Defense Motion for Release of Drew Peterson - Justice Café -

8/4/2019 Defense Motion for Release of Drew Peterson - Justice Caf - http://petersonstory.wordpress.com

1/40

RECEIVEDNO. 112875

-------------------------'-'-'AU=-=-6 3 0 2011IN THE CLERKSUPREME COURT

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,PlaintiffAppellant,

v.

DREW PETERSON,Defendant-Appellee.

) Petition For Leave To Appeal) from th e Appellate Court) Third Judicial District) No. 3-10-514, 3-10-515, 03-10-516) 3-10-513 and 3-10-546)) There Heard on Appeal from) th e Circuit Court of Will County) No. 09 CF 1048)) Honorable Stephen D. WhiteJ='JL) Judge Presiding M;;: 0

AUG 3 0 2011MOTION FOR RELEASE OF DREW PETERSON SUPREME COURTCLERK

Now Comes the Defendant Drew Peterson, by all counsel of record, an dmoves this Honorable Court to order his release from detention, and in supportthereof, states as follows:1. The state filed a Petition For Leave To Appeal asking this Court to review

the decision of th e Appellate Court Of Illinois, Third District, in the state'sSupreme Court Rule 604(a)(1) interlocutory appeal in the above-referencedmater. The Defendant is asking that this Court order his immediate releasefrom jail. This Court has jurisdiction to release the Defendant, de novo,pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(3). People v. Beaty, 351 Ill. App. 3d717 (2004) and People v. Wells, 279 Ill. App. 3d 564 (1996).


2/40

2. The Defendant 1s charged with th e firstdegree murder of his exwife,Kathleen Savio. He was indicted by a grand jury in the Circuit Court of WillCounty, Illinois and arrested in May of 2009. He has been incarcerated inth e Will County jail for more than two years in lieu of a $20,000,000 bond.

3. The Defendant's trial was set to begin on July 8, 2010. However, on July 7,2010, without any prior indication that it intended to do so, the state filedthree separate interlocutory appeals. The trial was cancelled, andDefendant's right to a speedy trial was suspended. S. Ct. R. 604(a)(3).

4. The three appeals involve three different orders suppressing the introductionof evidence at the Defendant's trial.

5. The state filed a "Certificate Of Substantial Impairment To Proceed ToTrial," as required by People v. Carlton, 98 Ill. 2d 187 (1983), in each of itsthree appeals. The three sworn statements state as follows:

"The suppression order substantially impairs the state'sability to proceed with this case. WHEREFORE, thePeople of the State of Illinois certify that they are unableto proceed to trial in this matter. ..... "6. Therefore, the state has certified that each of the three orders suppressing

evidence are so crucial that if any one is allowed to stand, it does not havesufficient evidence to prosecute the Defendant. I

1 Apparently Will County State's Attorney Glasgow does no t take his sworn declarationsvery seriously. In two interviews given to the press (CBS and WBBM) on August 26, 2011,the date it s PLA was filed with this Court, Mr. Glasgow stated that "we are prepared to goto trial regardless of the outcome" (of the PLA). That Mr. Glasgow ca n certify to theAppellate Court (and this Court) that the State is "unable to proceed to trial" without theexcluded evidence, and yet make a public statement that he will proceed to trial, even if thePLA is denied and the lower courts' rulings stand, calls for an explanation at the very least.

[2]


3/40

7. On July 26, 2011, the Illinois Appellate Court, Third District, issued itsopinion dismissing one of the interlocutory appeals for lack of jurisdiction(Appeal No. 310514) and affirming the trial court's order suppressingevidence in the other two appeals. (Appeal Nos. 310-514, 3-10-550, 3-10-513,and 3-10-546).

8. Since the state's appeals were rejected, al l three of the trial court's orderssuppressing the state's evidence remain unchanged. Therefore, the state'scase is as substantially impaired today as it was when it filed it sinterlocutory appeals over a year ago.

9. The Defendant has been denied his constitutional and statutory rights to aspeedy trial since July 7, 2010, which is over 13 months.

10. The Defendant has petitioned both the trial and appellate courts for hisrelease pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(3) pending th e instantinterlocutory appeals. The trial court rejected Defendant's motion on July 8,2010, and found that there were unspecified "compelling reasons," to keep th eDefendant incarcerated during the appeal.2 The Appellate Court has alsorejected, twice, the Defendant's motions for release. However, al l of thesedenials were issued before the Appellate Court rejected the state'sinterlocutory appeals.

11. This Court is in a better position to order the Defendant's release becauseevidence that the state admitted was crucial and essential to its prosecution

2 See transcript of trial court hearing on the Defendant's Motion For Release, attached asDefendant's Exhibit A[3]


4/40

will be barred at trial.12. While it is Defendant's position that this Court deny the state's Petition for

Leave to Appeal ("PLA"), if it grants the PLA, the Defendant will continue tobe incarcerated without his constitutional right to a speedy trial, perhaps foras long as another year, unless this Court orders the Defendant's release.

13. Should this Court then reverse the Appellate Court's decision to dismissAppeal No. 310514 for lack of jurisdiction, the matter will be remanded tothe Appellate Court to consider the issues on the merits, which could take anadditional six months to a year.

14. Even if this Court denies the PLA, Defendant will continue to be held in theWill County Jail for several months while the PLA is pending before thisCourt, with the suspension of his statutory right to a speedy trial is still inplace.

15. "Generally, it 1s anticipated that defendants will enJOY complete freedomduring a delay occasioned by interlocutory appeal." People v. Wells, 279 Ill.App. 3d 564, 567 (1996).

16. "Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(3) contemplates the restoration of that freedomlost when the prosecution was commenced." I d. "604(a)(3) favors release. Itsparamount aim is to guarantee protection from the power granted to theState under Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(1)." Id.

17. ':A defendant's pretrial imprisonment during the pendency of a State's appealis the rare exception to a rule favoring release". I d.

[4]


5/40

18. Supreme Court Rule 604(a)(3) requires the release of the Defendant duringan interlocutory appeal because S. Ct. R. 604(a)(4) suspends the speedy trialrights of a Defendant who is in custody, unless the state can show that thereare "compelling reasons" to continue the Defendanfs detention. People v.Beaty. 351 Ill. App. 3d 717 (2004).

19. The only purported compelling reason given by the state for the Defendant'scontinued detention is a pretrial evidentiary ruling under 725 ILCS 5/11510.6, where the trial court found by a preponderance of the evidence that theDefendant killed Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson.3

20. However, a finding by a preponderance of the evidence is insufficient. Theevidentiary hurdle for continued detention is higher than the preponderanceor probable cause standard that previously applied. The proper standard isone of compulsion, which is "proof as evident or the presumption great that adefendant indeed committed the crime ofmurder." People v. Wells. 279 Ill.App. 3d 564, (5th Dist. 1996) (emphasis added).

21. "Compelling reasons arc forceful and impelling reasons irresistible m senseand purpose that afford justification for indeterminate pretrialimprisonment. Such reasons must clearly demonstrate that a defendantshould remain imprisoned for an uncertain and indefinite time despite the

3. See Defendant's Exhibit A. Much of the evidence heard at that pre-trial hearing washearsay that was eventually suppressed and excluded from being introduced into evidenceat trial because the trial court judge found that it was unreliable. This is th e unreliablehearsay that was the subject of Appeal No. 3-10-5411. Also, th e hearing wasextraordinarily onesided. Unlike in a suppression hearing, th e defendant has noprotection against the use of evidence he may present at a subsequent trial, thus limitinghis ability to defend himself.

