PETERSON LAW PASSES: PREPARING THE LION'S DEN

Drew Peterson - many say he looks just like a lion

LAW PASSED TO ALLOW DREW'S MURDER CONFESSION TO "UNAVAILABLE" STACY INTO EVIDENCE

The House voted today to approve new legislation, the "Drew Peterson Law" that allows hearsay statements admissible that otherwise would not be allowed at trial. The hearsay amendment became effective "instanter", i.e. immediately, which means that we could expect an indictment of Drew very soon in the murders of ex-wife, Kathleen Savio and/or current-wife, Stacy Peterson.

Of course, the insiders are not coming out to say that this law was created specifically for Peterson; however, "[Will County State's Attorney James] Glasgow insisted the law isn’t designed to target Drew Peterson or any specific individual, but said he intends to "aggressively" use the new measure." C'mon, that statement makes the intended target of the law - DREW - pretty obvious!

Essentially, the law says that Drew's confession to Stacy that he killed Kathleen didn't "disappear" with Stacy! Drew allegedly told Stacy he killed Kathleen and also asked her to be his alibi on the night of the murder.  Just a few months before Stacy's disappearance, Stacy shared this confession & information with her pastor. 

Since Stacy is "unavailable" and cannot testify against Drew in the murder of Kathleen, the law allows Stacy's pastor to stand in Stacy's shoes and tell the jury that Drew confessed to killing Kathleen.  The pastor is testifying for Stacy since she can't speak for herself.  

One important note: it has been incorrectly stated that the law requires that the state show Drew killed Stacy to prevent her from testifying. The Sun-Times said: "The change in state law allows prosecutors to use at trial so-called "hearsay" evidence from witnesses who may have been murdered by a defendant to stop them from testifying." Actually, the state does NOT need to prove that he murdered Stacy because he didn't want her to testify against him. No motive for Stacy's murder is required! Prosecutors just need to SUGGEST that he murdered Stacy and therefore she is now unavailable as a witness. IT DOES NOT MATTER "WHY" HE MURDERED STACY!

So how do they prove he murdered Stacy? Well, they don't really need to prove he murdered her! In fact, the law says that murder (of Stacy) need not even be prosecuted. Essentially, it's just presumed that Drew murdered Stacy; therefore, she isn't available to testify against him at Kathleen's trial. THE BURDEN OF PROOF IS SO LOW ON THE STATE IN THIS LAW!

WHY IS THE LAW SUCH A BIG DEAL?

A confession is usually THE key piece of evidence in a case, especially if the other evidence isn't enough to really secure a guilty verdict. Often times, a confession alone is enough to convince a defendant to plead guilty.  I mean, if you admitted to doing the crime, how can I defend you?!?  (Of course, there are always motions to be filed to suppress statements, but I'm just generally speaking here.) 

Clearly, the State didn't think the evidence was enough without the confession getting before the jury.  I don't suspect the state will charge Drew in both the murders of Kathleen and Stacy; if they do, it probably won't be at the time. Even if he were charged with both murders, the state would "elect" (pick one to proceed on first) and then after that case is closed, they would proceed on the second case. 

I suspect they will charge Drew with the murder of Kathleen within a few weeks.

• They have the body - it was exhumed and ruled a homicide 3 years after her death
• They have Drew's confession to Stacy - that will come into evidence through Stacy's pastor
• They have plenty of witnesses to testify about his behavior
• They have many other documents that add to the State's case: letters from victims, phone records, etc.

Preparing the Lion's Den Requires Making Sure All is Secure

I know that the families of both Stacy and Kathleen feel like they have been waiting forever for an indictment.  But, IF Drew is indicted, the families will now understand why they had to wait so long: the long-awaited indictment will show how our system can work properly: investigators, prosecutors and state legislators put their heads together to create a case where initial suspicions were not enough to bring forward immediate charges.

The entire team want to be sure that Drew isn't getting out of the lion's den once they put him there.  I think once all of this comes together, it will be fascinating to see how many people worked on PROPERLY bringing the case forward.  It's better for the family to wait for a guilty verdict instead of watching the State rush through an indictment and trial and watch someone walk free who otherwise.  (This is my fear in the Casey Anthony case...and this "allegedly" happened in the OJ Simpson case.)

Here's the new law:

(725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 new)
Sec. 115-10.6. Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness

Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Code of Criminal Procedure of 1963. Provides that a statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant in violation of the first degree murder statute intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding. Provides that while intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a witness. Provides that the murder of the declarant may, but need not, be the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered. Provides that if the murder of the declarant is not the subject of the trial at which the statement is being offered, the murder need not have ever been prosecuted. Provides that the admissibility of the statements shall be determined by the court at a pretrial hearing. Establishes criteria which such statement may be admitted into evidence.

www.xpunged.com and www.tamaraholder.com

Comments

[Carlgh]

Knowing the law, as it stood, Drew could have killed his wife, confessed to his lover/wife-to-be, then killed her, like covering a trail behind you. However, he didn't count on 1) his new wife confessing to her pastor and 2) state law being changed... gottcha