Ohio Amish hate crime trial jury hears recording, trial goes on

CLEVELAND (Reuters) - An Amish sect leader facing federal hate crime charges laughed during a telephone call with his nephew about plans for more beard-cutting attacks on other Amish people, jurors in the Ohio trial heard in a recording played in court on Friday.

As they listened to calls between Samuel Mullet Sr. and his nephew Lester Miller, the jury read an English translation because the pair had spoken in Pennsylvania Dutch, the primary language of the Amish. The jury was told the calls had originated from the Holmes County jail in Ohio.

On the recording, Mullet was heard laughing about members of the community carrying out more attacks and told his nephew to stay strong and to keep his mouth closed after Miller was arrested last October. "They are trying to tear this whole thing apart," Mullet said, referring to his community.

Mullet and 15 other sect members are accused of planning or carrying out attacks on nine Amish men and women in southeastern Ohio last autumn. The victims' beards and hair were cut during the attacks.

Assistant U.S. attorney Bridget M. Brennan has told the jury that in the Amish faith, "the beard and the hair are symbols of Amish righteousness, religious symbols that God is present in their lives.

Witnesses have testified that the attacks were in revenge for a dispute between Mullet and other Amish religious leaders because they had accepted into their communities eight families that Mullet had shunned or ex-communicated.

Prosecutors have said the accused are on trial for terrorizing and injuring their victims, and that they are not on trial for their beliefs.

This week, prosecutors attempted to show through testimony by members of law enforcement and other Amish the fear and distrust that surrounded the community.

Witnesses testified to hearing rumors of cult-like activities and "unbiblical" punishments that included voluntary beard cutting, sleeping in chicken coops, and public paddling. "They were doing stuff that the Bible doesn't teach us," Anna Shrock told jurors on Friday. And, she said, Mullet believed that God "was talking to him."

As the jury was shown pictures taken directly after the attacks, victims testified to having their beards violently grabbed and cut to the skin.

"I was totally froze. I was scared. I didn't know the next thing that would happen," David Wengerd told the court on Thursday. He said he could not look in a mirror for months after the attack. "It just drove me batty. I didn't like to see myself."

The defense has argued that the attacks were the consequence of family feuds and child custody disagreements between members of the Amish community and that they do not rise to the level of a hate crime.

Testimony could conclude by the end of next week.

(Reporting By Kim Palmer; Editing by Mary Wisniewski)

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

In Peterson trial, jurors waste no time confronting biggest issue: whether to believe hearsay

JOLIET, Ill. - As they began deliberations Wednesday, jurors in Drew Peterson's trial immediately zeroed in on the case's trickiest issue: whether to believe secondhand hearsay statements that would often be barred from consideration in a criminal court.

Because of a botched initial investigation, detectives collected no fingerprints, strands of hair or any other physical evidence in the death of Peterson's third wife. So Illinois legislators passed a law aimed specifically at the former suburban Chicago police officer. That allowed prosecutors to pursue a conviction based substantially on statements Peterson's ex-wives made to friends and acquaintances.

After less than two hours of deliberations, jurors sent a flurry of notes to the judge asking for transcripts relating to hearsay that implicated Peterson. Forty-year-old Kathleen Savio was found dead in her bathtub in 2004, her hair soaked in blood and a gash on the back of her head.

Hearsay is any information reported by a witness that is not based on the witness' direct knowledge.

During five weeks of testimony, witnesses described statements Savio allegedly made about threats from her estranged husband and statements Peterson's fourth wife, 23-year-old Stacy Peterson, made before she disappeared in 2007.

Some defence attorneys worry that the trial — the first in Illinois history to rely so heavily on hearsay — could fundamentally alter how prosecutors and defence attorneys handle murder cases in this state and around the country.

"The legal issues here are extraordinary," said Phil Turner, a Chicago defence attorney and former federal prosecutor. "If this sets a precedent, more people will get convicted because someone testifies that someone told them something."

Heading into the trial, prosecutors described the hearsay evidence as offering Savio and Stacy Peterson the opportunity to speak to jurors "from their graves."

But the challenge for the jury is deciding if those words — recounted secondhand in court — are believable.

Jurors ended their first day of deliberations without reaching a verdict and were expected to return Thursday.

In closing arguments, the prosecution said the fact that more than a half-dozen witnesses cited conversations with Savio and Stacy Peterson that implicated Drew Peterson made those statements all the more believable.

But defence attorney Joe Lopez said the women's comments were no more credible than water-cooler gossip.

"How many times are you at work and you hear someone say something about someone. They're lying!" he told the jury.

The defence has also lashed out at Savio and Stacy Peterson's own credibility.

Lead defence attorney Joel Brodsky told jurors at the start of the trial that Savio was "bonkers" and prone to wild exaggeration — especially in the thick of her acrimonious divorce from Peterson in the years before she died.

One of the notes sent to the judge asked for transcripts of testimony from Stacy Peterson's pastor, Neal Schori, who presented some of the trial's most dramatic hearsay.

Stacy Peterson cried in a meeting with Schori not long before she vanished, he testified. She told Schori that Peterson got up from bed in the middle of the night and left the house around the time of Savio's death. At dawn, she saw him putting woman's clothes into a washing machine that weren't hers, Schori said.

"She was very scared," Schori told jurors.

Jurors also asked for transcripts of attorney Harry Smith, who testified that Stacy Peterson called him three days before her disappearance seeking advice on divorcing Peterson, who was 30 years her senior.

Smith was called by the defence in a bid to dent Stacy Peterson's credibility. He told jurors she asked about whether she could extort her husband by threatening to tell police he killed Savio.

