Drew Peterson Conviction Hinged On Hearsay Evidence, Juror Says

JOLIET, Ill. -- The final juror to agree to convict Drew Peterson of murder in the death of his ex-wife says he "barely slept" one night during the proceedings because the same nagging questions kept popping into his head.

Even after joining fellow members of the panel by casting the last vote for guilty, Ron Supalo remains troubled by the prosecution's reliance on hearsay, statements not based on a witness' direct knowledge.

Peterson, the former suburban Chicago police officer, faces a maximum 60-year prison term after his first-degree murder conviction in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. It was the first case in Illinois history to permit the use of hearsay evidence, based on a 2008 state law specifically tailored to Peterson's case.

"I needed time to think it through," Supalo, a letter carrier for the U.S. Postal Service, said in a telephone interview Friday evening.

Supalo said he believes the hearsay law might be unconstitutional, but he eventually realized his duty as a juror was only to assess the evidence, not the laws.

"We (the jurors) weren't the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "Right or wrong, this was the hearsay law, and we had to use it in this case."

Other jurors acknowledged that comments Stacy Peterson, Peterson's fourth wife, made before her 2007 disappearance played the decisive role in convincing them to convict her husband of killing his ex-wife.

The prosecution's strategy grew largely from a lack of physical evidence collected in the case after investigators initially deemed Savio's 2004 death an accident. Prosecutors claimed the hearsay would allow Savio and Stacy Peterson – who is presumed dead – "to speak from their graves" through family and friends.

It worked.

Jury foreman Eduardo Saldana, 22, said the women's comments were "extremely critical" in deliberations and in his decision to convict Peterson. He said he was one of four jurors who initially had reservations given a lack of physical evidence tying the former police officer to Savio's death. But Saldana said the more he thought about hearsay testimony from Stacy Peterson's pastor, the more compelling he found it.

But Supalo said he had some doubts about the credibility of Stacy Peterson's statements to the Rev. Neil Schori.

During the trial, Schori testified that Stacy Peterson told him weeks before she went missing that her husband got up from bed and left the house about the time of Savio's death and then returned to stuff women's clothing in their washing machine. Peterson also coached his wife for hours on how to lie to police, Schori told jurors.

"When it was the 11 for guilty and just me holding out, I told them, `You all believe Schori's testimony is gospel because he is a man of God,'" Supalo said. "They said, `It is.' And I said, `No, it's not!'"

Supalo also said he had difficulty coming to terms with convicting someone based on what others claimed someone else said.

"I'm uncomfortable with the Illinois law that allowed hearsay," Supalo, who briefly studied law. "They made the law just for Drew Peterson – applied it to him retroactively. If there was no hearsay in his case – Drew Peterson goes free."

Defense lawyers have said the presentation of hearsay undercut Peterson's constitutional rights because he couldn't directly confront his accusers – namely, his third and fourth wives.

They tried to discredit Stacy Peterson by having attorney Harry Smith testify that she asked him if she could squeeze more money out of Peterson in a divorce if she threatened to tell police he killed Savio. But Saldana and other jurors said Smith only ended up stressing that Stacy Peterson knew her husband had, in fact, murdered his ex-wife.

As he realized Smith was starting to hurt Peterson's case, the defense attorney questioning him, Joel Brodsky, began shouting at Smith, accusing him of lying.

Juror Teresa Mathews, 49, said Friday that Smith had nothing to gain by making up testimony.

"We believed he was a credible witness," she said.

Although thoughts about the evidence cost Supalo some sleep, by Thursday afternoon, just before the verdict was read in court to gasps and tears, he'd resolved several issues in his mind. Among them was accepting Schori's and Smith's testimony as credible, he said.

"It was the totality of the evidence that convinced me," he said.

Peterson is to be sentenced Nov. 26.

Neighbors found the 40-year-old's body in the bathtub of her suburban Chicago home – a gash on the back of her head. Investigators initially thought she drowned after slipping in the tub, but reopened the case after Stacy Peterson disappeared.

Peterson also is a suspect in that case, and Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow said Thursday that charges could be forthcoming.

