Court limits use of hearsay evidence in Drew Peterson case

• Reprints

Drew Peterson is in Will County Jail awaiting trial on murder charges in the bathtub drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. | Rich Hein~Sun-Times

Article Extras

Updated: July 27, 2011 2:11AM

Drew Peterson’s attorneys called Tuesday for Will County prosecutors to drop murder charges against the former Bolingbrook cop after an Illinois Appellate Court limited the use of crucial hearsay evidence against him.

The decision barring eight statements that purportedly link Peterson to the 2004 bathtub drowning death of third wife Kathleen Savio leaves prosecutors unable to convict him of any crime, his attorneys contended.

“If there’s insufficient evidence to prosecute, they ought to do the right thing and drop the case,” defense attorney Joel Brodsky said, calling the appellate court decision “a resounding victory” for Peterson.

Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow gave no indication late Tuesday he was weighing that dramatic option in the high-profile case.

Instead, Glasgow said he was considering whether to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to overturn the split decision issued by a 3rd District Appellate Court panel.

“The Will County state’s attorney’s office strongly disagrees with the majority ruling in the Drew Peterson appeal,” Glasgow said in a statement.

But an appeal to the Supreme Court could find Glasgow arguing against a state law he helped write in 2008 to aid his own prosecution of Peterson, legal experts said.

That legislation — informally dubbed “Drew’s Law” — was intended to make it easier for authorities to use so-called hearsay evidence in criminal cases if a judge ruled it was reliable.

In May 2010, Will County Judge Stephen White barred eight second-hand statements, including information Savio wrote in letters or told to others. White ruled the statements weren’t reliable enough to be used as evidence against Peterson.

A Supreme Court decision a month later in a separate case, however, cast doubt on the new law, ruling hearsay statements can be used as evidence in some circumstances even if their reliability is uncertain.

Appealing to the Supreme Court could require Glasgow to argue against the very law he helped to draft since White relied on it to bar the statements, said Richard Kling, a professor at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law.

“It’s sort of a tricky issue,” Kling said.

The appellate court didn’t consider the reliability issue in upholding White’s decision to bar as evidence some hearsay statements that allegedly tie Peterson to Savio’s death.

Instead, the three-judge panel ruled prosecutors missed a critical 30-day deadline in appealing White’s May 18, 2010 ruling on the hearsay evidence.

Glasgow contended the July 7, 2010 appeal wasn’t late because prosecutors were awaiting the Supreme Court decision dealing with the hearsay issue.

White’s ruling and the appellate court decision still allow six hearsay statements to be used if Peterson goes to trial for Savio’s death.

Peterson, 57, remains in the Will County Jail, where he has been held since being charged in May 2009 with murdering Savio.

He still remains a suspect in the unsolved disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who vanished from the couple’s Bolingbrook home in October 2007.

If Peterson goes to trial now, he “absolutely” will be acquitted, Brodsky predicted.

“We’re going to win,” Brodsky said.