Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[atthelake]

She'll get personal sanctions alright -- I would be surprised if she has a job for much longer.

That is what we thought with Baez and he came through squeaky clean :banghead:

 

[atthelake]

Will be interesting what, if anything judge White will say tomorrow on Is. He is so very careful not to offend.

 

[atthelake]

If the letter Kathy wrote is out, the case goes with it. It is the only piece of evidence that is not hearsay. omg these morons.

:rocker::banghead::banghead:

 

[seattlechiquita]

That is what we thought with Baez and he came through squeaky clean :banghead:

Baez is a defense attorney - Patton is bound by more than clientele.

I honestly would prefer to see a mistrial declared tomorrow. Like someone said, if even with all these shenanigans this SOB is found guilty, it will become Appeal Central. The state should be ashamed of themselves. They had YEARS to prep for this trial. They are effing it up.

The DT, as much as I dislike them, is doing a fantastic job. Their job is to get their client out of jail. Something tells me they just might.

 

[Noway]

Interesting that the investigation in the Abrams' case was led by Edward Burmila when he was Will County State’s Attorney.

 

[Noway]

IMO his defense would have appealed any conviction, not just one based on what's gone on now.

 

[seattlechiquita]

IMO his defense would have appealed any conviction, not just one based on what's gone on now.

Absolutely -- but with this sort of stuff, the chances of a reversal are huge.

Is reversal the right word? I iz no lawyer, just play an angry one on the interwebs

 

[~n/t~]

If its a cumulation of errors from the prosecution which causes a mistrial, then I don't think she should be singled out for sanctions just because she made the last error. What she said, on its own, would not have been that big a deal without what went on before.

It was outside the presence of the jury. The jury doesn't know what went on during the numerous times they had to be taken out of the court room because of the defense whining about every piece of evidence. Even when the Judge rules it's admissable, they still object causing side bars and wasting time. Why doesn't the Judge say something about that? It's outrageous!

I still think it's not such a big deal. Object - Sustain - Move on. He wants to sanction the prosecution, go for it but it's no reason to cause this ongoing drama being caused by the Judge and the Defense. It's as if the Judge is goading them on. IMO

 

[~n/t~]

I don't see it as a big deal either.

Is this all over a question that went unanswered about a knife? Well, the jury has already been told KS slept with a knife. How would they know if it is about that particular one or not? The question was not answered. Strike it and move on.

I do think this Judge should not have been on this case. Don't know if he is just over due retirement, grouchy and clearly prejudice, showing off for us handful of listeners, or can't put a cop in jail, but he needs to be off this case. It will not happen, but it is very clear that he has some prejudices - that work in DP's favor not just legally.

He's a former defense attorney and lost a case against the leading prosecutor in this case. Ya so I would say there is some bad blood there and obviously a conflict and it shows. The prosecution should not have had him sit on this trial.

 

[~n/t~]

That is exactly what I was thinking. He seemed so angry last time as well, then he seemed to calm down and make a decision on the remedy and they all moved on. Hopefully he will do the same tonight. Have a martini or two, get his wife to give him a back rub and a hot bath, and he can reevaluate in the morning.

:steamed::chillpill: :drink: :bath: :cloud9: :scale::gavel:

Your post animated by the smileys cracked me up. :floorlaugh:

 

[panthera]

No, I think it was about Patton mentioning the request for an order of protection, right after the judge said it was not to be discussed in front of the jury.

Correct. The Judge had just ruled earlier today that the OP was not to be brought up. Patton "forgot" to take the question out of her notes, asked about it, and the rest is history....

 

[passionflower]

If this is a mistrial, will there be another judge?
HOPING for a judge without a grudge!

 

[Cubby]

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.

It's an election year. Glasgow is up for re-election. Perhaps it isn't the grudge the judge holds from losing an election to Glasgow 20 years ago. Perhaps the judge wants to see Glasgow's opponent win this years election.

just sayin'.

 

[WindyCityGirl]

On the one hand, I honestly think in some ways that this judge is enjoying his moment in the media spot-light and this is just a lot of histrionics. I really don't think that this was anything that a judge could not have ruled upon today. However, at least this judge is being careful about his rulings--there is an obstacle with every piece of testimony. It is wearing and it must be for the judge too.

I hope that there is not a mistrial as I think that would only be to Drew's benefit. We don't need to start over again. I think that the prosecution has been doing well. Today would have been another strong day had it not been for this.......what a pity.

Should Drew be found guilty, of course his defense will attempt an appeal, but they are actually not granted liberally and there is a long, long wait time. It is a tedious process.

There is so much room for nuance and mental gymnastics with the legalese that my brain hurts. Taking the complexity of this case into consideration, I have to say that I have a lot of compassion for this judge. I will be very unhappy if he declares a mistrial though--

 

[Cubby]

In Session Judge: “What I was advised of was that it was all or nothing . . . give us the mistrial with prejudice, or forget it.” Greenberg: “Judge, the issue is first of all whether or not there should be a mistrial, with or without prejudice; that’s up to you. That is a decision you have to make. I suppose the issue that Mr. Brodsky was arguing is that Mr. Peterson does not feel that given what has transpired that he should have to go through this again. We feel we’ve been goaded through this repeatedly, and a mistrial with prejudice is the appropriate remedy. If you feel a mistrial is appropriate, but without prejudice, then perhaps we’d like to fashion a different remedy.” Judge: “I’m not going to come back here and say, ‘This is what I’m going to do, if it’s all right with Mr. Peterson. That’s not going to happen. If you want to withdraw your request for a mistrial, please feel free to do so . . . but to say the defendant can ask for one kind of a mistrial or not another, that’s not going to happen. I think I’ve heard enough from everyone . . . I’m going to take this under advisement until 9:00 tomorrow morning . . . I’ve already sent the jury home. We’re in recess.”

I'm STILL catching up.......

After reading the above, it really sounds like the defense pushed it too hard. Anyone beside me get the impression they're pulling their foot out of their throat?

 

[WindyCityGirl]

do this or that "if it is alright with Mr. Peterson" is hilarious haha!!:floorlaugh:

I'm STILL catching up.......

After reading the above, it really sounds like the defense pushed it too hard. Anyone beside me get the impression they're pulling their foot out of their throat?

 

[sfnelson67]

This whole case sickens me. They had more evidence with Casey Anthony but you see what happened there. Reasonable doubt is going to win. DP will continue to smirk like the devil's Cheshire cat. IMO all the officers that covered or halfed a$$Ed performed their jobs for their "bud" DP have Stacy Peterson's blood on their hands. They all pulled a Penn State and looked the other way when they knew darn good and well what kind of person they were covering for..Big hint Old guy having an affair with a minor...DUH!!! Upstanding officer my A$$!!!!

Sfnelson67

 

[Amster]

Who is Judge White and why are all of his "rulings" ruling this trial??

 

[fifteen89]

<snipped by me>
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.”

Yes, people are human. The PT are humans. Patton is human. People/humans make mistakes, Greenberg.

And how ironic Greenberg is suggesting "they have to stand up and be accountable for the problems they caused". I'd like to say the exact same thing to your client, Greenberg.

 

[panthera]

I'm STILL catching up.......

After reading the above, it really sounds like the defense pushed it too hard. Anyone beside me get the impression they're pulling their foot out of their throat?

Definitely yes!!