As it should be ! The Judge made the right decession not to have anything about Stacy mentioned! It has nothing to do with the Savio trial!

In this story, it refers to a formal complaint being filed against Kathleen Savio's divorce attorney by the Peterson defense. Not sure how this makes sense. She wanted him to go the cops if she wound up dead. Smith represented her. How does that fit with Peterson's attorneys filing a complaint with the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission, saying he violated the attorney-client privilege. They don't represent Kathleen, the client who's privilege was "violated," so where does their authority to do so come in? If Smith was in violation of anything, why didn't any of the judges, and there were many, do it before the Peterson attorneys did? Looks like they're wasting everyone's time and resources.

Humm!
Wheaton attorney Harry Smith testified more than two years ago that just before she vanished, Stacy Peterson paid him a visit about divorcing her husband, Drew Peterson, and asked, ”Could we get more money if we threatened to tell the police how he killed Kathy?”
Black mail or conspiracy by Stacy or Smith or both! Better yet. Is Stacy involved in the death of Savio????

There must be a compelling reason or some sort of impropriety for Judge Edward Burmila not allowing Smiths testimony.

I think Smith possibly made an error by giving information as to what Stacy told him about Savios death! Did he get Stacys permission to do so. Stacy is missing so there is client / attorney privilege at this time . She could have told him no , if she were here . As a wife is not compelled to testify against a husband. I think Smith blundered.

BTW, Mr. Hosey, your story had some interesting points of interest, such as the next hearing date and the fact that a formal complaint was filed against Atty Smith by the Peterson defense. Always look forward to your pieces, as they usually include additional points that aren't always in the local coverage.

I have a feeling Drew Peterson will walk. The majority of us think he is guilty and there is certainly more than enough reasons for us to feel that way. That said, without any physical evidence with regards to Savio's death, it will be hard for a jury to convict. Same thing with Stacy. If he did indeed kill her, he more than likely put her in a place never to be discovered.

Sickening for all the family members involved.

EITS, then why not assume that 12 men and women can come to a unanimous decision by feeling what the majority of us do, because of more than enough reasons? A jury can be convinced there's enough circumstantial evidence to convict, and circumstantial evidence is lawful, legal and allowed at trials. They don't have to acquit if there's no physical evidence. They can do whatever they want, as long as 12 of them are in agreement. Until the trial moves forward and all the State's witnesses have testified, it's hard to know what evidence awaits the defendant.

Watchful Eye, I know what you mean. I also agree that there is a good shot that the jury will find him guilty. Drew's name is mud and his defense team is in for a battle. I mean, if I were Drew, I probably would think I have no chance.

His last wife vanishes without a trace and the one before that drowns in a tub. Most reasonable people can draw a fairly easy conclusion. However, all it takes is one juror to see it differently and he walks.

Yes, EITS, that's true, it only takes one juror to deadlock a jury, but if there's only one holdout and the remaining jurors aren't happy with or convinced to change their vote, he won't walk. It's likely he'd be retried. The vote has to be unanimous for him to acquitted or convicted. If a juror with an agenda, either for or against this murder defendant, is impaneled, that is not justice. All anyone can ask for is that the evidence is presented, judged and voted on, fairly and impartially.

If he escapes conviction in the Savio case, look for an immediate arrest charging him in the death of Stacy. He then will go right back to the WCJ to await trial.

There is a sea of people who will testify against Drew in that case.

Mims alone can probably take him down.

Morelli, you mention physical evidence and hearsay evidence but you leave out circumstantial evidence, of which I believe there is plenty. Think back to the days before DNA, luminol, and a public glutted with CSI wannabes. Peterson's penchant for entering his wife's house by breaking in, his attempts to hire a hit man, and his comments to others about how things would be easier for him if she were dead are going to be carefully considered by the jury. These are not hearsay.

Rarebit, I also believe there is plenty of circumstantial evidence. Not based on reporters' interpretations of the evidence, but what has actually come out in sworn testimony during the hearsay proceedings, the numerous reports and documents filed and made public, and, quite frankly, the opposite of anything Peterson's lead attorney has said over the years. I have found that most of what he says is nothing more than a lead-up to an opening argument, in which the attorneys can say just about anything they wish, i.e., "there is no evidence.....".

Fortunately, the years of the defense chatter won't matter. However, It seems to have backfired in at least one regard, because the murder defendant is seen as a loathsome character. This is only because his lead attorney chose to go against defense lawyers' common rule of having their client keep silent. Certainly, it's odd that the defense would have us think that the media/public is responsible for this when, in fact, it was the murder defendant and lead attorney that created the current image of Drew Peterson.

This lawyer Harry Smith isn't one I'd consult for a hangnail! He may have credentials, but certainly no ethics!