[5]


6/40

presumption of innocence and the weakened posture of the state's case". I d.22. No such compelling or evident proof that the Defendant committed murder

has ever been presented. Further, no "forceful and impelling reasonsirresistible in sense" have ever been shown which would require theDefendant's continued incarceration "despite the presumption of innocenceand weakened posture of the state's case." Id.

23. Nothing has been shown that Defendant would be a danger to anyone ifreleased. Regardless of whatever the perception or "gut feeling" of somemembers of the public may be, the fact remains that Defendant was aveteran police officer of supervisory rank with thirty years of service.

24. There has never been more than a mere finding of probable cause thatDefendant committed any criminal act. At this point, this is a case withoutany physical evidence tying the Defendant to any crime, (if any crime wascommitted, which is a matter of contention), without any eyewitnesses orconfession. Rather, the case against the Defendant is premised solely uponthe few remaining hearsay statements, which were not recounted until yearsafter Ms. Savio's death and two exhumation autopsies, the results of whichvarious respected experts strongly disagree.

25. Defendant, Drew Peterson, is 56 years old, and is a lifelong resident ofIllinois. He has no criminal convictions. He lived in Lombard, Illinois beforemoving to Bolingbrook, Illinois in 1977.

26. Mr. Peterson is a military veteran, who served in the United States Army

[6)


7/40

from 1974 to 1976. He was based in Washington D.C. and served in theMilitary Police Unit in Arlington, Virginia. His duties included providingsecurity for dignitaries, including the President of the United States. Mr.Peterson has provided security for President Gerald Ford. Mr. Peterson wasgranted an Honorable Discharge from the U.S. Army in 1976.

27. Mr. Peterson has extensive family contacts in the Will County and NorthernIllinois areas. He does not have an y family outside of Northern Illinois.

28. Drew's six children, one grandchild, and four nieces and nephews, all ofwhom live in Northern Illinois. His children are ages 6, 7, 16, 18, 30 and 31.Five of the Peterson children reside in their father's home in Bolingbrook,Illinois, whore the older children are caring for the younger ones. Mr.Peterson's mother is 87 years old and lives in Westmont, Illinois. His brotherand sister also live in Illinois.

29. Defendant's home in Bolingbrook is paid for and is not the subject of anymortgages. He does not own an y other real estate.

30. Mr. Peterson is retired, and his only source of income is his pension from theBolingbrook Police Department, which is approximately $6,000 per month.He has no substantial savings or investment accounts.

31. Mr. Peterson worked in Will County, Illinois since 1977 as a law enforcementofficer. He was hired by the Bolingbrook Police Department in 1977 andbecame a Sergeant in 1997. He was police officer of the year in 1979 and hasreceived numerous departmental commendations for his work over the years.

[7]


8/40

Further, for a five-year period in the 1980s, Mr. Peterson was assigned to theMetropolitan Area Narcotics Squad ("MANS"), where he put his life on theline on a daily basis as an undercover narcotics officer. In 1981, Mr. Petersonreceived a department commendation for his drug arrests. Also, during thisperiod, he worked with the Federal Drug Enforcement Agency on dangerousundercover operations.

32. I t is clear that Mr. Peterson lS not a flight risk. He was the publiclyannounced subject of an investigation into the death of Kathleen Savio, thealleged victim in the above-referenced indictment, for eighteen months priorto his arrest. During this period, Mr. Peterson traveled to Los Angeles,California and New York and did not flee.

33. Mr. Peterson is a United States Citizen. The Illinois State Police have hispassport, which was taken when he was arrested.

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Defendant, Drew Peterson,requests that this Honorable Court grant his Motion For Release and any furtherrelief this Court deems just.

Respectfully submitted,Drew P/_f'rson, Dfijtfudantl /

I ' , ~ - - ' // / j -'! v - J!By: / ./ , '\..V./0;'

[8]

J o ~ l A. Brodskyohe of His A t t o 1 ~ y


9/40

AFFIDAVITI, Joel A. Brodsky, certify under penalties of perjury that the statements set forth inthe foregoing Renewed Motion For Release, arc true and correct except as to matters

therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the undersignedcertifies as aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true. ;1/ I!_S i g r : _ ) ~ and Sworn to before methisj.J.)Jfay of ~ u g u s y ) ;}011~ / ; I ~

otary Public

Joel A. BrodskyAttorney for Defendant-Appellee8 S. Michigan Avenue, Suite 3200Chicago, Illinois 60603(312) 541-7000

Joseph R. LopezLisa Lopez Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee53 W. Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1122Chicago, Illinois 60603(312) 922-2001

l 9

/( l /!I;) 7/l4./L0e A. Brodsky.

"'MCtAL SEAL"UwllP PetersliiiiiiY Plllllc..a r'J of Illinois00111 'll'or 1112712012

Steven A. GreenbergSteven A. Greenberg, Ltd.Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee820 W. Jackson, Suite 310Chicago, Illinois 60607(312) 879-9500Ralph MeczykDarryl Goldberg 1 r

'';I' / '

Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee11 1 W. Washington Street, Suite 1025Chicago, Illinois 60602(312) 332-2853


10/40

1 STATE OF ILLINOIS ) ss:2 COUNTY OF W 1 L L3

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE TWELFTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT4

WIJ,L COUNTY, = ~ L T N O I S 56 THE PEOPLE OF THE )

STATE 0? ILLINOIS, )7 )

Pla jnLi f f , \8 )

vs. ) No. 2009 CF 10489 ''DREW w. PETERSON )

10 )Detendc:mt. )1112 REPORT OF PROCEEDINGS had a t the hear ing in13 the above-en t i t l ed cause before che Honorable STEPHEN D.14 WHITE, Judge of the Twelfth Jud ic ia l C i r cu i t , on Ju ly 8th ,15 2010.

16 APPEARANCES:17 HON. ,JAMES W. G ~ A S G O W ,

STATE'S ATTORNEY OF W I ~ L COUNTY, ILLINOIS18 with MR. JOHN R. CONNOR, MS. KATHLEEN

PATTON, ar:d MS. NICOLE L. MOORE,19 Assistan= ScaLe 's AtLorneys to r the People;

MR. JOEL A. BR09SKY and MR. JOSEPH R. LOPEZ,20 ALtorneys a t Law,

Appear:ng en beha lf of the Defendant .2122 MICHELLE PANOS, C.S.R. ,

CSR 084-00415123 O f f i c i a ~ Court Repor terWill C o ~ n t y Courthouse24 J o ~ i e l , I l l i n o i s

l


11/40

2

1 I N D E X2

Drew W. Pet-erson3 2o09 10484

5 HEI\RING

6

7

8

9 Proceedings Pages 3-301011

1314:C5

16171819202122 Repor te r ' s C c r t i f ~ c a L e Page 31

24


12/40

3

1 THE COURT: A ll r ighL. Now, accord ing to c o u r te sy2 copies , I rece ived a cour tesy copy of tho de fense motion to3 r e l e a s e ~ h e defendant a t about 3 : 0 0 . I r e c e iv e d c o u r te sy of4 the S t a t e ' s n o t i c e - :o.ot Notice o i Appeal bu t C e r t i f i c a t e of5 Impairment a t abou l 3 :55 rn th e a f te rn o o n .6 It was ~ o o l a t e to s top the j u r o r s from78

coming in . We have th e j u r o r s . r ~ c r c t oda y .have to address t h a t i s su e a t o ~ e p o i n t .

