A Fresh Take on Headline Legal News
Your Legal Lady Mari Fagel joined Candice DeLong on her podcast Crime Time this week. The two discussed the latest in the Jodi Arias trial as well as the Oscar Pistorious case in South Africa and whether prosecutors can prove the killing of Reeva Steenkamp was premeditated. They also discussed the recent 38-year sentencing of Drew Peterson for the murder of 3rd wife Kathleen Savio and his chances at appealing the conviction. Listen above or download the podcast HERE.
Click HERE to watch a special CrimeLine show discussing the Drew Peterson verdict. Jon Leiberman, Chicago attorney Karen Conti and I discuss how and why jurors found Drew guilty of first degree murder in the death of Kathleen Savio. Jurors took just 13 hours and 52 minutes to deliberate, and while a question today asking the definition of unanimous had some thinking there would be a hung jury, the jury was UNANIMOUS in finding Drew guilty. Defense attorney Joe Lopez was smiling earlier today when he heard that question, saying he’s only heard it three times, and all three times jurors returned a not guilty verdict. Yet, Lopez had to wipe that smile off his face as the verdict was read and he found out his client is now facing up to 60 years behind bars.
So why, in a case with no physical evidence, were jurors able to come to the conclusion Drew was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt? Even I predicted before the trial began that prosecutors would be unable to meet that burden. However, the elephant in the room, Drew’s missing fourth wife Stacy, ended up being the key to the verdict. Stacy was essentially able to testify that she knew Drew did it through hearsay witnesses Rev. Neil Schori and Savio’s divorce attorney Harry Smith. The prosecution put Schori on the stand to tell jurors before she disappeared Stacy told him that the night Savio died, Drew came home with women’s clothes that weren’t hers and later spent hours coaching her on what to tell police. In an attempt to try to paint Stacy as a liar, the defense called Smith back to the stand to tell jurors Stacy had called him and asked that if she told cops Drew killed Savio, could she get more money from him in a divorce? The defense had hoped jurors would believe Stacy was trying to extort money from Drew and made everything up, but it had the exact OPPOSITE effect. It only further solidified in jurors’ minds that Stacy knew Drew did it.
When the jurors submitted questions it was on only those two testimonies alone, not the testimonies of the dueling pathologists, not the initial investigators, just to have the transcripts of Harry Smith and Neil Schori read back to them. Joel Brodsky and the rest of the defense team have only themselves to blame for this outcome. All they had to do was get up there and say, what if it was an accident? All they had to do was create a small amount of doubt so the burden of proof couldn’t be met. Yet, their thoughtless tactic only exaggerated the effect Stacy had on the case.
Still, I think this case will drag out as the defense has several grounds from appeal. One, prosecutors several times ignored orders by the judge to not ask witnesses certain questions, forcing the judge to tell jurors to disregard certain testimony. Second, this was a jury picked from a three-year-old jury pool, who were told back in 2009 don’t follow this case in the media. There is a case to be made they were prejudice. Also, Drew could be charged with murdering Stacy, though that would be very difficult given there’s no body. In the end, while many people may be happy with the verdict and that Savio’s family has some measure of justice and closure, remember there are now four children, Savio’s two sons and Stacy’s son and daughter who are without both their mother and father. It is the four of them I think about most in this moment.
The defense rested its’ case this week in the Drew Peterson trial, but not before making a bold move that could put their client behind bars. Their first several defense witnesses were no surprise, including pathologists who testified Kathleen Savio’s injuries were consistent with a fall in the bathtub and that her death was an accident. They also put Mary Pontarelli, Savio’s neighbor and friend, back on the stand to testify that Savio was “tough-she wouldn’t let someone hit her without hitting back.” Finally, they had Drew’s son Tom on to testify he believed his dad was innocent & that he’d never suspected his dad killed his mom.
