Peterson defense re: hearing (5-22)

Here it is TmP488zz:

May 22, 2009

Updated: Drew Peterson posts (5-26)

Peterson defense team comments after the hearing in which Judge refused to lower the bail. So it stays at $30M and Drew stays in jail. And his lawyers actually walked in there thinking they could get the bail reduced to somewhere between $100-500K. Out of touch with reality. What Peterson did to his children is evil. Especially making his sons go on TV to say what a great dad he is.

JOEL BRODSKY:

• So much of these “new facts” supposedly come to light in the last 6 months people seem to have an amazing memory that things they haven’t thought about for the last five years have all of a sudden come back, Amazing how people are suddenly starting to remember these things in the last six weeks.

• Obviously, someone came forward and we’re going to find out who it is–but in these high-profile cases, they often bring people out of the woodwork making allegations.

• With each one of these statements — what were gonna do today is gonna get a transcript of what the States Attorney laid out today and he set himself a bar. He laid out facts that he says he is going to be able to prove. And each time he fails to prove it, we’re going to be right there with another motion to reduce bond.

• [Glasgow] said a lot of new things, which he can’t substantiate, and every time he fails to do it – when put to the test – we’re gonna be right back.

Was the judge fair?

[Notice how neither one of them are respectful enough to call Judge Carla Alessio-Policandriotes anything other than “she”. or “this judge”. It matters – especially to  professional woman who hyphenates.]

ANDREW ABOOD:

• She’s fine. She’s gonna be fine. This is gonna be a long process. This is a big case. It’s difficult to be thrown into this case given everything that’s transpired over that last 18 months. Everything that we’ve heard about her is that she is an excellent judge, that she’s got a great intellect that in the moment she”l be able to rise to the occasion and make sound decisions.

Will you consider changing judges?

ANDREW ABOOD:

• We’ve got the whole weekend. We’re going to look at all of our options.

JOEL BRODSKY:

• We’ve got 9 more days to file a motion for substitutions. I won’t totally foreclose it – but as I said we’ve looked at this judge and talked to people about her and investigated her . She is someone with a very sharp legal mind – very bright – and is not afraid to make unpopular rulings. So that’s exactly the type of judge we want for this case.

Looking at her and appearing before her are two different things.

JOEL BRODSKY:

• As Mr Abood said, this is her first time in the courtroom, and it ‘s gonna be a big and probably highly contentious case…and perhaps what she wanted to do is put in a firm hand at the get go. That she kinda make a statement that this is going to be – that there is going to be no nonsense.

What does Drew think of the decision?

• I think he was [he looks like he was going to cry], I think, a little bit taken aback. He felt like a lot of people did – he’s not alone in this – that $20M is exceptionally high.

• Drew’s main concern is always his children. As long as his children are taken care of he’s ready for what life throws at him.

• Unfortunately case is going to proceed faster since he’s incarcerated.

• Additional burden on us the State and the courts.

• Very little they laid out that was a surprise – most of it was based on hearsay.

• That the new hearsay law would be applied to say that it’s both Constitutional and applied retroactively is impossible to believe.

• Without the hearsay they don’t have much of a case.

Are you saying the hitman was not a surprise?

JOEL BRODSKY:

• We’ve heard something about that in the past but nothing substantive. Obviously they’ve had someone come forward and we;ll do an investigation.

• There always folks who interject themselves. Could very well be that case.

ANTHONY ABOOD:

• Glasgow’s statement focused on motive, which is not an element in an indictment.

• You can prove motive but it doesn’t establish a prima facie case.

• What he didn’t say — because he doesn’t know or doesn’t want to say — is HOW DID STACY DIE.

[Mixed up or the truth?]

BRODSKY whispers “Kathy” and ABOOD corrects himself.

• That is a problem of reasonable doubt

• Prosecutor has to explain how the defendant took a life

• If the jury is going to find him guilty he has to prove it and explain how it was done

JOEL BRODSKY:

• No sign of forced entry

• No sign of struggle

• He’s arguing for the defense

• These are major major holes in his theory and a major problem with his case.

• Jury has to find that somebody got into that house, committed homicide without leaving one forensic trace and then exited the house without being seen. And was able to…

[Then he falters – mentioning the fact that “the murderer” aka Drew got away by fooling the prosecutors. Should never have said that because it presumes guilt and cover up after the fact. He caught himself but went on anyway. Keep this guy talking – he’s just as bad as Drew. An innocent man’s lawyer would never have taken the argument that far.]

• And was able to convince investigators from the State’s attorney’s office and from the police that he was somewhere [almost says else and catches himself] that he had nothing to do with it and nowhere near the scene during the time periodof the death

• Major problem in his thumbnail

Prosecutor said he should be treated differently with bail because he’s a police officer.

• Should be treated the same

• But sentencing for policemen is sometimes worse because they breached a public trust

• But the guilt or innocence phase of the trial should be treated the same

• If he testified he should not be held to a higher standard