Werre go ing toF i r s t t h ing , we

9 have some C e r ~ i f i c a t e s o f Impairment : , t h r e e o f them f i l ed on101112

beha lf o f th e St a t e . I s t h a t c o r re c t?MR. GLASGOhr: ~ h a t c o r r e c t , your Honor.THE COURT: Okay. Now, = t h ink we can do t h i s

13 wi thout go ing rn to Lhe th ings t h a t were p r e v i o u s l y se a le d .14 F i r s t C e r t i t i c a l e of Impairment s t a t i n g t h a t you could not go15 fo rward w i t hou t t he ov idencc o f l aw yer D iane Panos ; i s t!"lat

16 cor rec t ?1718

MR. GLASGOW: Tha t ' s cor rec t , Judge.THE COURT: Okay. Which wdS I i n d i c a t e d t h a t I

19 would not aLow r.er to t e s t i f y t h a t Drew Pe t e r s o n ' s a t to rney ,20 Mr . Beck, Alex Reck, would Love to ld him o r rmput.e to him21 knowledge t h a t she t ' l inks - - :


13/40

4

1 MK. GLASGOW: h t t h i s p o i n t , we f i l e d our Not ice2 of Appeal along wi th the Ce r t i f i c a l e s o f Impairment so t h a t3 th e JUr isd icLion i s now with t'oe Appe l l a t e Cour t .4 THE COUR'l': Correc t . 'tic want the r eco r d c l e a r as5 to what the i s sue - -

MR. CLASGO'tl: I ' l l thm:.t checking the t r a n s c r i p t s , I7 don 1 wnn'L:: Lo ag.::::ee to t l - " ~ u t . T'm not saying t h a t the Cour t ' s8 mak1ng a miss ta tement , but J would l i ke an oppor tun i ty to9 make S 1 1 r e it m a ~ c h e s what th e t r a n sc r i p t says .

10 TH E COUll'!': was j u s t c l a r ~ f y i n g because the r e11 was o l h e r t cs t imor1y t l1a t was had t:l1aL : sa id would bel2 p e r f ec t l y p e r m i s s i b l e by her , but_ ~ l e L o p i n i o n Lo impute to13 Mr. Peterson w h a ~ h1s a t torney would have t o ld him or shou1d14 have t o ld h i ~ and to a l so t e s t i f y as to how J ~ d g e O'Leary15 would have r u l e d .:.n a c a se I sa.:.'..d was n o t g o i n g t o be

16 al lowed.17 I d o n ' t know i f the r e was anyth ing e l s e with18 r ega rds to t h a l . As I r e c a l l , those a re th e on ly tw o19 s pe c i f i c th ings with regards to t h a t l h a t I i nd ica ted I was2021

n o t goir .g to al '::_ow h e r o p i n i o n t e s ti m o n y a s t o t h a t . Ift h e r e ' s something e l s e you want to add Lo t h a t . As I r e c a l l ,

22 t h a t ' s a l l t ha t was the r e .23 The r1ext one was =he C c r l i f i c a t e of24 Impairment which : n d i ca t c s Lhat could not - - each Ce r t i f i c a t e


14/40

5

1 of I:npa.i.:::-rnen-::. as I u n c l e r H t : : a : : o ~ d lL wolJ I d ~ a v e to s la n d on its2 own so t h a t , you know, i : ' t h a t was th e on ly t h ing t h a t wa s3 th e re a t i s sue , lhac c e r t i f r c a t e would have been f i l ed say ing4 you c ou l d no t go fontJU.rd w.ithcut t h a t o p i n i o n t e s t i m o n y .5 Scconci one was the domest i c d i s p u t e i n 1993 ,6 which wu.s r u l e d upon t f :a t W'US s a ~ d Lha t t h a t was no t go ing to7 be a l l o w e d b e c a u s e t ~ ~ a t VJUS to o r e mote i n t i me and t h e r e was8 noth ing in I b e : i e v e it was ~ 9 9 3 . There was noth ing in9 ' 94 , ' 9 5 , ' 9 6 , ' 9 7 , ' 93 , ' 99 , 2000 u n t i l it g o t i n to th e

lO 2000s . There was a C er t i f i ca t e of Impairment t h a t wa s f i l ed11 with regards lo t h a t .1213

MR. G:,ASGOW: 1\ga.in, wc 1 YC going to r e l y on thet r a n s c r i p t s . There : was more to lt than t h a t . A gain , I 'm

14 not - - I d o n ' t have the t r an sc r i p t i n f r o n t of me .1 5 THE COURT: Okay. l\ow, l:he l a s t t h ing which i s16 the C o u r t ' s ru l i n g on Tuesday whid1 I gave to a l l s i d e s with1 7 regards lo the S : : . a : : - . E ' ~ ' s rr.ot ion Lo r c c o ~ s i d e r th e C o u r t 1 s18 ru l ing in May of t h i s year with regards l o t he hearsay .19 Without golng in to what the Cour t ' s ru l i n g .vas a t t h a t20 t ime - - I rr.ust say l .hat t.he order t h a t I gave you was very21 sh o r t to bo th s i d e s . That wa s due to th e f a c t t l1at it22 appears t h a t someune i s ei::.her t app ing . into th e computers and23 at temptcng to g e l th e documents o r somebody i s g iv in g th e24 documents to Lh e p r e s s . There[ore , it was a very s h o r t


15/40

6

1 order .2 Bet w h e ~ . the Sla te asked me to r econs ide r the3 ru l ing t h a t I had given and my n>l ing as it s tands does4 no t s u b t r ac t o r add or1e piece of evidence with r ega rds t o5 hearsay t ha t was n o t g o ~ n g lo be al lowed s ev e r a l months6 before when the Sta te so. id tl1at they were ready fo r trial.7 Am I co r r ec t ? Yet, the Sta le has f l i e d a C R r t i f i c a t e of8 Impairment saying iL cannot go forward with r ega r ds to t ha t ,9 bu t it has ctot added or sub t r ac ted one b i t of evicleEce t h a t

10 was not ru l ed u p o ~ according t ~ t e SLatC 1 S second amended11 motion.12l3H15

Now, wi:l1 t ha t , th e S ta t e came in , asked meto r econs ide r . I d i_d r e c o n s i d e r . I looked a t t.he t es t imonyof the r . ear ing . I looked a t th e ~ e s ~ i m o n y - - of thearguments o t a l l counsel . The o r ~ g i n a l m c : t ~ o n was had and I

16 ru led based upon a S t a t u t e , a S: :atute in I l l i n o i s t ha l17 codi f ie s Gile s and i o r f e i t t i r e by wrongdoing i n the s t a t e of18 I l l i n o i s . The bas i s of th e Cour t ' s r u l i ng on Tuesday was th e:9 f ac t t ha t when you codi fy common l aw- - c o r r e c t me if I 'm20 wrong. I' rr. su r e Lhc - " ~ p p e - 1 1 at.e Cou::::-t r:1ay if 1 'm wrong - - b u t21 t h a t cod i f ica : : . ion then t a k e s p-::::-ecedent o v e r Lhe common law22 un le s s ..:.ts h e l d unconst i tu t - ional o r thrown o u t .23 The d e f e n s e a s k e d me p r e v i o u s l y t o t h r ow it24 o u t as u n c o n s t . i ~ _ . . . : _ t i o . : : . a l _ 1 50Lood and T : i s t e n e d to arguments


16/40

7

1 by th e S ta t e i n d ~ c a t 1 n g t ha t it af forded more pro tec t ion than2

3

4

the f o r f e i t u r e by wrongdoing. I held it c ons t i t u t i ona lpursuant to t ha t S t a tu t e . we ic.ad a hea r ing .

