In the case of Drew Peterson, the court docket is important for the accused because it explains the why the different filings and rulings were made pertaining to the admissibility of evidence in this case and if the accused should in fact be accused of the murder of his wife Kathleen at all.
The steps in the legal system as they pertain to the drew Peterson case is first recognizing there was a murder of the soon to be ex wife of Peterson’s, Kathleen Savio. What also had to be recognized, was who had a vested interest in the murder of Kathleen Savio and motive. After the disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, it became clear there was a common denominator, Peterson who was the husband of both victims. Having some suspicion on whether Kathleen’s death was a murder of accidental her body was exhumed and given two additional autopsies. Once the results came back from the two autopsies that Kathleen’s death was a homicide instead of accidental death,
…show more content…
the states decided to arrest and charge Drew Peterson with two counts of first degree murder on May 9, 2010. After the initial arrest there was pretrial proceedings, during the pretrial proceedings there were challenges the prosecutors had to face with admissibility of evidence of the two wives Kathleen and Stacy, thus resulting in an appeal process on behalf of the defendant Peterson. Moreover, the stated motioned the appeal of the defendant saying the evidence they had, was critical to the case. The appeal was denied, leaving the states to appeal t the supreme court, who in turn denied the appeal but used its supervisory authority making the circuit court responsible for hearing and deciding on rather or not the evidence submitted should be admissible during the court proceedings. The evidence the prosecutors had against the defendant Peterson was the new facts of two autopsies confirming that Kathleen was murdered, and the courts found the following six statements admissible under the statute, portions of a letter that Kathleen wrote to the Will County State's Attorney's office which described a confrontation that Kathleen allegedly had with the defendant on July 5, 2002, while the divorce proceedings were pending, a redacted version of a handwritten statement that Kathleen gave to the Bolingbrook police describing the alleged July 2002, incident, a statement that Kathleen allegedly made to her sister, Anna Doman, a statement that Kathleen allegedly made in late 2003 to Mary Sue Parks, who attended nursing classes with Kathleen at Joliet Junior College, another statement that Kathleen allegedly made to Parks and a statement that Stacy allegedly made to her pastor, Neil Schori, regarding an encounter that she allegedly had with her husband on the night Kathleen died. The right to a letter Kathleen had written to her sister stating Peterson would kill her if he had to, to make sure he gets custody of their children, and statements Kathleen made to her sister saying if she died Peterson would be the one to murder her. Moreover Statements that Stacy Peterson made to her pastor and her divorce attorney about Drew Peterson killing Savio were allowed into court testimony because of the Kathleen Savio hearsay law. http://abcnews.go.com/US/drew-peterson-guilty-murdering-wife/story?id=17162521 untimely, the hearsay evidence is what led to the conviction of Drew Peterson. The exclusionary rule was used during the trial due to the petition of Drew Peterson’s content that some of the prosecutors evidence should not be inadmissible in the trial because it was considered hearsay. The ending result was, the third Appellate Court of Illinois upheld the trial court’s ruling to exclude eight statements of Kathleen and Stacy from being admitted into evidence in the murder trial of Kathleen. The court found that the State had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that, the defendant murdered Kathleen, and he did so with the intent to make her an unavailable witnesses. Further, the court found that, pursuant to the statute, 6 of the 14 proffered hearsay statements contained sufficient “safeguards of reliability” and that the interests of justice would be served by the admission of those statements into evidence. The right to a fair trial was one of the civil liberties that Drew Peterson was restricted of and could have came up in the case.
The case was unfair in my opinion because, the state assumed Peterson murdered Kathleen after his fourth wife disappeared. In the initial autopsy of Kathleen, it was found that there was no murder and Kathleen death was accidental drowning. Furthermore, Kathleen was exhumed after three years of her death which also contends the states were only basing their hunch’s off the disappearance of Stacy. To add to the unfairness of the trial, when The defendant's motion asked the court to clarify whether it ruled under the common law doctrine when the courts ruled that some of the hearsay could be admissible, during a hearing held the same day, the court stated, “I didn't even get to that. There was no request as to any of the others. I ruled strictly pursuant there was a hearing pursuant to the statute.” This entire statement from the court shows the motion to consider was not affectively
done. After analyzing the case I believe the case was not justified. I believe the courts allowed unsubstantial evidence to play a important role towards charging and sentencing of Peterson. Moreover, the ruling on the appeals were not justified enough for a judge to allow hearsay as evidence in this case. When Peterson filed a motion for supervisory order in the Illinois Supreme Court asking the supreme court to order this court to vacate its ruling allowing the State to file a late notice of interlocutory appeal, the supreme court denied the defendant's motion without explanation or analysis. There was no physical evidence that showed Peterson had any dealings with Kathleen’s murder at all, making the sentencing unjustified.
