Hearing the prosecutors of Will County complain about the judge being biased against them reminds me of a trial I once covered some 20 years ago when I worked for the now-defunct City News Bureau of Chicago.
On trial at the courthouse in Markham were two teenage boys (just barely old enough to be considered adults, but both under 20). To listen to the prosecutors, these two were thugs who liked to go around beating people up.
IT WASN’T SO much that they were robbers. These two (who I’m not naming because I don’t think they’re worth the public attention) liked to administer beatings.
Oh, and by the way, all of their victims could be described as elderly. As I recall, prosecutors pointed out that every single person attacked by the two used either a cane or a walker. In short, they weren’t people with great mobility, or much of any ability to put up a fight or flee.
What I remember the most is that the public defender initially was pleased when he learned which judge the case was assigned to – it was a man whose reputation was to be sympathetic to defendants, remembering that they too were human beings.
He definitely was not the type of guy who felt the need to “play God” from the bench, pronouncing sentence upon the guilty with a flourish.
THAT PUBLIC DEFENDER, however, made the mistake of saying how he was convinced his two clients would get a light sentence (it could have been as little as three years in prison). When the judge found out that he was being perceived as a wimp, he turned into a stickler for the prosecution.
Upon finding the two guilty (it was a bench trial), he went ahead and issued a string of sentences for the various offenses, and made most of them consecutive. It came to 55 years in prison each for the two teens (who now would be in their late 30s, having spent more than half of their lives in prison).
All because a judge felt the need to show he wasn’t anti-prosecution.
That’s why I think it pathetic that the prosecutors in Will County who are trying to put one-time Bolingbrook cop Drew Peterson in prison for the death of his third wife.
WHO’S TO SAY that the judge in this case wouldn’t have felt the same pressure everyone else is feeling to try to come up with a ruling in this case?
It almost makes me wonder if prosecutors realize their strategy of trying to use hearsay comments from one-time wife Kathleen Savio herself is potentially weak, and they want to shift blame for a future acquittal of Peterson from a weak case to a weak judge.
Now I don’t know personally the judicial record of Richard Schoenstedt, the judge whom prosecutors wanted out. And it’s not like prosecutors ever publicly said just what it is about his record that made them think he would be inclined to oppose their actions.
Some evidence was offered up that he wasn’t sympathetic to their previous attempt to prosecute Peterson on an unlawful use of a weapon charge, but it could just be that that was a weak criminal case that deserved to be thrown out of court.
PERHAPS THEY SENSED he would realize that the $20 million bond set for Peterson borders on ridiculous, and ought to be brought down a bit (while defense attorneys argue for $100,000, I’m inclined to think $1 million sounds right – but what do I know, I’m not a judge).
But prosecutors got the county’s chief judge to go along with their concerns, and now Peterson has a new judge to argue before.
Carla Alessio Policandriotes was assigned to the Peterson case, and she gets her first crack at having the jumpsuit clad former cop in her courtroom on Friday. It will be curious to see what her demeanor will be in dealing with the mass of attention her every move will now draw.
Because she is going to become one of the best known Chicago-area judges, particularly if she needs to take any action to reign in Peterson’s overblown ego or arrogant attitude.
WILL SHE BE for the prosecutors? Who’s to say!
She could easily turn out to be just as sympathetic to defense attorneys, if prosecutors fail to put up a strong case for consideration.
Because that is what a lot of this ultimately comes down to. Some people become assistant state’s attorneys to gain legal experience for their future political or legal ambitions, while others just enjoy the idea of being the one who “puts the bad guys away.”
Prosecutors in this case sensed someone who might realize the other side has a legitimate point on occasion, and they didn’t like that – even though the U.S. legal system is based on that concept of, “innocent until proven guilty.”
IN THAT SENSE, it’s not much difference than the trial earlier this week in Kane County Court, where a nun was on trial for causing an accident that killed a teenager. She was allowed to wear her habit while in the courtroom, which may have created a perception that one was punishing the church.
It definitely created an image different from most “your word against mine” cases where the “mine” is a uniformed police officer. It created an image of someone who might be equally credible.
Not that I’m saying Drew Peterson has the same credibility as a nun (who, by the way, was acquitted of the charges against her). But it makes me wonder if prosecutors in this case are going to start screaming every time something goes against them in this case.
Or, if they’re desperately praying that the female body found recently in the Des Plaines River turns out to be that of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy. That, at least, would provide physical evidence for more criminal charges, which could turn out to be more solid than the case they currently have for the death of wife number three.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: Prosecutors got a new judge to handle the case against Drew Peterson (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/prosecutors-to-get-new-judge-in-peterson-case.html). Will they soon get hard physical evidence that he committed murder (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/channahon-des-plaines-river-body-recovery-illinois-state-police.html) against another of his wives?
