https://www.facebook.com/InSession

Judge: “How does the defendant make the argument, ‘I can only get a fair trial if I can’t be tried again?’ I’m frankly surprised Mr. Peterson would urge up on the court, ‘Give me a mistrial, but only in the way I want a mistrial’ . . . if I believe this case cannot go forward, whether I believe that’s with or without prejudice is a separate situation.”

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

Judge: “What I was advised of was that it was all or nothing . . . give us the mistrial with prejudice, or forget it.” Greenberg: “Judge, the issue is first of all whether or not there should be a mistrial, with or without prejudice; that’s up to you. That is a decision you have to make. I suppose the issue that Mr. Brodsky was arguing is that Mr. Peterson does not feel that given what has transpired that he should have to go through this again. We feel we’ve been goaded through this repeatedly, and a mistrial with prejudice is the appropriate remedy. If you feel a mistrial is appropriate, but without prejudice, then perhaps we’d like to fashion a different remedy.” Judge: “I’m not going to come back here and say, ‘This is what I’m going to do, if it’s all right with Mr. Peterson. That’s not going to happen. If you want to withdraw your request for a mistrial, please feel free to do so . . . but to say the defendant can ask for one kind of a mistrial or not another, that’s not going to happen. I think I’ve heard enough from everyone . . . I’m going to take this under advisement until 9:00 tomorrow morning . . . I’ve already sent the jury home. We’re in recess.”

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I think there should be a mistrial.

And if there is it should be "with prejudice"

It was noted when the possibility was raised for a previous deliberate act by the prosecution that they would GAIN by having this trial stopped and given a second chance. Evidence they failed to get in on time would be allowed (possibly) and they would have the benefit of having seen part of the defence, not to mention their own mistakes.

Besides... is it fair to keep the defendant locked up for any more time when clearly the case against him is weak, to say the least

And of course, the financial costs on both sides are huge.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Reading the comments coming in from the courtroom earlier today though, it seems by the time the defense had finished their argument before the judge, that he was just about as irritated with them as he was the prosecution. I don't think he'll give a mistrial with prejudice since that *could* be letting a murderer go free without a jury's verdict. He almost said that. I'm wondering just what he will do though and maybe strike the witness testimony and sanction the prosecution? He'd clearly ruled earlier the order of protection wasn't to be brought in and just a couple hours later, there it is.

hi Sunstar

It WOULD be a HUGE step for the Judge to dismiss the case.. I agree.

So we will most likely struggle on.... then Drew will be found not guilty anyway... what's the point?

I see a lot of people staking their hopes on the prosecution case being "strong" once Blum testifies??????

I think the Exhumation and autopsy of a decayed body was more of a publicity stunt than anything. There was already widespread belief that Drew killed Kathleen ... the exhumation and autopsy was just a way of saying there was new evidence.. when in fact there was none. If there were doubts about the conclusions drawn at time of first autopsy.. they could have reviewed that work.. (suggested different conclusion details)... they did not really need the exhumation and re-examination. The remains were degraded by then... prejudices about it not only being a murder, but that DREW was guilty.
Giving Baden a third go is just making it more of a circus.

Having said all that. I still think there is doubt that it was murder even now. And it hardly comes up then..... who did it... but there is doubt there also.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

TRIAL DAY 10 (8-15-12)

STATE OF IL. VS. DREW PETERSON


Trial Day Starts in Joliet Il. - Wednesday, August 15, 2012 9:00AM CT

Days will be ....Tuesday Through Friday, every week until it goes to jury!!!

There will be no camera's in courtroom unfortunately so we will have to rely on twitter for information as to what is going on in courtroom & also Updates from several outlets.

TRIAL UPDATES: Chicago Tribune Breaking News
(Link to Daily Update Story)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... g&lpos=Sub

LIVESTREAMING FOR TRU TV
http://superusvox.com/index.php/specialty/trutv
or
http://livetvcafe.net/video/7Y78YR9H9DKB/Tru-TV

WGN TV - Drew Peterson trial (links to daily blogs)
http://www.wgntv.com/news/drewpeterson/




TWITTER LINKS:

IN SESSIONS.
http://twitter.com/InSession

Joseph Hosey (reporter)
Joseph Hosey@ShorewdILPatch
http://twitter.com/ShorewdILPatch

Tweets for Drew Peterson case
https://twitter.com/#!/search/drew%20...+peterson+case

Jon Seidel
Jon Seidel@SeidelContent
https://twitter.com/seidelcontent

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Today we'll see.

8/15/12

The judge in Drew Peterson's murder trial is expected to rule on whether to declare a mistrial in the highly publicized case after a prosecutor asked a question amid testimony about an alleged knife-point incident involving Peterson and his estranged wife.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/

TRIAL UPDATES: Chicago Tribune Breaking News

9:20 a.m. Defense withdraws mistrial motion

In court, defense attorneys withdrew their motion for a mistrial.

