Peterson case makes history: First time for cameras in Illinois Appellate Court

The raw video of the proceedings of the Illinois Third Appellate Court is posted here. Prospective attorneys (like Y&G'ers) can use it for Springfield prep. For the rest of you, use it to consider the law in this high-profile case. As the Chicago Tribune reported Will County prosecutors actually argued against the state statute they helped to create, but may in fact, be unconstitutional.

CHICAGO —

In attempting to get hearsay statements admitted in Drew Peterson's murder case, Will County prosecutors today found themselves arguing against the very law they helped create.

Saddled with a botched police investigation several years ago, State's Attorney James Glasgow had pushed for a state statute that would allow hearsay statements against Peterson at trial. Dubbed Drew's Law by legal experts and legislators, he hailed the bill's passage as a way of letting Peterson's third and fourth wives speak from the grave.

Glasgow acknowledged the strange turn as he asked the Third District Appellate Court to ignore his statute in favor of the less-restrictive common law. "Ironically, I'm in a unique position here," he told the three-member panel. "I wrote the statute."

The proceedings -- which were televised live, a first in state history -- focused on prosecutors' desire to admit several hearsay statements at trial.

Glasgow's statute requires judges to consider two things: whether the statement is reliable and whether the bulk of the evidence shows that the defendant made the witness unavailable to testify.

After a landmark hearsay hearing last year, Judge Stephen White sided with prosecutors in finding that the preponderance of evidence suggested Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and caused his fourth wife Stacy Peterson's disappearance. The "preponderance" standard does not imply that Peterson would be found guilty at trial because the burden of proof is lower than the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard imposed on juries.

Though he ruled in the state's favor on that point, White still barred the majority of hearsay witnesses because they did "not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability."

On the eve of trial, Glasgow announced he would appeal the judge's ruling to help convict Peterson and let Savio speak from the grave. He argued that the judge's decision -- made under the guidelines established by Drew's Law -- should have adhered instead to less-restrictive common law.

Peterson's defense team likened the move to changing the rules in the middle of a game.

"They went out and wrote the law," defense attorney Steve Greenberg said. "Now they want to apply a different standard."

Appellate Judge Robert L. Carter acknowledged the prosecution's change of heart during Glasgow's arguments. "What do you want to hang on now?" he asked. "The common law or the statute?"

The common law, Glasgow said, as some in the gallery laughed.

http://www.wgntv.com/news/wgntv-drew-peterson-trial-feb15,0,6413497.story