Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[katydid23]

defense team tells the judge that Peterson only wants a mistrial if it's with prejudice. He doesn't want to start over.


judge to Brodsky: "You only want the mistrial that you want?" Brodsky: "Yes."

 

[Cappuccino]

They can, but I've a feeling it will get more serious than that. The judge isn't happy with them at all.

 

[TxLady2]

I don't see why they can't just strike the question, if there was no response, and move on. But then there were other similar incidents, so I guess he's not going to just sit back and let it go.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session Koch repeats that “the appropriate remedy would be to strike the question and move on.” Judge: “So each of the State’s errors is a separate issue?” Koch: “Yes . . . as far as a curative instruction beyond anything other than striking it, we believe that’s the appropriate remedy.” Judge: “If there is a sanction to be imposed, it certainly isn’t going to be treated as a Sword of Damocles . . . that would be the worst thing I could do in this case, because that would hamper the way in which the State proceeds. 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; if there’s a sanction, it’s going to be discussed.” Attorney Brodsky responds: “Actually, there were five errors here: first in the opening statement, about the so-called hit man. Then with Mr. Pontarelli, the bullet. Then the FBI report. Then this one, with the order of protection . . . it was Kathy Savio’s state of mind being fear, which Judge White ruled was absolutely irrelevant. It’s an avalanche, Your Honor, of prejudicial error, illegal evidence that is polluting this jury. I heard people say, ‘Well, the State’s got to get a fair trial, too.’ Well, I’ve read the Bill of Rights, and there isn’t one thing that protects the rights of the State. The State has all the power, and the defendant is the one whose rights are protected. Here, we have what can only be intentional and prejudicial introduction of material to this jury time after time after time . . . with such a small number of witnesses, and such a short period of time, to have this many prejudicial errors of putting matters before the jury that are clearly irrelevant, how can the defendant get a fair trial?” “So you only want the mistrial?” “Yes . .. with prejudice, yes; without prejudice, no.”

 

[~n/t~]

Boy, the judge seems REALLY mad.

Isn't he always when it's against the prosecution? He even takes out his frustration on witnesses for pete's sake. The victim's family!!

This Judge is enjoying every minute of bullying and ridiculing the prosecution team. Yes they made a mistake but let's move on. No need for him to do continuously bring up the fact that they ignored his motion. We know. The court knows. The whole frickin world knows.

I don't like this Judge. Can you tell? lol

 

[panthera]

Joel Brodsky: "It's an avalanche, your honor, of prejudicial error.

Brodsky "How can you protect #DrewPeterson rights in this case when we have only prejudicial manners to this jury time after time."

Brodsky: "The defendant does not wish to start again." #DrewPeterson
in 5 minutes from web
Joliet_HN: Brodsky: It’s an avalanche, your Honor, of prejudicial error. Not error, but prejudicial, illegal evidence #DrewPeterson

Wouldn't want to be the Judge at this moment. Despite his earlier rulings against the State, he is now faced with a monumental decision.

MOO

 

[TxLady2]

defense team tells the judge that Peterson only wants a mistrial if it's with prejudice. He doesn't want to start over.


judge to Brodsky: "You only want the mistrial that you want?" Brodsky: "Yes."

OMG! He's going to do it!

 

[~n/t~]

I don't see why they can't just strike the question, if there was no response, and move on. But then there were other similar incidents, so I guess he's not going to just sit back and let it go.

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

 

[katydid23]

defense says, barring mistrial, it wants the jury to be told that prosecutors infringed on Peterson's right to a fair trial


judge says one could logically infer that prosecution defied him intentionally.

SeidelContent: #DrewPeterson judge: State's Attorney not entitled to fair trial, but citizens of Will County are.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Isn't he always when it's against the prosecution? He even takes out his frustration on witnesses for pete's sake. The victim's family!!

This Judge is enjoying every minute of bullying and ridiculing the prosecution team. Yes they made a mistake but let's move on. No need for him to do continuously bring up the fact that they ignored his motion. We know. The court knows. The whole frickin world knows.

I don't like this Judge. Can you tell? lol

I don't like him either sister, but the prosecution is doing the worst possible job. They have done this three times, knowing all too well that they are not the judge's favorites.

I am leaning towards entire testimony will be thrown out.

 

[Shelby1]

In Session In the alternative, Brodsky believes that the Court should strike Kernc’s testimony in its entirely, instruct the jury to ignore it in its entirety, and to tell jurors that if they find the State has purposely mislead the jury . . . “the jury can’t infer from this conduct of the State, a consciousness by the State of the weakness of its case, this fact alone may create a reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors which would require a verdict of not guilty. Unless we’re going to end this case by a mistrial with prejudice, this kind of language is the only thing that can let this trial go forward.” Judge: “You said there isn’t anything in the Constitution that grants any specific rights to the State . .. I’m not sure I agree with that. The citizens of this community are entitled to a fair trial, a trial that they can rely on. The question I have for you, though, is I’ve already instructed the jury once on the actions of the prosecution. If I believe now that the State defied my order, and did so purposely, and give the jury the instruction you’ve suggested, what am I telling the jury? That the government is unlawful, out of control? How is that a fair trial? How does that create a trial the people in the community can look at and find confidence in? What does that accomplish?” Brodsky confirms that the defense does not want a mistrial at this point, only a mistrial with prejudice.

 

[~n/t~]

This is sickening! This Judge had to be removed immediately. Too late now.

 

[katydid23]

judge says defense attorney remedy would penalize the state and deny the people of Will County a fair trial.

 

[LaLaw2000]

I not only do not like this judge, I cannot stand him.

The question was not answered. Strike it and give an instruction to the jury, for goodness sake. Then BENCH Patton; throw her out of the trial. She can assist, but silently. I wouldn't mind seeing her get a contempt citation.

JMO

 

[~n/t~]

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

 

[Noway]

In Session ‏@InSession #drewpeterson Koch: “Yes, as far as curative instruction beyond anything other than striking it, we believe that’s the appropriate remedy.”

Here's hoping.

 

[katydid23]

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;"

 

[katydid23]

judge asks prosecutors to provide him w/ a remedy to this situation (the defense's mistrial request):

 

[seattlechiquita]

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

 

[TxLady2]

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

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