Drew Peterson wants this jury to hear this trial, his attorney Joe Lopez said.

He also asks that the state stop introducing barred testimony, Lopez said.

updated at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 1677.story

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

9:30 a.m. Peterson addresses judge

Instead of declaring a mistrial, attorney Joe Lopez said the defense wants Judge Edward Burmila to "strike all the hearsay testimony that has been admitted" and bar further hearsay testimony.

The judge then asked Drew Peterson to stand and answer whether he had discussed the decision to withdraw the motion for mistrial, that he agreed with the decision and understood that he could not use the issue on appeal.

"Yes, your honor," Peterson replied.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

https://www.facebook.com/InSession


Judge Burmila takes the bench. “Good morning, everyone . . . when last we were on the record, the defendant had made a motion for a mistrial.”


Joseph Lopez: “If it pleases the Court, the defendant wants this jury to decide this case, a jury of his peers. He does not want to hide beyond any legal technicality. But he requests that the State does not violate any more of the Court’s orders . . . he does not want to start over . . . he wants to keep this jury, in this composition . . . however, we would ask, besides the curative instruction, we believe the only way to make sure the State will follow the orders of the Court is to strike all the hearsay testimony already entered . . . and to bar further hearsay testimony . . . it’s the third time that it’s happened,and we don’t want to see it again. So we are ready to proceed.” Judge Burmila then personally questions the defendant, who affirms that this is indeed his wish.
Reply With Quote

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

Prosecutor Chris Koch responds: “It’s the State’s position that two times now with its request for a mistrial the defense has included quotes from a case they call ‘the Grace case’ . . . we were finally able to go back and look at that case, and Mr. Brodsky says the Grace instruction was approved by the appellate court; that’s just not true . . . in fact, when that case went to trial, the defendants were acquitted, so it never went up on appeal . . . that instruction they continually submit to the Court is not an instruction that was taken up on appeal . . . the instruction Your Honor has proposed, the issue with regards to the court order . . . Your Honor, in your ruling, talked about the context of the order of protection . . .” Judge: “Mr. Koch, stop! My order yesterday was crystal clear . . . we’re not going to revisit the Court’s order.” Koch: “The reason I bring it up is the instruction you’re proposing to give today . . . the purpose is to give an instruction to the jury that clears any prejudice that might have been committed . . . we would ask that not be submitted; again, this is to cure what, if any, prejudice was put onto the defendant . . .” Judge: “If you don’t want me to express the Court’s displeasure with the State’s flagrant ignoring of my ruling, what sanction do you think I should impose?” Koch: “I’m going to leave that to the Court’s discretion.” Judge: “Well, I’m asking you.” Koch: “The alternative would be to impose a sanction outside the presence of the jury . . . if Your Honor is not inclined to do it, then we’re ready to proceed with the trial this morning. And Ms. Kernc will be on the stand momentarily.”
Reply With Quote

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

Joe Lopez suggests a final alternation to the proposed instruction Judge Burmila may give. “There was never any order of protection, and there has to be a way to say that to the jury. There has to be a way to add that.” Judge: “Well, I’ve included the word ‘alleged’ in the first paragraph . . . your suggested alteration of the order is denied. The defendant’s request that I strike all the hearsay testimony, that’s denied . . . can you bring the jury in, please?” Steve Greenberg: “When I now cross her, there’s sort of that, ‘why didn’t the judge want us to hear about the order of protection?’ out there . . . it leaves them to speculate that we weren’t supposed to hear about it . . . it’s something, frankly, that I would then have to go into on cross, to show that she didn’t do anything about the incident. And since it was mentioned, we are dealing with human beings, with their minds . . . I think the Court can communicate that in its instruction.” The prosecution suggests a stipulation that would point out that no order of protection was sought. Judge: “Can you agree on one?” Greenberg suggests that this should be part of the judge’s instructions; Koch says that it should be two separate things.” Judge: “We’ll take a brief recess . . . let me know when you have the stipulation prepared.” He calls a brief recess, so that the prosecution can type up the proposed stipulation.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Drew Peterson trial updates:

9:40 a.m. Judge to issue instruction to jury
Judge Edward Burmila denied the defense request to strike all hearsay testimony, and will issue a "curative instruction" to jurors regarding the state's misstep on Tuesday.

It is unclear exactly what that instruction will say, though Burmila hinted it would be harsh.

Both sides said they will work on a stipulation stating that no order of protection was sought as a result of the 2002 incident where Drew Peterson allegedly threatened Kathleen Savio with a knife.

Court recessed for a few minutes to allow the parties to finalize the stipulation, which is something the defense wanted in order to remove any question in the minds of jurors about whether Savio obtained an order of protection after the 2002 incident.

