|
|
Post by Lorie Taylor on May 22, 2008 20:32:37 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Lorie Taylor on Feb 10, 2009 18:58:58 GMT -6
 Drews Gun Above Trial date set for Peterson on gun charges Recommend (2) Comments August 28, 2008 By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s pending trial might stretch past two weeks, a judge said Thursday, and that’s only for his gun charges. Judge Richard Schoenstedt set a Dec. 8 date for Peterson’s trial on felony gun charges. He scheduled a hearing on Sept. 18 for attorneys to argue pretrial motions. State police arrested Peterson in May for allegedly possessing a rifle with a barrel shorter than the state-mandated length of 16 inches. Peterson’s attorney, Joel Brodsky contended Peterson carried the weapon as part of his duties with the Bolingbrook Police Department’s SWAT team, and had permission to possess it. During Thursday’s hearing, Schoenstedt said he expected Peterson’s pending trial to be a lengthy one. “I think we discussed this case could take upwards of two weeks, including jury selection,” the judge said. Brodsky was not as sure. “Not if they grant my motion,” he said. “One of our motions is to limit the evidence the state is allowed to introduce,” Brodsky said. “In that case it would be a pretty short trial.” Peterson’s legal team of Brodsky and attorney Andrew Abood has filed six motions to be argued in September. Prosecutors filed three motions, all under seal. Among the defense motions is one to change the venue of the trial in hopes of finding an unbiased jury, Brodsky said. “There seems to be a public opinion about Drew that’s slanted in a particular direction, thanks to you guys,” Abood said to reporters Thursday. Abood suggested Peterson could find a less-biased jury in Cook County. Brodsky thought they might have to go further afield, perhaps to “China” or “Taiwan,” but the attorneys had not decided whether to pursue changing the trial’s venue. Abood also said he and Brodsky were pondering putting Peterson in front of a judge in a bench trial instead of going before a jury. “We won’t know what obstacles we face until we start questioning the jury,” Abood said. State police have named Peterson their sole suspect in the October disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. State police have labeled the case a “potential homicide.” State police also are investigating the March 2004 apparent bathtub drowning of Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio. State police found no sign of foul play when they first probed Savio’s death, but got another crack at it following Stacy’s disappearance. |
|
|
|
Post by Lorie Taylor on Feb 10, 2009 19:23:08 GMT -6
Nov 20, 2008 4:22 pm US/Central
Judge Dismisses Gun Charges Against Drew PetersonJOLIET, Ill. (AP) ¯
Click to enlarge
Drew Peterson outside the Will County Courthouse in Joliet. (File)
CBS
1 of 1
Close
Judge Richard Schoenstedt ruled Thursday that prosecutors must give defense attorneys documents they compiled leading up to Peterson's arrest.
In a hearing, the judge said if prosecutors wouldn't hand over the documents, he'd have to drop the charges. Will County Assistant State's Attorney John Connor refused to do so.
The former Bolingbrook police sergeant suspected in his wife's disappearance was in court. His attorney, Joel Brodsky, says he's pleased with the judge's decision.
Peterson allegedly owned an assault rifle with a barrel shorter than allowed by state law. He hasn't been charged in the October 2007 disappearance of Stacy Peterson, his wife, but has been called a suspect in the matter. Authorities have called the case a possible homicide.
Peterson has said he believes his wife left him for another man.
