|Drew Peterson Photo by Paul Huebl|
Joliet, IL--Lawyers for Accused retired Bolingbrook police sergeant Drew Peterson rested their case today. There’s no reason for Peterson to testify because everyone knows what he has to say. He formally declined to do so.
Prosecutors get yet another bite ate the apple putting on their hired gun, expert witnesses to cancel out Peterson’s. The defense will cross-examine but the tricky part will by for prosecutors not to punish the jury with the total duplication of their murder speculation.
Throughout the day both sides will offer up jury instructions to the court. The rub here is addressing the barrage of never before admitted hearsay evidence brought on by the new Drew Peterson Law. The judge may have a few instructions of his own.
Next come the final arguments beginning with the prosecutor claiming they’ve proven their case, “beyond a reasonable doubt.” That’s a difficult concept for even the brightest lawyers to define. In this case it will be a miracle if prosecutors don’t again cross boundaries in their attempt to poison the jury.
The defense will get their turn and attack the case made through gossip, hatred and emotion. As for attacking viable physical evidence, there is none. They will ask the jury to put aside the hype, guess work and wild speculation and work with proof. They will also ask the jury to follow the rules and be fair. They will tell the jury that there is no murder, nor a killer to be found or punished.
The prosecution will get a second shot to beg the jury for a conviction and waive Kathleen Savio’s picture around in dramatic fashion to play on juror’s raw emotions.
Look for yet another mistrial motion or two, which probably will be once more denied.
The jury will be sworn and sent to deliberate. Realistically they have all be saturated with tweets and every form of media about this legal mess. They will break off into two groups. One group will ask, “Where’s the beef?” The other group will express their hatred to Peterson and his lawyers. Will they be able to settle on a unanimous verdict?
If it’s anything like the mock trial some three years ago the answer will be, no way. Of course this jury knows that this was not intended to be a fair trial. Anything is possible.
Do you honestly believe this guy is innocent? I don't, not in the least.
I think he's a scum bag but that doesn't mean we toss the constitution out the window. This case should never have come to trial. If he isn't aquited he will be on appeal.
guilty or innocent, he's supposed to be assured of equal rights under the law. This doesn't mean inventing procedures that benefit the prosecutors that are not in effect in the rest of the Country. I find it ironic that the Socialist State of Illinois has approved this so called "Hearsay Rule" . If Peterson was Black, Hispanic, or a Female, instead of a White Male Police officer, I doubt if this ruling would have happened. Only here in obamaland, Home of the Communist Party, USA.
Post a Comment