the State House that get credit for this after-the-fact crime bill.
- Capitol View - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 4:36 pm:
think about it, Ghost. Suppose that there is a horrible crime committed next week, and only the probable perpetrator’s wife sees it all happen. Should the legislature (governor concurring) be able to revoke the spousal confidentiality provisions that exist only in court rules and applicable statutes, not in the Constitutions?
Where does such court processes manipulation begin and end? How evidence is handled is as primary as categories of offenses.
- Been There - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 5:22 pm:
unless someone saw him push her off a bridge they will never be able to use this law to get Peterson. The 6th amendment would seem to be in play.
- 2ConfusedCrew - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 5:30 pm:
Anyone wonder if Generalismo Blagoof can AV a bill to create a crime for something that has already happened? Better check with Nacy Grace Generalismo
- Anon III - Friday, Aug 22, 08 @ 6:13 pm:
While I will admit this would be a prime opportunity for the governor to lawfully exercise his amendatory veto authority as intended by the constitution, I fail to see the need to spend $60-70K on a special session to address it. Two months isn’t going to make any difference in this case or any other. In fact, waiting until July of next year wouldn’t much matter either. Unless I’m mistaken, there is no statute of limitations in murder cases, so again, why rile people up over something that is not immediately necessary.
Also, there is no guarantee that this law will go unchallenged by civil rights groups. If there is a court challenge, the law could very well be suspended until a judgment is reached. We all know how lengthy a process that can be. I’m not opposed to the idea, but you’re talking about a law that directly challenges the 6th Amendment of the US Constitution. That will raise some eyebrows no matter how well intentioned and widely supported the law may be.
On another note, the varying degrees of disgust the GA holds for the governor would only be amplified by another special session call. Of course, the governor doesn’t seem to care about what the legislature thinks of him, so that’s unfortunately a non-argument. Now, if it was to help the feds move things along in their investigations and hopefully the eventual prosecution of Blago, I might reconsider the urgency
, but the Petersen case doesn’t rise to the occasion of needing to get it done right now IMHO.