But Smith's testimony seemed to backfire on the defence as he repeatedly stressed to jurors that Stacy Peterson sincerely believed Drew Peterson had killed Savio.

Kathleen Zellner, a defence attorney who observed some of the testimony, predicted that jurors would accept the hearsay as credible because the judge deemed it admissible.

"They won't agonize over it," she said. "I think they will just accept it on face value. They'll think, 'The judge wouldn't let it come in if it was mere water-cooler talk.'"

The reputation for tactlessness that Peterson earned during a national media blitz before his 2009 arrest could work against him now, added another Chicago attorney, Michael Helfand.

After Stacy Peterson vanished, her husband joked about organizing a "Win a Date with Drew" contest" and discussed appearing on a reality TV show about a Nevada brothel.

"If he were a more sympathetic person, jurors might say, 'Hey, we can't put a guy in prison on the basis of'" secondhand information, Helfand said. "That'd be persuasive if he wasn't perceived as a scumbag."

Though jurors appeared to leap immediately into the hearsay evidence, it became clear later in the day that they also hadn't resolved another critical question: Was Savio's death even a murder?

Jurors sent another note asking for photographs of Savio's body as it was found jammed into her bathtub. They also wanted autopsy photos, including one of Savio's skull cut away to reveal her brain.

Prosecutor Chris Koch told jurors Tuesday it would have been impossible for Savio to suffer the wound on the back of her head and 14 bruises on the front of her body unless someone had attacked her.

"How can you get (all those wounds) in one fall?" he asked. "You can't."

Lopez conceded that fatal slips in bathtubs are one in a million, but he insisted all the evidence suggests that's just what happened to Savio.

"Are you trying to tell me no one has ever slipped in a bathtub before?" he asked. "That's why they sell rubber mats with suction cups on them."

Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio's death. He was charged only after Stacy Peterson disappeared and Savio's body was exhumed and re-examined. Her death was reclassified from an accident to a murder.

Prosecutors were barred from mentioning that Stacy Peterson is presumed dead and that her husband is the lone suspect in her disappearance, although he has never been charged.

___

Don Babwin also contributed to this report.

___

Follow Michael Tarm at www.twitter.com/mtarm

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Jurors to begin deliberations at Peterson trial

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — Now, it's jurors' turn.

After years of speculation, national media attention and more than a month of testimony, allegations that Drew Peterson murdered his third wife are finally expected to go to a jury Wednesday.

The 12 jurors — seven men and five women — are scheduled to receive instructions from the judge in the morning, then withdraw to a Joliet courthouse room to begin deliberating over five weeks of circumstantial and hearsay evidence.

Peterson, 58, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Kathleen Savio's 2004 death. The former Bolingbrook police sergeant fell under scrutiny in Savio's death only after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007.

Peterson's attorneys said their client has braced himself for jurors' decision.

"He's emotionally and mentally prepared for whatever happens," his lead attorney, Joel Brodsy, told reporters after closing arguments Tuesday.

His lawyers also said they have no inkling what jurors might be thinking or how they might be leaning.

"Of course, we're worried," Joe Lopez, who delivered the closing for the defense, said about the final verdict. "Nobody knows what's going to happen."

Judge Edward Burmila sent jurors home late Tuesday after closings dragged on longer than expected. He reminded jurors not to watch or read anything about the case and told them to get a good night's sleep.

They might need it in a challenging case where there is no physical evidence and where — for the first time in Illinois history — a trial relies heavily on hearsay evidence.

During closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors implored jurors to use common sense in assessing the evidence, while the defense said the state fell far short of proving Peterson killed his third wife.

Prosecutor Chris Koch began his remarks by walking up to the defense table, pointing at the 58-year-old Peterson and declaring in a booming voice, "It is clear this man killed Kathleen Savio."

Savio's body was found in her bathtub — her hair soaked with blood and a gash on the back of her head. Prosecutors contend Peterson killed the 40-year-old aspiring nurse because he feared a pending divorce settlement would wipe him out financially. The defense contends she died in an accidental slip and fall.

As he spoke, Koch displayed a photograph of a smiling Savio, juxtaposing it with another picture of her bloated corpse jammed into her bathtub.

As he has during most of the six-week trial, Peterson looked on calmly from the defense table, occasionally taking notes or whispering something to his attorneys.

Peterson is suspected but hasn't been charged in Stacy Peterson's disappearance. Prosecutors were barred from mentioning or hinting that she is presumed dead and that her husband is the lone suspect in her disappearance. While outside observers connect Savio's death and Stacy Peterson's disappearance, jurors aren't supposed to factor that Stacy Peterson vanished into their deliberations.

Punching his fist into his palm for emphasis, Koch told jurors Thursday that Drew Peterson broke into his estranged wife's home — just a few blocks from Drew and Stacy Peterson's house in Bolingbrook — in the early morning hours before March 1, 2004.

"He went into that house, pushed her down, held her down until she inhaled fluid and drowned," said Koch.

Investigators botched the initial investigation into Savio's death and collected no fingerprints, blood, hair samples or any other physical evidence, leaving prosecutors with a circumstantial case.

Koch went through more than a dozen hearsay statements Savio allegedly made to others before she died and that Stacy Peterson made before she disappeared. Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, isn't usually admissible in court, but Illinois passed a law in 2008, dubbed "Drew's Law," that allows it in rare circumstances.

Koch reminded jurors that one witness testified how Savio had described Drew Peterson saying to her, "I'm going to kill you." Another witness said Peterson told Savio he could employ his police expertise to kill her and make it look like an accident.

Defense attorney Lopez countered in his two-hour closing that the state had presented "garbage evidence" during its five-week presentation of more than 30 witnesses.

"The framers of the Constitution would barf on this evidence," he said.