Peterson's personality had seemed to loom large over the trial, at least to outsiders.

Before his 2009 arrest, the glib, cocky Peterson seemed to taunt authorities, joking on talk shows and even suggesting a "Win a Date With Drew" contest. His behavior inspired a TV movie starring Rob Lowe.

But jurors said Friday that Peterson's crude and unsavory reputation didn't factor into their deliberations.

___

Get Alerts

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Jury Wears Coordinated Outfits Throughout Bizarre Peterson Trial

Judge Edward Burmila enters the Will County Courthouse as Drew Peterson's murder trial continues, Wednesday, Aug. 15, 2012, in Joliet, Ill. (AP Photo/M Spencer Green)

JOLIET, Ill. -- One expects coordinated outfits from cheerleaders, fast-food workers, military units – clowns even. It fosters unity of purpose, team spirit. But color-coordinated jurors? And at a murder trial, no less?

For a month, the jurors at the sensational murder trial of former suburban Chicago police officer Drew Peterson have been filing into court wearing matching clothes – all yellow one day; other days black, blue or green. They've even walked in wearing alternating red, white and blue.

And the coordinated attire hasn't been just about color. Once, it was business suits. Then there was the day they all wore jerseys from sports teams – mostly Chicago Bears and White Sox, though one was a Green Bay Packers shirt, and none for the Cubs.

The oddity has left courtroom observers scratching their heads. It has led to jokes and banter among the judge and attorneys. But it's also raised questions about propriety and precedent during a trial in which evidence against Peterson has included descriptions of his violent threats and grisly photos of his dead wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in her bathtub in 2004.

It's unclear what – if any – message jurors might be sending, because no one can speak to them. But one thing is clear about the 12 panelists expected to begin deliberations after closing arguments next week: At least they are unanimous about what to wear.

"If they came in wearing T-shirts saying `Drew's Guilty,' it'd be different," said Lisa Lopez, one of Peterson's attorneys. "I think it means they are unified about coming to a decision."

Some have expressed disquiet over the wardrobe stunts, believing it conveys a lack of seriousness.

"I think it is strange," said Kathleen Zellner, a Chicago-area defense attorney who has handled high-profile cases in Will County and sat in on several days of Peterson testimony. "This is a homicide case. ... It isn't a sporting event."

Peterson, 58, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in the death of Savio, 40. If convicted, he faces a maximum 60-year term.

Savio's death was initially ruled an accident. It was re-examined and reclassified a homicide only after the 2007 disappearance of Peterson's next wife, 23-year-old Stacy Peterson. Authorities presume she is dead and consider her husband to be the only suspect, though he has not been charged in her case.

The trial hasn't been easy on jurors.

They've sat through five weeks of sometimes gruesome testimony that included crime-scene photographs of Savio's naked, bloated body and autopsy photos that showed the top of her skull cut away. The trial has also featured frequent stops and starts, in part due to prosecution missteps after which the judge cleared the courtroom to reprimand the state's attorney and his team.

No one, except those on the jury, knows what jurors will be wearing Tuesday, when closing arguments are scheduled. The jurors haven't been sequestered, so they have been able to go home each evening having agreed on what to wear the next day.

They caused a particular stir when they wore the jerseys. Judge Edward Burmila – a White Sox fan – cheerfully noted an absence of jerseys of their cross-town rivals, the Cubs. Jurors were obviously intelligent, he told the courtroom, because "nobody has any Cubs clothes on."

Defense attorney Steve Greenberg even worked the jerseys into his questioning of a witness, Savio friend Mary Pontarelli. Glancing at the jury box, Greenberg asked what jersey she'd prefer.

"Sox," she responded without missing a beat.

"Instant credibility!" Greenberg boomed, thrusting his finger into the air.

The judge struck the attorney's exclamation from the record, though he quipped he wouldn't strike the witness's response.

On the day jurors wore business suits, Burmila said admiringly, "Ah, sartorial splendor."

If Burmila has any reservations about the jurors' attire, he hasn't said so. But their apparel has prompted armchair commentary from court veterans, most of whom say they have never heard or seen anything like it.

