In Session The next proposed defense instruction concerns a definition of “hearsay.” Joe Lopez: “The jurors have heard us say ‘hearsay’ a bunch of times, ‘Objection, hearsay’ . . . they’ve heard about ‘the hearsay hearing’ . . . the jurors are sitting in there, wondering what is it exactly? The jurors, I think, should be instructed what it means.” Lopez then offers a definition of hearsay from a 1962 Illinois Supreme Court decision. “We don’t want them arguing over what exactly a hearsay statement is . . . the team thinks it would be wise to give them an instruction. We’d like the Court to read that into the record, and instruct the jurors so that it doesn’t become an issue later.” Griffin responds: “There is no case we have found about hearsay evidence or forfeiture by wrongdoing . . . we would object to this instruction; it highlights hearsay evidence . . . we don’t believe that this is an instruction that should be given; there’s no support for it.” Judge: “Over the State’s objection, this instruction is going to be given. I think it’s peculiarly relevant in this case.”

In Session The judge acknowledges that the final defense proposed instruction “is a correct statement of the law.” However, he decides to take under advisement the question of whether or not he will actually give it (wanting to check case law first).
Reply With Quote

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

In Session Prosecutor Connor now addresses the Court, asking for some restrictions to the defense summation. The first involves witness Mary Pontarelli. Attorney Greenberg rejects the State’s amendment, says that what Connor has just stated about Pontarelli is “completely false.” Judge: “The State is asking me to restrict the defendant’s closing argument; the argument is restricted . . . it’s up to the jury to resolve that conflict.”

In Session Connor then moves to the issue of a certified copy of Kathleen Savio’s death certificate. “The date on the certificate should not be brought out during closing statements; that is irrelevant . . . they’re attempting to argue that the official position of the coroner’s officer is that the death is still an accident; it is now a homicide, and that’s certified by the coroner’s office.” Greenberg: “I’m offended . . . for them to accuse us of a defense stunt is an insult. We have engaged in no stunt . . . there is a procedure for changing a death certificate . . . they’ve never done anything to try to change anything or correct anything . . . they cite no authority for their position, not a single case.” Judge: “The request that I restrict the defense closing argument in that regard is denied.”

In Session The defense requests to able to mention in its closing that Harry Smith looked repeatedly at the State’s table during his testimony. Judge: “The State’s request that the defense be restricted from mentioning that is denied.”

In Session Finally, Judge Burmila also rejects a State request that the defense be precluded from arguing that hearsay evidence is lesser evidence. “Are we done with the jury instructions?” “Yes.”

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

In Session
“Now you’ve have to consider the defense case . . . we are still at a point in this case where we have no evidence that Mr. Peterson went into that house this weekend. Harry Smith said Stacy Peterson wanted to know if she could use the fact that Drew killed Kathy as leverage in the divorce. There are no facts to back that statement up, so that statement by itself is no evidence in itself. It means nothing. Then you have very prominent experts from both sides. Dr. Case only believes something if she wrote it . . . how can you give any weight to her opinion? And then they recalled her yesterday, and you go to observe her demeanor on the stand, her combativeness. She was defensive, to say the least. We had Dr. Baden, a very nice man, very personable . . . but, again, he didn’t tell you how Ms. Savio died. I still sit here and go, ‘How did this person die?’ They have not shown any evidence that Mr. Peterson broke into the house, was let into the house, was in the house that night. They have not put him in the house . . . they have not had a witness who can tell you he went to that house that night, and there’s not evidence from which you can infer it . . . the State says that he staged a crime scene to make it look like an accident, something that no one ever said. They have to say that, because they don’t want to accept it’s an accident. If he had staged the scene, then how did he get the scene wrong? He’s such a mastermind that he’s sitting there indicted for murder? . . . they have not shown one piece of evidence that was missed . . . was she hit over the head with a candlestick? Hit over the head with a billy club? A gun? There’s no defensive wounds on her, nothing under her fingernails. Her best friend said if she was attacked, she would have fought back . . . there’s nothing on Mr. Peterson, no mark on Mr. Peterson at all. There’s no confession. There’s just no evidence at all. If there is not sufficient evidence, then our motion should be granted . . . they may want to believe this, but the fact is that nothing changed from 2004 until the time this indictment was brought in 2009 except that two doctors decided in their opinion it was a homicide instead of an accident. The only other thing that changed was that Stacy was gone.”

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

In Session Prosecutor Koch responds to the defense motion. “Harry Smith puts Mr. Peterson in the house . . . it corroborates Neil Schori’s statement about when Mr. Peterson came home that night . . . you heard the clavicle injury could have been caused by being pushed down on a hard surface . . . the circumstantial evidence, all the evidence taken together, could convince a reasonable person that the defendant is guilty . . . the prior bad acts on the intent, the motive and intent . . . ‘I will kill you,’ those statements that came in . . . the expert testimony from Dr. Case; it’s for the jury to decide the credibility of these witnesses . . . there is sufficient evidence for this case to go to the jury, and we ask that you deny the motion for a directed finding.”

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

In Session Greenberg responds. “They say it wasn’t an accident, so therefore he did it. Because who else would have done it? . . . even as I sit here now, after four or five weeks of trial, the fact is that they cannot tell you did he go to that house on Friday night? Did he go on Saturday night?” “Did he go on Sunday night? When did he commit this crime, if a crime was committed? Where did he commit the crime? Did he whack her over the head with a coffee can? Did he drag her up the stairs? We don’t know . . . it’s a scary day when someone can be on trial or be convicted or have a jury decide when the State cannot still today articulate for you what happened. I challenge them to tell us what happened. How was the crime committed, and what piece of evidence do you have to say Drew Peterson did it? I just don’t get it.”
Reply With Quote

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

In Session Judge: “A circumstantial case is built much like a house, brick by brick . . . the defense argues that this case comes down to the experts; there’s no disagreement about that . . . at the same time, the jurors are entitled to ignore all the experts and rely on their common sense . . . but a reasonable person could return such a verdict. So the defendant’s motion is denied.”