He said the hearsay was no more credible than water-cooler gossip they might hear around the office.

"How many times are you at work and you hear someone say something about someone — they're lying!" he said.

Lopez told jurors that when they deliberate, they should hear a voice whispering that Peterson is innocent. Pointing to an American flag by at the judge's bench, he said that presumption was the bedrock of the U.S. justice system.

"You have to find he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — not maybe, not probably," he said.

Lopez frequently doubled back to his central argument: The state hadn't even proven Savio's death was a murder. He conceded statistics indicate fatal slips in bathtubs are one in a million, but that all the evidence suggests that's just what happened to Savio.

"Are you trying to tell me no one has ever slipped in a bathtub before?" he asked. "That's why they sell rubber mats with suction cups on them."

But Koch told jurors it would be impossible for Savio to have received the wound on the back of her head and 14 bruises on the front of her body unless someone had attacked her.

"How can you get (all those wounds) in one fall?" he asked. "You can't."

If convicted, Peterson faces a maximum 60-year prison sentence.

___

Follow Michael Tarm at www.twitter.com/mtarm

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Jurors at Peterson murder trial review evidence

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — Jurors at Drew Peterson's murder trial asked Wednesday to review several pieces of evidence as they deliberated whether the former suburban Chicago police sergeant murdered his third wife.

Peterson pleaded not guilty to murdering Kathleen Savio in 2004. He was only charged only after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007.

Judge Edward Burmila read 15 minutes of jury instructions to the panelists before they filed out to elect a foreman and began wading through five weeks of circumstantial and hearsay evidence. After deliberations began, the jury sent a series of notes requesting to see some evidence, including photos of Savio's body and phone records from around the day she was found dead.

Peterson, 58, is charged with first-degree murder in Savio's death. If convicted, he faces a maximum 60-year prison sentence.

Burmila told jurors they should go in with the presumption that Peterson is innocent — and convict him only if they find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The defendant is not required to prove his innocence," he told them.

Peterson's attorneys say their client is ready for the jurors' decision.

"He's emotionally and mentally prepared for whatever happens," his lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, told reporters after closing arguments Tuesday.

The jury's task is not an easy one: There is no physical evidence and — for the first time in Illinois history — the prosecution has been allowed to rely heavily on hearsay to build their case.

The jury on Wednesday requested Drew and Stacy Peterson's phone records from around the day Savio's body was found, and transcripts of two witnesses who presented hearsay evidence implicating Drew Peterson in her death. They also asked for a letter Savio wrote saying she feared her husband could kill her and for photos of Savio's body in the bathtub where she was found.

Prosecutors contend Peterson killed the 40-year-old aspiring nurse because he feared a pending divorce settlement would wipe him out financially. The defense contends she died in an accidental slip and fall. When she was found, her hair was soaked with blood and she had a gash on the back of her head.

During closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors implored jurors to use common sense in assessing the evidence. The defense said the state fell far short of proving Peterson killed Savio.

Peterson is suspected but hasn't been charged in Stacy Peterson's disappearance. Prosecutors were barred from mentioning or hinting that she is presumed dead and that her husband is the lone suspect in her disappearance. While outside observers connect Savio's death and Stacy Peterson's disappearance, jurors aren't supposed to factor that Stacy Peterson vanished into their deliberations.

Investigators botched the initial investigation into Savio's death and collected no fingerprints, blood, hair samples or any other physical evidence, leaving prosecutors with a circumstantial case.

Prosecutor Chris Koch went through more than a dozen hearsay statements Savio allegedly made to others before she died and that Stacy Peterson made before she disappeared. Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, isn't usually admissible in court, but Illinois passed a law in 2008, dubbed "Drew's Law," that allows it in rare circumstances.

Koch reminded jurors that one witness testified how Savio had described Drew Peterson saying to her, "I'm going to kill you." Another witness said Peterson told Savio he could employ his police expertise to kill her and make it look like an accident.

Defense attorney Joe Lopez countered that the more than 30 witnesses the state had presented provided "garbage" as evidence. He said the hearsay was no more credible than water-cooler gossip they might hear around the office.

___

Follow Michael Tarm at www.twitter.com/mtarm

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Jurors at Peterson trial to see requested evidence

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — Jurors deliberating at Drew Peterson's murder trial will have excerpts of transcripts read to them and see other exhibits they requested.

The jury sent notes requesting the evidence Wednesday shortly after deliberations began on whether the former suburban Chicago police officer killed his third wife. Attorneys agreed jurors could hear and view the evidence in court.

Peterson pleaded not guilty to murdering Kathleen Savio in 2004. He was charged after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007.

Jurors asked for Drew and Stacy Peterson's phone records from around the day Savio's body was found.

They also asked for a letter Savio wrote saying she feared her husband could kill her, and transcripts of two witnesses who presented hearsay evidence implicating Drew Peterson in her death.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Jurors send judge notes at Peterson murder trial

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — Jurors at Drew Peterson's murder trial have sent three notes to the judge asking for transcripts and other exhibits.

The jurors sent the notes Wednesday less than 2 hours after they began deliberating on whether the former Illinois police officer killed his third wife.

Peterson has pleaded not guilty to murdering Kathleen Savio in 2004. He was only charged after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007.

The jurors asked for Drew and Stacy Peterson's phone records from around the day Savio's body was found.

They also asked for a letter Savio wrote saying she feared her husband could kill her, and transcripts of two witnesses who presented hearsay evidence that implicated Drew Peterson in her death.

The judge and attorneys are discussing how to respond.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

In Peterson trial, jurors quickly confront hearsay

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — As they began deliberations Wednesday, jurors in Drew Peterson's trial immediately zeroed in on the case's trickiest issue: whether to believe secondhand hearsay statements that would often be barred from consideration in a criminal court.

