Drew Peterson and the Supreme Court

Drew Peterson's defense lawyers are objecting to a new Illinois law that should provide powerful ammunition to prosecutors in his murder case. Will a recent Supreme Court decision help or hurt their cause?

The new law allows a judge to admit the hearsay evidence of an unavailable witness in a murder one trial if prosecutors can show the defendant killed that witness to prevent him or her from testifying. Here, of course, it would potentially allow the introduction of letters and witnesses to show that Peterson's third wife, Kathleen Savio, believed Peterson would kill her to shut her up.

While Illinois legislators apparently were careful not to link this law to Peterson, the press already calls it "Drew's Law," and his lawyers note that it flies in the face of conventional (and constitutional) wisdom. The Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to confront their accusers. And while lawmakers and courts grant exceptions to that rule, and allow hearsay evidence into trials, courts also employ a balancing test -- does the credibility of the evidence outweigh how much it might prejudice a jury? -- to make sure the introduction of that evidence is fair. Victim statements are so powerful that they might seem to tilt the trial.

But can Peterson's lawyers win their crucial evidence fight? A 2008 Supreme Court ruling suggests they may face an uphill battle. In that case Dwayne Giles, on trial in California for the murder of his girlfriend, objected when the court allowed a statement from the victim that Giles had threatened to kill her. The Supreme Court agreed that the introduction of the statement violated Giles' Sixth Amendment rights -- but invited the prosecution to try again, and said the statement would be admissible if they could prove Giles killed her in order to block her testimony -- a situation very close to the one Peterson's lawyers face now.