Peterson was convicted in the murder of Kathleen Savio by a jury in 2003. He has received a sentence from the judge for 38 years.
Will County Judge Edward Burmila delayed the hearing until Monday, May 18 in order to review Peterson’s handprinted motionsent to an Indiana prison for vacate his conviction. Peterson had earlier presented the “gist” of a constitutional claim.
What are the arguments of Peterson?
Peterson claims that Joel Brodsky was his attorney and that he was ineffective. Brodsky, Peterson claims, gave poor advice to him. He advised him to not testify and threatened to quit if that happened. He describes Brodsky’s character as a publicity dog.
Peterson also claims that James Glasgow, Will County State’s attorney was an unprofessional and overzealous prosecutor who intimidated witnesses. Peterson also blames Hollywood for portraying him in a “very bad light” to the jury through a movie starring Rob Lowe.
Peterson claims he was the victim hearsay evidence that shouldn’t have been presented before jurors. Peterson was the first Illinois criminal defendant to be tried following the passage of a law called “Drew’s Law.” This allowed Savio, Peterson’s fourth spouse, Stacy, to “speak out from their graves” through witnesses who said that the women had told them stories that linked Peterson to the murder.
PETERSON CAN ANY OF IT BE A HELP?
Judges and courts have already rejected much of Peterson’s arguments.
They dismissed the argument that Brodsky had been ineffective. The Illinois Supreme Court ruled the use hearsay testimony of Savio Peterson and Stacy Peterson, whom Drew Peterson is accused of killing, did not violate his constitutional rights to confront his accusers. The court found that there was evidence that Peterson had killed them in order to stop their testimony.
Attorneys believe that Peterson has to have something to add.
Terry Ekl, a well-known Chicago-area defense lawyer, said that he cannot raise any post-conviction money for anything he has already raised unless he finds something new or something he couldn’t have known or could not have known before.
One former member of Peterson’s legal team and legal experts said that the argument that Glasgow intimidated witnesses was new. If evidence proves it did, which Glasgow’s office denies, it could help the Bolingbrook police sergeant. However, Joe Lopez, an attorney who was part of the legal team, stated that Peterson would have to present evidence.
Although the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear Peterson’s appeal once, Phil Turner (an ex-federal prosecutor not involved in the case) said that there is a possibility the high court may want to hear his arguments regarding the prosecutor.
Turner stated, “That issue has substance.” Turner said, “If they frame it right, they might have an opportunity.”
WHAT’S NEXT?
Burmila accepted Peterson’s request to speak more and appointed an attorney from the local public defense office and an investigator to help him. Assistant Public Defender Jason Strzelcki, the attorney, informed the judge Monday that he needed to interview witnesses. He said that he would amend the Peterson petition from last year.
The judge set a May 18 hearing to determine if there is sufficient information to proceed. Brodsky or Peterson could be called as witnesses at an evidentiary hearing. This might prove to be problematic for Peterson. Brodsky would be almost certain to be asked if Peterson threatened to quit the case if he testified at trial. Brodsky kept his words under control when he said to The Associated Press that he would have to explain to Peterson why he did not want Peterson to testify.
Drew asked, “Does Drew really wish to do that?”
Peterson would also have to answer Burmila’s questions about his statement to Burmila that he made to Burmila when he decided not to testify. Ekl suggested Peterson, a former police officer, would struggle to sell that argument.
Ekl stated that he is not a 16-year old kid.
He might also face consequences for his actions. Peterson could also be confronted with his own actions if Brodsky desired publicity. Peterson appeared willing to participate in all publicity stunts, starting with the “Win a Date With Drew” contest.
PETERSON CAN GO FRIVING SOON
Nope.
These appeals are difficult to win. Peterson did not provide any proof in his motion. He wrote it himself.
Even if Peterson is successful, this is what happened: He was convicted of murdering Glasgow. To begin with his current sentence, he was sentenced to 40 years imprisonment. This is two more than the sentence he received for murdering his ex-wife.