Because of a botched initial investigation, detectives collected no fingerprints, strands of hair or any other physical evidence in the death of Peterson's third wife. So Illinois legislators passed a law aimed specifically at the former suburban Chicago police officer. That allowed prosecutors to pursue a conviction based substantially on statements Peterson's ex-wives made to friends and acquaintances.

After less than two hours of deliberations, jurors sent a flurry of notes to the judge asking for transcripts relating to hearsay that implicated Peterson. Forty-year-old Kathleen Savio was found dead in her bathtub in 2004, her hair soaked in blood and a gash on the back of her head.

Hearsay is any information reported by a witness that is not based on the witness' direct knowledge.

During five weeks of testimony, witnesses described statements Savio allegedly made about threats from her estranged husband and statements Peterson's fourth wife, 23-year-old Stacy Peterson, made before she disappeared in 2007.

Some defense attorneys worry that the trial — the first in Illinois history to rely so heavily on hearsay — could fundamentally alter how prosecutors and defense attorneys handle murder cases in this state and around the country.

"The legal issues here are extraordinary," said Phil Turner, a Chicago defense attorney and former federal prosecutor. "If this sets a precedent, more people will get convicted because someone testifies that someone told them something."

Heading into the trial, prosecutors described the hearsay evidence as offering Savio and Stacy Peterson the opportunity to speak to jurors "from their graves."

But the challenge for the jury is deciding if those words — recounted secondhand in court — are believable.

Jurors ended their first day of deliberations without reaching a verdict and were expected to return Thursday.

In closing arguments, the prosecution said the fact that more than a half-dozen witnesses cited conversations with Savio and Stacy Peterson that implicated Drew Peterson made those statements all the more believable.

But defense attorney Joe Lopez said the women's comments were no more credible than water-cooler gossip.

"How many times are you at work and you hear someone say something about someone. They're lying!" he told the jury.

The defense has also lashed out at Savio and Stacy Peterson's own credibility.

Lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky told jurors at the start of the trial that Savio was "bonkers" and prone to wild exaggeration — especially in the thick of her acrimonious divorce from Peterson in the years before she died.

One of the notes sent to the judge asked for transcripts of testimony from Stacy Peterson's pastor, Neal Schori, who presented some of the trial's most dramatic hearsay.

Stacy Peterson cried in a meeting with Schori not long before she vanished, he testified. She told Schori that Peterson got up from bed in the middle of the night and left the house around the time of Savio's death. At dawn, she saw him putting woman's clothes into a washing machine that weren't hers, Schori said.

"She was very scared," Schori told jurors.

Jurors also asked for transcripts of attorney Harry Smith, who testified that Stacy Peterson called him three days before her disappearance seeking advice on divorcing Peterson, who was 30 years her senior.

Smith was called by the defense in a bid to dent Stacy Peterson's credibility. He told jurors she asked about whether she could extort her husband by threatening to tell police he killed Savio.

But Smith's testimony seemed to backfire on the defense as he repeatedly stressed to jurors that Stacy Peterson sincerely believed Drew Peterson had killed Savio.

Kathleen Zellner, a defense attorney who observed some of the testimony, predicted that jurors would accept the hearsay as credible because the judge deemed it admissible.

"They won't agonize over it," she said. "I think they will just accept it on face value. They'll think, 'The judge wouldn't let it come in if it was mere water-cooler talk.'"

The reputation for tactlessness that Peterson earned during a national media blitz before his 2009 arrest could work against him now, added another Chicago attorney, Michael Helfand.

After Stacy Peterson vanished, her husband joked about organizing a "Win a Date with Drew" contest" and discussed appearing on a reality TV show about a Nevada brothel.

"If he were a more sympathetic person, jurors might say, 'Hey, we can't put a guy in prison on the basis of'" secondhand information, Helfand said. "That'd be persuasive if he wasn't perceived as a scumbag."

Though jurors appeared to leap immediately into the hearsay evidence, it became clear later in the day that they also hadn't resolved another critical question: Was Savio's death even a murder?

Jurors sent another note asking for photographs of Savio's body as it was found jammed into her bathtub. They also wanted autopsy photos, including one of Savio's skull cut away to reveal her brain.

Prosecutor Chris Koch told jurors Tuesday it would have been impossible for Savio to suffer the wound on the back of her head and 14 bruises on the front of her body unless someone had attacked her.

"How can you get (all those wounds) in one fall?" he asked. "You can't."

Lopez conceded that fatal slips in bathtubs are one in a million, but he insisted all the evidence suggests that's just what happened to Savio.

"Are you trying to tell me no one has ever slipped in a bathtub before?" he asked. "That's why they sell rubber mats with suction cups on them."

Peterson has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder in Savio's death. He was charged only after Stacy Peterson disappeared and Savio's body was exhumed and re-examined. Her death was reclassified from an accident to a murder.

Prosecutors were barred from mentioning that Stacy Peterson is presumed dead and that her husband is the lone suspect in her disappearance, although he has never been charged.

___

Don Babwin also contributed to this report.

___

Follow Michael Tarm at www.twitter.com/mtarm

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Jurors deliberate at Drew Peterson's murder trial

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — Jurors at Drew Peterson's murder trial withdrew Wednesday to begin deliberations on whether the former Illinois police sergeant murdered his third wife.

Peterson pleaded not guilty to murdering Kathleen Savio in 2004. He was only charged only after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007.

Judge Edward Burmila read 15 minutes of jury instructions to the panelists before they filed out to elect a foreman and begin wading through five weeks of circumstantial and hearsay evidence. Shortly after deliberations began, the jury sent notes requesting to see and hear some evidence, which attorneys agreed the panelists could do in court.