Showing posts with label Kane County. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Kane County. Show all posts
Friday, May 22, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Nun tops Drew on court scale
What is this world coming to? Drew Peterson was in court on Monday, and his case wasn’t even the biggest legal spectacle to occur in the Chicago area.
That would be the case of the Kane County nun, who went on trial for her behavior in an incident that left a teenage boy dead.
NOW PART OF what kept Peterson from making a fool of himself yet again was the fact that prosecutors managed to undermine his effort to get reduced bond. All he was able to do on Monday was enter the formal “not guilty” plea so his case could be assigned to a trial judge.
The way the courts work, he can later change the appeal to “guilty” once it gets to the new judge. No one pleads guilty immediately upon their arrest, especially not someone facing criminal charges for the death of wife number three when people suspect strongly that wife number four also perished in ways that qualify as criminal.
But prosecutors don’t like the judge being considered for the Peterson trial, because he’s the same judge who previously tossed out an attempt to make a criminal case against the one-time Bolingbrook police officer based on unlawful use of weapons charges (as though it should be a shock that a one-time lawman would own firearms).
So now, Will County Chief Judge Gerald Kinney will have to come in to try to resolve this dispute over who gets to be the judge at Peterson’s criminal proceedings. The matter will come up in court on Thursday. Once that issue is resolved, then another hearing will have to be held on the issue of whether or not $20 million as bond is excessive.
PETERSON’S ATTORNEYS SAY they think a $100,000 bond is more fair. Considering that it is the difference between having to come up with $2 million versus $10,000, it is a significant issue.
Until it is resolved, Peterson will continue to spend his time locked in solitary confinement at the Will County Jail – which means he’s kept away from other inmates, at least some of whom would like to establish a reputation for their “toughness” by trying to attack a former cop.
And while Drew spends the week in a cell by himself, with his only human contact being the guards who bring him his meals, the Kane County nun gets the legal spotlight to herself.
I’m sure that Sister Marie Marot would prefer not to have so much attention on her attire, or on her behavior. But she has her legal troubles due to a civil lawsuit and a court case – the latter of which began on Monday.
AT STAKE IS an incident nearly two years ago in Elgin while she was driving from a convent in Marengo to a church on the West Side of Chicago. Her van and an automobile struck each other. A 16-year-old boy died as a result of injuries suffered in the incident.
Police ultimately issued the ticket to Marot, despite the sister’s claims that the traffic signal at the intersection was “green,” giving her the right of way. To a cynic, everybody involved in an auto accident says the light was “green,” regardless of what it really was, although Marot’s attorneys insist she’s telling the truth.
What this case will come down to is the classic her word against that of the Elgin police.
Usually in “my word against yours” type cases, the sight of a police officer in uniform is enough to convince many would-be jurors that the lawman is telling the truth. Yet Marot may have the one professional piece of attire more powerful than a police officer’s badge – her habit.
THIS HAS BECOME the case that thus far has centered around what Marot is allowed to wear to court. She insists she ought to be allowed to wear her full dark gray and black robe with habit. She’s playing the “Nun card” and putting her faith in her ability to convince the jurors that she really thought she had the right of way at that particular intersection.
Prosecutors had tried to get some sort of court order preventing Marot from wearing her outfit to court. They even argued that some potential jurors might feel anti-Catholic prejudice against her.
But let’s be honest.
Prosecutors look for any legal advantage they can find. The last thing most prosecutors would care about is a defendant wearing something that might tick off a juror so much that the prosecution benefits.
WE NOW HAVE Kane County state’s attorney’s officials knowing that their careers are about to be defined this week. They were the ones who put a nun on trial for the death of a teenage boy – even though technically, this is just a traffic court case.
What is important to realize is that the teenager’s family has filed a lawsuit seeking financial compensation for the loss of their loved one. I don’t imagine Marot herself has much in the way of financial assets, but I would guess the parents are focusing on trying to get the church to have to pay something.
Yet if Marot is able to prevail and beat the case in traffic court, it goes a long way toward supporting her version of the accident story, and likely would result in any such lawsuit being perceived as a money-grubbing attempt to take from the church.
Be honest. With the exception of O.J. Simpson, few people are able to lose a civil lawsuit after prevailing in the criminal case related to the specific incident.
WE ALREADY HAVE jokes floating about the Internet about the prosecuting attorneys in this case reserving their spots in Hades for picking on a nun. How long until we get similar wisecracks about the family that dares to sue a nun?
And I’m sure some smart aleck will come up with a wisecrack about how Peterson will join them someday to make a perfect trio.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: This might turn out to be a criminal case where the prosecution’s attorneys (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/in-full-habit-nun-arrives-for-trial.html) got it right with their concerns about the defendant’s courtroom attire.
