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.
It’s finally here. Eight years after Kathleen Savio mysteriously drowned in her bathtub, her ex-husband, Drew Peterson, is being tried for her death. It’s been a long road. Savio’s death wasn’t reclassified as a homicide for three years, not until suspicions arose after Peterson’s fourth wife went missing. It then took another two years for Peterson to be charged with first-degree murder in Savio’s death. And since his 2009 arrest the prosecution, defense & the courts have fought over the admissibility of hearsay evidence, the basis for the prosecution’s case. Yet, after all of that anticipation, I fear those who’ve followed this case closely will be disappointed by the outcome. Drew Peterson will likely be found not guilty of first-degree murder.
On the surface, Peterson seems like the type of defendant any prosecution could easily go after. He’s egotistical, shows no emotion over the death and disappearance of his wives and is a serial cheater who likes to date women much younger than he is. Yet, similar to John Edward’s defense, Peterson’s attorney will argue while his client’s actions may be morally reprehensible, they aren’t criminal.
Peterson has a clear motive, the prosecution will argue. He was fighting with Savio for custody of their children. He wanted to move on and start a new life with his fourth wife, Stacy. Savio fought with him, called the police on him and she was just becoming too much of a headache to deal with, the prosecution will say. It’s simple for them to explain motive. Yet, that’s just one small piece of a much larger puzzle and, unfortunately, many of the pieces needed to prove he’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt are missing.
Let’s start with the simple facts. Kathleen Savio was found dead in an empty bathtub on March 1st, 2004. Her bloodied hair was covering her face as she lay turned in a semi-fetal position with a laceration to the back of her head and bruises on her body. The autopsy includes a comment that reads, “the laceration to posterior scalp may have been related to a fall in which she struck her head,” and her death is ruled a drowning. Strike one against the prosecution.
Yes, a second autopsy conducted three years after her death reclassified it as a homicide. However, Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky, is prepared to explain away every contradiction that led to the reclassification. Brodsky’s 2008 interview for the book Drew Peterson Exposed sets up very well what will likely be his game plan. He’ll claim, with the help of expert testimony, the autopsy notation that she had “mild mitral valve thickening” is consistent with people who lose consciousness. He’ll claim after losing consciousness, she struck her head on the back of the bathtub, thus the laceration to her scalp. He’ll claim her bruises were faint and old, typical of a woman with an active lifestyle, like Savio, and that they could’ve come from working out at the gym. He’ll claim Savio was known as a fighter and question why there’s no sign she fought back, no skin under the fingernails or defensive wounds. He’ll say the bathtub was empty because it drains on its own within 4-6 hours. As he tells author Derek Armstrong, “you can’t even prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a homicide. You can’t even get to square one.”
Brodsky’s defense could play out very much like Jose Baez’s defense in the Casey Anthony case; you can’t even prove there was a murder, let alone that the defendant was the murderer. Just as Baez created an elaborate story, claiming Caylee drowned, Brodsky will do the same; just enough of a story necessary to create doubt in the jurors’ minds.
Creating a plausible explanation for how a healthy 40-year-old woman accidentally drowns is just one part of Brodsky’s defense. The other is to methodically pick apart at the prosecution’s evidence, which is incredibly weak to begin with. There is no physical evidence tying Peterson to the alleged crime, so the prosecution’s case relies almost entirely on 14 different hearsay statements made by Savio and Stacy Peterson. While an Illinois appellate court has ruled that those statements are admissible even though the two women are not here to be cross-examined, Brodsky is prepared to cast doubt on each of these alleged conversations.
Take for instance Stacy’s pastor, Reverend Neil Schori, who claims she told him that on the day Savio’s body was found, Peterson returned home dressed completely in black, carrying a bag of women’s clothing and that he coached her to provide his alibi. Brodsky is going to have a field day questioning Schori on the stand about why he didn’t alert the police or take any measures to try to protect Stacy. As he tells Armstrong in Drew Peterson Exposed, “it’s ridiculous to ask us to believe he allowed her to go home after that kind of a story. Any reasonable person would say, ‘sit right there, I’m calling the cops. You’re not safe! Is your husband home right now? No? Lets go get your kids and get you to a shelter.’ But no, he lets her go home. Right.”
With each and every hearsay witness, Brodsky will question why, if these women claimed they were scared for their lives, these friends & relatives didn’t do more. He’ll ask Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, why if she told him she feared Peterson would kill her and make it look like an accident he didn’t do more to protect her or try harder to alert the police after her death. He’ll question the motives of Savio’s sister, Anna Doman, who claims Savio said Peterson wanted to kill her and to care for her children if she died. He’ll try to establish the fact that her family hated Drew Peterson and resented that Savio married him against her father’s wishes.
It’s also important to note that the fact that Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared and is still missing will not be something jurors can consider when deciding their verdict. In fact, the judge will be very strict on what limited ways Stacy’s story can come into play in the courtroom, since otherwise it’s grounds for an appeal. The jury is there to hear only the case of Savio, not Stacy, so without that larger picture, they are limited in the evidence they can consider.
Although much of the media has basically already convicted him, painting Drew Peterson as a Lifetime movie-worthy evil villain who killed two wives, remember the court of public opinion and the criminal court have two very different standards. Despite strong hearsay evidence, given the lack of physical evidence and a strong defense, I believe the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt is just not one these jurors will be able to meet.
We finally saw an appearance from Drew Peterson in court Friday, nearly two years after his last appearance. Peterson attended a hearing in which he was reassigned a judge in his first-degree murder trial on charges he killed his third wife Kathleen Savio. He was first arrested back in 2009 and the original judge assigned to his case has since retired. So why is it taking so long for this trial to finally take place?
It all centers around the prosecution’s fight to be able to use hearsay evidence from his 3rd and 4th wives in the trial. The statements include conversations Peterson’s fourth wife Stacy had with others before her mysterious disappearance. The key to the battle was whether the higher courts would agree common law & a law passed in Illinois in 2008 applies to this case. Dubbed Drew’s Law, it allows for hearsay evidence in first-degree murder cases if prosecutors can show a defendant killed a victim to prevent him or her from testifying.
After nearly two years, the third district appellate court came back with a ruling last month in favor of the prosecution, allowing the inclusion of statements from Kathleen and Stacy in the upcoming trial. The appellate court sent the case back to the Will County Courthouse this week as we finally inch towards a trial and justice for these women.
The court’s ruling was a coup for the prosecution and will be key in the trial as the damning statements from Kathleen and Stacy, dubbed testimony from the grave, are the proof needed to convince a jury of his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The next hearing in the case is set for May 17th.