Burmila told jurors they should go in with the presumption that Peterson is innocent — and convict him only if they find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

"The defendant is not required to prove his innocence," he told them.

Peterson, 58, is charged with two counts of first-degree murder in Savio's death. If convicted, he faces a maximum 60-year prison sentence.

Peterson's attorneys say their client is ready for the jurors' decision.

"He's emotionally and mentally prepared for whatever happens," his lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, told reporters after closing arguments Tuesday.

The jury's task is not an easy one: There is no physical evidence and — for the first time in Illinois history — the prosecution has been allowed to rely heavily on hearsay to build their case.

The jury sent a note requesting Drew and Stacy Peterson's phone records from around the day Savio's body was found. They also asked for a letter Savio wrote saying she feared her husband could kill her and transcripts of two witnesses who presented hearsay evidence implicating Drew Peterson in her death. The attorneys agreed to let jurors have excerpts of transcripts read to them.

During closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors implored jurors to use common sense in assessing the evidence. The defense said the state fell far short of proving Peterson killed Savio.

Savio's body was found in her bathtub — her hair soaked with blood and a gash on the back of her head. Prosecutors contend Peterson killed the 40-year-old aspiring nurse because he feared a pending divorce settlement would wipe him out financially. The defense contends she died in an accidental slip and fall.

Peterson is suspected but hasn't been charged in Stacy Peterson's disappearance. Prosecutors were barred from mentioning or hinting that she is presumed dead and that her husband is the lone suspect in her disappearance. While outside observers connect Savio's death and Stacy Peterson's disappearance, jurors aren't supposed to factor that Stacy Peterson vanished into their deliberations.

Investigators botched the initial investigation into Savio's death and collected no fingerprints, blood, hair samples or any other physical evidence, leaving prosecutors with a circumstantial case.

Prosecutor Chris Koch went through more than a dozen hearsay statements Savio allegedly made to others before she died and that Stacy Peterson made before she disappeared. Hearsay, or statements not based on the direct knowledge of a witness, isn't usually admissible in court, but Illinois passed a law in 2008, dubbed "Drew's Law," that allows it in rare circumstances.

Koch reminded jurors that one witness testified how Savio had described Drew Peterson saying to her, "I'm going to kill you." Another witness said Peterson told Savio he could employ his police expertise to kill her and make it look like an accident.

Defense attorney Joe Lopez countered that the more than 30 witnesses the state had presented provided "garbage" as evidence. He said the hearsay was no more credible than water-cooler gossip they might hear around the office.

___

Follow Michael Tarm at www.twitter.com/mtarm

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

W.Va. extortion trial set for Calif. man

BECKLEY, W.Va. (AP) — A California man accused of trying to extort $13 million from a West Virginia coal executive was arraigned Tuesday in Beckley, and his trial was scheduled for Oct. 29 in U.S. District Court.

Magistrate Judge Clarke VanDervort's order shows Judge Irene Berger will handle the case against West Hollywood resident Vivek Shah. Pretrial motions in the case are due Oct. 1.

Shah was indicted last month on charges he threatened to kill relatives of Foresight Reserves owner Christopher Cline if Cline didn't pay up.

Court documents say Shah targeted four other wealthy but unnamed victims, including a film studio co-founder from Connecticut, two oil and gas millionaires in Texas and Florida, and the founder of an internet company in Chicago.

Federal prosecutors won't identify those victims. Berger issued a gag order in the case last week, limiting access to court documents to participants in the case and court staff.

Berger also ordered the parties, their attorneys, witnesses, alleged victims and their relatives, investigators and court personnel not to speak to the media or release any information about the case.

Shah, a 25-year-old aspiring actor, is charged with four counts of interfering with interstate commerce and using interstate commerce to threaten extortion.

An affidavit filed by a U.S. postal inspector who investigated the case says Shah, who also uses the aliases Ray Amin and Rohan Gill, was staying at his father's home in Schaumburg, Ill., just before his arrest.

The scheme laid out in the affidavit was ambitious and wide-reaching, involving offshore banks in Cyprus, Antigua, Malta and Mauritius.

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Prosecution Tells Drew Peterson Jurors to Use 'Common Sense' in Murder Trial Verdict

Drew Peterson was the only person who had the motive and means to kill his wife, Kathleen Savio, and make it look like an accident in 2004, IIllinois prosecutors said today.

Prosecutor Chris Koch began his closing statement by telling the Joliet, Ill., jury that when they "walked into this courthouse, you did not leave your common sense at the front door. It is clear this man, Drew Peterson, murdered Kathleen Savio," according to ABC News station WLS.

The attack on Peterson was the first of the closing statements of the five-week trial in which Peterson is accused of first-degree murder in Savio's death. The defense will offer its closing statement next.

Savio's death was initially ruled an accident after she was found dead in her bathtub. After Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy, disappeared without a trace in 2007, however, police exhumed Savio's body and reexamined it as part of the Stacy Peterson investigation. They then changed the cause of death to homicide and charged Drew Peterson.

He has denied any involvement in Savio's death, and prosecutors admit there is no physical evidence tying him to the scene of the crime. He has never been charged in connection with Stacy's disappearance.

Prosecutors today reminded the jury that a witness called by the defense admitted that the chance of a healthy adult drowning in a bathtub was "one in a million."

"Drew Peterson had the motive and means to make his third wife, Kathleen Savio's bathtub drowning look like an accident," Koch said.

The prosecution finished its closing statement this morning but will have a chance for rebuttal after the defense's closing argument. The case is likely to be handed to the jury for deliberations by this afternoon.

