Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[~n/t~]

OT: I hate InSession's twitter feed -- they are way slower.

They are but they're way more precise than just tweeting a few words here and there.

 

[Shelby1]

Shelby will you continue or want me to take over? :blowkiss:

You can take over I need to get off my butt again lol.

 

[panthera]

Judge "If there is going to be a sanction in this case, it’s going to be immediate . . . it isn’t going to be put over;"

Meanwhile can't help but wonder what the jury is thinking as they are spending yet more time out of the courtroom.......

:waitasec:

 

[seattlechiquita]

tic toc tic toc :waiting:

 

[katydid23]

Greenberg "ultimately what matters is giving #DrewPeterson a fair trial. there was a VERY CLEAR ruling giving by this court beforehand."

SeidelContent: #DrewPeterson atty Greenberg: "What kind of trial and what kind of evidence are we dealing with here? ... Already dangerous evidence."
in 6 minutes from web
InSession: #drewpeterson Brodsky "what remedy would be appropriate, the defendant does not wish to start again"

 

[~n/t~]

And he is doing a very good job of it, with their help.

IMO, it wasn't such a big deal. The witness didn't answer. It was objected to. Strike the question. Move on. No need for the drama.

Penalize the prosecution later. How does this question effect the defendent in not getting a fair trial? This is ridiculous.

The prosecution was having a good day and they screwed up but it wasn't a disaster as the Judge makes it sound, imo

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Brodsky: “The protections in the Constitution are not against the people, they’re against the government functionaries . . . if the police or the State violate the law, then the rights of the accused must take precedence over that.” Prosecutor Connor then offers a cite, “People v. Hall,” a 2000 case. “In that case, there were two violations of the Court’s motion in limine . . . I’d certainly argue that under these circumstances this would be far less of a violation.” Attorney Greenberg: “I agree with the Court that the remedy is for the proceedings here; Mr. Peterson is entitled to a fair trial . . . [but] I don’t think we can characterize this as inadvertent . .. the fact is that the question shouldn’t have been asked. I believe the transcript reflects that the day the bullet testimony came out that it was purposeful. And I don’t think we can characterize this as inadvertent; it was in there, and it was done, and it was done for a reason. What kind of a trial, what kind of evidence are we dealing with here? This is probably a situation that will never come up again; we’re already talking about dangerous evidence. They have a special duty to be careful about presenting this evidence. It’s explosive evidence, and if it’s mishandled the prejudice is undeniable . . . they are the attorneys not just for the people of Will County, but also for Drew Peterson . . . they are under obligation to make sure they give him a fair trial, Judge . . . they keep repeatedly striking these foul blows. I actually think the only remedy at this point is a mistrial with prejudice. And if you then felt that wasn’t the right remedy, that’s the point to talk about secondary remedies.”

 

[TxLady2]

Meanwhile can't help but wonder what the jury is thinking as they are spending yet more time out of the courtroom.......

:waitasec:

I bet they feel like they're wearing springs on their backsides.

 

[katydid23]

Defense calls the question "dangerous evidence" that has been barred

: #DrewPeterson atty Greenberg says we're talking about "dangerous evidence" that has been barred, then let back in and now misused.

: Greenberg says Glasgow and team are not only attorneys for people of Will County but also for #DrewPeterson

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: “When Your Honor considers a motion to suppress, you don’t consider whether ruling in the defendant’s favor is going to harm the people of Will County, or the people of Illinois. You do it because it’s what the law requires. It doesn’t say that in a murder case you’re supposed to read the Fourth Amendment . . . there’s no different standards . . . there is no case anybody’s going to be able to cite to you that says the people’s right to a fair trial is a reason not to grant a mistrial with prejudice. The case law is clear in saying you can consider a accumulation of errors.”

 

[Cubby]

This judge sounds incensed.

That's an understatement. I'm dreading what I might read next.... still catching up on this thread.

 

[back2back19]

Nope. Not this Judge. He has to make the prosectors look like idiots. He enjoys it.

IA; I don't know why he doesn't strike the question and just move on but he seems to just take his jollies from calling the state out. I get being pissy though since the state has made mistakes before but this doesn't seem too big of a deal.

 

[LaLaw2000]

My nerves are shot............

 

[TxLady2]

IMO, it wasn't such a big deal. The witness didn't answer. It was objected to. Strike the question. Move on. No need for the drama.

Penalize the prosecution later. How does this question effect the defendent in not getting a fair trial? This is ridiculous.

The prosecution was having a good day and they screwed up but it wasn't a disaster as the Judge makes it sound, imo

Oh, I agree with you!! The key word is THEY screwed up. They knew better!! Judges hate to have their rulings ignored, both sides have to be respectful of whoever is on the bench, whether he's fair or not. In one way, I can see the defense's point... they've fought like hell to keep some of this testimony out and the pros. wants to get it in, one way or the other.
I think the judge is more mad that they ignored his ruling than he is concerned with the defendant getting a fair trial.

 

[katydid23]

"You don't say to the court we only get a mistrial the way want the mistrial" -Judge Burmilla

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Greenberg: I think you can consider the amount of times this has happened, and I think each one builds on the one before . . . we should not be made to pay for that. If you think a mistrial with prejudice is not appropriate, then I think we’d have to access whether a mistrial without prejudice would be appropriate, and whether Mr. Peterson would have to remain in jail for what would probably be another year? And only after those sanctions had been rejected would an instruction be considered.” Greenberg cites the case against W. R. Grace. “In that case, the prosecutors repeatedly violated court orders. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said it was indeed appropriate to give the kind of instruction we’re asking for . . . people are human . . . are we going to just tell them to ignore the evidence? It still is there . . . if this hurts the prosecution, shame on them! If they have to stand up and be accountable to the people of Will County for the problems they caused, then they have to be accountable for the problems they caused . . . the sole consideration at this point was is it intentional, and can Mr. Peterson get a fair trial? That’s really the consideration.”

 

[katydid23]

judge says he is surprised that Peterson says he only wants a mistrial if he is freed and not retried. Defense now confering.

 

[Cubby]

And they didn't even need to get into any order of protection at this point.

I think in IL in order to get an emergency order of protection the incident needs to have occured within the previous 72 hours.

In this case the report was a 'delayed' report as described previously. Why the heck did they even need to go there. As I understand it, (IANAL) it was really too late to ask for an OOP that many days later.


Ugh, what a mess. It's sad when all the defense has to do is sit back and watch the pros eff this up for themselves. Sheesh! :sigh:

 

[seattlechiquita]

"You don't say to the court we only get a mistrial the way want the mistrial" -Judge Burmilla

Oh snap! :floorlaugh:

 

[~n/t~]

In Session Judge: “How does the defendant make the argument, ‘I can only get a fair trial if I can’t be tried again?’ I’m frankly surprised Mr. Peterson would urge up on the court, ‘Give me a mistrial, but only in the way I want a mistrial’ . . . if I believe this case cannot go forward, whether I believe that’s with or without prejudice is a separate situation.”