Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow received a favor from outgoing Governor Rod Blagojevich when the former governor signed into law the controversial "Drew Peterson" exception to Illinois' hearsay law.
The relevant portion of the "Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness" is set forth below:
"(a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.
(b) While intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a witness."
The relevant portion of the "Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness" is set forth below:
"(a) A statement is not rendered inadmissible by the hearsay rule if it is offered against a party that has killed the declarant intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding.
(b) While intent to procure the unavailability of the witness is a necessary element for the introduction of the statements, it need not be the sole motivation behind the murder which procured the unavailability of the declarant as a witness."
So, in order to use Ms. Savio's statements against him, the State must prove that Drew Peterson killed Ms. Savio "intending to procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness in a criminal or civil proceeding." That is legalese for he killed her "to prevent her from testifying against him."
Surely the State is not going to say that he killed her to prevent her from testifying at the upcoming murder trial. That is ridiculous. So, they must plan to argue that he killed her to prevent her from testifying against him in their divorce case. I recall reading that she was found dead in the bathtub "shortly before their divorce was finalized." Nothing that I read had any more detail than that. It is unclear whether there were any hearings scheduled in their divorce case at which Ms. Savio was expected to testify. Of course, there is always the possibility that she could testify at the prove-up, so I guess until the divorce was finalized there was always the possibility that she would testify at least once more.
So, unless this law is declared unconstitutional before trial, it is likely that Ms. Savio will be allowed to testify from "beyond the grave." Still, I have my doubts as to the strength of the state's case. It will really be embarrassing if they go to all this trouble to amend the state's criminal code to prosecute one guy, and still lose.
So, unless this law is declared unconstitutional before trial, it is likely that Ms. Savio will be allowed to testify from "beyond the grave." Still, I have my doubts as to the strength of the state's case. It will really be embarrassing if they go to all this trouble to amend the state's criminal code to prosecute one guy, and still lose.
Hearsay exception for intentional murder of a witness. 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6.