If Drew Peterson ultimately is acquitted, will it be because the evidence against him (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/drew-peterson-to-be-arraigned-today.html) is weak, or because the judge is biased against prosecutors?
That would be the case of the Kane County nun, who went on trial for her behavior in an incident that left a teenage boy dead.
NOW PART OF what kept Peterson from making a fool of himself yet again was the fact that prosecutors managed to undermine his effort to get reduced bond. All he was able to do on Monday was enter the formal “not guilty” plea so his case could be assigned to a trial judge.
The way the courts work, he can later change the appeal to “guilty” once it gets to the new judge. No one pleads guilty immediately upon their arrest, especially not someone facing criminal charges for the death of wife number three when people suspect strongly that wife number four also perished in ways that qualify as criminal.
But prosecutors don’t like the judge being considered for the Peterson trial, because he’s the same judge who previously tossed out an attempt to make a criminal case against the one-time Bolingbrook police officer based on unlawful use of weapons charges (as though it should be a shock that a one-time lawman would own firearms).
So now, Will County Chief Judge Gerald Kinney will have to come in to try to resolve this dispute over who gets to be the judge at Peterson’s criminal proceedings. The matter will come up in court on Thursday. Once that issue is resolved, then another hearing will have to be held on the issue of whether or not $20 million as bond is excessive.
PETERSON’S ATTORNEYS SAY they think a $100,000 bond is more fair. Considering that it is the difference between having to come up with $2 million versus $10,000, it is a significant issue.
Until it is resolved, Peterson will continue to spend his time locked in solitary confinement at the Will County Jail – which means he’s kept away from other inmates, at least some of whom would like to establish a reputation for their “toughness” by trying to attack a former cop.
And while Drew spends the week in a cell by himself, with his only human contact being the guards who bring him his meals, the Kane County nun gets the legal spotlight to herself.
I’m sure that Sister Marie Marot would prefer not to have so much attention on her attire, or on her behavior. But she has her legal troubles due to a civil lawsuit and a court case – the latter of which began on Monday.
AT STAKE IS an incident nearly two years ago in Elgin while she was driving from a convent in Marengo to a church on the West Side of Chicago. Her van and an automobile struck each other. A 16-year-old boy died as a result of injuries suffered in the incident.
Police ultimately issued the ticket to Marot, despite the sister’s claims that the traffic signal at the intersection was “green,” giving her the right of way. To a cynic, everybody involved in an auto accident says the light was “green,” regardless of what it really was, although Marot’s attorneys insist she’s telling the truth.
What this case will come down to is the classic her word against that of the Elgin police.
Usually in “my word against yours” type cases, the sight of a police officer in uniform is enough to convince many would-be jurors that the lawman is telling the truth. Yet Marot may have the one professional piece of attire more powerful than a police officer’s badge – her habit.
THIS HAS BECOME the case that thus far has centered around what Marot is allowed to wear to court. She insists she ought to be allowed to wear her full dark gray and black robe with habit. She’s playing the “Nun card” and putting her faith in her ability to convince the jurors that she really thought she had the right of way at that particular intersection.
Prosecutors had tried to get some sort of court order preventing Marot from wearing her outfit to court. They even argued that some potential jurors might feel anti-Catholic prejudice against her.
But let’s be honest.
Prosecutors look for any legal advantage they can find. The last thing most prosecutors would care about is a defendant wearing something that might tick off a juror so much that the prosecution benefits.
WE NOW HAVE Kane County state’s attorney’s officials knowing that their careers are about to be defined this week. They were the ones who put a nun on trial for the death of a teenage boy – even though technically, this is just a traffic court case.
What is important to realize is that the teenager’s family has filed a lawsuit seeking financial compensation for the loss of their loved one. I don’t imagine Marot herself has much in the way of financial assets, but I would guess the parents are focusing on trying to get the church to have to pay something.
Yet if Marot is able to prevail and beat the case in traffic court, it goes a long way toward supporting her version of the accident story, and likely would result in any such lawsuit being perceived as a money-grubbing attempt to take from the church.
Be honest. With the exception of O.J. Simpson, few people are able to lose a civil lawsuit after prevailing in the criminal case related to the specific incident.
WE ALREADY HAVE jokes floating about the Internet about the prosecuting attorneys in this case reserving their spots in Hades for picking on a nun. How long until we get similar wisecracks about the family that dares to sue a nun?
And I’m sure some smart aleck will come up with a wisecrack about how Peterson will join them someday to make a perfect trio.
-30-
EDITOR’S NOTES: This might turn out to be a criminal case where the prosecution’s attorneys (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/in-full-habit-nun-arrives-for-trial.html) got it right with their concerns about the defendant’s courtroom attire.
If Drew Peterson ultimately is acquitted, will it be because the evidence against him (http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009/05/drew-peterson-to-be-arraigned-today.html) is weak, or because the judge is biased against prosecutors?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)