Does anyone remember the O.J. Simpson and Casey Anthony trials! What happened to the reasonable jurors? Both were guilty w/o a doubt and what does the juries do?

Harry Smith went to the ISP twice. First when a client who expressed fear of her life suffered a strange and fatal accident, and again when a woman came to him stating that she had knowledge about that other woman's murder...and quickly disappeared.

The fact that he then was asked to testify at a grand jury, a pre-trial hearing and now at a murder trial is just a testament to the value of what he has to offer as a witness.

If Drew's defense wants to paint that in a "sinister" light, it's their prerogative to do so, but when Smith's actions are compared to those of Joel Brodsky, who trotted out his client to the media in exchange for appearance fees, created a phony engagement and then offered a video package with Drew and his fiance to the networks (for a hefty price), tried to arrange boxing matches between Peterson and Geraldo Rivera, used his client's media appearances to market his own failing sports bar, and then finally tried to arrange a job for his "Mr. Mom" client at a brothel in Reno, there's only one attorney who comes off as a bit sleazy...and it ain't Mr. Smith.

True Drew and his lawyers shouldn't have went out in the public to be in the news! But hen will the News and reporters stop being hounds too! The News should have ignored Drew instead of being everywhere with a camera and encourage him for an interview. The News and reporters are slim at times too!

Mr Morelli, it the job and the responsibility of the media to cover stories of interest. You can't ask them not to do what they are paid to do.
On the other hand, an attorney is paid to work in the best interest of his client. Good lawyers advise their clients to be quiet and keep a low profile. Take a look at Craig Stebic who was suspected of killing his wife shortly before Stacy Peterson went missing. Stebic kept quiet and the media went away.
The only reason the media surrounded this case and Peterson is because he put on a good show and was a willing participant. Peterson and his lawyer bear full responsibility for this being a high-profile case and Drew being publicly perceived as a villain.

I wonder if Drews lawyers will go this route at trial?
During the 1995 criminal trial of O. J. Simpson, the prosecution argued that Simpson killed his former wife Nicole Brown Simpson, and that the murder was the culmination of a long pattern of Domestic Violence. The prosecution discovered in a safe-deposit box journals that Brown Simpson had written concerning her problems with Simpson. The journals contained graphic language and described episodes of physical violence and threats committed by Simpson. They appeared to be a powerful demonstration of the couple's relationship, yet they were never entered into evidence at the criminal trial, and Simpson was acquitted in the killings of his former wife and her friend Ronald Lyle Goldman. (cont. )

The journals were inadmissible because they constituted hearsay evidence. The rules of evidence are generally the same in every state and federal jurisdiction. In California, where Simpson's criminal trial was held, hearsay evidence cannot be admitted unless it meets the requirements of a well-defined exception.

Oral hearsay (what one person tells another about a third person) is the same as written hearsay. In her journal Brown Simpson told readers what Simpson did to her. With her death, there was no way for the defense to challenge her memory, perception, and sincerity about what she had written. The rules of evidence view such nonchallengeable out-of-court statements as unreliable when they are intended to prove the truth of the matter they assert—here, that Simpson had beaten Brown Simpson, stalked her, and made her fear for her life.

For the same reasons, the journals were not admitted at Simpson's civil trial in 1997, in which he was found liable for the wrongful deaths of Brown Simpson and Goldman.The journals were inadmissible because they constituted hearsay evidence. The rules of evidence are generally the same in every state and federal jurisdiction. In California, where Simpson's criminal trial was held, hearsay evidence cannot be admitted unless it meets the requirements of a well-defined exception.

Oral hearsay (what one person tells another about a third person) is the same as written hearsay. In her journal Brown Simpson told readers what Simpson did to her. With her death, there was no way for the defense to challenge her memory, perception, and sincerity about what she had written. The rules of evidence view such nonchallengeable out-of-court statements as unreliable when they are intended to prove the truth of the matter they assert—here, that Simpson had beaten Brown Simpson, stalked her, and made her fear for her life.

For the same reasons, the journals were not admitted at Simpson's civil trial in 1997, in which he was found liable for the wrongful deaths of Brown Simpson and Goldman.

Hearsay evidence has already been admitted to the trial of Drew Peterson under the "forfeiture by wrongdoing" hearsay exception.

Judge White initially allowed certain amounts of hearsay evidence (statements, letters and an audio tape) but barred others. The prosecution appealed his decision and after about 2 years, the appellate court finally overturned his decision and about 15 pieces were deemed admissible.

Peterson's defense can now file motions to strip out as much of the evidence (physical, circumstantial and hearsay) as they can. But nothing can be tossed simply because it is hearsay at this point. That's what the long appeal process was all about and those reliability issues have already been argued and decided upon.

