All News & Blogs
Joel Brodsky, attorney for Drew Peterson, talks to the media outside the Will County Courthouse on Wednesday, the first day of jury deliberations in Peterson's murder trial.
Paul Beaty / ASSOCIATED PRESS
Visit the Photo Place
BY MICHAEL TARM
JOLIET, Ill.--As they began deliberations Wednesday, jurors in Drew Peterson's trial were zeroing in on the case's trickiest issue: whether to believe secondhand hearsay statements that would often be barred from consideration in a criminal court.
Because of a botched initial investigation, detectives collected no fingerprints, strands of hair or any other physical evidence in the death of Peterson's third wife. So Illinois legislators passed a law aimed specifically at the former suburban Chicago police officer. That allowed prosecutors to pursue a conviction based substantially on statements Peterson's ex-wives made to friends and acquaintances.
After less than two hours of deliberations, jurors sent a flurry of notes to the judge asking for transcripts relating to hearsay that implicated Peterson. Forty-year-old Kathleen Savio was found dead in her bathtub in 2004, her hair soaked in blood and a gash on the back of her head.
Hearsay is any information reported by a witness that is not based on the witness' direct knowledge.
During five weeks of testimony, witnesses described statements Savio allegedly made about threats from
Some defense attorneys worry that the trial--the first in Illinois history to rely so heavily on hearsay--could fundamentally alter how prosecutors and defense attorneys handle murder cases in this state and around the country.
"The legal issues here are extraordinary," said Phil Turner, a Chicago defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. "If this sets a precedent, more people will get convicted because someone testifies that someone told them something."
Heading into the trial, prosecutors described the hearsay evidence as offering Savio and Stacy Peterson the opportunity to speak to jurors "from their graves."
But the challenge for the jury is deciding if those words--recounted secondhand in court--are believable.
In closing arguments, the prosecution said the fact that more than a half-dozen witnesses cited conversations with Savio and Stacy Peterson that implicated Drew Peterson made those statements all the more believable.
But defense attorney Joe Lopez said the women's comments were no more credible than water-cooler gossip.
"How many times are you at work and you hear someone say something about someone. They're lying!" he told the jury.
The defense has also lashed out at Savio and Stacy Peterson's own credibility.