![]() However, the statute differs from the former by requiring three additional elements to be proven. Drew’s Law contains the same basic requirements as the common law and evidentiary rule. Lastly, statute 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 “Hearsay Exception for Intentional Murder of a Witness,” better known as Drew’s Law, also applies. California, stated Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 804 (on which the Illinois rule is based and contains similar language) was a constitutional codification of the common-law forfeiture of wrongdoing exception. It provides that if a party is unreachable to testify at a civil or criminal trial due to the defendant’s intent of stopping the witness’ testimony, a hearsay exception may be invoked and the testimony may be heard. Illinois Rule of Evidence 804 (hereinafter Rule 804) titled “Hearsay Exceptions Declarant Unavailable” also provides a hearsay exception applicable to Peterson. This requires the defendant to have intended the unavailability to relate to the witness’s ability to testify. Thus, this exception is invoked when the party against whom the exception is sought intentionally makes a witness unavailable through their own volition. The doctrine holds that while a person has a constitutional right to confront a witness, they forfeit that right when the inability to do so is caused by their own wrongdoing. United States in 1878, the doctrine, and a Federal Rule of Evidence based upon it, was upheld as constitutional by the United States Supreme Court as recently as 2008. Starting with the oldest, at 134 years, is the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. Applicable Hearsay Exceptions to the Peterson CaseĬurrently in Illinois, there exist three hearsay evidence exceptions that are applicable to the Peterson case. Where the misinformation arises is the applicability of law to statements said by Peterson’s third and fourth wife, and why they were admitted in court. Those facts are a matter of record and not in dispute. ![]() Prosecutors appealed the ruling and the appellate court ruled on the admissibility of the remaining statements. The court allowed six of the fourteen statements, finding the remaining eight unable to meet the statutory reliability requirements in Drew’s Law. Prosecutors argued inter alia that the statements should be admitted pursuant to statute (Drew’s Law) or the common law doctrine of forfeiture by wrongdoing. In 2007, following the disappearance of Stacy Peterson, Peterson’s fourth wife, the body of Savio was exhumed and murder charges were filed following additional autopsies.ĭuring pretrial for Savio’s murder, the prosecutors moved, in limine, to admit fourteen hearsay statements. Because the divorce was no longer contested following her death, the court dissolved the Savio/Peterson marriage. The hearing for separation of assets was to commence in April, one month after Savio’s death. In March of 2004, at the time of her death, Kathleen Savio and Peterson were engaged in divorce proceedings. As members in the legal community, we are tasked with providing clarity to thinly veiled misinformation in sensationalized cases. It will, however, focus on whether this case was precedential, and whether Drew’s Law had an effect, if at all, on hearsay evidence admission at trial. This article will not focus on the merits of the charges against Drew Peterson. While giving a brief overview of hearsay law, those reports failed to inform the reader that the basis of Drew’s Law is over a century old, nationally recognized, and as it applies to Peterson, no evidence was let in pursuant to the law that would have otherwise been barred. Many news articles from both local and national publications, including those above, concentrated their legal analysis on the “precedent setting” Drew’s Law. There can be no valid constitutional claim when the right was forfeited by the accused’s own volition. Finally, and perhaps the most fear inspiring, “ow could his conviction stand] when the constitution gives any defendant the right to confront his accuser.” Deceptive.Many exceptions exist to hearsay evidence rules. “ were forced to rely on typically barred hearsay….” Misleading.“The Trial was the first of its kind in Illinois history….” Untruthful, in fact Drew’s Law was employed before Peterson’s own case.While the statute dubbed Drew’s Law is new, the case’s precedential value has been established for over a century. The trial was a “potentially precedent-setting case centered on second hand hearsay statements.” Incorrect.True, he was found guilty for the murder of Kathleen Savio. Drew Peterson was convicted of first-degree murder and is currently awaiting sentencing.The following are news reports surrounding the recent trial of Drew Peterson for the murder of Kathleen Savio, accompanied by a factual explanation: All Bark and No Bite: Analyzing the Role of “Drew's Law” in the Murder Conviction of Drew Peterson ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |