Ok Mid heres ya one. Will this be overturned on appeal?

[olevetonahill]

http://news.yahoo.com/jury-convicts-drew-peterson-3rd-wifes-death-194658507.html

They have NO evidence whatsoever, yet convict him on hearsay evidence, They even rewrote the law so he could be tried. Plus the judge was tempted several times to declare a mistrial.

[Midtowner]

I'm always a little nervous when we overturn ancient evidence rules saying that the new exception will only have 'limited applicability.' Hearsay is a scary thing to have admitted against you and right now, in just about every state, it comes in only under very limited circumstances. Expanding what we already have is a dangerous idea.

I haven't followed this case, but agree based on a cursory reading of the article that there was probably enough to cast some doubt on the outcome. I'm not sure what the Illinois standards on appeal are, so I just can't really give much of an educated opinion.

Were this case tried in Oklahoma the same way it was tried in Illinois, I think we may have had a different verdict.

[Skysooner]

http://news.yahoo.com/jury-convicts-drew-peterson-3rd-wifes-death-194658507.html

They have NO evidence whatsoever, yet convict him on hearsay evidence, They even rewrote the law so he could be tried. Plus the judge was tempted several times to declare a mistrial.

Just my own opinion here, but I think when a judge is set to declare a mistrial, he is setting it up for the appeals court to overturn it.

[Midtowner]

Just my own opinion here, but I think when a judge is set to declare a mistrial, he is setting it up for the appeals court to overturn it.

Are they saying that's how it works in Illinois? Usually, a mistrial means that you have to start from square one, new jury, new trial, etc.

On appeal, the appellate court could do anything from order a mistrial to overturn the conviction instructing the trial court to acquit. I'm not going to predict either way because I haven't followed this case. If we're talking about hearsay and NO evidence, I'm surprised the trial court didn't do what you call entering a directed verdict, which is what the court would do if it concluded the jury could not have possibly concluded the prosecution proved its burden on an essential element of the case. That sounds like a real option here, but is very rare. It'd also be political suicide for the judge.

[olevetonahill]

From what little I kept up with It was ALL hearsay. Hell they said she died accidentally the 1st time , Then dug her up and changed their minds on that also
While I personally think he moren likely did kill her, I just dont see that they met the burden of proof here

[Midtowner]

How about when the state changes its rules of evidence just to convict one person.

That's kind of asinine as well. The whole thing stinks from what I'm reading. You don't lock someone up for 60 years based on coincidence and conjecture.

[olevetonahill]

How about when the state changes its rules of evidence just to convict one person.

That's kind of asinine as well. The whole thing stinks from what I'm reading. You don't lock someone up for 60 years based on coincidence and conjecture.

Thats what I said in my OP. They REWROTE the law just for HIM.
I aint a lawyer, Nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express. . But Id bet big Bucks this Gets over turned even if it has to go to SCOTUS

[Skysooner]

Are they saying that's how it works in Illinois? Usually, a mistrial means that you have to start from square one, new jury, new trial, etc.

On appeal, the appellate court could do anything from order a mistrial to overturn the conviction instructing the trial court to acquit. I'm not going to predict either way because I haven't followed this case. If we're talking about hearsay and NO evidence, I'm surprised the trial court didn't do what you call entering a directed verdict, which is what the court would do if it concluded the jury could not have possibly concluded the prosecution proved its burden on an essential element of the case. That sounds like a real option here, but is very rare. It'd also be political suicide for the judge.

I have no idea. It just seems to me that the judge was trying to protect his backside and not make the voters mad (not sure he is elected or appointed) but also paving the way for an appeal on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional.

[Midtowner]

I have no idea. It just seems to me that the judge was trying to protect his backside and not make the voters mad (not sure he is elected or appointed) but also paving the way for an appeal on the grounds that the law was unconstitutional.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? I've tried to find any recent news stories talking about a mistrial, but could only find where Peterson's attorneys withdrew their most recent motion for mistrial.

[cleller]

You know he's got another wife (wife #4) that just disappeared into then air, right? In other words, he killed her, too.

Before wife #4 disappeared she told her pastor that Drew Peterson had told her he killed wife #3. A friend of Peterson's has said he helped Peterson load a 55 gallon plastic barrel into a vehicle at the time wife 4 disappeared. He had also offered someone $25k to kill wife #3.

If there is a problem with all the evidence, I hope he gets shivved in jail before its overturned. Smug, lying scum.

[olevetonahill]

You know he's got another wife (wife #4) that just disappeared into then air, right? In other words, he killed her, too.

Before wife #4 disappeared she told her pastor that Drew Peterson had told her he killed wife #3. A friend of Peterson's has said he helped Peterson load a 55 gallon plastic barrel into a vehicle at the time wife 4 disappeared. He had also offered someone $25k to kill wife #3.

If there is a problem with all the evidence, I hope he gets shivved in jail before its overturned. Smug, lying scum.

Bro, I really feel he did it, I just aint real comfy with the way they went about convicting him

Like I said as far as I know there is NO physical evidence , Only he said /she said stuff

[Midtowner]

Having read a little more, the change to the hearsay rules seems pretty routine (although I haven't read it).

If the Defendant wrongfully procured the declarant's absence from trial and the state can prove as much, the statement comes in. Maybe the Illinois weakened the state's burden? Someone want to pull the new and old statutes?

[Midtowner]

Quick 'n dirty research from some blog I haven't vetted at all:


The Illinois legislature passed a new exception the state's hearsay rule in 2008, in direct response to the investigation of Savio's death and Peterson's fourth wife's disappearance. The law now allows statements of murder victims into evidence if the prosecution can show at a pretrial hearing by preponderance of the evidence that:

-- The defendant murdered the speaker
-- The defendant murdered the speaker to prevent the speaker from testifying against the defendant
-- There are sufficient indicators that the statements are reliable
-- The interests of justice would be served by admitting the statements

This isn't too far off from the showing that the Defendant wrongfully procured the Defendant's actions. What I'm guessing will be problematic here is showing 1) that you can say by a preponderance of the evidence the Defendant killed someone if there's no actual evidence outside of the hearsay and an autopsy which concluded homicide after the first autopsy concluded suicide. Even with the specific finding of homicide, without taking into account the other hearsay statements, how would they figure by a preponderance of the evidence that Peterson did it? None of it adds up, but I'm no Illinois lawyer. It's also been about two months since I last stayed in the Ardmore Holiday Inn Express for a trial I had in Madill (I won, so I guess those things work?).

It's a nice place though.

(not Madill)

[Skysooner]

I'm not sure what you mean by this? I've tried to find any recent news stories talking about a mistrial, but could only find where Peterson's attorneys withdrew their most recent motion for mistrial.

I guess I was saying it was political. The judge didn't want any more attention, and a mistrial would create that. By either getting a verdict of not guilty or guilty (with the appeal on the grounds of the law), he is protected politically.

[Midtowner]

I guess I was saying it was political. The judge didn't want any more attention, and a mistrial would create that. By either getting a verdict of not guilty or guilty (with the appeal on the grounds of the law), he is protected politically.

Yeah, that goes without being said. That's why, for example, you almost never do a bench trial in a small county. That judge is probably not going to risk political suicide when your idiot client goes out and does something stupid after a not guilty verdict.