Judge’s ruling on hearsay testimony in Peterson case seriously undermines state’s case

Hearsay ruling in Peterson case hurts prosecution

JOLIET, Ill. — They were the key witnesses whose words dramatically told how dangerous Drew Peterson could be when he wanted to keep someone from talking, and their testimony formed one of the pillars of the prosecution’s case against the former police officer accused of murder.

A former co-worker of Kathleen Savio, Peterson’s third wife, said during a so-called “hearsay” hearing earlier this year that Savio told her Peterson sneaked into her home one night, held a knife to her throat and threatened to kill her.

And the pastor for Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who disappeared in October 2007, said she admitted lying to the authorities about her husband’s whereabouts on the night Savio was killed.

Prosecutors got their way Thursday when Will County Judge Stephen White ordered the former Bolingbrook officer held in jail until an appeals court can decide whether White erred in barring much of that hearsay testimony. But unless the appeal succeeds, the state may have to base its case on sparse physical evidence tying Peterson to Savio’s killing — much of it gathered during an initial investigation that prosecutors themselves have discredited.

“It’s obvious their case has been weakened,” Terry Sullivan, a Chicago attorney and former prosecutor, said of the state’s case.

White has sealed his ruling about the hearsay evidence, so it’s unclear which of the more than a dozen witness statements he barred. But a person familiar with the investigation, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the order is sealed, said the testimony about the alleged death threat and alleged false alibi won’t be allowed.

One of Peterson’s attorneys, Joseph Lopez, said he didn’t expect White to allow mention of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance during the Savio trial, which if true, would deal another heavy blow to the state’s case. It was Stacy Peterson’s disappearance that led to the reexamination of Savio’s 2004 death, which had been ruled accidental, and ultimately to it being ruled a homicide.

Lopez also said he didn’t believe Cassandra Cales, Stacy Peterson’s sister, would be allowed to testimony at trial like she did during the hearsay hearings about how her sister allegedly told her that she feared for her life “and if anything ever happened to her, Drew did something to her.”

The hearsay hearings were the result of a new Illinois law that allows a judge to admit hearsay evidence — statements not based on a witness’ direct knowledge — if prosecutors can prove a defendant may have killed a witness in order to prevent him or her from testifying. The law was so closely linked to the Peterson case that some have dubbed it “Drew’s law.”

The testimony prosecutors gleaned from those hearings is particularly important to their case because there is so little other physical evidence linking Peterson to Savio’s death.

If there ever was a fingerprint, a strand of hair or a speck of blood, they’re gone, with detective who led the 2004 probe of her death all but acknowledging at the hearsay hearing that he conducted a shoddy investigation. Nor are there any witnesses who saw Peterson enter or leave Savio’s home.

Peterson’s trial had been scheduled to start Thursday, but prosecutors filed an appeal after White issued his ruling Tuesday barring some of the hearsay testimony.

Instead, defense attorneys argued Thursday that Peterson should be released from jail because a ruling on the appeal could take months, if not years, and keeping him behind bars violates his right to a speedy trial.

“The defendant loses one of the biggest constitutional rights he has, the right to a speedy trial and that’s simply unfair,” Lopez told White.

But prosecutors told the judge that Peterson was a danger to the community, and that they proved their case during the hearsay hearings.

“We put on evidence that Drew Peterson killed Kathleen Savio in an attempt to silence her and killed Stacy Peterson to silence her,” he told the judge. “If that isn’t a danger … I don’t know what’s more compelling.”

White didn’t give a detailed explanation for keeping Peterson locked up, only saying his reasons would be clear to the appellate court judges when they reviewed his findings.