Kow, in th e rr .otion to r e c o n s i d e r , th e Cour t5 viewed it, and I saw t ~ - l F : r c was no c a s e s o r any t h i ng e] se t h a t6 was given to o1e t ha t l n d i c a ~ e d anything o t h e r than reviewing7 it in l i g h t o f ~ ~ 1 e Hanson cc1se. The Hanson c a s e was a c a s e8 t ha t was decided upon th e common law doc t r ine o f f o r f e i t u r e9 by wrongdoing. Th e Sta tu te which the s t a t e of I l l i n o i s now

10 has was n o t in p o s i t i o n o t ~ the t ime in which Hanson was11 t r i ed . There to rc , its deci.sioYI - - and the Cour t never even12 addressed the new Sta tu te because the ne w S t a t u t e was no t in13 play a t the t ime.14 The Sta tu te i t s e l f says t ha t it in the15 l a s t s e n t e n c e , it (irav .rs a t t en t jo r . t o f o r f e i l u r c by

16 wrongdoing. As th e Sta tu te i s t hece , to say t h a t the17 f o r f e i t u r e by w r o n g - - " f you c a n ' t meet t h i s burden in th e18 S ta tu t e , t h a t t he re fo re , you get to usc th e l e s s e r burden of19 f o r f e i t u r e by wrocqdoing, th e Cour t canr.ot apply . Therefore ,2 0 t h a t ' s Lhe reason fo r the ru l ing of th e Cour t t h a t th e -21 which I prev ious ly ru led , okay, s tood because I cannot f a l l22 back upon f o r f e i t u r e by wrongdoing because we have a Sta tu te23 now t ha t addresses ~ l . So now th e record i s cJ ea r with24 regards to t h a ~ .


17/40

8

The S ~ a t e has filed-- it's not Not ice o f2345

Appea l .o[ t h a t .

T saw the c e ~ t i f i c a l e s . I was given cour te sy copiesI d id no t s e e d Notice o f Appea l .MS. O S ~ E R B E R G E R : J had b ~ o C J g h t th e cour t e sy

c o p i e s t.o you. Respec t fu l ly , Ll1ero were cop ie s th e6 n o t i c e .789

10

THE COURT: I may have missed t h a t . I was r ead i ngthe o t h e r one . That. 1 S okay. There i s a no t i c e o f appealf i l e d . Now, c t ' s in th e Jcc r i sd i c t i on o i t he Appe l l a t e Cour t .

But we have some cJean-up mat te r s . By f i l i n g11 the no t ice o f appea l , it's ou t o f my hands u n t i l th e12 Appe l l a t e Cour t r u l e s o r then the Supreme Cour t fo l lowing1314

t h a t . So, ~ h e r e t o r e , we ~ a v e some c ~ e a n - u p mat te r s . F i r s tof a l l , I don 1 t see a l l counse l heYe. I k:loW M r. Gr eenbe r g

15 i s on lrial still.

1617181920

MR. BRODSKY: Yes.MR. LOPEZ: Yes.THE COUR':': You desc r e Lo pr oceed without". him?MR. BRODSKY: Yes, your Honor .THE COURT: We have j u r o r s t .ho.t a r c p r e s e n t .

21 the l lme I r ecc lved eve r y t h i ng and was aware o f what wasAt

22 going on yes te r day un le s s I :'oJ lowed -- you know, wanted to23 go by what th e pr es s sa id , T d id n o t have t im e and th e JJry24 commiss ion d id no t have t ime to c a l l o ff th e j u r o r s . We


18/40

9

l still have numerous JUrors t h a t have been down ::.heYe whict . we2 have t r i ed to p r o t ~ c t from tl1c pr es s , no t from the pr es s but3 from r ead i ng t l1 ings in th e I Jress .4 I have them there now. 'They a re rev iewing5 t h e i r quf:s t ionnai ~ e s as we speak to see whether or no t s ince6 October when they were he:ce whethe r t h e r e ' s any a d d i t i o n s o r7 d e l e t i o n s t ha t Lhey would l i ke Lo make to the q u e s t i o n n a i r e .8 Has Lhe S t a ~ c ~ n q ~ i r e d as to whethe r o r n o t9 it w i l l be an expedi ted appeal?

10111213:4

MR. G L A S G 0 ~ \ 1 : Not a t chis p o i n t , judge .THE COURT: Vlc: don t know a t i m e f r a m e ?MR _ GLASG0\1 : Correc t .THE COURT: We know then t h a t t hey cou l d t ake s ix

to nine ~ n o n t h s . I hav


19/40

s u g g e s ~ i o n s here . I'lc r u le on Llus Lhis morning.As La Lhe Stace?

MR. GLASGOW: I f I you could have a moment.THE COURT: Sare .

(Br ief p2cuse.)

10

l

2

3

4

5

6 MR. CONNOR: As they are cor . fe r r ing , I would l i ke7 to p o i n t o u t we a r e miss ir :g an .other counse l a s w e l l ,8 Mr. Meczyk.9 MR. LOPEZ: Yes. Rut Mr. Goldberg, h is p a r t n e r ,

10 p a r t n e r is here .11 MR. GOLDBERG: Good mor: : ing. Mr. Meczyk i s on h is12 way.13 MR. BRODSKY: We w"l l proceed exped i t ious ly .14 MR. GLASGOW: I unders tand t ha t t h i s c r e a t e s a b i t15 o f a cornplcx s i tuat lor . . . Again , we wanL to make s u r e t h a t the

16 record i s pro lec tcd , ~ h a t Lhe defendanl ge t s a f a i r trial.17 I f t h e r e ' s any way Lo r e ta1 n these =uro r s , then t ha t would be18 th e S t a t e ' s pos i t i on . Rut we undersLand it's not a19 pos s ib1 l i t y .20 THE COUR':: : It. s j ust th e t:Lme p e r i o d ln which we21 have had them, you know, which draws some concern wi th t ha t .22 There ' s noth ing tLa t says 1 can ' t put. them over and t h e i r23 ju ry duty i s cont1nued u n t i l th e t . e r ~ i n a t i o n of the case .24 Like I s a i d , I have 30 of lhem -- I Lhink 31 t ha t a re


20/40

11

1 d o w n s t a i r s C'J r ren t1y l ook ing a t t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s . I have2 30 more t ha t Wll l De here a f t e rnoon because they could3 not be c a l l e d o f ~ e i t he r . i 'm g o ~ n g to have to tell them4 sornethi_ng. Then ...~ e ' re go ing T have t h e i r q u e s ~ i o n n a i r e s 5 ready, too , to see ~ ~ e r e ' s any addi t ions o r de l e t i ons . We6 can c a l l o f t tomcrYows, b t ~ ~ thcr1 we wou:dn ' t have any7 co r r ec t i o n s to t h e i r q u e s t i o n n a i r e s .8 Thcere' s a group today in th e morning, t h i s9 a f t e rnoon , tomorrow morning, tomorrov.r a f te r noon , Monday

10 morning, and Monday af te rnoon, Tuesday mornrng, Tuesday11 af te rnoon. We could c a : l o ff a l l th e r e s t , but then we12 wou:_dn t have any co r r ec ted ques


21/40

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10l l

12l3'- 1415

161718192021222324

12

th e S t a t u t e . We a re aware th e S t a t u te i n d i c a t e s t h a t th ed e f e n d a n ~ canno t oe ~ n e l d inca r ce r a ted o r on bond wi t hou tcompel l lng r e a s o n s . I would ask th e Cour t s imply to look a tth e r ecord in t h i s case . I ~ i t i a J l y , a $20 mil l ion bond wass e t p r i o r t:o th e h e a r in g t h a t your Honor pr es ided o v e r fo rf ive weeks which your Hohor cou ld t ake j u d i c i a l n o t i c e o f all::he e v id e n c e t h a t was heard a t th e t ime no w in dec id ing t h i smat t e r .

So th e $2 0 m l l : i o n bond was s e t a t th eGers t e in s t a g e . Ic went up to th e Appe l l a t e Co u r t . Again,bef o r e t he hea r ing was had, che A p p e l l a t e Cour t e x p e d i t i o u s l ya f f i r med th e $20 ~ i l l i o n bond and s e n t it back . We t hen hadt ~ l e f ivP-week hearir1g \Vhere u l l t ~ : e e v id e n c e was b r o u g h tbefore your Honor r e l a ~ i v e to both Kathleen Savio and StacyPeLerso::-1. Under sea l , your Honor h as made c e r t a i n f i nd ings

and r u l i n g s whicr. ' 'm no t go ing t o obv i ous l y speak o f hereand your Honor cou ld t ake o b v lo u s ly t ake j u d i c i a l n o t i c eof t hose and t h a t 1 s - - LheYe 's no case law 0:1 ::.hat p a r t o ft h i s . But I would argue to Lhe Cour t t h a t that's somethingti".at th e Cour t needs to g l ve g r e a t weight: .

Basical l y Fi,lci l ly, Ylr. Pe te r son i s a verysoph i s t i cu . t cd i n d i v i d u a l , 30 y e a r s p c l i c e exper i e :1ce . Basedon th e - - t h i s case and the - - As the Cour l wel l knows, wehad an i s s u e come up vri th r e g a r d s to S t a c y P e t e r s o n in t h i s


22/40

13

1 case . T h a t ' s still t h e r e . Coml:lining th e f a c t s r e l a t i ve to2 both o f t he se i s s u e s , >L's ' ' ' =h e ~ n t e r e s t of j u s t i c e t h a t3 th e bond r emain at: $20 mi l l ion dur ing th e pendency o f t h i s4 uppea l .5 THE COURT: Hang on j u s t a moment. Has th e S t a t e6 i nqu i r ed o r made a motlOn to th e Appe l l a t e Cour t to keep th e7 r u l i n g s o f th e Cour t seuleci and no t madll makeTHE COURT: I j u s t d i d n ' t know if t h e r e was

ar .y th ing f : l e d with r egucds t:o Lha::. I d o n ' t know if its

16 e v e r beer done th e Appe l l a t e Cour t .17 MR. GLASGOW: We wil l r eques t it obv i ous l y to18 mainta in th e i n t e g r i t y of what you have done so far.19 THE COU!i'l': Her e ' s something very c l e a r . I f I20 c o n t in u e Lo rr a in La in t _ h ~ s j u r y p o o l , t h a t woul_d be o f the21 u tmos t im p o r l a n c c . I mean, we : 'lave b e e n t ry j_ng to p r o t e c t22 t h a t j u r y poo l o f those p o t e n t i a l JUrors withi r1 t h i s23 ~ u r i s d i c t i o n . 24 Mr. Lopez?

As


23/40

14

MR. wOPEZo Your Honor, i f it p l e a s e tl1e Cour t ,2

3

members of tl1e pLosecut ion team. Judge, Rule 604 (a) (3 ) c a l l sfo r r1o th icg unique o r ~ o v e l in t h i s case . The trial i s

4 i n d e f i n i t e l y pos tponed now because th e S t a t e has f i l ed an5 appea l . The power to accuse i s not th e power to pun i sh .6 holdi r .g him i n d e f ~ n l t c l y , LhaL r s punishment .7

8

So th e type of rea sons t h a t you l ook to - -There a rc a few case s on t h i s i s s u e . The S t a t e has them.

9 would t e n d e r to tl1e Cour t t he case of People v e rsu s Wells .10 In Wel l s , your H o n o ~ - - 1 ' 1 1 cit_e lt, 2 79 I l l i n o i s Ap. 3d11 5 6 4 . In t h a t case , ]Udqe, the 1 n d i v i d c ~ a l was charged wi th

By

I

12 r:1urdcr. He was rn p r e t r i a l d e te n t io n be i ng h e ld without bond13 fo r app rox i m a t e l y Four years .14 'whaL the w e: l s Court. noted , your Honor, i s15 t h a t t h e r e a r c no e xc e p t i ons fo r Lhe t y p e s o f c a s e s a t which

16 60 4 (a) (3 ) can apply_ In o t h e r words, th e f a c t t h a t it's a17 murder case o r a robbe ry case , it r e a l l y d o e s n ' t ma t te r .18 What th e SLate l:as t:o show i s t h a t t l1ere a re some t ype o f19 compe l l ing reasons to hold the defendant on t h i s case st . :bject20 to the bond t h a t prev ious ly was set_21 IL ' s my unders t anding o u t o f Rule 604 (a ) (3) ,22 t h a t th e Cour l loo'cs il t the s t anda rds - - excuse me , l ooks a t23 th e f a c t o r s s e t ou t in 725 I .L .C .S . 5 / 110 -5 , wh:cr:. i s th e24 t e rmin a t io n of the amount of b a i l . Accord ing to Wells , it


24/40

15

1 says th e r u i e s s imply sugges t s t ne se r ea sons and to hold it2 to a h ~ g h e r standa:c-6.3 So rn our case , J ~ d g c , the S t a t e has to show1 compcl . l rng r ea sons why the defendant should be he ld fo r an5

6

7

i n d e t e r m i n a t e L.irne under a preLr: ia l r c I e a s e o r d e r . Becauset he re i_s a r e l ea s e orde r . The r e l ea s e or de r i s s u b j ec t tothe $20 mil l ion bond tha t was pr ev ious ly s e t in th e case .

8 t h a t r s p a r t of the r e l ease orde r .9

10au t here , Lhe de l ay t h i s c a s e , a s the

Cour t has no t ed , c o ~ l d be s ix to nine months. The Sta te11 h a s n ' t been ab le to show t he r e ' s any l e g i t im a te s a f e ty12 concern to any v i c ~ i m s or witr1esses in t h i s case . This i s

So

13 not a charge - The d e f e ~ d a n t _s ~ o t ctarged with a case t h a t14 r equ l r e s a mandato ry life scr .Lence .15 T ~ ' . e r e i s a - - : n o u r c a s e t h e r e is a

16 Bolingbrook p o l i ce of f r c e r who r s an o f f ~ c e r fo r 32 yea r s .17 He made ~ ~ n e r ank o f s e r g e a n t . T ~ e Sta te canno t a t t h i s t ime18 show t h a l th e defendant ever harassed any witnes se s , eve r19 at t empted to o b s t r u c t any JUSt ice, eve r a t t empted to impede20 any j u s t i c e .21222324

Tho Stu':.e cur. 1 t show th e d e f e n d a n t is af l i g h t rj_sk b e c a ~ s c he ' s ~ o c u f l i g ~ : t r i s k . :..fe' s been int h i s c o m m u : r ~ i t y fo r o v e r :3 0 years . He's been a c i t i z e n ofWil l County. Hc 1 s n c ~ v e r s ta lked any w i l n e s s e s in t h i s case .


25/40

16

1 He no - :anger posse s se s any weapons . As you2 know, ~ h e r e was s e ~ 1 c h warran ts and a l l th e weapons were

se ized in t h i s casP. Again, he has no h i s t o r y o f abusing4 drugs o r a l coho l . Those are the f a c t o r s t h a t Wells asked th e5 Cour t to look a t , whatever you can f ind a t '125 I .L .C .S . ,6 5 / 1 1 0 -5 .7 llowever, Wells does make it c r y s t a l c l ea r ,8 your Honor,


26/40

17

1 :t's crys ta l c lea r , under 604, it says2 r e l ea s e of defendant pending appeal , de fendan t should not be3 held in i a i l o r to b a i l during the pendency of an appea l by4 the S ta t e un less t h e re ' s compel l ing r ea sons fo r the cont inued5 de ten" : ion o r be i : lg h e ld to b a i l . Again , th e compel l ing6 reasons I suppose people could d i f f e r on what compel l ing7 r easons might be , b ' J ~ yCJu have to r e s t o r e th e d e f e n d a n t r s8 ~ r e e d o m when an in te r locu tory appeal i s f i l e d because he9 loses the s t a t u t o r y r i gh t to a speedy t r i a l ~

1011 Impairrcent

I lere, ~ h e Sta te has f i l e d t h i s Ce r t i f i c a t e ofYou have j ~ 1 s t g o ~ e over t he th ree c e r t i f i c a t e s

12 which ba s i c a l l y s t a t e s Lo ~ h e Court t ha t , judge , w1thout t h i s13 evidence , we can 1 t be success fu l in our pr osecu t ion / our14 pr osecu t ion i s now impai red. T waul d be very , very , very ,15 very u n c o ~ s t i ~ u ~ i o n a l to c o ~ t i n u e to ~ ! o l d Lh e defendant to16 t h i s b a i 1 b a se d on th e c i r cu :ns t ances we j u s t h e a r d .17 Because wi thout t ha t evidence - - I f the18 Appel la te Court ru les t ha t Judge W h ~ L e d id th e r i g h t th ing ,19 then th e S'C.at.e 1 .S going to be forced to make o. dec i s ion l a t e r2 0 on a s to whether u r r.ot they are go lng to proceed wi th21 whatever ::hey have l e f t o r to simply say , we t::ried, we22 co u l d n ' t get th e evidence in , the Appe l la te Cour t ru l ed23 a g a i n s t u s , t':"'.e Suprerr.c C:uurt ru l ed agains t_ u s , and as a24 r e su l t of t ha t , we d re not going to proceed any fu r the r , we


27/40

18

l a re go ing to ~ a v e to d i sm i s s th e c h a y g e s a g a i n s t th e2 def endan t .3 One t h ing :-:he S t a t e d id ask you to cons ide r4 l S the t h i n g s you heard a t th e hea r say s t a g e . However, under5 WelJs , it says ~ : : 1 a t yu.1 s h o u l d n ' t c o n s i d e r any o f th e6 exc luded ev i dence . So any c f th e ev idence t h a t has been7 e x c ~ u d e d , th e po1n t s t h a t you exc luded , s h o u l d n ' t be89

1011

cons i de r ed ir . making your de te rmina t ion . Those a re now onappeal and t hose arc o u ~ . T h a t ' s what Wel l s says .

case .CoMpe:l ing reasons J e s t d o n ' t e x i s t in t h i s

The defendaEL as you know was - - from 2001 u n t i l th e12 t ime - - excuse me, from 2007 u n t i l th e t ime o f h i s a r r e s t , he13 remained in th e a r ea . He d i d n ' t i n t i m i d a t e , h a r a s s , o r14 a t t empt t. o i n f l u e n c e any tami I y rnerrbers o f h i s o r f ami ly15

16

members of h i s - o f riJs. Sav.:.o. D i d n ' t do any th ing in t h a t

r ega r d . He remair::ted her e . He was a r r e s t e d he re . He was17 a r r e s t ed on h i s way to p ick up h i s ch i l d r en .18192021

IIe 1 s no t o f2. ight r i s k . I f he wanted to run ,he c e r t a i n l y c o J l d t tave ran . He had eve r y oppor tun i ty to ru np r i o r t.o th e execut . ion o f ar.y sea rch w a r r a n t s . He cou ld havedone whatever he wanted. I f he wanted to g e t a p a s s p o r t and

22 run to a cour1try t h a t d i d n ' t have e x t r a d i t i o n , he could have2324

done it. He d i d n do t h a ~ . He s t ayed h e r e .Also , t he r e 1 s no i n d i ca t i o n in tl-:..e r eco rd


28/40

191

2t ha t h e ' s ever vio la ted any orders of ~ h e Court ln regard toany of the p r o s e c t l t i o r ~ i_n t1is case . That shows That ' s

3 another fac to r to take in to consider-a t ion under the b a i l4

5678

Statv. te_ The b J i i Sta tu te asks you to take in a l l thesed i f f e r e n t th ings_ Wells says Jus t look a t the b a i l Sta tu te .This r e a l l y i s n ' t a ba i l hear ing. This i s a r e lease hear ing .We can'L r ea l l y e n t i t l e it bai 1 hear ing . This i s ac tua l ly ar e lease hear ing . The defendant has to be r e leased

9 uncond i t iona l ly .10 ~ h e Sta te we know has an abso lu te r i gh t to11 f i l e an i n t e r locu tory appeal . Once the i n t e r l oc u t o r y appeal12 i s f i l e d , a c c o ~ d i n g again to Wells , it suspends the s t a t u t o r y13 speedy t r i a l r igh t s once the a p p e : ~ i ' l t e j u r i s d i c t i o n i s14 imposed. What Wells goes on to t a lk about There ' s few15 cases t ha t d i scuss 601, Wells being one t h a t ' s probably the

16 c loses t to our co.sc _17 I a:so want Lo note , too , t ha t a t one t ime18 the S t a t e ' s At to rney ' s Off ice sen t a l e t t e r to the ch ie f o f19 po l i ce dated November 10, 1994, regard ing Of f i c e r Peterson20 and o the r o f f i c e r s and .said t ha t the - - each o f the above21 re fe renced members of your department were involved in the22 i nve s t i ga t i on that. u l t imate ly led to the conv ic t ion o f23 K e n n e t h - - I 1 ll s p e ~ ~ th e l a s t name, C - e - b - e r - t - o - w - i - c - z ,24 fo r the cold blooded f_ r s t degree murder fo r h is wife


29/40

1

2V i c t o r i a . The succcss fc : l triai lS th e r e s u l t o f c o n t in u e dcoope ra t ion between our of f ice and lh e members of your

20

3 depar tment . I w a . ~ " l t to comp2.i.me:-:t each o f t,:.he members of your45

depar tment wh o a re involved in th e case . I want to thankthem fo r th e work t h e y p u t i n to it. They a r e a c r e d i t to

6 your depar vnen l .'I This was sent: Lo Ch ie f Ronald Chruszyk ,8 C - h - r - u - s - z y - k , from th e Bol ingbrook PoLice Depar tmen t d a t e d

November 10 , 1994. lt's ln r ega r d t o t he case I j u s t1 0 mentioned. It's r ega r d l ng O f f i c e r P e t e r s o n , wh o ~ s n o w ]_l Sergeant Pe te r son , O f f i ce r Johns ton , Inv12s t iga tor 'Toomey,12 Se r g e a n t Darragr . , Off i ce r s Shaefe r , Rl l ey , and J u l i Coughl in .13 Over the course of Mr. P e te r s on ' s ca r ee r in14 law enforcement , he ' s rece ived commendat ions not only from15 t l :e p o l i c e depart.:nen::, b u t h e ' s a l s o r c c e i ved g lowing

1617

accolades from Mr-. Glasgow's of f i c e . 1t's s i g n e d by firsta s s i s t a n t s L a t e ' s a t to rney ~ o u g Deboer, D-e b-o -e r . These