After Stacy Peterson vanished, authorities reopened an investigation into the 2004 drowning of Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, and exhumed her body. Savio's death was reclassified from an accident to a homicide after an autopsy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lorie Taylor on Oct 5, 2009 22:42:05 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by Lorie Taylor on Oct 5, 2009 23:05:43 GMT -6
 Gun Drew had Paula put in her name he was hiding. Ric Mims also said, he had the gun was hiding it. After that, Drew tried to put it in Paula's name. |
|
|
|
Post by Lorie Taylor on Nov 1, 2009 11:17:25 GMT -6
Drew Peterson Legal Team Files Final Brief to Illinois Appellate Court in State’s Appeal of Gun Charge Dismissal Illinois Appeals Court can decide at any time. brodskyodeh.com – October 19, 2009 (PRNewsChannel) / Ottawa, Ill. / Drew Peterson’s legal team led by Joel A. Brodsky, Andrew Abood and Reem Odeh filed the final brief in the state’s appeal of felony weapons charges dismissed against the retired Bolingbrook police detective setting the stage for the court to render a decision at any time. In November of 2008 a Will County, Ill. judge dismissed gun charges filed against Peterson. After the dismissal, the Will County State’s Attorney appealed to the Illinois Appellate Court. With the final brief from Peterson’s legal team, the matter is now pending with the Illinois Appellate Court. www.prnewschannel.com/absolutenm/templates/?a=1747&z=4 |
|
|
|
Post by Lorie Taylor on Jan 20, 2010 18:42:16 GMT -6
UPDATE:www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/01/peterson-lawyers-argue-case-over-weapons-charges.html
Peterson lawyers argue case over weapons charges
January 20, 2010 5:20 PM Appellate court justices were skeptical today of arguments put forward by Drew Peterson’s attorneys in the legal case over weapons charges that were brought, and then dropped, against Peterson in 2008. A lengthy hearing in the Peterson murder case was put on hold Wednesday so two lawyers from his defense team could argue the case before the 3rd District appellate court in Ottawa, Ill. John Connor, a top prosecutor on the Peterson case, observed. In 2008, Peterson was charged with possessing an illegally-modified assault rifle. When a Will county judge ordered the gun returned, state police revoked Peterson’s FOID card. Judge Richard Schoenstedt then dismissed the case after prosecutors refused to comply with his order to turn over internal documents that Peterson’s attorneys sought to prove their client was the victim of “vindictive prosecution.” Prosecutors appealed. Gary Gnidovec, an attorney with the state appellate prosecutor’s office, told the justices that Schoenstedt was wrong to order discovery because Peterson’s attorneys failed to demonstrate that prosecutors had an “animus” against Peterson and that, without it, no charges would have been filed. He said it would set a “very dangerous precedent” to allow defendants hoping to find some sign prosecutors have a vendetta against them to fish for such internal documents. Gnidovec also questioned whether the court had legal standing to rule on a separate appeal filed by Peterson’s attorneys. Peterson attorney Andrew Abood argued that the circumstances of the case were too narrow to open a “Pandora’s box.” He said Peterson’s attorneys should have had the chance to present evidence that prosecutors had “selectively” charged their client. Joel Brodsky argued that federal law shielded Peterson from even being charged with the weapons offense. The appellate court typically doesn’t issue its ruling for several months after oral arguments. –Steve Schmadeke
|
|
|
|
Post by Lorie Taylor on Jan 20, 2010 21:47:34 GMT -6
www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/2002693,Peterson-gun-charge-hearing_JO012010.article Peterson gun charge may come back to haunt him January 20, 2010 By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com OTTAWA — Drew Peterson’s lawyers struggled to stop a felony gun charge from coming back to court just a day after prosecutors threw nine witnesses at the former cop in hope of proving he killed his fourth wife to keep her from testifying that he drowned his third wife. Two of Peterson’s attorneys — Joel Brodsky and Andrew Abood — argued that Will County Judge Richard Schoenstedt was right to dismiss a felony unlawful use of a weapon charge against Peterson. Peterson was arrested in May 2008 on a charge of unlawful use of a weapon for owning a Colt AR-15 assault rifle with a barrel shorter than the state-mandated 16 inches. In November 2008, Schoenstedt ordered the state’s attorney’s office to surrender internal documents to Peterson’s defense team so they could prepare to argue Peterson was the victim of a vindictive prosecution. Assistant State’s Attorney John Connor refused to comply with the order, and Schoenstedt dropped the charges. On Wednesday, Gary Gnidovec, a lawyer with the state’s attorney’s third district appellate prosecutor’s office, made the case that Peterson’s attorneys showed no evidence of vindictive prosecution and that that they wanted to get their hands on the state’s attorney’s internal documents so they could try to find one. Appellate Judge Daniel L. Schmidt pointed out that allowing defendants access to the state’s attorney’s files without proof of vindictive prosecution might put a strain on the legal system. He also noted that “very few prosecutors are just wild about any of the people they prosecute.” At the same hearing, Abood and Brodsky tried to appeal Schoenstedt’s refusal to grant Peterson immunity from prosecution under a federal law that allows police officers to carry and conceal weapons. Appellate Judge Vicki Wright questioned whether they should be allowed to appeal that decision since, if the dismissal is reversed, the case will have yet to reach its conclusion. Schmidt, Wright and Judge Mary K. O’Brien took the matter under advisement and will release their ruling at a later date. Hearsay hearing Peterson and his attorneys will be back in the Joliet courthouse today to face another round of witnesses in the hearing to determine whether any hearsay evidence will be used against him at his murder trial. Peterson’s third wife, Kathleen Savio, was found drowned in her bathtub in March 2004. The state police considered her death an accident until Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007. Peterson was arrested and charged with Savio’s murder in May. The state police believe Stacy Peterson may also be the victim of a homicide. Within two weeks of Stacy’s disappearance, the state police named Drew Peterson as the only suspect in their investigation but have yet to make an arrest in the case.
|
|
why killer murdered of Kathleen and Stacey An Cales Peterson