10 a.m. Jury told to ignore attorney question
Judge Edward Burmila instructed the jury that Kathleen Savio did not seek an order of protection after the alleged incident in 2002.

"The state's attorney violated an order of the court that they not present this issue to the jury," Burmila said.

He ordered them not to consider the mention of an order of protection for any purpose, but said it was their decision what weight to give to the testimony from former Bolingbrook police Lt. Teresa Kernc "in light of this deviation from the rules."

It was during question of Kernc Tuesday that the prosecution mentioned an order of protection, halting the trial while Burmila considered a mistrial.

Burmila read a stipulation to the jury crafted by both sides stating that "Kathleen Savio did not seek an order of protection regarding the July 5, 2002, incident."

With the jury outside the courtroom, defense attorney Joseph Lopez explained the decision to withdraw the motion for a mistrial, telling the court that Peterson "does not want to hide behind any legal technicalities.

"Drew Peterson wants the world to know he's not afraid nor will he hide."

Testimony from Kernc, which was halted Tuesday, has now resumed.

updated at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 1677.story

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Another source about withdrawing the mistrial request

8/15/12

3 minutes ago

Defense attorneys for Drew Peterson withdrew their motion for a mistrial this morning. Attorney Joe Lopez said he wants this jury to hear the case. He also asked that the state stop introducing hearsay testimony, which the judge rejected.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/

http://www.facebook.com/InSession

In Session Prosecutor Kathy Patton resumes her direct examination of retired Bolingbrook police lieutenant Teresa Kernc. “Did you ask Kathleen Savio to make a written statement?” “Yes, I did . . . this is the written statement that she provided me.” “Is this a true and accurate copy?” “Yes.” “Did anyone sign that report?” “Yes . . . Kathleen Savio . . . .[and] I did on the bottom, and also put my badge number.” “After that report was written, did you read the statement?” “Yes.” “And after reading the statement, did you ask her to add anything?” “I realized that she had neglected to put something in, and I brought that to her attention. She did, as a result of that, put it into the report . . . the knife.” “What, if anything, did she do?” “I watched her write it . . . and a short time later, she actually scribbled the portion about the knife out . . . it mentioned the knife; it said he pulled the knife out.” “Did you ask her why she did?” Objection/Sustained. The prosecutor asks for a sidebar.

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

https://www.facebook.com/InSession

The next prosecution witness is Dr. Larry Blum (questioned by prosecutor Glasgow). “I’m a medical doctor, specializing in forensic pathology.” He briefly goes over his educational and professional background. During his residency, starting in 1976, he began to perform autopsies. He is board-certified in anatomic, clinical, and forensic pathology

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

I really don't see Blum as the magic witness many are expecting.

I see the exhumation and second autopsy as something of a publicity stunt.

The second autopsy, performed on a corpse that has been decaying in a grave for 3 years should be given a lot less weight than an autopsy done while the body was intact. And, as I have said.... there were preconceived notions about manner of death and even "who dunnit"... not a good basis for impartial scientific examination. Everybody would have looked very foolish if NOTHING significant had been revealed after an exhumation and second autopsy.. so it was pretty much pre-ordained that Blum would find something. No surprise that he did.
And...... having said all that... even if Blum's evidence suggests to Jurors that it was "murder".... beyond reasonable doubt seems a stretch.... there remains the doubt that it could be an accident.
And...... even if we accept murder for the sake of the argument.... who did it? Prosecution are presenting circumstantial evidence that it was Drew... but really? Beyond reasonable doubt?

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light

Drew Peterson trial updates:

3 p.m. Doctor climbed into Savio's tub
Dr. Larry Blum testifiedthat he visited Kathleen Savio’s Bolingbrook master bathroom on Nov. 20, 2007, a week after performing the second autopsy on her body after it was exhumed.

He said he felt it was extremely important to see where Savio died himself. Blum testified that he even crawled into the tub with his clothes on.

"I felt the two biggest pieces of evidence in this case are one the body and two the tub," he said.

He first answered questions about what he observed in crime scene photographs — which are being displayed for jurors on a screen in the courtroom — taken in 2004 when Savio died.

Prosecutors zoomed in on a photo and asked about the positioning of Savio’s right foot — which they have argued is a sign of a struggle.

"What stands out in this photograph is the very sharp angle that the toes are in, in relationship to the rest of her foot. These are virtually 90-degree angles…These toes on her right foot are extremely extended or bent back."

Blum said he doesn’t believe her foot would be positioned that way in an accidental drowning.

"In the context of this case for a foot to just float down after a loss of conscious or just passively get into that position I don’t believe could physically do that," he said.

Prosecutors have argued her foot positioning suggests she was struggling in the tub when she died.

Updates at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 1677.story

_________________
Do not go gentle into that good night.
___________ Rage, rage against the dying of the light