18 a re th e t y p e s o f t h lngs t h a t you ca:1 t ake i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n ,th e d e f e n d a n t ' s p a s t , what h e ' s done, t. o deter r r . ine whether o r

20 n o t th e S t a t e has s'1own ymc any c o r r p e ~ . l i n g r e a s o n s in which21 you s h o u ld h o ld Mr. Pe te r s o n t o t h J s b a i l amount Lhat was22 p r e v i o u s l y s e t .23 They scr:1ply naven r. b e e n a b l e to do t h a t24 because it 1 s n o t any more un ique Lhu.n t.he Wel l s c a s e . The


30/40

21

1 We] l s . involved a mun-lcr, it i nvo lved an e x t r a d i t i o n . In2 We] l s , the lower c:oCJ.,--L, t:--.e tr ia l cour t , he would n o t r e l ease3 th e defendantc, and th e Appel la te Cour t ba s i c a l l y s a id J u s t i c e4 Kuehn s a id t ha t you have to r e 1.ease him un le s s t h e r e ' s some5 compel l ing and o v e r r J d ~ n g reasons . would sugges t to th e6 Court . t h a t t h o s e an.:- :...he t y p e s o : t h . i r ~ g s you have to l ook78

for . I s th e defendant a t h rea t to anybody on th e s t r e e t ? Hei s no t . They h a v e n ' t come fo r th with any evidence to show

9 t ha t hers a cont inuJng t h r e a t .10 They haven' t come :'ort"c\ wi tr . any evidence to11 show t h a t :-nore likely thar:. no t tha':::. he w i l l do someth ing . In12 f ac t , the evidence shows more l i ke l y t han no t t h a t Mr .13 Peterson w i l l be a law abid ing c i t i z e n , w i l l r es ide ln h is14 community, w i l l t ake care o t h1s ch i ld ren , and do o t h e r15 Lhings . ! l e ' s demonstYated in th e pas t by the conduc t which

16 he exh ib i t ed over the course of the yea r s from 2007 u n t i l the17 t ime o f h is a r r e s t .18 Based on t h a t , judge , we ask th e Cour t to19 orde r the r e lease of th e defendant. wi':hout any cond i t ions and20 that. Lhe - - r egard less of the reasons tha t . were made in ::.he21 i n i t i a l b a i l determinat ior t , 604 still e n t i t l e s the defendant22 to r e l ea s e un le s s again there 1 S some compel l ing r ea sons . It23 r equ i res the Court to look a l whethe r o r no t t h e r e a re any24 c o m p e l l i n g r easons , what a re th e reaso:-1s why. Po in t to one


31/40

22

reason why we s h o u ~ d n r e ~ e a s e the defendant . Who i s hegoing to harm? I s h t - ~ go ing to ~ - < . . : n away? I t JSn ' t the re .

It's unfa i r to keep the de fendan t locked up

12345

fo r an i nde f i n i t e per iod of t ime. This case could l i nge r onfo r a l o ~ g Lime. Tbt=:re c o u ~ d . ex tens ions of t i ne f i l e d .

6 I f you t h ~ n k abcYut lC , th1s i s the r e a l i s t i c p o s s i b i l i t y of789

what could happen. What could happen in t h i s cas e - - it'ssomething we should t ake in to cons idera t ion i s the St a t e ' sAttorney , Mr. G ~ a s g o w , has f1 led h is no t i c e of appea l . The

10 Court wi l l se t up a ~ J r i e f i n g s c h e d ~ l e . They w ~ l l go f i r s t ,11 they are - - the aopel :an=s , and the appe l l ee ge t s an12 oppor tun i ty to respond . The appe l l an t s g e ~ ano the r13 oppor=uni ty Lo r ep ly . ~ h e n the Court may o r 'flay no t ask fo r14 ora2_ argument somet:i:nc clo\VTI the road .15 Af te r the ora l a r g u ~ e ~ t 1s completed, it16 could take whatever amount of t1mc iL could Lake fo r the17 Appel la te Cour t to reach a dec i s ion . 1f it's adverse to18 Mr. Glasgow and his o f ice , I 'm more than conf iden t t ha t they19 wi : l seek a pet iLion t :Jr l eave to appea l to the Supreme20 Cour t , which 1s another :JO days to f i l e t h a t , another21 oppor tun i ty fo r t.he CcJ11rt tcJ Lake it u n d e r cons idera t ion and22 look a t it.23 I f i L ' s an adve_r:_,se d e c i s i o n to Mr. P e te r s o n24 and the Court over ru es y o ~ r Honor 's dec i s ion , w h i c h : don ' t


32/40

23

1 th ink it w11: be because you re l1ed on th e St a t u t e and Hanson2 r e l i e d on common law d o c t r i n e of f o r f e : t u r e because it wasn ' t3 in e f f e c t a t the t lme, then we could f i l e appeal it. The4 Supreme Cour t could decide we' l l t ake it o r no t take lt.o :_,et ' s say they do l ake ic, they toke i 'c and whatever ru l ing6 they may make, Lr.at m]ght be sometime next yea r o r the yea r7 a f t e r .8 Then :he o the r a l t e r na t i ve l e f t fo r whoever9 j s not the p r e v a j 1 in g p a r t y i_s an a t t e m p t to go ' to th e

10 U.S. Supreme C o u r t ~ This case could l i n g e r on in th e11 appe l la te cour t s for longer thae1 s ix o r nine months .12 Re a l i s t i c a l l y , it could be a fe w years before : h e r e ' s an13 u l t i m a t e decis i_on in t h i s c a s e . Those a re the types of14 th ings you should tuke i n to cons idera t ion .15 Dur'ng t tB t per iod of t ime , t h i s defendant as

16 any other defendancc who can a v a ~ l hirr .self to 604 l o ses one o f171819

the ClOSt - would say one of the b igges t c ons t i t u t i ona lr igt1ts t1e has and tt1al 1 S a y igh t to a speedy trial. That ' ssimply unf a i r . That ' s s imply not something t ha t 60 4

20 contemplaLed21 s ~ u p r e : n e Coccrt J l . l ~ e 604 i s p r e l t y c l e a r - c u t .22 The Supreme Cour l has decided t ha t people who are charged23 with a criMe who 0nc sub jec t to i n t e r l oc u to r y appeal are a l so24 sub jec t to have t } r e ~ r f reedon ~ e s t o r e d . T ha t ' s what Wells


33/40

24

1 s a y s . We're ask i ng you to r e s t o r e th e d e f en d an t ' s freedom,2 to al low ~ h e def endan t to be r e lea sed uncond i t iona l ly because3 the S t a t e hasn 'L showrl any compell ing r ea sons fo r t h i s Cour t ,4 fo r your Honor, to be able to po ln t to any th ing s p e c i f ~ c and5 say, you know what , I den ' t want t.o l e t Mr. Peter son ou t6 because A, B, C, D, E, o r F may happn, and I have a7 legi t : i .mute concern e l t h e r fo r the s a f e t y o f th e community o r8 t h a t he i s a r i sk o f f l i gh t . Theey h a v e n ' t demons t r a t ed9 e i t h e r one of t hose , judge.

