drew peterson trial State screws upfor 5? state trying something new for mistrail!

[waggy]

Title edited. Profanity not allowed

Fern
Super Moderator

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-peterson-trial-updates-prosecution-to-call-savio-neighbor-20120801,0,866499,full.story

a lot of shannagians by the prosecutors (again). This is the 2nd time in this case they have tried to introduce evidence that has been bared.

This after they changed the laws on hearsay, then found out it would help the defense more then them and had that law bared from the court.

I think Drew may have killed them. but the state is presenting a UNFAIR case against him.

Its a rather interesting case actually.

 

[techs]

Waggy, do you have an alibi?
Just askin'

 

[unokitty]

No idea about the guilt of this guy.

But having multiple wives die or disappear strikes me as odd.

It also seems odd that the second one told her friends that he had threatened to kill her in a way that would look like an accident.

He has been fired from one police department. And other wives accused him of physical abuse.

Every time I've seen this guy on TV he just seems to have some sort of deranged smirk on his face...

Creepy to the max is the vibe he always seems to give off...

Crooked or inept prosecutors in Illinois?

Some things never change.

Uno

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Though I believe Drew is guilty, none the less he deserves a fair trial. If the prosecution keeps on trying these types of tactics the case is going to end in a mistrial and lose the ability to convict him.

 

[waggy]

Though I believe Drew is guilty, none the less he deserves a fair trial. If the prosecution keeps on trying these types of tactics the case is going to end in a mistrial and lose the ability to convict him.

agreed. this is the 2nd time during the trial they have pulled some bullshit. I do believe he is guilty but i also don't think he is getting or going to get a fair trial.

 

[cubby1223]

What really is sad, after all the dead wives, he still can find new women who want to marry him...

 

[unokitty]

Is there something Will County’s water?

"In case after case over at least the past decade in Will County — cases involving multiple investigative agencies and different prosecutors — something invariably has gone wrong..."

Uno

 

[waggy]

God damn! the STATE yet again has tried to put in evidence the judge has said no to. This time the judge told them NO on some evidence and 2 hours latter they did it anyway.

So the defence has asked for a THIRD time for a mistrial. the defence is saying that the state is trying to get a mistrial because they didn't like some early rulings and are hoping for a redo.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial-updates-prosecutors-to-call-forensic-pathologist-20120814,0,6705433.story

http://abcnews.go.com/US/drew-peter...me-murder-case/story?id=17005138#.UCrk-j1lQQo

The murder trial of former Illinois cop Drew Peterson may be called a mistrial after the judge overseeing the case blasted prosecutors today for ignoring his orders in the courtroom.

Judge Edward Burmila said he will rule Wednesday morning on whether to declare a mistrial in the case, according to ABC News station WLS. It is the third time in the three-week-long trial that Burmila has agreed to consider a mistrial request by the defense.

Today, prosecutors in the murder case were told by Burmila not to mention a restraining order that Savio once asked for against Peterson.

One of the prosecutors then mentioned the restraining order in court, prompting Burmila to scold her in court.

The prosecutor apologized to the judge following the incident, but the defense called for a mistrial, arguing that the statement would unfairly influence the jury.

The judge heard arguments from both sides this afternoon about whether the prosecution's repeated missteps deserved to be called a mistrial

 

[Londo_Jowo]

God damn! the STATE yet again has tried to put in evidence the judge has said no to. This time the judge told them NO on some evidence and 2 hours latter they did it anyway.

So the defence has asked for a THIRD time for a mistrial. the defence is saying that the state is trying to get a mistrial because they didn't like some early rulings and are hoping for a redo.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...forensic-pathologist-20120814,0,6705433.story



The murder trial of former Illinois cop Drew Peterson may be called a mistrial after the judge overseeing the case blasted prosecutors today for ignoring his orders in the courtroom.

Judge Edward Burmila said he will rule Wednesday morning on whether to declare a mistrial in the case, according to ABC News station WLS. It is the third time in the three-week-long trial that Burmila has agreed to consider a mistrial request by the defense.

Today, prosecutors in the murder case were told by Burmila not to mention a restraining order that Savio once asked for against Peterson.

One of the prosecutors then mentioned the restraining order in court, prompting Burmila to scold her in court.

The prosecutor apologized to the judge following the incident, but the defense called for a mistrial, arguing that the statement would unfairly influence the jury.

The judge heard arguments from both sides this afternoon about whether the prosecution's repeated missteps deserved to be called a mistrial

Doesn't look like the prosecution got their wish, wonder when they'll have another accident.

 

[Matt1970]

He will probably get away with it. Once released he will hook up with Casey Anthony. Of course they won't have a pool or a boat.

 

[waggy]

Doesn't look like the prosecution got their wish, wonder when they'll have another accident.

no shit. really im shocked that after 3 times of introducing evidence the judge has barred that the case is continuing. NO way in hell is he getting a fair trial.

looks like the they are going to have to do something major to get a mistrial.

edit: ohh the defense withdrew the motion. interesting.

 

[EagleKeeper]

no shit. really im shocked that after 3 times of introducing evidence the judge has barred that the case is continuing. NO way in hell is he getting a fair trial.

looks like the they are going to have to do something major to get a mistrial.

edit: ohh the defense withdrew the motion. interesting.

Stick it in the back pocket of the defense.
It can be used for a mistrial/appeal if needed

the state can have all the mis-trials it wants from their POV.
If the defense is not concerned about the slipups; they can use the disregard for a basis of an appeal as prosecutor misconduct.

 

[waggy]

Stick it in the back pocket of the defense.
It can be used for a mistrial/appeal if needed

the state can have all the mis-trials it wants from their POV.
If the defense is not concerned about the slipups; they can use the disregard for a basis of an appeal as prosecutor misconduct.

at what point does the presecution get punished? this is the THIRD time they have introduced evidence that was barred to the jury. this is something that shouldn't happen once let alone 3 times.

wonder what the 4th mistake is going to be? it sure looks as if they are trying to get a mistrial.

 

[EagleKeeper]

As long as the state is happy having another chance; they will not care about mis-trials.

I do not know if a judge can through the case out and prevent a refile.
It may be that the defense will start up a tally sheet for the judge.

Is this the same judge as the previous two trials?

 

[classy]

If there was ever a case of trying to convict a person with not one shred of evidence, this would be it.

 

[waggy]

If there was ever a case of trying to convict a person with not one shred of evidence, this would be it.

sadly yes. not to mention this is the first case i have ever heard of where the state passes special laws for this case. the hearsay evidance laws are insane.

witch btw they didn't like the judges ruling on and tried to get the new law bared..

its a really insane case. No way in hell is he getting a fair trial

 

[DrPizza]

Wait a second. How the hell is the victim having sought a restraining order against the defendant not relevant?!

 

[Wreckem]

Wait a second. How the hell is the victim having sought a restraining order against the defendant not relevant?!

Its relevant but gets tossed for relevancy issues because its to prejudicial. If she actually got an order of protection, it would have been admitted.

This case is eventually going to get dismissed with prejudice. The prosecutors have had way to many bites at the apple.

 

[Wreckem]

sadly yes. not to mention this is the first case i have ever heard of where the state passes special laws for this case. the hearsay evidance laws are insane.

witch btw they didn't like the judges ruling on and tried to get the new law bared..

its a really insane case. No way in hell is he getting a fair trial

If he ever gets convicted he has multiple sure fire appeals.

Hes not going to get convicted at this trial. Theres going to be a mistrial because the prosecution keeps entering barred evidence. Its definitely looking like the prosecution is doing it to get a mistrial, so they can start against fresh. I mean come on, multiple occasions of flagrant disregard of judicial orders on back to back days. Judge seriously needs to dismiss with prejudice. Honestly, the prosecutors should be reprimanded by the State Bar as well.

 

[Wreckem]

As long as the state is happy having another chance; they will not care about mis-trials.

I do not know if a judge can through the case out and prevent a refile.
It may be that the defense will start up a tally sheet for the judge.

Is this the same judge as the previous two trials?

Yes they can. And it would be proper in a case where prosecutor misconduct was the reasons for all three mistrials.

 

[Darwin333]

Though I believe Drew is guilty, none the less he deserves a fair trial. If the prosecution keeps on trying these types of tactics the case is going to end in a mistrial and lose the ability to convict him.

This

/thread

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Time for the judge to start handing out contempt of court jail stays for the offending lawyers.

 

[Wreckem]

Stick it in the back pocket of the defense.
It can be used for a mistrial/appeal if needed

the state can have all the mis-trials it wants from their POV.
If the defense is not concerned about the slipups; they can use the disregard for a basis of an appeal as prosecutor misconduct.

Their withdraw of the motion for mistrial makes this particular issue not appeal-able. Though, if he were convicted, he doesn't need that specific instance. The trial has been a comedy of legal errors by the prosecution.

 

[Theb]

What really is sad, after all the dead wives, he still can find new women who want to marry him...

You don't know him like they do. They can change him.

Its relevant but gets tossed for relevancy issues because its to prejudicial. If she actually got an order of protection, it would have been admitted.

This case is eventually going to get dismissed with prejudice. The prosecutors have had way to many bites at the apple.

At least they'll get another whack at him when his next wife disappears.

 

[waggy]

LOL a FOURTH time they have introduced evidence. but defense not asking for mistrial.


Blum's testimony, however, did not escape the courtroom drama that has come to define the trial thus far.

The latest donnybrook came when Blum testified that he climbed into the Bolingbrook tub where Savio died. Burmila had previously barred any reference to a re-creation of the drowning.

That led defense attorney Ralph Meczyk to ask that Blum's testimony be stricken, arguing that prosecutors have treated Burmila like "a potted plant."

State's Attorney James Glasgow apologized to the judge and said it was a mistake by Blum, who had been told not to talk about it. Glasgow admitted he had lost a little concentration after being on his feet questioning Blum for more than an hour.

"I was getting a little woozy, and I was trying to pay attention to what he was saying … again we were not getting toward a re-creation (of the drowning)," Glasgow said.

Burmila opted to instruct jurors to disregard the statement but warned prosecutors that he did not want to address any more violations of his orders.

"Yesterday it was a brain cramp; today it is wooziness," Burmila scoffed. "The circumstances … are creating the aura that this court is somehow toothless.

"The disrespect for the court in that regard is shocking to the conscience."



while minor compared to the others WTF!?