Phil Turner, a former federal prosecutor critical of the displays, said if he were Peterson, he would be worried about what the color schemes might portend – particularly the synchronized red, white and blue.

"That suggests a display of patriotism," Turner said. "Displays of patriotism are never good for a defendant."

But Chicago attorney Michael Helfand sees no problem with what the Peterson jurors are doing. The uniformity of dress, he said, simply suggests jurors are both getting along and trying to break the monotony.

"It's not easy to sit there in a high-profile case," Helfand said. "It's a boring, thankless task. They can be miserable or try to make the best of it. They're clearly making the best of it."

Helfand said judges typically treat jurors deferentially and, even if Burmila wasn't entirely happy with the practice, he might be reluctant to rebuke them.

"You want your jurors to take a trial seriously but also to be happy," he said. "If they get admonished, it could kill their morale."

Others note a circus atmosphere has surrounded the case going back years, citing how the swaggering, glib former Bolingbrook police sergeant hit the talk-show circuit to declare his innocence and a cable TV movie about the case starring Rob Lowe as Peterson.

"(Jurors) know this trial is getting national attention – and I think they are trying to get in on it," said former federal prosecutor Julian Solotorovsky. "But jurors aren't supposed to be in the limelight. They're not supposed to be part of the story."

___

Earlier on HuffPost:

Get Alerts

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Witness: Drew Peterson Received Evidence Training

JOLIET, Ill. — The judge at Drew Peterson's murder trial exposed potential holes in the state's case against the former suburban Chicago police officer, telling prosecutors Friday that they have failed to either place Peterson in the bathroom where his third wife was found dead or illustrate exactly how he might have killed her.

The issue arose as the judge blocked a bid by prosecutors to introduce testimony that Peterson once received stranglehold training that would have given him special expertise in how to kill Kathleen Savio, 40, whose body was found in her dry bathtub. Peterson, 58, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in her 2004 drowning death.

Prosecutors told the judge – with jurors out of the courtroom – that they intended to introduce testimony about how the former Bolingbrook police sergeant might have gone about killing Savio by putting her in stranglehold. Judge Edward Burmila responded that it appeared they were trying to get jurors to speculate.

"You can't be serious," he balked. "You don't even have any evidence linking him to the scene. Now you want to say this is what he did there?"

Prosecutors did not appear poised to address that potential weakness, indicating Friday that they likely would not call any more witnesses before they rest their case Monday morning. They appear to hold out hope that their circumstantial case, which included witnesses who testified Peterson repeatedly threatened Savio, was strong enough.

Prosecutors had said earlier they expected to rest Friday after calling more than 30 witnesses over four weeks. But arguments over the admissibility of evidence caused repeated delays.

Peterson lawyer Joe Lopez told reporters Friday afternoon that the defense was prepared to start mounting its case Monday. The defense's witnesses will include three doctors and several officers who investigated Savio's death in a case that should take two days, he said.

"It'll go smoothly and it'll go quick," Lopez said.

The lead prosecutor, Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow, declined to comment about the testimony or evidence as he left the Joliet courthouse Friday.

As during most of the trial, Peterson – who gained a reputation for off-color jokes and boastful arrogance before his 2009 arrest – appeared relaxed Friday. During breaks, he smiled and chatted with attorneys and spectators sitting near the defense table.

Savio's death was initially deemed an accident, and no physical evidence – fingerprints, hair or anything else – was collected at the scene. Her death was reclassified a homicide only after Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, 23, disappeared in 2007. Drew Peterson is a suspect in Stacy Peterson's disappearance but has not been charged. Authorities presume she is dead, though her body has never been found.

Earlier Friday, Burmila did let prosecutors enter evidence that Peterson received evidence-technician training as part of his job as an officer. The testimony was meant to bolster their contention he was more than capable of making a murder look like an accident.

Brian Hafner, a record-keeper with Bolingbrook police, testified that Peterson took brief courses more than 20 years ago on compiling evidence. Under cross-examination, he conceded he didn't know what exactly was taught.

"I'm sure they taught something, but I would not know," he said, prompting laughter in court.

