Proposed law targeting Drew Peterson may get another chance

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...-jun03,0,7562180.story


Legislation that could affect a possible prosecution of former Bolingbrook Police Sgt. Drew Peterson stalled in the Illinois Senate when lawmakers ran out of time before adjournment over the weekend.

"We have hit a snag," said the bill's chief sponsor, state Sen. A.J. Wilhelmi (D- Joliet).

The measure, backed by the Will County state's attorney's office, would allow a judge to decide whether hearsay testimony could be admitted into court if it is proved that the defendant contributed to the disappearance of a witness by illegal means. The bill was amended to apply only to first-degree murder cases.

Peterson, 54, is a suspect in the Oct. 28 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, who was 23 at the time. Authorities are also reinvestigating the 2004 mysterious death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, 40, who was found drowned in an empty bathtub in her home. Her death, initially ruled an accident, was classified a homicide in February

Both women had told family and friends that they were fearful of Peterson. Stacy Peterson also told her minister that Peterson allegedly confessed to her that he killed Savio, according to the minister.

Wilhelmi said he is confident that the bill?which initially passed the Senate 56-0 and cleared the House, with amendments, 110-1?could easily pass out of the Senate again later this month.





hmm not sure on this. seems wrong to allow it. not to mention changing the law just to nail one guy (admittedly others will get nailed from this) insane.
 
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Not happening. Bunch of chickenshits.

If they allow hearsay, then they have to allow it under Miranda as well wouldn't they?
 

waggy

No Lifer
Dec 14, 2000
68,143
10
81
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Not happening. Bunch of chickenshits.

If they allow hearsay, then they have to allow it under Miranda as well wouldn't they?

yeah i don't see them allowing hearsay. just don't see that holding up inc ourt

of course im no lawyer. but from what i understood there are only limited things hearsay can be used.

in a murder trial? i would hope not
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
I support the amended law.

The whole purpose of not allowing hearsay was to give a defendant an opportunity to address his accusers in court. For example, Bob cannot testify in court that Alice told him she saw Chris rob the bank-- Alice would have to testify to what she saw herself, which would give Chris (or his attorney) the opportunity to cross-examine her.

There are already a few exceptions to the disallowance of hearsay. For instance, if Chris shot Alice, and Alice runs away bleeding and yelling "Chris shot me!", and Alice later dies, then a bystander can testify to the fact that Alice accused Chris of being her attacker. This law would extent that exception slightly, so that a missing or murdered victim can have their voice heard at trial. The jury will still have to weigh how much credence they give to the hearsay testimony, and whether or not they actually believe it.

 

KB

Diamond Member
Nov 8, 1999
5,406
389
126
When we have computers be the jury, it should be included but only count .1 toward guilt. :)
 

QED

Diamond Member
Dec 16, 2005
3,428
3
0
Originally posted by: waggy
Originally posted by: BrunoPuntzJones
Not happening. Bunch of chickenshits.

If they allow hearsay, then they have to allow it under Miranda as well wouldn't they?

yeah i don't see them allowing hearsay. just don't see that holding up inc ourt

of course im no lawyer. but from what i understood there are only limited things hearsay can be used.

in a murder trial? i would hope not

Google Mark Jensen.

He's a guy who (presumably) killed his wife ten years ago. The wife had left behind detailed notes stating that she feared her husband was trying to poison her, and hold told friends and relative the same thing. She was found dead of antrifreeze poisoning. Desipite the notes and the manner of death, the husband was not charged due to lack of evidence (the damning notes were considered hearsay). Just last year, however, the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that allowing hearsay from a murder victim is not a violation of the defendant's rights. The husband was arrested, tried, and convicted of murder.