Peterson's attorneys said before court this morning that Peterson is ready for whichever way the verdict may fall.

"He's a bit anxious but prepared emotionally for whatever happens," attorney Joel Brodsky told WLS.

The defense's closing statements are expected to focus on the lack of physical evidence and eyewitness accounts tying Peterson to the scene of Savio's death.

Peterson's trial has revolved around statements that both of his wives, Savio and Stacy Peterson, made to others. Stacy Peterson's divorce attorney testified last week that she once asked him whether she should disclose in divorce proceedings that Drew killed Savio.

According to other witnesses, Savio made statements to friends and family members showing anxiety that Drew Peterson would hurt her, and had threatened to kill her in the past.

The hearsay testimony was the subject of contentious legal battles between defense attorneys and prosecutors.

The former Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant faces 60 years in prison if convicted.

Also Read

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Deliberations in Peterson trial to start Wednesday

JOLIET, Ill. (AP) — Defense attorneys told jurors at Drew Peterson's murder trial Tuesday that the state's case against him is "garbage evidence." Prosecutors said it's just common sense that the former suburban Chicago police officer killed his third wife.

Jurors were expected to begin deliberating the case Wednesday, a day after both sides presented their closing arguments.

Prosecutors contend Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, because he feared a pending divorce settlement would wipe him out financially. Savio's death was initially deemed an accident, but it was later ruled a homicide after her body was exhumed following the 2007 disappearance of Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson.

The heart of the state's case is testimony from friends, relatives and acquaintances of the two women about things they allegedly told them about Drew Peterson. Such testimony, called hearsay, isn't usually allowed in court, but Illinois passed a law in 2008, dubbed "Drew's Law," that allowed it to be introduced at trials under rare circumstances.

In his more than hourlong closing, prosecutor Chris Koch went through more than half a dozen hearsay statements, including witnesses who testified Savio told them her husband repeatedly warned her he could kill her and make her death look accidental.

As he began his remarks Koch walked up to the defense table, pointed his finger at Peterson and boomed, "It is clear this man killed Kathleen Savio."

Punching his fist into his palm for emphasis, Koch said Peterson slipped into his estranged wife's suburban Chicago home — just a few blocks from his new house — in the early morning hours before March 1, 2004.

"He went into that house, pushed her down, held her down until she inhaled fluid and drowned," said Koch.

In the recurring mantra of his closing, Koch told jurors to use common sense in assessing Peterson's alleged threats and suspicious behavior in the days after Savio's death. Peterson, he said, went to Savio's house the day after her body was found there to wash blood from the tub.

"Are you kidding me?!" balked Koch. "What in the world is he doing there? Murders sometimes go back to the crime scene."

Defense attorney Joel Lopez countered that the state had presented "garbage evidence" during its five-week presentation of more than 30 witnesses.

Lopez told jurors that when they deliberate, they are required to hear a voice whispering to each of them that Peterson is innocent. He said they can't conclude Peterson is guilty unless the evidence is overwhelming and compelling.

"You have to find he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt — not maybe, not probably (he did it)," he said. "Are we going to convict someone on speculation? ... This is America!"

Lopez constantly doubled back to his central argument: The state hadn't even proved Savio's death was a murder.

"The framers of the Constitution would barf on this evidence," said Lopez.

But Koch told jurors it would be impossible for Savio to have received the gash on the back of her head and 14 bruises on the front of her body unless someone had attacked her.

"How can you get (all those wounds) in one fall?" he asked. "You can't."

Peterson, 58, has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder. If convicted, he faces a maximum 60-year prison sentence.

Judge Edward Burmila decided to send jurors home for the night after closing arguments ran longer than expected. Burmila said he would read instructions to the jury first thing Wednesday morning. The seven men and five women will then withdraw to a jury room to begin their deliberations.

Peterson is suspected but hasn't been charged in Stacy Peterson's disappearance, and prosecutors were barred from mentioning or hinting that that she is presumed dead and that her husband is the lone suspect in her disappearance.

___

Follow Michael Tarm at www.twitter.com/mtarm

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Apple, Samsung each found guilty in South Korean trial

As the jury in Apple (AAPL) and Samsung’s (005930) high-profile patent battle in San Jose, California begins to deliberate, a verdict has been handed down in a similar trial taking place half way around the world. A South Korean court on Friday turned in a split decision in a trial between the two consumer electronics giants, finding that devices from each company infringed upon patents held by the other. Sales bans have been put in place on devices from each side, though no current-generation devices from either side are covered by the ruling — in fact, The Wall Street Journal reports that the majority of affected devices are no longer sold by either company. In addition to the sales bans, Apple was ordered to pay $35,300 in total damages for two patent violations, or 0.0004% of the $8.8 billion in net profit it took in last quarter. For the one patent Samsung was found guilty of infringing, the court ordered it to pay $22,000 in damages, or 0.00037% of its most recent quarterly profits.

Read

Get more from BGR.com: Follow us on Twitter, Facebook

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Mauritania trial before Libya-ex-spy chief extradited

LONDON (Reuters) - Britain's coalition government suffered its worst crisis to date on Monday when the junior partner in the two-party administration rebelled after its ally in power, the Conservatives, killed its plans to reform the House of Lords. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, said the …

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Judge gets second mistrial request in Peterson murder trial

JOLIET, Illinois (Reuters) - Defense attorneys sought a mistrial on Wednesday for former Chicago-area police officer Drew Peterson, who is charged with killing his third wife, claiming the prosecution had improperly introduced evidence.

It was the second mistrial request in as many days in the murder trial of Peterson before Judge Edward Burmila. Defense attorneys want the charges against Peterson dropped and the judge to declare that he cannot be retried on them.

