Drew Peterson judge set to rule on mistrial motion

Just days after it began, the judge in the Drew Peterson murder trial outside Chicago will announce his ruling Thursday on whether or not it will continue.

Paul Beaty/AP
Drew Peterson lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky leaves the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Ill. after the second day of the murder trial of Peterson. Peterson, 58, is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004.

A judge is set to decide Thursday whether to declare a mistrial and put an end to Drew Peterson's murder trial just days after it began, and legal experts say the ruling could result in the former suburban Chicago police sergeant going free, though that remains unlikely.

The expected ruling by Judge Edward Burmila follows several blunders by prosecutors, who are seeking to prove the 58-year-old Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004. He also is a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, but has never been charged in her case.

A furious Burmila admonished prosecutors Wednesday after the second witness in just their second day of testimony began talking about finding a .38-caliber bullet on his driveway. Thomas Pontarelli, a former neighbor of Savio's, hinted in his testimony that Peterson may have planted it there to intimidate him.

Prosecutors later admitted under tough questioning by the judge that there was no evidence to support the claim. And Burmila wondered aloud about whether the testimony made Peterson appear menacing in jurors' eyes and undermined his ability to get a fair trial.

In addition to declaring a mistrial, Burmila also could possibly find the state deliberately entered testimony explicitly barred in advance of the trial — a ruling that would mean Peterson can't be tried again for murder in Savio's death and would be freed, according to Gal Pissetzky, a Chicago defense attorney with no ties to the Peterson case.

"Mistrials are rarely granted, and rulings that an error was done deliberately is almost unheard of," Pissetzky said. He added that any such motion would be a monumental embarrassment for prosecutors and for Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow.

Glasgow himself nearly triggered a mistrial during his opening statement Monday when he referred to an accusation Peterson once tried to hire a hit man for $25,000. Burmila said there was no proof of that, either, but stopped short then of declaring a mistrial.

Peterson, who was a police officer in the Chicago suburb of Bolingbrook, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio's death. He also has said he wasn't responsible for his fourth wife's disappearance.

The legal snafus are just the latest twist in a case long plagued by problems, including a botched initial investigation that left prosecutors with no physical evidence and forced them to rely heavily on normally prohibited hearsay.

The mistrial decision comes before prosecutors have even presented the most delicate of the hearsay evidence, including Savio's alleged remarks to others about Peterson threatening to kill her before her body was found in a dry bathtub at her Bolingbrook home.

On Thursday, Burmila must decide if he will wipe out Pontarelli's testimony and then let the trial go on — something he said he could do as an alternative to canceling the trial.

As he left the courthouse Wednesday, Glasgow tried to sound upbeat, saying, "We're confident that the trial will resume tomorrow morning."

But whether that's good for what is the highest-profile case of his career — maybe in the history of Will County — remains to be seen.

Legal experts say what has unfolded so far has damaged the case.

"It's bad news if a judge is chastising prosecutors so much, because it tells the jury, 'I don't trust this prosecutor, I don't approve of this prosecutor,'" said Marcia Clark, Los Angeles' lead prosecutor in the O.J. Simpson murder trial. "It's a scary place to be as prosecutor."

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Drew Peterson judge set to rule on mistrial motion
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today