Judge: No mistrial in Drew Peterson murder case
by Michael Tarm, Associated Press and Don Babwin, Associated Press
August 02, 2012 03:45 PM | 483 views | 0 0 comments | 2 2 recommendations | email to a friend | print
In this Tuesday, July 31, 2012 photo, Judge Edward Burmila, the presiding judge in the murder trial of former Bolingbrook police officer Drew peterson, arrives at the Will County Court-house in Joliet, Ill., for the start of the trial. On Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012, Burmila blasted prosecutors for bringing up information that could make the former police officer look bad in the eyes of the jury. The judge sent jurors out of the courtroom for a time and then called a recess. Defense attorneys have requested a mistrial, saying prosecutors have intentionally violated court orders several times. (AP Photo/SouthtownStar, Matthew Grotto)
In this Tuesday, July 31, 2012 photo, Judge Edward Burmila, the presiding judge in the murder trial of former Bolingbrook police officer Drew peterson, arrives at the Will County Court-house in Joliet, Ill., for the start of the trial. On Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012, Burmila blasted prosecutors for bringing up information that could make the former police officer look bad in the eyes of the jury. The judge sent jurors out of the courtroom for a time and then called a recess. Defense attorneys have requested a mistrial, saying prosecutors have intentionally violated court orders several times. (AP Photo/SouthtownStar, Matthew Grotto)
slideshow
Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow speaks to the media outside the Will County Courthouse after the second day of the murder trial of Drew Peterson, Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012 in Joliet, Ill.. Peterson, 58, is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004. Her body was found in a dry bathtub in her home, her hair soaked with blood. He is also a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)
Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow speaks to the media outside the Will County Courthouse after the second day of the murder trial of Drew Peterson, Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2012 in Joliet, Ill.. Peterson, 58, is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004. Her body was found in a dry bathtub in her home, her hair soaked with blood. He is also a suspect in the 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson. (AP Photo/Paul Beaty)
slideshow
JOLIET, Ill. (AP) _ A judge decided against declaring a mistrial in Drew Peterson’s murder case Thursday, criticizing prosecutors for entering inadmissible evidence but concluding the former police officer still can get a fair trial.

Testimony resumed shortly after the in-court legal drama that threatened to end the high-profile trial before it had barely begun.

The ruling by Judge Edward Burmila followed several blunders by prosecutors, who are seeking to prove the 58-year-old Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, whose body was found in a dry bathtub 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.

Burmila made it clear Thursday that he seriously entertained the possibility of effectively cancelling the trial. But the judge, who had wondered aloud Wednesday whether the testimony made Peterson appear menacing in jurors’ eyes and undermined his shot at a fair trial, said ending the trial was unnecessary.

“The court believes that the defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial is not extinguished at this time,” Burmila said.

Shortly after the ruling, testimony continued with prosecutors calling a paramedic to the stand in a bid to prove Peterson staged a scene, making it look like Savio died in a bathroom accident.

Louis Oleszkiewicz said a towel visible in a later investigation photo wasn’t there when he was at the home on March 1, 2004. Prosecutors have suggested Peterson placed the towel there after paramedics arrived to ensure it looked like Savio had been taking a bath.

On Wednesday, a furious Burmila admonished prosecutors after a witness began testifying about finding a .38-caliber bullet on his driveway. Thomas Pontarelli, a former neighbor of Savio’s, hinted that Peterson may have planted it there to intimidate him.

Early Thursday, Burmila told jurors to disregard Pontarelli’s statement about the bullet. And, in a rarity for trials, the judge signaled to jurors that the state had messed up, telling them a prosecutor had asked Pontarelli a question “she knew would elicit an inadmissible response.”

Defense attorney Steve Greenberg said Thursday that prosecutors are bent on proving Savio, neighbors and others were afraid of Peterson as backhanded way to try to prove he committed murder.

“So far we have a jury that thinks that everyone is afraid of Mr. Peterson. How is that fair to Mr. Peterson?” Greenberg said in arguing for a mistrial. “What evidence do they have that he did anything wrong. (They have) nothing. So what they want is to make him look like a bad guy.”

Judge Burmila appeared to sympathize with that argument while explaining his decision, saying “There is no doubt that the victim’s state of mind (that she might have been fearful) is immaterial” and that only facts supporting the murder allegation are relevant.

Prosecutor Chris Koch said before the judge’s ruling that Pontarelli had mentioned the bullet of his own accord, not at prosecutors’ urging.

“To sit here now and say that was somehow intentionally done ... is absolutely absurd,” he said.

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 mistrial request was the second in as many days in the case that has been beset by botched investigations and an absence of physical evidence.

Comments
(0)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
No Comments Yet
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides