Drew Peterson's Trial *FIFTH WEEK* part two

[seattlechiquita]

Those are all good questions. I've been trying to view this trial in an unbiased manner and put aside alot of what I have heard and seen and just rely on the testimony. I'm waiting until after closings before I completely decide on guilty or NG. But, beyond a reasonable doubt and TO A MORAL CERTAINTY are for me a high bar to jump.

As it stands right now I have a lot of questions regarding the testimony of the pastor which is basically suppossed to be the voice of SP. As for the experts and their theories, well thats just what it is to me. I don't find either side more convincing than the other.

BBM. In complete agreement. Sadly for the pros, they had the burden of proof, and I do not believe they met it. They had a very weak case, they seemed ill prepared and sloppy more often than not.

Like WindyCityGirl, as sad as it makes me, I am inclined to believe this is going to walk.

 

[Wishbone]

BBM. In complete agreement. Sadly for the pros, they had the burden of proof, and I do not believe they met it. They had a very weak case, they seemed ill prepared and sloppy more often than not.

Like WindyCityGirl, as sad as it makes me, I am inclined to believe this is going to walk.

He just might. The PT made this trial look like a comedy of errors and why were they so unprepared......

 

[Bravo]

trial but that wasn't enough for the jury. Remember Nicole's voice ringing out in the courtroom to 911 in a terrified frail voice "He is going to kill me"...but he walked....
In this case, we have threats, damning testimony (hitman, lawyer, pastor, friends) but no physical evidence.
Is there reasonable doubt that this wasn't an accident?
Is there reasonable doubt that Drew didn't do it?

I don't know what this jury is going to think. He may very well walk. I hate to say it.....I hope that I am wrong.

Remember tho OJ was much loved by the public. DP not so much.

 

[Kimster]

During jury deliberations, we'll open a thread that will specifically be for discussion on what we think will be the verdict. I think it will be a very interesting topic! We'll play the jury, based solely on what we saw presented during the trial.

 

[Wishbone]

During jury deliberations, we'll open a thread that will specifically be for discussion on what we think will be the verdict. I think it will be a very interesting topic! We'll play the jury, based solely on what we saw presented during the trial.

That sounds great!!

 

[Kimster]

That sounds great!!

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=183412"]We the Jury! (Websleuths Jury Deliberations) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

A sneak peak. LOL

Is anyone in the courtroom today? Should I open the sidebar thread?

 

[seattlechiquita]

We the Jury! (Websleuths Jury Deliberations) - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

A sneak peak. LOL

Is anyone in the courtroom today? Should I open the sidebar thread?

Sort of a noob question --- what is the "sidebar thread"?

 

[Kimster]

Sort of a noob question --- what is the "sidebar thread"?

It's just a general discussion thread for when court is not in session. I either keep this thread open or that one. If there isn't going to be any court information all day, I might as well close this one so people know there isn't any new court information.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge Burmila is on the bench. “Good morning, everyone . . . this is a jury instruction conference. Then the State has filed a motion in limine, which we’ll discuss after the instruction conference is over.”

In Session Attorney Joel Brodsky addresses the Court regarding the first proposed instruction. The defense wants extra language in a standard instruction telling jurors not to let sympathy or prejudice influence their deliberations. Prosecutor Koch argues against the modified language. Brodsky: “The jury should be aware that [punishment] is not for them to worry about.” Judge: “The version submitted by the State is a correct statement of the law. The defendant’s modified [version] is denied.”

In Session The next instruction concerns outside sources of information. Once again, the defense offers a modified version, says the instruction as written is actually appropriate for a pre-trial instruction, not post-trial. The judge seems inclined not to re-read the instruction to the jury, but to submit it along with the written instructions. Brodsky: “We’ve had multiple people who have been sitting behind the State’s table, and actually instructed in and out of the courtroom by Chuck Pelkie, who after court addressed favorably the way the State’s case was going, and addressed in a negative fashion the way the case was going for the defense . . .they’re also on occasion criticizing the Court’s rulings. I don’t know what Mr. Pelkie is telling them . . . I just think that given the potential of some connection, reading this instruction to instruct the jury once again that they’re not to consider anything that may have filtered by to them through the press is beneficial to ensuring that Mr. Peterson gets a fair trial.”

In Session Prosecutor Koch responds, calls this defense complaint “purely speculative . . . I don’t see the purpose in reading this again at the end of the case.” Attorney Greenberg: “Why not give it, just in an overabundance of caution? There’s no harm.” Judge: “First of all, in regards to the allegations about communications with the press, I don’t know that what you’ve related to me today is something I can take into account . . . if what you’re saying is accurate, and the State’s Attorney’s office is using an agent to make derogatory comments about the Court, that’s something they’re going to have to answer to in a different setting. The case law in Illinois is completely clear that these instructions should not be modified, unless there’s a significant reason to modify them . . . we did give the instruction before the trial started . . . over the defendant’s objection, the instruction will not be modified, and it will be given to the jury in writing.”

In Session The next instruction involves the believability of witnesses. Brodsky has no objection to this instruction, and the instruction will be given as prepared.

 

[seattlechiquita]

ok, gotcha. Lawyers are in court arguing motions right now.

 

[fifteen89]

I'm thinking the jury must be staring at their closets wondering what to wear today. lol

You mean they didn't plan what they'd all wear every day of the holiday weekend?!

 

[Kimster]

Looks like I have my answer! :lol:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The next instruction involves opening statements. Again, the defense has no objection. The prosecution has an objection to the next instruction, related to the use of the word “deputy” instead of “bailiff.” The judge decides to grant the State’s suggested modification to change the word. The next several instructions will be read without objection (regarding the defendant’s pleading not guilty, presumption of innocence, defendant’s right not to testify, and the definition of circumstantial evidence).

 

[fifteen89]

Has it been decided if the jurors will be sequestered for deliberations?

 

[~n/t~]

Looks like I have my answer! :lol:

LOL Did you want to start a new thread? :lol: I suggest we finish the "court" stuff on this thread. Start a new thread for the long weekend sidebar thread and Tuesday a new one for the Closing Arguments.

I just got back but I'll have to leave again in an hour.....

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The defense has an objection to the next instruction, which Greenberg says is confusing. This apparently involves “statements” (but whether they’re media statements or hearsay statements is unclear, according to the defense). Brodsky proposes that the word “hearsay” be inserted in front of “statements,” to make the instruction’s meaning clearer. “Otherwise, they’re not going to know what we’re talking about . . . you haven’t heard evidence of the defendant’s statements; you’ve heard evidence about what may have been the defendant’s statements. That’s the problem with hearsay.” Prosecutor Koch: “Those aren’t hearsay statements.” Judge: “No, they’re hearsay. They’re admissible hearsay, but they’re still hearsay.” Koch: “I don’t think the instruction needs to be modified in any way. I think it’s appropriate.” Brodsky: “The jury doesn’t have any guideline by which to determine.” Judge: “Sure they do, the last sentence . . . it’s right there . . . I think that this is a correct statement of the law. The jury is advised that they can consider any of the statements they’ve heard that have been attributed to the defendant. The jury has to determine whether they believe the defendant even made those statements, and the circumstances under which they were made . . . I think it’s a correct statement of the law, and the defendant’s objections are overruled.”

 

[Kimster]

LOL Did you want to start a new thread? :lol: I suggest we finish the "court" stuff on this thread. Start a new thread for the long weekend sidebar thread and Tuesday a new one for the Closing Arguments.

I just got back but I'll have to leave again in an hour.....

No no! I agree! This is open until court is done for the day. I just get confused when I'm at work and unable to check things out more thoroughly.

 

[seattlechiquita]

In Session The defense has an objection to the next instruction, which Greenberg says is confusing. This apparently involves “statements” (but whether they’re media statements or hearsay statements is unclear, according to the defense). Brodsky proposes that the word “hearsay” be inserted in front of “statements,” to make the instruction’s meaning clearer. “Otherwise, they’re not going to know what we’re talking about . . . you haven’t heard evidence of the defendant’s statements; you’ve heard evidence about what may have been the defendant’s statements. That’s the problem with hearsay.” Prosecutor Koch: “Those aren’t hearsay statements.” Judge: “No, they’re hearsay. They’re admissible hearsay, but they’re still hearsay.” Koch: “I don’t think the instruction needs to be modified in any way. I think it’s appropriate.” Brodsky: “The jury doesn’t have any guideline by which to determine.” Judge: “Sure they do, the last sentence . . . it’s right there . . . I think that this is a correct statement of the law. The jury is advised that they can consider any of the statements they’ve heard that have been attributed to the defendant. The jury has to determine whether they believe the defendant even made those statements, and the circumstances under which they were made . . . I think it’s a correct statement of the law, and the defendant’s objections are overruled.”

bbm... Oh snap. The defense is getting owned in jury instructions. Don't know how much that will help the pros, but it is fun to have Burmilla finally act with some sense of impartiality. sort of.

 

[~n/t~]

Not many tweeters in court today. In Session is updating but the process is apparently very long and slow.

 

[~n/t~]

In Session The next instruction regards challenging the believability of witnesses. Attorney Greenberg says that the defense has its own proposed instruction on this issue. Attorney Joe Lopez: “The State tendered two versions of it. We want every variation.” Judge: “That doesn’t stand on its own.” Greenberg: “I don’t think it’s one or the other.” Prosecutor Koch: “This is for inconsistent statements.” Judge: “I think with those bracketed portions included would now be an accurate statement of the law.”

In Session The State has a proposed modification to the next instruction. Brodsky says that the defense also has its own proposed version of this instruction. Judge: “The State’s modification is a correct statement of the law, and will be given.”