I don't understand what you mean when you ask if Peterson's lawyers will "go this route". What route is that?

That's the chance Drews lawyers are taking by going to trial and they had the opportunity to go back to the Supreme Court to rechallenge the hearsay! They must feel confident they can have hearsay statements struck down by objections at trial. As for forfeiture by wrong doing it never existed until Glasgow had the new hearsay law passed. And for go the route I mentioned , I would bet Drews lawyers are looking at previous trials , such as the O.J. Simpson hearsay that was struck down and not admissible!

Morelli, you are incorrect when you say that "forfeiture by wrongdoing" did not exist until the hearsay statute of 2008. "Forfeiture by wrongdoing" has long been part of the Illinois rules of evidence - Rule 804(b).

As I pointed out, the hearsay evidence can not be tossed out of this trial simply by nature of it's being hearsay. We are beyond that point in the proceedings. The reliability of said evidence has already been argued and decided upon. That is what the two years in appellate court is about.

Through motions, the defense is now attempting to limit any and all evidence at trial, be they physicial, circumstantial or hearsay. But the arguments about whether or not the hearsay evidence is reliable are over. Done. Finished. Nothing can be tossed at this point simply by virtue of it being hearsay.

Both the prosecution and defense have moved on from that point. If you want to continue discussing it, feel free. But the the decisions regarding hearsay as it relates to this trial are over and done.

Wrong! They still had the option to go back to the supreme court for a ruling, but refused! A law professor from Northewestern law school was interviewd and was surprised they opted not to!

Drew's lawyer opted out of going back to the supreme Court to rechallenge the hearsay!

Yes. That is correct. What is wrong about what I stated above?

If you're going to be rude enough to write "Wrong!" after a comment made by someone else, you should probably point out what was "Wrong!" about it.

According to the dictionary definition of "wrong"it's not classified as being a rude word. Plus I did point out what was wrong in my comment.

Keep them honest, Joe!

Just my .02. I have a feeling Peterson will walk in the Savio case. Not sure why, just do.

As he is walking out of court a free man, he will be immediately arrested and charged with killing Stacy.

He will be found guilty in that trial.

Let me reiterate. When I said wrong, I did point it out in my original comment. Here it is once again!
John Moreli
3:16 pm on Friday, May 18, 2012
Wrong! They still had the option to go back to the supreme court for a ruling, but refused! A law professor from Northewestern law school was interviewd and was surprised they opted not to!

Moreli, where is Stacy?

Here, there or anywhere? Maybe with her estranged mother.

Let me guess, she met a multi millionaire, no longer works and is living in Cambodia. No one has heard a peep from her in almost 5 years.

If she ran off, she would need money by now unless she met a rich dude who is hiding her from his family. Sounds logical.

And she ditched her kids as well? Boy, this guy convinced her to run off just like that?

He must be the best salesman walking on planet earth.

It happens ! Look at the guy that disappeared from Illinois 30 years ago and turned up in Las Vegas last year.

Connect the dots. Stacy would never leave her kids by all that knew her well. So she wakes up one day and just leaves?

Look, there are only a few people that know what really happened to her, Stacy obviously being one of them.

All you can go on are the facts leading up to her vanishing.

Stacys mother left her children. Where is she ? How about lisa stebic, no interest in them arresting the husband anytIme soon.

Craig Stebic does not have a dead wife from a previous marriage hanging over him either. They need more in that case.

Like I said, unless we were there, none of us have a clue as to what really happened to Stacy.

But when Mims spills dirt like he did after she vanished, what else are we to conclude?

The blue barrel comment from Mims is very bad for Drew.

Let's see Lisa Stebic files for a divorce, the husband is the last one to see her and a speck of Lisa's blood is found in the rear of their van. Mims is a joke and what proof that there is a blue barrel, his word? He was a leach on Drew and sold his story.

Some people are positively evil. The rest of us relatively normal folks can't fathom what the evil mind can think and accomplish....

Hey Drew I should be at the WCADC around 5:00 P.M. with your girl for a conjugal visit! Are you ready?

Moreli, why the Patch admins put up with you is beyond me. You have some serious issues.

Watchful eye do you realize some prisons do give conjugal visits. Try and find me! I would rather be doing this than watching the news showing the low life scum bag NATO and OWS protesters !

There is no expectation of attorney privilege if it means covering up the knowledge of the commision of a crime, and a wife CAN testify against her husband, she just can't be MADE to. If they couldn't you would never be able to prosecute domestic violence cases involving married couples. Additionally, Smith (in any case) should not have released this information to the press and for his actions that are stated to be for protecting these victims, he is doing a lot to help Peterson's case. Savio's aquittals must have been due to very weak prosecuting and good defensive evidence, because it certainly wasn't because of THIS goober.