Drew Peterson's Trial *THIRD WEEK*

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness and jury are now back in the courtroom, and prosecutor Patton resumes her direct examination. “Did she tell you whether or not the telephone rang while she was talking with Mr. Peterson?” “It rang three times.” “Did she express whether she was surprised to see him?” Objection/Sustained. “After he looked out the window, what, if anything, happened next?’ Objection/Overruled. “He threw down the garage door opener and he removed the earpiece from his ear. And he quickly left the residence.”

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session “Did she, on that day, say whether or not she’d filed a report about what happened?” Objection/Sustained. “Did you have a conversation about whether she filed a report on July 5?’ “Yes, she did not file a report . . . she felt the defendant was unstable. And she felt that if she did, in fact, report it, he would deny what she said.” “Did you have any discussions about her about...” Objection. The parties head to a sidebar

In Session The sidebar ends. The witness and jurors are again excused from the courtroom

 

[ohiogirl]

OMG! This is ridiculous.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session The witness and jury are now gone. Judge: “Now, we had a hearing about what would or would not be admissible in the oral portion of the conversation between this witness and the defendant. And I specifically pointed to the sentence referring to the order of protection, and said that statement was out. I was absolutely specific . . . I said order of protection is out. And then the State, apparently not paying any attention to what I said, asked the witness, ‘Did she say anything about getting an order of protection?’ . . . I think that’s what I said. It’s not like she interjected it; you asked her.” Patton: “I wasn’t trying to go against what Your Honor said . . . there isn’t an order of protection.” Judge: “I said specifically that this is out. That didn’t mean partially, what you thought I meant . . . order of protection was out. I specifically said not to do that . . . you interjected order of protection into the case when I said don’t do that . . . whether it’s good, bad, or neutral for the State is of no consequence. There’s only one thing I asked you not to go into, and that’s exactly what you did.” Patton: “I just say to the Court that I was trying to ask this witness if she suggested that she do something.” Judge: “But your question was about the order of protection . . . but we’re belaboring the point.” Patton: “That was my fault. I don’t know what else to say. I was thinking of it from a different perspective . . . I guess there’s nothing more I can say. I certainly didn’t mean it to be harmful to the defense.”

 

[seattlechiquita]

WTF is wrong with the pros? they are risking a mistrial! ARGHHHHH

 

[seattlechiquita]

oh man, I can almost see it coming.

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Attorney Brodsky responds. “It was clearly an intentional violation by the State’s Attorney. We have no remedy. The jury heard it. There are two options: a mistrial with prejudice . . . the other option would be to strike this witness’ testimony in total from the record . . . and ask the State to call its next witness.” Patton: “I understood that we didn’t want to go into this because the Court felt perhaps it would be prejudicial to the defendant. The manner in which I asked the question, I apologize for that; I can’t take it back. But she didn’t do the things the witness urged her to do; that doesn’t help the State.” Judge: “This is a situation where the Court makes a ruling and it’s completely ignored by the State, because they believe could interject that explosive subjection of an order of protection after I specifically said not two hours don’t do that . . . the State just decided they weren’t going to do what I said. And now we have that subject interjected in front of that jury, which I didn’t want to happen. The defense now says for, I think, the third time, that their client can’t get a fair trial.” Greenberg: “I don’t know how many times they can put prejudicial evidence that you’ve excluded . . . we can’t just tell these jurors to keep wiping their minds free of this. It’s a direct court order you gave two hours ago, and they’ve burst right through the wall with this . . . at some point, it gets to be too much . . . you haven’t once had to instruct the jury about things the defense has done. Not once! And we’re supposed to be the slimy defense attorneys!”

 

[Cappuccino]

Yeah, that sidebar was the prosecution's fault. Stupid thing to do.

 

[seattlechiquita]

The prosecution has done such an amateurish job I would sort of like to see a mistrial without prejudice -- this way they can get their s.h.i.t. together and put on a real case. I cannot believe how incredibly stupid they look.

 

[ohiogirl]

This judge sounds incensed.

 

[seattlechiquita]

This judge sounds incensed.

I cannot blame him. These pros are driving everyone nuts. They had years to prepare this case, years.... and this is the kind of stuff they pull? :maddening:

 

[Cappuccino]

And they were going so well today too. That's a completely stupid error for the prosecutors to make.

 

[ohiogirl]

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

 

[LaLaw2000]

I cannot believe this! Why, why, why????????

 

[ohiogirl]

In Session Patton: “This is my fault. I’ve had a lot of experience, and I can’t believe I did it . . . I know that you said that now, when we talk about it, but I did not recall that. That is no excuse.” Judge: “Is there some case law that you’re aware of that I have to weigh the malignancy of the State’s actions? I’m not aware of any . . . that is completely irrelevant. The only issue is whether or not the defendant can get a fair trial. And the reason that it happened is inconsequential. I’m not sitting here to pass judgment; I could hold you in contempt right now, and I’m not doing that . . . if I bring the jury back in and give them another instruction and tell them that you did it on purpose, now we’re verging on the point where is the State going to be able to get a fair trial?” The judge asks the State how long it would take them to come up with what they think is an appropriate remedy in this case (“if there is a remedy&#8221. Glasgow asks for a hour. Judge: “OK, we’ll be in recess then until 3:00 . . . if you find something that leads to a need for more time than that, let me know. We’ll take a brief recess.

In Session The judge has left the bench. The trial is in recess until 3:00 CT/4:00 ET

 

[Cappuccino]

That was a good witness for the prosecution, now they face the risk that her testimony will be entirely struck from the record. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Within two hours of the judge telling them not to mention that one thing, for crying out loud.

I agree with the poster above that I'd like to see a mistrial without prejudice so they can start again.

 

[LaLaw2000]

Of course I do not see why the entire truth shouldn't come in anyway. BUT the prosecution has to obey the judge's orders (and I don't like him).

So what now???

 

[seattlechiquita]

That was a good witness for the prosecution, now they face the risk that her testimony will be entirely struck from the record. Stupid, stupid, stupid. Within two hours of the judge telling them not to mention that one thing, for crying out loud.

I agree with the poster above that I'd like to see a mistrial without prejudice so they can start again.

bbm --- INORITE????? How stupid can you possibly be? :banghead:

The way it's going, I would vote to acquit with all that's being excluded and the lack of professionalism shown by the State. I think their best bet is a mistrial without prejudice.

 

[Cappuccino]

I think it would be best too. Its entirely possible that the jury is so fatigued and irritated with being told to leave and then come back in again every five minutes that they will give a verdict designed to bloody the nose of whichever side they're most irritated by.

I know juries shouldn't do that, but they do. OJ Simpson wasn't acquitted because the jury thought he was innocent, they just wanted a chance to humiliate the LAPD.

 

[seattlechiquita]

The other option is to strike all of this testimony off the record. They're screwed either way - and it is their own darn fault. Peoples, I am pissed. This is Law School 101 wth.