10 MR. c;LASGOW: Very qu lck ly . Wells s a y s t h a t thell S t a t e n e e d s to v a l i d a t e its d e s i r e to p r o l o n g its h o ld on12 d e f e n d a n t ' s freedoiT. w i th some': l1i ng T':lore t h a n its power to13 accuse .14 Th1s case i s unprecedented in th e s t a t e - - o f15

1617

the anna l s jus t : ice in I l l i n o i s . Never be fo re has the r e

been a } lear ing l i k e your Hor:or p r e s i d e d o v e r . It's a case o ff i r s t i mpr ess i on . Duri::1q t h o s e f i ve weeks Again , we ' r e in

18 a d e l i c a t e s i t u a t i o n here because we c a n ' t t a l k abou t th e19 u l t ima te r eso lu t ior1 . R1t fo r -:-ive weeks we p u t on evidence20 thaL Drew Pe te r son k i l l e d Kathleen Sav io wi t h th e i n t e n t to21 s i l en ce h e r and we a l so pu t on ev idence t h a t he k i l l e d St acy22 Pe te r son with tl1e j _ ~ t e n t to s i l ence h e r r e l a l i v e to th e dea th23 of Ka th leen Sav io . It ti:1u.t i s n r t a danger t h a t we p u t on24 ev:..dence t ha t someone was :nurdered to s i J eEce so:neone about a


34/40

25

1 previous murder , J don ' t kr:ow what could be more compel l ing .2 That i s the most compel l ing a r g ~ m e n L we can poss ib ly pr esen t3 t h i s Cour t .4 Ago.in, f i ve weeks o f e v id e n c e t h a t y ou ca n5

6

conside:c.evidence .

He m e n ~ ~ - i o n c d Lha't you c a n ' t c o n s i d e r suppr essedWe're not: t a lk ing about suppres sed ev idence .

7 Ther e ' s ev i dence t h a t may not be admis s ib le a t t : r i a l t h a t you8 can cons ide r , a lo t of it. So a l ~ t h a t goes i n to th e9 corr.pcndium when yo u make t h i s dec i s ion as to whether o r not

10 the r e a r e compel l ing r easons to ho:.d t h i s man in jail dur ing11121314

t:he pendency of t.h.is appeal ar:d they a r e l eg ion . The Courtknows t h i n g s thaL we c a n ' t d iscus s here . I ask you takeLhose j n t o a c c o u n t , a l s o . Thar:.k you.

':'H::C COUET: Is t he re any:. .hing e l s e we have to15 address?

161718 your case .

MR. LOPEZ: No .THE COURT: I 'm going t o s t ep down. I'll review

There i s or.e othe:c mat t e r still pending . There 's19 s l i ~ l a charge pend ing aga ins t Mr. Pe te r son t h a t i s be fo re20 Judge Schoens l ed t .2122 retc . rned.2324

MR. BRODSKY: The mandate has no t ye t been

THE COURT: They be 1 i eve i t i1as .MR. BRODSKY: l had not seen t h a t .


35/40

123

THE COlJi


36/40

J a l l of t he evidence Ll",at was the r e and h as hea r d th e23

arguments wi t h regards Lo it. Show th e Cour t f indscompe::;_inq r e a s o n s to keep Mr. Pe


37/40

1234

56789

10111213

'- 1415

161718192021222324

28

appea l t ake longe r or should e i t h e r s i d e dec ide to t ake it totl1e Suprerr1e Cot1rt . I don, t k:1ow whethe r anybody wants to askt he Appe l l a t e Cou::c;: to o r d e r me to d i sc lwrge t h a t , b u t a tt h i s t ime s ince we l1ave t ha t poo l , I 'm going to r e t a i n it asbes t I can with r ega rds to it.

l do w a ~ t LO say, with r ega r ds to th edefecse , defense still and th e S t a t e , i f y o u ' r e go ing todo any . : ;_ntervicws u. r LhaL o u t s i d e t h e n o r m a l c o u r s e o fth ings , remember to now l e t -- g i ve me n o t i f i c a t i o n and theARDC. I d id no l sec any n o t i f i c a t i o n a s to th e Fox News, WGNi n t e rv i ews o r t h a t th e o t ~ 1 e r day. may be ln the mai l o rsomething l i ke t ha t , but L didn' t : see it. I know Mr. Brodskywi l l u sua l ly fax t h a t to me. Remember to keep t h a t in mindwith r ega rds lo t h a t oven dur icg the pendency o f t h i s .

At t h i s tirr.c, a l l the - - the documents andt ha t , un le s s the Appel la te Court or de r s o the r wise , w i l lremain sea led and in th e same s t a tu s as we were be f o r e .Anything e l s e?

MR. CONNOR: Apparen t ly tha:: i s o ur subpoena .Apparent ly , il s Maconil i , Michigan.

THE COURT: sor ry . You w i l l g e t it any way.Nothir1g fur t t1er witl1 r e g a r d s to t l1is?

MR. GLASGOW: No, your Honor.MR. BRODSKY: No .


38/40

123456789

THE CO:JRT: Judge Schoens t ed t i s o u t s i d e . I'lll e t him come in . Eie can addr ess th e gun c a s e .

(Br ie f pause . )THE BAILIFF: A ll r i s e .

THE COURT:

( l l r ief pause . I(The fo l lowrng pr oceed i ngs a re hadbef o r e t he Honorab le Ric h a r d C.Sc:hor .ns ted t : )Thank you, all. Appar en t l y we a re

10 making t h i s c o n v e n i e n t tc eve r ybody b u t me.

29

111213

Mr. Brodsky, good morning, Mr. Glasgow and toyour s t a f f . T b ~ j s i s on th e c a se t h a t h as been p e n d i n g be fo reme, 08 CF 1 1 6 9 . I d id loc:< ~ h : c o u g h th e f r l c . I b e l i e v e your

14 were r i g h t when L 'wy rndic , , t .ed to me o f f th e r eco rd t h a t no15 mandate has been rc tu i ned trom the Appe l l a t e Cour t .16 I s t .hat yoJr under s t and i ng?

MR. BRODSKY: T have n o l r ece ived a copy of t he18 manda te .19202122

MR. GLASGOW: Tha t , s correc: t , y o u r Honor .MS. OSTERBERGER: I c a l l e d th e A p p e l l a t e Cour t

dur ing ou r br eak . They d id ve r i f y to rne t hey have no t y e tsen t th e mandate back to lh e Supreme Court:. Although, th e

23 SLCprer:1e C o u r t ' s mandate h


39/40

30

THJ=: COURT: L would suggestc a s tca tus d a t e . I s2 t he re a s t a t u s da


40/40

31

1 IN THE CIRCUIT COIJRT FDH. THE TWELFTH ,JUDICIAL CIRCUIT2 WILl" COUNTY, ILLINOIS345 I , MICHELf"E PANOS, O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r f o r6 th e C i r c u i t C o u r t o f Wil l Coun ty , T w e l f t h J u d i c i a l C i r c u i t o f7 Illinois, do h e re b y ccrtlty ~ h a t I r e p o r t e d in s h o r t h a n d t h e8 pr oc e e d i ngs had i n t:-,e a b o v e - e n t i t l e d c a u s e ; and tha t . I9 t h e r e a f t e r caused th e fo rego jng to be t r a n s c r i b e d i n t o10 t y p e w r i t i n g , whic h : h e r e b y c e r t i f y to be a t r u e an d a c c u r a t e11 t r an sc r ip t . o f t r .e p ro c e e d i n g s had b e f o r e t .he H o n o r a b l e12 S':'EPHEN D. WHITE, Judge o f s a i d C o u r t .131415

16 Daeced a t J o ~ i e c : , W i l l County , Illinois, th e 8 th17 day o f J u l y , 2010 .18192021222324

Cb-:L;.:_u .1 ' " ' " ' i t : = ~ ' - ' - " i chel le Panos

O f f i c i a l C o u r t R e p o r t e r~ i c e n s e No. 084-004154

Documents

Defense Motion for Release of Drew Peterson - Justice Café -