Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: White backs new school bus seat belt bill
Posted in:
* WGN Ben Bradley…
Drew Peterson is back in the news, but this time it’s because he’s costing you big money.
The cop who was convicted of killing one wife and suspected of murdering another is piling up legal bills for a different crime: plotting to murder the prosecutor who put him behind bars.
The State of Illinois has paid to defend inmates who kill other inmates and spent far less than it did to defend Peterson. And no one was hurt. […]
Peterson’s attorney submitted bills to the state totaling $75,293. The Illinois Department of Corrections says Peterson’s lawyer’s bill was three times the amount corrections spent in all of last year on all of the private attorneys appointed to defend inmates. […]
Add up the lawyer’s bill, investigator’s charges and work done by a forensics lab and you get a grand total of $264,808, all spent to defend a man already in prison.
That story was posted last night.
* This press release just landed in my in-box…
Governor Bruce Rauner announced today his support for a bill that would help ease the burden of the Illinois Department of Corrections (IDOC) and taxpayers by taking into account an inmate’s ability to pay for a private attorney. As a WGN investigation noted, state taxpayers paid the attorney and investigator fees to defend convicted murderer Drew Peterson in his murder-for-hire trial.
“Taxpayers are on the hook too easily for inmate legal bills,” Governor Rauner said. “In a time when financial resources are tight across state government, there are better uses for the more than $200,000 the state is paying to defend Drew Peterson. This common-sense proposal protects taxpayers.”
A new bill, sponsored by State Rep. Brian Stewart (R-Freeport), would require IDOC to pay for legal fees only if it’s determined the person cannot afford a private attorney and is eligible for the public defender. If the court appointed a private attorney to represent the defendant because the public defender if not able to take on the case, IDOC will only pay if the inmate is financially unable to do so.
“We need to balance an inmates right to an adequate defense with the rights of taxpayers,” Rep. Stewart (R-Freeport) said. “While using a public defender is always the department’s first option, some communities do not have the capacity to handle a large case like the Drew Peterson murder-for-hire trial. Now taxpayers are on the hook for these legal fees. This bill will make the judge take into account the inmates ability to pay if they choose to assign an outside defense attorney.”
“Illinois taxpayers are paying for Drew Peterson’s plan to have the Will County States Attorney killed,” said IDOC Assistant Director Gladyse Taylor. “Illinois law requires the Department pay the nearly $265,000 in legal fees that Peterson raked up in the case. That is in addition to the thousands of dollars in defense fees the Department pays for other offenders who commit crimes while incarcerated. This money could be better spent on programs and services that reduce recidivism and ensure offenders are more prepared to return to society when they leave our custody.”
The bill is HB 3555.
Taylor’s comment was way over the top, but the legislation isn’t.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 12:02 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Question of the day
Next Post: White backs new school bus seat belt bill
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Governor reacts quickly to something he saw on the Tee Vee box.
Sound familiar?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 12:15 pm
I wonder what the total taxpayers costs are for prosecuting Drew Peterson for this added offense?
Comment by Chicago 20 Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 12:18 pm
Unless the bill clearly defines what is meant by “indigent” (the word in the bill) and how that determination is made — and the bill does neither of those things — then expect not a single inmate to qualify for a state-funded attorney.
I’m sorry, but a person’s right to due process — even if that person is a felon serving time — outweighs “the rights of taxpayers.” Especially with this governor.
“This money could be better spent on programs and services that reduce recidivism and ensure offenders are more prepared to return to society when they leave our custody.”
If Rauner believed this, then the bill would provide for funds to be redirected to those programs and services (or create them if they don’t exist). The bill does not do this. Empty words from Gov. Gaslight.
Comment by Nick Name Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 12:24 pm
At least 2 (we all know it is more) of Peterson’s motherless kids are crime victims. Why should the state reimburse itself for prosecuting and defending him ahead of providing for them?
Comment by crazybleedingheart Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 12:32 pm
The cost of crud keeps climbing
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 12:38 pm
“If the court appointed a private attorney to represent the defendant because the public defender if not able to take on the case, IDOC will only pay if the inmate is financially unable to do so.”
This makes no sense at all. The Public Defender would not be appointed in the first place if the inmate could afford private counsel.
Comment by JoanP Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 12:41 pm
In my opinion, the fees claimed here are the issue. I see them as excessive. I can’t afford a private murder attorney at quotes of 100K, but I sure didn’t get quotes above that especially for one week trial case where Peterson claims the guy didn’t call a bunch of witnesses. The county should be able to reduce these fees from an attorney who does not seem to be a name in the field.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 1:09 pm
State has the option to prosecute or not. Or hold prosecution in abeyance. If the inmate is doing life or close to life why prosecute? Sure if convicted extra time might be added on or might get sentence concurrently. Not worth the money bless they think Peterson will win his appeal
Comment by DuPage Saint Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 1:23 pm
It was amazing how tone deaf the judge was to the consequences of his order. I hope DOC goes over the bills with a fine tooth comb and makes the attorney and PI justify them all.
Comment by Original Rambler Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 2:13 pm
The burden of proof is on the state to prove guilt. Defendants, even those already in jail, deserve the resources to present an adequate defense.
Comment by Precinct Captain Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 3:23 pm
What a sin. There should be an adoption of something more akin to a military style court for people who commit crimes while incarcerated (especially longer/life sentences) It would be swifter and it would be more cost effective. Having some lawyer keep running the clock puts this cost way out of balance.
Comment by A guy Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 4:31 pm
How much has the city of Chicago paid out to date for dozens of Jon Burge torture victims? I think the last headline I saw was over $600 million dollars? Burge is collecting a C.P.D. pension right now in federal prison.
How about a bill that requires all police convicted of any crime, misdemeanor or felony, to forfeit their pensions, along with a bill requiring police accused of violent crimes where there was use of force of against a citizen (not accepting free coffee, etc.) to pay for their own legal defense?
Comment by Payback Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 6:07 pm
Peterson was convicted of killing Kathleen Savio and was serving a 38 year sentence and wouldn’t be released until Peterson is 93.
While Peterson was in prison he was convicted of soliciting the murder of the prosecutor of the Savio case for $10,000, money that Peterson didn’t have and that conviction added 40 years to his sentence.
Now it’s been reported that Drew Peterson’s legal defense is costing the taxpayers $264,808 “all to defend a man already in prison” plus the cost of the prosecution and court costs.
A man who was to be in prison until he is 93, who was then prosecuted for an additional crime and now will be in prison now until he is 133.
Was it really prudent to prosecute potential 93 year old?
If Peterson violates the law again is the does it make sense to seek additional sentencing for someone who will die in prison?
Do we really need a new law?
Comment by Chicago 20 Tuesday, Feb 14, 17 @ 10:58 pm