However, before putting Tom on the stand the defense made what could be a fatal mistake, one which the prosecution called “a gift from God.” Joel Brodsky called Harry Smith, Savio’s divorce attorney, to the stand to testify that in 2007 Stacy Peterson had called him asking that if she told police Drew killed Kathleen, could she get more money in a divorce? Brodsky hoped the testimony would discount last week’s testimony from Pastor Neil Schori, who claimed Stacy told him that Drew killed Kathleen and then coached Stacy on what to tell police. Brodsky hoped to prove that Stacy was lying, and instead was trying to extort money from Drew. Yet, Smith’s testimony had the opposite effect. It basically confirmed Stacy’s claims that Drew killed Kathleen. Jurors are not supposed to consider the fact that Stacy, Drew’s fourth wife, is missing & that her disappearance is what launched the homicide investigation into Kathleen’s death in the first place. However, by bringing Stacy up and then bizarrely asking Smith why she never retained his services, the elephant in the room got a lot bigger. How can jurors ignore Stacy now that she essentially testified through Smith?
I discussed the move that could cost the defense their case with WGN this week, telling Lourdes Duarte that if the jury returns a guilty verdict, Brodsky will have only himself to blame. The burden of proof is on the prosecution. They need to prove not only that this was a homicide, but that Drew did it. In a case with no physical evidence, all the defense needed to do was get up there and say, what if it was an accident? All they needed to do was create some doubt in jurors minds. Calling Smith to testify about Stacy was a completely unnecessary move and one that could end up sealing the deal for jurors instead. The jury will be deliberating this week, so stay tuned for a CrimeLine special once the verdict has been returned.
Week 3 of the Drew Peterson trial brought even more unexpected twists in a fascinating case with no physical evidence but an abundance of circumstantial evidence. We saw yet another motion for mistrial last week (that’s 3 so far, if you’re counting) when the prosecution blatantly ignored the judge’s orders banning a certain line of testimony. Not once, but twice last week the prosecution ignored the judge’s orders, leading him to tell the court he “wanted to blow his brains out” because he was so frustrated.
First, the prosecution posed a line of questioning to Bolingbrook Police Lt. Teresa Kernc about a supposed order of protection considered by Kathleen Savio after she alleged Drew threatened her with a knife in 2002. The prosecution, ignoring judge’s orders, asked Kernc about the order of protection, prompting the defense to call for a mistrial. The defense withdrew their motion the following day, and the judge ordered the jury not to consider that part of the testimony.
That same day prosecutors again ignored judge’s orders when pathologist Dr. Larry Blum was on the stand. Blum performed the second autopsy on Savio’s body in 2007, after her body was exhumed, and as part of his investigation he got into Savio’s bathtub to determine whether it could have been an accident. The prosecution was ordered not to ask Blum specifically about getting into her bathtub, but they ignored orders and asked anyways, prompting the judge to again order the jury to ignore that part of the testimony.
The reason why the prosecutors’ missteps are important is because with each ignored order, the defense is even more likely to win on appeal if Drew Peterson is convicted. However, despite these missteps, both witnesses were very strong for the prosecution. Kernc told the court that Savio had written in her 2002 police report that she told Drew ,”‘Go ahead, just kill me.’ He said, ‘Where do you want it?’ and I said, ‘In the head.’ He said, ‘OK, then turn your head,’ and I did it. And then he said that he would never be able to hurt me. And then he left.” Kernc also testified that Savio told her verbally Drew had threatened her with a knife, though Savio declined to include that in her written report.
Dr. Larry Blum was also an incredibly strong witness because he explained to the court why he felt Savio’s death was not an accident, but indeed a homicide. He said it would have been impossible for the blood found on her face and head to dry the way it did had water been in the tub. He explained that she had a number of fresh bruises, not old ones like the defense claims, and that the bruises were not consistent with someone who slips and falls. He also explained that the laceration to the back of her head isn’t consistent with a fall in the bathtub because of the way the tub was shaped, with no sharp edges. And most damningly he said a healthy 40-year-old woman like Savio doesn’t just drown in a tub accidentally.