On the evening of Ms. Heggar¡¦s death she was alone in her house. Eddie Ray Branch, her grandson, testified that he visited his grandmother on the day that she was killed. He was there till at least 6:30 p.m. Lester Busby, her grandnephew, and David Hicks arrived while her grandson was still there and they saw him leave. They then went in to visit with Ms. Heggar. While they were there, Lester repaid Ms. Heggar 80 dollars, which he owed her. They left around 7:15 p.m. and went next door to a neighboring friend¡¦s house. David Hick¡¦s went home alone from there to get something but returned within ten minutes of leaving. Because he was only gone for 5-10 minutes, prosecution theorized TWO attacks on Ms. Heggar because he could not have killed his grandmother during this 5-10 minute period alone. At 7:30 p.m., 15 minutes after the two had left, an insurance salesman called to see Ms. Heggar. He knocked for about 2 or 3 minutes and got no reply. Her door was open but the screen door was closed. Her TV was on. He claimed to have left after about 5 minutes and then he returned the next morning. The circumstances were exactly the same. With concern, he went to the neighbor¡¦s house and called the police. His reasoning for being there was because the grandmother¡¦s family had taken out burial insurance three days before she had died.
They found Casey Anthony, who was charged with first degree murder of her 3-year-old, not guilty. While she was not guilty of murder, she was convicted on counts four through seven for false information given to the police. The judge sentenced her to one year in county jail for each one of the four counts, but she was released 10 days after she received 1043 days credit. If I was part of the jury I would have said she was guilty of murdering her daughter. Even if she did not kill her, she is still part of the reason why she died. Casey neglected her child either way and did not report the crime to the police until someone else did. I am shocked that the visual evidence did not convince the jury that she was guilty. From the strand of hair in the trunk that matched the past child’s hair, to the extensive research on chloroform found on all web browsers, it was very evident that she did or was at least part of murdering her
In 1974, Brooker T. Hillery Jr., John Larry Spain, Bobby Bly, and Michael Shane Guile, four Californian prison inmates, and Eve Pell, Betty Segal, and Paul Jacobs, three journalists, filed a lawsuit against Raymond K. Procunier, the Director of the California Department of Corrections. The suit was filed in regards to the constitutionality of the California Department of Corrections Manual Regulation 415.071. The manual regulated that the press and media could not specify particular inmates to be interviewed. However, the regulation did allow random inmates to be interviewed by the media. This regulation was passed following a brutal prison incident that officers believed was the result of allowing specified prisoner and press interviews. The
Scott Peterson was an educated man from California Polytechnic State University where he graduated with a B.A. in Agricultural Business. He was married to his wife Laci Peterson who was also pregnant with their unborn son. In December of 2002 Laci Peterson went missing in the Modesto, California area where she shared a home with Scott. Once the investigation of Scott’s missing wife started authorities began to suspect Scott as a suspect in her disappearance. In April of 2003 a fetus and a female torso that was missing hands, feet, and a head were found on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay. The San Francisco Bay area was where Scott was boating the day of Laci’s disappearance. The body was later identified as Laci Peterson and the fetus as Laci and Scott’s unborn son. Scott was also arrested in the month of April shortly after the discovery of Laci and their son’s body and was later sentenced to the death penalty. Over the course of this paper I will cover the whole event of the disappearance of Laci Peterson, relating it to a sociological theory, the impact the event had on our society and how the media had influence over this national event.
Stuart v. Nappi was class lawsuit Stuart’s mother filed against school personnel and the Danbury Board of Education because she claimed that her daughter was not receiving the rights granted in the Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA). Kathy Stuart was a student at Danbury High School in Connecticut with serious emotional, behavior, and academic difficulties. She was suppose to be in special education classes, but for some reason she hardly ever attended them. Kathy was involved in a school-wide disturbance. As a result of her complicity in these disturbances, she received a ten-day disciplinary suspension and was scheduled to appear at a disciplinary hearing. The Superintendent of Danbury Schools recommended to the Danbury Board of Education
In Tim Seibles' poem, The Case, he reviews the problematic situations of how white people are naturally born with an unfair privilege. Throughout the poem, he goes into detail about how colored people become uncomfortable when they realize that their skin color is different. Not only does it affect them in an everyday aspect, but also in emotional ways as well. He starts off with stating how white people are beautiful and continues on with how people enjoy their presence. Then he transitions into how people of color actually feel when they encounter a white person. After, he ends with the accusation of the white people in today's world that are still racist and hateful towards people of color.
