Peterson loses twice on venue change, hearsay
JOLIET - The attorneys for Drew Peterson invoked the bible, Ancient Rome, McCarthyism and deceased comedian George Carlin, but still failed to convince a judge that the hearsay law passed less than a year ago is unconstitutional.
Not only that, but during the same Friday hearing, Peterson's legal team lost its bid to have Peterson's murder trial moved out of Will County. In short order, Judge Stephen White denied the motion by Peterson¹s lawyers to have the case taken to another venue for the purpose of finding an unbiased jury. White then allowed Peterson¹s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, to argue against the constitutionality of the hearsay law prosecutors plan to use in the murder case against Peterson.
• Photos: Peterson investigation
Peterson was arrested for the March 2004 drowning of his third wife Kathleen Savio.
Kathleen and Stacy
While the hearsay evidence prosecutors hope to enter remains under seal,another of Peterson¹s attorneys, Andrew Abood, alluded to the possibility that prosecutors would try to use statements Savio made to family and friends, as well as to the state¹s attorney¹s office, about Peterson.
Savio¹s relatives have repeatedly said Savio claimed to be in fear for her life, and that if anything happened to her, it would be at the hands of Peterson.
Savio also wrote a letter to Assistant State's Attorney Elizabeth Fragale in November 2002, in which she said that Peterson "knows how to manipulate the system, and his next step is to take my children away. Or kill me instead."
During Friday's hearing, Abood suggested prosecutors might also try to use statements from Peterson¹s missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.
Stacy Peterson vanished in October 2007. State police believe she may have been killed and have focused on Drew Peterson as their sole suspect, but have yet to make an arrest in the case.
A pastor from Stacy Peterson¹s church, Neil Schori, has said Stacy Peterson confided in him that Drew Peterson admitted to her that he killed Savio.
Brodsky said allowing hearsay statements into evidence would be "devastating to a defense."
In an apparent attempt to prove his point, Brodsky quoted the comedian Carlin saying, "They're talking about drafting a constitution for Iraq. Why don¹t we send them ours. It was written by some very smart guys, it's worked for about 200 years, and we don't seem to be using it right now."
'Not a new concept'
The new hearsay law runs counter to the principle of a defendant facing his accuser, Brodsky said.
"This is not a new concept," he said. "It's an idea that goes back almost 2,000 years in the Bible."
Even the Ancient Romans accepted this tenet, he said, although he noted that in the ensuing two millenniums, this "basic bedrock American rule that no man can have his liberty taken away without the right to face his accused"² was briefly interrupted during the Second Red Scare, when "people were being blacklisted because of innuendo, because of gossip."²
White'¹s ruling forced Peterson's attorney to drop their demand for a speedy trial. They can make the demand at Peterson¹s next court appearance Oct. 29.
In upholding the hearsay law, White said the legislation merely codified an existing principle. White also pointed out that the law can be applied after the alleged commission of a crime because it involves procedure instead of criminality.
Abood had attempted to argue against this idea even before White voiced it in his ruling, saying, "Let's not kid anybody. They're offering this testimony to make it easier to get a conviction."