Jon Leiberman and I discuss these details and others in Monday’s episode of The CrimeLine, click HERE to watch. Also interesting to note is that in 2009, WGN radio in Chicago conducted a full mock trial of Drew Peterson, using all of the facts public at the time. In fact, Peterson’s defense team found mock defense attorney Joe Lopez’s arguments so strong, they hired him to join the actual team and he is currently one of the attorney’s representing Peterson. Karen Conti posed as the prosecution in the mock trial, before 12 mock jurors, and she will join us on The CrimeLine next Monday to explain why that trial ended in a hung jury and whether the actual trial will too. Stay tuned.
Click HERE to watch this week’s CrimeLine, where Jon Leiberman and I discuss the latest in the Drew Peterson murder trial. The trial kicked off Tuesday, and just like the case itself, the trial saw some unexpected twists. During opening arguments, the state mentioned that Drew Peterson had previously hired a hit man to kill his ex-wife, Kathleen Savio, a detail the state had never shared with the defense during discovery and one defense attorney Joel Brodsky immediately objected to. The jury was quickly ushered out of the courtroom and while the defense argued for a mistrial, the judge decided the prosecution hadn’t gotten far enough in the damning statement to warrant a mistrial. The jury was called back to the courtroom and instructed to disregard the statement. Yet, as the defense questioned, can the bell be un-rung?
Other than that unexpected statement, the state’s opening proceeded as normal. In my opinion, the strongest part of the state’s opening was laying all the cards on the table and telling jurors point blank that there is no physical evidence in the case, no DNA or fingerprints, and that this case relies solely on circumstantial evidence. The reason this is important is because the state laid out for jurors their task at hand, they must work to put the pieces of the puzzle together. It was important to say this in the beginning so the jury isn’t led to believe the state has strong evidence and then disappointed when they cannot present it. The state was honest and, more importantly, presented a clear task for the jury. Sometimes cases with only circumstantial evidence can still be strong because jurors like to work together to put the puzzle together themselves.
As for the defense, they laid out their game plan, which is to create reasonable doubt at every step along the way. This could’ve been an accident. The hearsay statements aren’t reliable. What was bizarre about their opening is the fact that Joel Brodsky spent a chunk of time praising the team of attorneys on the defense, and then going through Peterson’s entire life story. The prosecution objected, and the judge, rightly so, told the defense this was all irrelevant and he seemed visibly annoyed by the tactic.
Day 1 also saw the testimony of neighbor Mary Pontarelli, who I believe was a strong witness for both the state and the defense. On one hand, she specifically said there were no clothes laying on the bathroom floor or towel and that Kathleen would also pin her hair up to take a bath, but that her hair was down in this instance. She also said she could often see Kathleen’s bathroom light on and that she was taking a bath from her own window and that she had not seen Kathleen taking a bath that night. Both of those statements were a plus for the prosecution. However, she also said that Drew looked visibly upset when he saw Kathleen’s body and that the first thing he said was “what am I going to tell my kids.” Pontarelli said Drew also instructed them not to touch the body as it was now a crime scene. Those two statements, in my opinion, were a plus for the defense.
Now, after all the fireworks we saw on Day 1, I assumed the rest of the trial would play out pretty smoothly. Wrong. Day 2 was cut short after prosecutors came in with a line of questioning the defense did not see coming. They asked Mary’s husband, Tom, about whether he felt intimidated by Drew Peterson and then about an instance where Drew allegedly left a bullet facing up in their driveway. The defense immediately objected and again called for a mistrial. That’s two motions for mistrial in as many days. The court was adjourned for the day and then the judge decided to strike only that part of the testimony and move on with the trial.
The reason this is important is now the defense has not one, but two grounds for appeal should Drew Peterson be convicted. Peterson’s defense point blank said he is getting an unfair trial and you better believe if he’s convicted they will immediately file an appeal, one thats likely to be successful. Prosecutors overstepped their boundaries on two occasions, and twice jurors were told not to consider pretty inflammatory statements. Not to mention this jury is made up of a pool of jurors on hold for three years, told not to follow the case for the last three years, which is another major issue.
I’ll be following the case closely and be sure to tune into The CrimeLine every Tuesday at 4:30 for a discussion of the latest in the bizarre trial.