On Tuesday, Peterson's next-door neighbor, Thomas Pontarelli, testified that he found a .38-caliber cartridge nose-up on his driveway in 2002, which he believed Peterson had placed there to intimidate him.

Defense attorneys said that because there is no proof Peterson put the bullet there, prosecutors should not have elicited the testimony.

Peterson is charged with the murder of third wife Kathleen Savio, who was found dead in a dry bathtub in 2004. Her death initially was ruled an accident. But when Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, disappeared in 2007, suspicions were raised and the Savio death was ruled a homicide. Stacy Peterson has never been found and is presumed dead.

The Peterson case has drawn national attention and was the subject of a popular Lifetime television network movie "Untouchable" starring Rob Lowe as Drew Peterson. His first and second wives have remarried.

Pontarelli testified on Tuesday he was intimidated by Peterson, who had learned that Pontarelli had helped Peterson's estranged wife, Kathleen Savio, move things out of her house.

Peterson also had suspected Pontarelli had changed the locks on Savio's front door, though he had not changed the locks, Pontarelli testified.

Defense attorney Steve Greenberg objected when Pontarelli testified about finding the cartridge, saying prosecutors were introducing "prior bad acts" and attempting to "dirty up Mr. Peterson."

Burmila questioned prosecutor Kathleen Patton on the bullet testimony. Patton said prosecutors had sought to show jurors that Pontarelli and Peterson were not friends. Peterson has denied putting the bullet in the driveway.

The judge on Tuesday denied a defense request for a mistrial after Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow told jurors in an opening statement that a man Peterson worked with at a cable television installation company had said under oath that Peterson offered him $25,000 to find a hitman to kill Savio.

Burmila ruled that prosecutors could not use testimony from the man.

The testimony of family, friends and associates is key to the prosecution case against Peterson because there is little physical evidence tying him to Savio's death.

(Editing by David Bailey, Greg McCune and Cynthia Osterman)

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Jurors to hear openings in Peterson trial

CHICAGO (AP) — The saga of Drew Peterson and his ill-fated wives has drawn widespread attention outside the courtroom, and now the murder case against the ex-police officer finally goes to trial Tuesday with opening statements and testimony from the first witnesses.

The 58-year-old Peterson's day in court comes nearly a decade after his third wife was found dead in a bathtub, and five years after his much younger fourth wife vanished without a trace.

The real-life drama inspired a TV movie and a national spotlight was put on the case, with speculation about whether Peterson used his law-enforcement expertise in a bid to get away with the 2004 murder of Kathleen Savio, 40, and to make 23-year-old Stacy Peterson disappear in 2007.

Those who have observed major criminal trials for years say the outcome of this one is especially hard to predict.

"I think it will be a close case," said Kathleen Zellner, a leading Chicago-area defense attorney.

Tuesday's openings in Joliet pit the dry but dogged James Glasgow, Will County's state's attorney, against flamboyant defense lawyer Joel Brodsky, both of whom have staked at least part of their reputations on the final result.

Peterson's attorney says he will tell jurors, who include a part-time poet, a letter carrier and a research technician whose favorite TV show is "Criminal Minds," the life story of his client and Savio.

Peterson, a former police sergeant in the Chicago suburb of Bolingbrook, was charged with first-degree murder in Savio's death only after Stacy Peterson went missing. He is a suspect in her disappearance but hasn't been charged.

"I'll tell a story from the beginning to the end so they can understand what's going on," Brodsky said about his planned Tuesday opening. "Until now, everything has been told just in slices."

The defense has described Savio's death as a tragic accident, and they have said Stacy Peterson, whose body has never been found, may have run off with another man.

Glasgow may face the greater challenge.

A botched initial investigation into Savio's death left prosecutors with scant to no physical evidence, forcing them to rely heavily on hearsay evidence — statements not heard directly by a witness — which is normally barred at trials.

Glasgow has said previously that Savio and Stacy Peterson will effectively speak to jurors through witnesses who can describe how Drew Peterson allegedly told his wives he could murder them and make it look like an accident.

But Judge Edward Burmila has said he would decide what hearsay statements to admit only as testimony proceeds, so Glasgow will have to decide whether to risk mentioning statements to jurors that the judge might later prohibit.

"The last thing you want to do is make an opening about what jurors will hear, telling them the case hinges on what they'll hear — and then they don't hear it," Chicago-based attorney Michael Helfand said.

By presenting what they regard as overwhelming hearsay and circumstantial evidence, Zellner said prosecutors will want to show jurors the only possible explanation for Savio's death is that Peterson killed her.

In the case of Stacy Peterson, Burmila has warned prosecutors they can't tell jurors Drew Peterson is responsible for her disappearance or refer to authorities' belief that she is dead.

Attorneys on both sides will have to find the right terminology in talking about the missing fourth wife, said Brodsky, who added that the sides might be able to use the awkward phrase "she is no longer available."

Prosecutors say Peterson killed Savio because he feared their pending divorce settlement would wipe him out financially. And they believe he killed Stacy, in part, because she knew about Savio's death.

___

Follow Michael Tarm at www.twitter.com/mtarm .

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Apple, Samsung patent trial starts with jury selection

SAN JOSE, California (Reuters) - A Google employee, at least five patent owners and plenty of iPhone and iPad consumers were among the potential jurors summoned to court on Monday in a high-stakes U.S. patent battle between Apple Inc and Samsung Electronics Co Ltd.

U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh spent several hours examining jurors about their backgrounds and biases, as the companies began the trial after more than a year of pretrial jousting, with billions of dollars in the balance. That process was still ongoing Monday afternoon, and opening statements by the lawyers are expected to begin on Tuesday.