This stage is an examination of potential jurors to ensure a fair trial for the defendant. Ideally, voir dire will result in an impartial jury for the trial of the accused. On March 4, 2004 jury selection began for the trial of Scott Peterson. Nearly 100 potential jurors began answering questionnaires about their views on the death penalty and their opinions on extramarital affairs. The nearly 30-page questionnaire given to prospective jurors also included questions as whether they read Field and Stream, what stickers grace their car bumpers and whether they have lost a child. On April 14, 2004 Judge Alfred A. Delucchi dismissed an unidentified Redwood City woman after a brief meeting in his chambers. Defense attorney Mark Geragos two weeks early had accused the retired secretary of bragging to her friends on a bus trip to Reno, Nevada, that she has "passed the test" to get on Peterson's jury and that Peterson was "guilty as hell" and would "get what's due him." May 28, 2004 six men and six women were selected for Scott Peterson's murder trial all said they would be willing to sentence him to death if they convict him of killing his wife and the couple's fetus.
The Dread Scott decision exacerbated the debate over slavery by declaring that blacks cannot be citizens and that Congress does not have the power to prohibit slavery in the territories, which further divided the North and the South. The decision also deeply affected politics, and was one of the causes of the Civil War.
In order to highlight all aspects of People v. Smith, 470 NW2d 70, Michigan Supreme Court (1991) we must first discuss the initial findings of the Michigan Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals decision was based on the precedence of two similar court cases that created discussion concerning the admission of juvenile records into adult trials. Following the Court of Appeals, the Michigan Supreme Court entered the final decision on Ricky Smith’s motion for resentencing. The Michigan Supreme Court also conducted a thorough examination of People v. Jones, People v. McFarlin, and People v. Price to determine the outcome of Smith’s motion to be resentenced.
“I agree with Ms. Krejci that the entire file should have been disclosed with the publics record request, but that does not make it discoverable.” Feeney said. “I understand her frustration that she wasn 't given the same information that another defense attorney was. When I discovered what had happened, which was in august, I immediately requested the entire file from the Phoenix Police Department so that I could disclose it to the defense council. I didn’t do that because I believed that the information was discoverable or relevant. I did it as a professional courtesy. So that we were on the same field, and so that she felt that she had everything tha...
The Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court in March 1857 was one of the major steps
The relationship between law enforcement and prosecutors, which goes hand-in-hand, can’t be overlooked. Evidence of a crime that detectives and law enforcement discover is as equally important as a good trial on part of the prosecution. If detectives aren’t able to find good solid evidence – that case usually isn’t bothered in being pursued. Several years ago, in the late 80’s, there was a murder case in Southeastern Oklahoma which now serves as a tragic example to the need for honest, constitutional work in the criminal justice system. Disreputable investigative procedures, fraudulent sources, and bad evidence were the foundation of this case that shattered innocent lives.
Judge Kaufman made a big point when Ethel used her Fifth Amendment right and declined to answer questions on the basis that she might incriminate herself. The judge said, "it is something that the jury may weigh and consider on the questioning of the truthfulness of the witness and on credibility." Not only that, but the judge allegedly would lead prosecuting witnesses to say things against defense. Defense lawyer Alexander Block tried to get a mistrial based on the judge's behavior, but was denied. Judge's bias continued throughout the trial and was expressed most clearly in his sentencing speech. The issue of punishment in this case is presented in a unique framework of history.
Erik Peterson faced a number of challenging situations with Jeff Hardy, a high level employee with CelluComm, the parent company of GMCT. At first we see an awkward relationship with Jeff Hardy whom Peterson had been assigned to work under by Ric Jenkins, partly due to the lack of concrete relationship guidelines between the two (Sami, 2013). Hardy had very little operational experience, and Peterson felt that he was unable to receive constructive guidance from Hardy. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company. Consulting Hardy by letting him know of his concerns would have been a more efficient and respectful manner in handling the situation. This relationship building would also have been integral in facing the Peterson-Hardy communication issues with respect to the local municipalities and fire department. Operant Learning Theory (Johns & Saks, 2014, p.54) suggests that as a result of this negative consequence Peterson should be able to improve his interpersonal skills specifically with superiors within the organization moving forward. As a subordinate to Hardy, Peterson should have instead attempted to resolve this problem early on as it was a critical relationship within the GMCT Company.
Duane Murphy was introduced to the world of FRC in 2004, when his daughter’s elementary school principal recommended he come and visit Team 701. The RoboVikes have cherished him, as a mentor, ever since. He has been many things to the team: a programming advisor, lead mentor, treasurer, but above all, a father figure to all of the students. The team is made up of strong people with even stronger opinions, inciting many arguments, but the family is so tightly knit that these faze no one. Murphy excels at not allowing these disputes to go too far, after all, it has been his job for over a decade. He knows when to spur the conversation forward and when to put the brakes on. John Wooden’s quote,“Whatever you do in life, surround yourself