Judge Burmilla has denied the defense's motions for a directed verdict in this case.

Judge: “We’re done for today on the record. Everybody have a good weekend. We’ll now move to the chief judge’s conference room.” The judge leaves the bench, and the rest of the hearing is now off the record. The public portion of the trial is now in recess until Tuesday morning at 9:00

The public portion of the trial is now in recess until Tuesday morning at 9:00

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

Good Grief! Rumpole, you've gone beyond the call of duty! If Peterson goes free it'll make a lot of people sick. I do believe he killed 2 wives. And if he's freed, he'll definitely kill again. I think he thinks he smarter than anybody and he may well be.

Thanks for all your hard work, Rumpole. Sooner or later we ALL appreciate it! Now, could you talk In Session into getting into the courtroom of an 'interesting' case for a change? Thanks.

_________________
­
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." Leviticus 19:15

In Session is NOT a great way to watch cases... they talk too much.. chop the thing up with ads and close down even though the day is at a critical point

The main limitation is the particular jurisdiction and Judges ruling on cameras.

Floriduh... for all its faults.. at least is open and high profile cases are streamed live somewhere.. with no ads.

As I say... I agree .... Drew did it (twice)... but it would be a travesty if people were convicted based on a popular poll... especially when you look at the "decision makers" posting at forums.... conviction based on their decision is a very scary thought.

The Western system of justice has a "pay off matrix" The evil of convicting a innocent man far outweighs the disappointment of letting a guilty man go free (especially in LWOP and DP cases)... it's the moral standard we have.. and rightly so.

To do it differently would be to venture into a very unpleasant world akin to the Trayvon Zone.

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

A defence motion for direct verdict is a formality at this point... it is denied.

Judge again denies directed verdict for Drew Peterson
By Steve Schmadeke Tribune reporter
3:46 p.m. CDT, August 31, 2012

The judge presiding over Drew Peterson's murder trial again denied a defense motion for a directed verdict acquitting the former Bolingbrook police sergeant of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Defense attorneys and prosecutors spent about four hours debating jury instructions before defense attorney Steve Greenberg argued for the directed verdict. He contended that prosecutors had failed to present enough evidence for jurors to find Peterson guilty.

"It’s a scary day when someone can be on trial or be convicted or have it put in front of a jury when the state still cannot today articulate for you what happened," Greenberg said.

Judge Edward Burmila had previously denied Greenberg’s motion at the end of the state’s case. He reiterated today that there were sufficient facts for a reasonable person to find Peterson guilty of killing Savio.

Closing arguments in the case are scheduled for Tuesday morning.

Peterson is facing first-degree murder charges in the 2004 death of Savio, who was found dead in her bathtub. He faces a maximum 60-year prison term if convicted.

Peterson was charged after his fourth wife, 23-year-old Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007. Peterson is a suspect in her disappearance but hasn't been charged.

Article at link
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/loca ... 4043.story

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

Floriduh....LOL LOL LOL That is worth the whole case.

_________________
­
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." Leviticus 19:15

Funny thing is... some of my best friends live in Floriduh....

_________________
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

Hey wait! I wanted to hear about the Vaughn family murder trial!

_________________
­
"Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment: thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honour the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour." Leviticus 19:15

Seriously.......

If there is a case you are interested in ... start a thread

If you have any links to trials that are streamed live or shown internet TV.... there is a thread for live links generally...... K?

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

Thanks again Rumpole for all the links and trial notes! So it's going to be first-degree murder or nothing? What do you think the odds of a hung jury are?

At this stage.... odds are good for a hung jury. Duelling experts means doubt I would have thought?

I do think in this case especially, the closing speeches could push it one way or the other...

And...... juries.... who knows what they will do....

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

Watching Judge Jeanine... Kathleen's sister is on.

Not for the first time I am hearing some twisted logic.....

Hearsay claims that Drew said he could kill Kathleen "and make it look like an accident".... and so now that we have what looks like an accident that is proof the Drew did it?

THAT... is a very twisted way to look at things...perhaps if it looks like a duck.... then it is a duck? or in this case an accident.

Also hearing hearsay that Kathleen was convinced that Drew was in the house.. but found no sign of him, or of him being there. That being proof that Drew was getting in the house (but doing nothing)... that sounds nuts to me.. in fact indicates that Kathleen was paranoid.. delusional... or perhaps making stuff up.... of course the PROBLEM with hearsay is that people could be reporting what Kathleen said wrongly... mis-remembered, or perhaps even falsely claiming what Kathleen told them.

To me this case has more reasonable doubt than...... a case with a whole heap of reasonable doubt.

Many people dislike Drew... rightly so I guess... but it does seem to be a driving force for them to try and paint Drew in a bad light... and hearsay evidence being allowed continues to worry me greatly.

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

I think it's very possible this could be a hung jury. Oh and to top it off, the move "Untouchable" is on again tonight on Lifetime. Oh my, what timing!

I haven't seen the movie.... I guess Drew did it in the movie?

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

The movie chronicled his relationship with Stacy, the death of Kathleen, Stacy's disappearance and his arrest. There were several things that were changed around in the movie, including him not being in uniform when he called the locksmith to get into Kathleen's house, the pastor Stacy confided in was wearing priest's collar, the new girlfriend was renamed and her father wasn't in the picture as the one who took her out of Drew's house, and so forth. But generally it was a good portrayal of him and his behavior especially after Stacy went missing. It also included some real news clips.