What will be considered in the Drew Peterson hearing? Here’s What We Know – NBC Chicago

As Drew Peterson’s appeals against his murder conviction repeatedly fail, it seems the former Chicago suburban police sergeant may be out of news.

But a decade after a jury convicted him in the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, Peterson was given something from the judge who sentenced him to 38 years in prison: One day other in court.

District Judge Will Edward Burmila is expected Monday to review Peterson’s hand-printed action from an Indiana jail to clear his criminal record after determining that he presented a claim.” gist of a constitution”.


Peterson says his attorney, Joel Brodsky, has been ineffective. He argued that Brodsky gave him bad advice, such as urging him not to testify and threatening to quit his job if he did. He paints Brodsky as a public hound.

He also said Will County State Attorney James Glasgow was an extremist and unscrupulous prosecutor who threatened witnesses. Peterson also blamed Hollywood, arguing that a film starring Rob Lowe portrayed him in a “very negative light” in the eyes of the judges.

Finally, Peterson said he was the victim of hearsay evidence that should never have been presented to jurors. Peterson was the first criminal defendant in Illinois history to be tried after Glasgow helped pass a law called “Drew’s Law”. It allowed Savio and Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, who disappeared in 2007, to “talk from their graves” through witnesses that both women had told them related things. regarding Peterson’s murder.


Much of what Peterson argued was shot down by judges and courts.

They made the argument that Brodsky was ineffective. And the Illinois Supreme Court has ruled that using the testimony of Savio and Stacy Peterson – whom Drew Peterson is suspected of murdering even though he has not been charged with her death – does not violate constitutional rights his when confronted with the accusers. The court found that there was evidence that Peterson had killed them to prevent their testimony.

Lawyers say that means Peterson must have something new to say.

“Whatever he’s brought up, he can’t advance after conviction unless he finds something new or has something to say,” said Terry Ekl, a prominent defense attorney in Chicago. which he did not know or could not know before”. unrelated to the case.

Legal experts and a former member of Peterson’s legal team say the argument that Glasgow witness intimidation is new and if the evidence suggests it happened – which the Glasgow office denies – it could help former police sergeant Bolingbrook. But attorney Joe Lopez, who is on the legal team, said Peterson would have to give evidence.

While the US Supreme Court has refused to hear Peterson’s appeal once, Phil Turner, a former federal prosecutor unrelated to the case, said it’s likely the high court may want to hear it. his argument regarding the prosecutor.

“That issue has some content,” Turner said. “If they form right, they can have a shot.”


When Burmila agreed to listen to Peterson more, he appointed an attorney and an investigator from the local public defender’s office to assist him. Attorneys may ask for more time to investigate when the case returns to court on Monday – a request Lopez and Ekl expect the judge to allow.

Burmila could then agree to an evidence hearing, meaning those with whom Peterson disputes are threatened or Glasgow itself can stand as witnesses, Ekl said.

Brodsky and Peterson may also be called to testify, which can make it difficult for Peterson. Brodksy will almost certainly be asked if he threatened to drop the case if Peterson testified at the trial. Brodsky was careful with his words when he told the Associated Press he would be forced to explain why he didn’t want Peterson to testify.

“Does Drew really want to do that?” he asked.

Peterson will also face his own claim to Burmila at trial that the decision not to testify was his. Ekl suggests that Peterson, a veteran cop, will have a hard time selling that argument.

“He’s not a 16-year-old kid,” Ekl said.

He may also have to face his own actions. If Brodsky wanted to go public, then Peterson showed up. Through all the public stunts, starting with the “Win ​​a Date with Drew” contest that the two have floated, Peterson seems to be a willing and even cheerful participant.


Is not.

Such calls are long shots. Besides, Peterson gave no evidence in his petition, which he himself wrote from prison.

Even if he succeeds, there’s this: A few years after Peterson was found guilty of murder, he was found guilty of conspiring to kill Glasgow. The sentence in that case was 40 years in prison – higher than the two years he received for killing his ex-wife – to begin with at the completion of his current sentence.

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/what-will-be-considered-at-drew-peterson-hearing-heres-what-we-know/2751101/ What will be considered in the Drew Peterson hearing? Here’s What We Know – NBC Chicago


USTimeToday is an automatic aggregator of the all world’s media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, all materials to their authors. If you are the owner of the content and do not want us to publish your materials, please contact us by email – admin@ustimetoday.com. The content will be deleted within 24 hours.

Related Articles

Back to top button