Thanks Hyeridad.
I really don’t know where these posts end up. Almost two weeks went by without a disappearing posts…or so I thought. The posts about Monday’s arraignment are missing so I’ll have to see what happened. Found this. Clearly their attempts didn’t work. If you’re looking for something in particular let me know. I’ve bsteen a little busy on other matters as well.
—————
May 20, 2009
Prosecutors in the Drew Peterson case asked for a change of judge during Monday’s arraignment. Evidently they don’t have to mention why. Peterson’s defense team is not pleased and referred to it as gamesmanship. The Judge is mum.
Here’s the press release on their strategy. Will be decided on tomorrow at 1:30 hearing. Emphasis added.
Drew Peterson’s defense team is challanging the Will County State’s Attorney who wants to remove Judge Richard Schoenstedt from presiding over Peterson’s murder case.
On Monday, following Peterson’s arraignment where he pleaded not guilty in the death of his third wife Kathleen Savio, Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow filed a motion, pursuant to 725 ILCS 5/114-5(c), to replace Judge Richard Schoenstedt.
Glasgow alleged that the trial judge was prejudiced against the State.
“Although the motion does not specifically state the basis for the prejudice, many in the press and public have speculated that the State believes that Judge Richard Schoenstedt’s previous rulings showed a favoritism of bias towards Drew,” says Andrew Abood, one of Peterson’s defense attorneys. “Some members of the press have even gone so far as to suggest that the reason for the motion was that Judge Schoenstedt had a prior relationship with Peterson himself.”
But Abood, and lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky, say that neither is true.
“Judge Schoenstedt has been very fair and even handed,” says Brodsky. “By all accounts, he has conducted himself according to the highest standards of ethics and integrity. On many occasions Judge Schoenstedt has made rulings which favored the State and were against Mr. Peterson’s interests.”
Judge Schoenstedt has not commented on the move by the State’s Attorney.
Abood says there are several criteria required in order to satisfy the substitution motion filed by the State’s Attorney. He says case law suggests that the mere assertion of prejudice against the State is all that is required and then the burden shifts to the Defendant opposing the Motion to establish that the Motion was made for some improper purpose.“The State’s Attorney will not be able to show, or establish, actual prejudice on the part of Judge Schoenstedt, or that there was a previous relationship between Drew Peterson and the Judge. Both claims are wholly without merit,” says Abood.
The defense team continues to review case law regarding the motion, and will challenge it, Abood says.
No comments:
Post a Comment