Apple and Samsung, the world's largest consumer electronics corporations, are waging legal war around the world, accusing each other of patent violations as they vie for supremacy in a fast-growing market for mobile devices.

The fight began last year when Apple sued Samsung in a San Jose, California, federal court, accusing the South Korean company of slavishly copying the iPhone and iPad. Samsung countersued.

Long lines outside the federal courthouse in San Jose marked the beginning of the trial as lawyers, media and analysts flooded the building to watch the proceedings.

The questioning of prospective jurors on Monday demonstrated the unique challenge of finding a Silicon Valley jury with no bias toward either Apple or Google, companies that are headquartered just a few miles away from the federal courthouse. Both Apple and Google employ thousands in Northern California.

Koh questioned nearly three dozen members of the jury pool on a host of issues, including their choice of phones, how the economic downturn impacted their lives, experience with the legal system and connections to either Samsung, Apple, Google Inc or its Motorola Mobility unit.

Google is a background actor in the trial as Samsung's smartphones run on Google's Android operating system. Many analysts see Apple's global patent wars as a proxy war against Google.

The Google employee acknowledged he bought two iPads, but also owned Samsung phones and a Galaxy tablet.

"You're good for the economy, I guess," Koh said.

The technology savviness of the jury pool was also reflected by the presence of at least five prospective jurors who said they have received or filed for patents, including one person who said he has over 120 patents.

The stakes are high for Samsung, which faces potential U.S. sales bans of its Galaxy smartphones and tablet computers, and for Apple, for which this is a pivotal test of its worldwide patent litigation strategy.

It has been tough going so far for Samsung in the case. Judge Koh halted U.S. sales of the Galaxy Tab 10.1, giving Apple a significant early win. This was followed by a pretrial ban on the Galaxy Nexus phone. Samsung has appealed both orders.

The trial is expected to last at least four weeks.

The case in U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, is Apple Inc v. Samsung Electronics Co Ltd et al, No. 11-1846.

(Reporting by Dan Levine and Poornima Gupta; Editing by Tim Dobbyn, Lisa Von Ahn and Phil Berlowitz)

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.

Army sergeant stands trial in death of Asian-American soldier

FORT BRAGG, North Carolina (Reuters) - Military prosecutors on Tuesday said a U.S. Army sergeant's physical abuse and racial harassment led a young Chinese-American soldier to commit suicide weeks after he was deployed to Afghanistan.

But a defense attorney argued that Private Danny Chen instead took his life out of despair over family troubles and his failure as an infantryman.

The dueling theories played out in a military courtroom in Fort Bragg, North Carolina, far from the base in Alaska where 19-year-old Chen was said to eagerly await his first deployment and the small outpost in southern Afghanistan where he killed himself in October.

Sergeant Adam Holcomb, 30, is the first of eight of Chen's superiors to stand trial in connection with his alleged hazing and subsequent death.

Holcomb, who has pleaded not guilty, faces nearly 18 years of confinement and a dishonorable discharge if convicted of charges that include negligent homicide.

The case has galvanized the Asian-American community in Chen's hometown of New York City and elsewhere, with supporters calling for the military to do more to guard against prejudice. Chen, born to immigrant parents, was the only Chinese-American in his unit.

Despite Asian-Americans comprising just 4 percent of the active duty U.S. military, many of the four officers and six enlisted soldiers chosen on Tuesday to sit as jurors said they had served with people of that ethnicity.

They described a military culture where nicknames are common and often endearing, and soldiers are exposed to suicide awareness training.

But during the opening statement for the prosecution, Captain Blake Doughty outlined a scenario where a leader failed to uphold one of the Army's basic values: respect.

Doughty accused Holcomb of using racially disparaging terms to refer to Chen and another soldier. Holcomb called Chen "dragon lady," "gook," "egg roll" and "chink," and called a young African-American soldier "black boy" and "niglet," the prosecutor said.

Doughty said Holcomb admitted to grabbing Chen out of bed by the arm and dragging him across gravel after the lower-ranked soldier left a water pump on in a shower against orders.

"This conduct over time drove Private Danny Chen to take his own life," Doughty said.

Chen killed himself in a guard tower on October 3, 2011. According to Doughty, Chen told at least two friends that suicide was the only way he could think of to stop the abuse.

But Captain Dennis Hernon, one of Holcomb's defense attorneys, said Chen alone was responsible for his premature death.

He said Chen, an only child, told fellow soldiers before they deployed that he had been disowned by his parents for joining the Army in January 2011.

Hernon said Chen's troubles continued in Afghanistan, where he "had a lot of deficiencies as a soldier." The lawyer said Chen at times fell asleep on guard duty and showed up for tasks without the proper equipment, putting himself and others at risk.

Hernon disputed that Holcomb subjected Chen to ongoing physical mistreatment or racial slurs.

"Sergeant Holcomb referred to him affectionately as 'dragon lady,'" Hernon said. "That was the only name he ever called him."

Chen never said the nickname bothered him, according to Hernon.

Holcomb, who joined the Army in August 2007, also is charged with reckless endangerment, communicating a threat, assault, maltreatment of a subordinate, dereliction of duty and violating a lawful general regulation.

The proceedings on Tuesday ended with the emotional testimony of Su Zhen Chen, Danny Chen's mother. Speaking through an interpreter, she admitted that she tried to dissuade her son from joining the Army.

But the grieving woman, who cried through much of her time on the stand, grew even more distraught when asked whether she ever told her son she was disowning him for enlisting.

"I never said that," she said, later adding, "He's my only son. Why would I disown my only son?"

(Reporting by Colleen Jenkins; Editing by David Brunnstrom and Stacey Joyce)

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.