subject: Want To Know What Happened With The Trial Of Drew Peterson? [print this page] Back in 2009, former police officer Drew Peterson was indicted with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in her home in 2004. He is also the lone suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who disappeared back in 2007 and is widely believed to be deceased. Peterson's case is interesting because it opens the debate on whether a long series of allegations of violence counts as evidence in court.
Even though Peterson had declared not guilty, the verdict was reached after only 14 hours of deliberation by the jury. The defense has spoken out against this verdict, citing that Savios death was a household accident and that the verdict was reached based solely upon the coincidence that Peterson's spouses end up missing or deceased. The public has a very negative image of Peterson due the media frenzy surrounding his case, and this may be part of what led to his conviction.
Peterson was a highly accredited police officer before he was convicted of murder. As a result of this, the state of Illinois made a few changes in order to help prevent future acts of violence. The "Drew Peterson Law" was recently put into place, which states that acts of domestic violence that have occurred in the past can be used in future murder trials as evidence of an individuals character. Petersons second wife, Victoria Connolly, and her daughter, were both alleged victims of abuse by Peterson. Now, that prior evidence can be used in a court of law during first and second degree murder cases.
Since he was indicted in 2009, his story has since been made into a Lifetime movie. Many people, especially the defense team, worried that this would interfere with the decision making ability of the jurors, since he was portrayed in a very negative light. The Drew Peterson Law is a slippery slope in that it allows prior allegations of violence to be allowed in court, even if it may not be relevant to the case. It would allow the sins of the past to be used against the defendant, even if they are innocent in the case they're being convicted of. Normally court proceedings are supposed to view the defendant as innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.
by: Bradley Morton
welcome to Insurances.net (https://www.insurances.net)