"Do you know if they taught how to stage an accident, how to clean it up?" defense attorney Steve Greenberg pressed Hafner.

"I have no idea," he responded.

Once prosecutors have rested, the defense is expected to ask Burmila to render a not guilty verdict before jurors even have a chance to deliberate. Such motions are common but rarely granted. But the uniqueness of the Savio case left experts wondering if Peterson's judge could plausibly grant it.

Prosecutors have no physical evidence or direct witnesses putting Peterson in Savio's house the day she died. They've had to rely on hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, from friends and relatives who testified that Savio told them Peterson warned her that he could kill her and make her death look accidental.

Such hearsay evidence is typically barred in American courts, but Illinois adopted a law in the wake of the Peterson case that allows it in certain circumstances. Defense attorneys have said that the law is unconstitutional and that they could appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

If convicted, Peterson faces a maximum 60-year prison term.

___

Follow Michael Tarm at http://www.twitter.com/mtarm

Earlier on HuffPost:

Get Alerts

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Peterson Murder Trial Continues With Second Day Of Testimony

JOLIET, Ill. — The judge in the Drew Peterson murder trial has adjourned early and delayed a decision on declaring a mistrial.

A legal drama erupted Wednesday after a state witness let slip testimony that defense lawyers claim irreparably tainted jurors.

Instead of ruling immediately on the defense's mistrial motion, the judge granted a request to let Peterson's lawyers think through the matter until Thursday morning.

The witness, Thomas Pontarelli, mentioned on the stand that he once found a .38-caliber bullet in his driveway and believed Peterson planted it there to intimidate him.

Peterson is accused of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Pontarelli was her neighbor.

With jurors out of the room, Judge Edward Burmila blasted prosecutors for working in the testimony. He called it a new "low."

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

The judge in Drew Peterson's murder trial considered Wednesday whether to declare a mistrial after blasting prosecutors for a second time in less than two days for bringing up information he said could prejudice the jury against the former police officer.

A furious Judge Edward Burmila sent jurors out of the courtroom before grilling prosecutor Kathleen Patton for allowing a witness to mention a bullet and leave the impression that Peterson left it in the witness' driveway. Burmila then took a recess to allow defense attorneys to file a motion for mistrial.

"It can't be reckless, it is intentional," Peterson attorney Steve Greenberg told the judge when court reconvened, arguing that prosecutors violated court orders.

Peterson was charged in the 2004 death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, went missing in 2007. Drew Peterson is suspected in her disappearance but hasn't been charged.

Patton said prosecutors didn't deliberately try to get the witness, former Peterson neighbor Thomas Pontarelli, to mention that he found the .38-caliber bullet on his driveway.

The judge appeared close to declaring a mistrial Tuesday after a prosecutor began to discuss an allegation that Peterson once tried to hire a hit man.

Prosecutors contend Peterson killed Savio and tried to make it look like an accident. Defense attorney Joel Brodsky told jurors repeatedly during his opening statement that there was no evidence Savio's death was anything but a tragic accident.

Peterson's real-life drama inspired a TV movie starring Rob Lowe, and many speculated whether the former police sergeant used his law-enforcement expertise to get away with Savio's murder and make 23-year-old Stacy Peterson vanish.

Get Alerts

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Peterson Pours His Heart Out In Letters Addressed To Young Woman

In this May 7, 2009 file booking photo provided by the Will County Sheriff's office in Joliet, Ill., former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant Drew Peterson is shown.

You can lock Drew Peterson up for years, but you can’t stop him from sweet-talking the ladies on the outside.

Peterson, the 58-year-old former Bolingbrook cop, accused killer and serial marrier charged with murdering one wife and suspected by the Illinois State Police of having a hand in another's disappearance, sent love letters from jail to a 26-year-old DuPage County woman throughout the spring of 2010.

“Hello my love,” Peterson wrote to the young woman in one of the letters recently given to Patch. “I really miss you and keep dreaming about holding you …

“You still got my heart and I hope you still (have) mine.”

Read the whole story at Bolingbrook, IL Patch

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.