Drew Peterson's attorneys filed a motion Monday challenging the constitutionality of a new state law some have called "Drew's law" that gives judges the power to allow hearsay evidence into the courtroom under certain conditions.
Peterson is charged in the 2004 drowning death of third wifeKathleen Savio. If prosecutors can prove at a pretrial hearing that Peterson killed Savio to prevent her from testifying, the new law lets a judge admit Savio's letters and statements to friends and family into evidence at trial.
Peterson's attorneys argue that the law, which took effect in December, violates a defendant's 6th Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses; goes against state and federal constitutional proscriptions against retroactively applied laws; and "erodes the presumption of innocence" by asking a judge before the trial even starts to find that Peterson murdered Savio to silence her.
"There is a profound unfairness in allowing the state's attorney to draft, and the legislature to enact, a law aimed at obtaining the conviction of a single individual," the motion says, referring to Will County State's Atty. James Glasgow, who pushed for the law.
"The new hearsay law ... as written would allow gossip, innuendo, rumor and back-fence scandal to come into a court of law and masquerade as evidence."
The law was specifically drafted to meet constitutional muster, said a spokesman for the state's attorney's office, who added that similar laws have been enacted in more than a dozen states.
"Mr. Glasgow is eager to argue this motion and he believes thoroughly that he will prevail as to the constitutionality issues," said spokesman Charles Pelkie.
sschmadeke@tribune.com
Peterson is charged in the 2004 drowning death of third wifeKathleen Savio. If prosecutors can prove at a pretrial hearing that Peterson killed Savio to prevent her from testifying, the new law lets a judge admit Savio's letters and statements to friends and family into evidence at trial.
Peterson's attorneys argue that the law, which took effect in December, violates a defendant's 6th Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses; goes against state and federal constitutional proscriptions against retroactively applied laws; and "erodes the presumption of innocence" by asking a judge before the trial even starts to find that Peterson murdered Savio to silence her.
"There is a profound unfairness in allowing the state's attorney to draft, and the legislature to enact, a law aimed at obtaining the conviction of a single individual," the motion says, referring to Will County State's Atty. James Glasgow, who pushed for the law.
"The new hearsay law ... as written would allow gossip, innuendo, rumor and back-fence scandal to come into a court of law and masquerade as evidence."
The law was specifically drafted to meet constitutional muster, said a spokesman for the state's attorney's office, who added that similar laws have been enacted in more than a dozen states.
"Mr. Glasgow is eager to argue this motion and he believes thoroughly that he will prevail as to the constitutionality issues," said spokesman Charles Pelkie.
sschmadeke@tribune.com
Copyright Notice
The material in this site is copyright protected.
Copyright Notice
All material on this site http://whereabouts.blogster.com including all comments not covered by other copyright and not explicitly marked as public domain is copyright ©2009 Laura L. Burke
Material can be linked to only.
Email
Print Article
Favorites
Report Abuse
Judge it!
If you "prove" that someone killed another to prevent them fom testifying, then what is the trial for? how can you "prove" someone did something in our legal system without a trial?
there are several issues here. The first is the unconstitutionality of this law because it requires the state to "proe" that he killed her to prevent her from testifying but the only way to prove that is to go to trial.
There is a very valid reason why hearsay and gossip are not allowed in a court of law and that is because they are unreliable and most times false. I realize this is a bit different and Kathleen Savio's letters should be heard, I do believe that but I don't beleive in violating our constitution and I am eager to hear what the court have to say about all of this.