Top Prosecutor Wants to Stay Off Witness Stand in Drew Peterson Case
Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow is trying to derail a plan by convicted wife-killer Drew Peterson's lawyers to put him on the witness stand.
Photos
Pdfs
The man who won the Drew Peterson case wants no part of taking the witness stand at a hearing next week to decide whether the convicted wife-killer should get a new murder trial.
Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow filed court papers asking Judge Edward Burmila to bar Peterson's lawyers from calling him as a witness.
The motion says Peterson's lawyers revealed their plans to call Glasgow as a witness nearly two weeks ago, but that the state's attorney should not have to testify.
"A prosecutor, judge or news reporter is a 'special witness,'" the motion says. And if Peterson's lawyers want to get any of those kind of people on the stand, they must disclose what the witness is expected to say, why the testimony would be relevant, and what efforts they made to get the information from another source.
"In the case at hand, the defense has not satisfied a single one of those requirements," the motion says.
The hearing to determine whether Peterson, a disgraced former Bolingbrook cop, gets a new trial is slated to start Tuesday and may last days. Peterson's attorneys claim that former Peterson attorney Joel Brodsky's poor performance during the trial, as well as a publicity contract he entered into with Peterson long before the trial began, justify starting over with the case.
Peterson was found guilty of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in September after a five-week trial. The police also suspect Peterson had a hand in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, but have yet to charge him with harming her.
Besides filing a motion in hopes of staying off the witness stand, Glasgow also submitted an objection to the arguments for a new trial. That filing claims Peterson and his attorneys are now directly contradicting statements they made prior to the guilty verdict.
On the same day as Peterson's hearing for a new trial, a judge will address the wrongful death case filed against him in 2009.
The lawsuit was brought by Savio's father and sister. Brodsky had been representing Peterson in the civil matter but bailed after the murder trial was lost.
When he quit the case in December, Brodsky filed a bizarre, rambling motion to withdraw. Brodsky devoted much of the motion to attacking attorney Steve Greenberg, whom he claims "suffers from a severe mental illness."
Greenberg also represented Peterson during the murder trial and remains on the case. He was not involved in the wrongful death lawsuit.
During a hearing for the wrongful death case Wednesday morning, Judge Michael Powers scheduled the matter to coincide with Tuesday's proceedings and ordered both Peterson and Brodsky to be present. Brodsky likely would have been there anyway, as he is expected to testify at the hearing for a new trial.
Cynthia Bergier
2:23 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
I thought Glassgow loved the limelight.
Colt45
3:20 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Cynthia, you must mean The Scream Team....Mr. Glasgow has always conducted himself in the most respectfull way. Unlike the Idiots that represent that murderer.
Crusader
5:30 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Glasgow is respectfull??? That is a laugh!! I long for the day that the US Supreme court rules the "Drew Peterson Law" as unconstitutional--which it will especially if a another liberal is appointed to the Court. Then watch Glasgow bumble and stumble is way to explain the corruption that exists in Illinois politics and especially in Will County.
Ernie Knight
1:34 pm on Thursday, February 14, 2013
When the Illinois Appellate Court ruled on admissible heresay in this case, they specifically REJECTED the new law. All heresay admitted was based on existing statute and case law.
Read the Chicago Tribune's account. Others failed to go into detail and explain that.
TB Plfd
6:02 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
they better find another way to convict him because that Unconstitinoal Drew Peterson Law will be over turn someday. When will Illinois law makers wake up and stop making Unconsiitutional laws? all it dose is waste tax payers money
Colt45
6:21 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Mr. Glasgow has always conducted himself in a very professional manner, Always. Not like the Circus of Drew Peterson and Company. The circus of clowns for lawyers, and the RIngmaster is none other than DP. May he get what he deserves 60 yrs in Stateville.
anonymous
9:12 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Pretty Boy Glasgow doesn't want to get his manicured hands dirty. This preening buffoon is the height of governmental arrogance and hubris.
Rarebit
11:09 pm on Wednesday, February 13, 2013
Initially, Glasgow relied on Public Act 095-1004 to try to get out of court evidence admitted to Peterson’s trial, but when eight statements were deemed inadmissible due to the higher standards of reliability required by he asked the court to consider the evidence under the long standing Common Law hearsay exception, "Forfeiture by Wrongdoing", under which a defendant forfeits their right to confront a witness if it can he shown to a reasonable extent that the defendant made the witness unavailable to testify.
The Constitution of the United States does not guarantee an accused person against the legitimate consequences of his own wrongful acts.
Ultimately the statements were considered on their own merits by a panel of three appellate justices and were deemed reliable and admissible in April 2012. The new statute was NOT the criteria for their decision.
Peterson's lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, even cedes that the so called "Drew's Law" was NOT used to admit the hearsay evidence to trial, saying:
"...the States Attorney appealed and decided to change his argument from the statute he drafted to the Common Law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing... As to why the media still says that Drew Peterson was convicted based on "Drew's Law", you will have to ask them - but I wouldn't hold my breath for an answer."
More than 85% of the evidence presented at Drew Peterson’s trial was physical, forensic and circumstantial. Less than 15% was hearsay.
Jack Inhoff
12:06 am on Thursday, February 14, 2013
I love the court drawing and details. Awesome work.
Why don't we have cameras in the courts like the other counties?I bet Peterson-Round 2 would be profitable pay-per-view.
It's almost as if we have something to hide...
blochucnks
8:20 am on Thursday, February 14, 2013
Jack, you hit it on the head. A bunch of morons run this county. Bigger ones run our judicial system!
John Roberts
8:42 am on Thursday, February 14, 2013
Well people you all could of went down to the voting booth and voted to remove Glasgow but it seems people didn't...Are people not happy that Drew is in prison? ...that's what most of the comments I read during his trial said was to send him off to prison..Me yeah we all have a feeling he did it ...but no hard evidence to prove he did it..He used the police knowledge he learned from investigations to know what to do to conceal the crimes...and let's not forget he had help from his fellow police officers....this in its self is a miracle Drew even went to prison...It's all Hearsay....and we all know it...until justifiable proof is found to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt...
Bob Jamesly
12:49 pm on Thursday, February 14, 2013
It took a combination of things to bring down D. P. The first and most important, was the fact that the family of Kathleen Savio paid for the services of Michael Baaden, and also to dig up her casket and to have a real autopsy. As opposed to the first Will County autopsy. Her family started things off the right way, and they don't look like anything more than a working class family that is not wealthy. When the critical witness was called by Brodsky it was the miracle the family needed. Glasgow acknowledged his "gift from God". As to the "pretty boy remarks", first try those things out face to face with that man. Good luck.