Drew Peterson gets 38 years after courtroom outburst
1:46PM Thursday
February 21, 2013

Updated: 4:05pm

(JOLIET) Drew Peterson was sentenced to 38 years in prison on Thursday in the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, after a bizarre, lengthy courtroom rant from the former Bolingbrook cop.

"His life is over as we know it," Savio's sister, Anna Doman, said of the 59-year-old convicted murderer.

Peterson sat calmly and quietly as Judge Edward Burmila handed down the sentence.

It was stark contrast to the drama just minutes earlier.

"I DID NOT KILL KATHLEEN!" Drew Peterson shouted to a shocked courtroom before sentencing Thursday.

"Yes, you did!" said one of his relatives, who was then ejected from the court.

Peterson's outburst stunned the courtroom at his sentencing hearing, which followed a Will County judge's ruling refusing to throw out the former Bolingbrook cop's September murder conviction because of purported mistakes by his former lawyer.

The decision by Judge Edward Burmila cleared the way for Peterson to be sentenced for the 2004 bathtub drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Peterson — who didn't testify at his trial — didn't hold back at his sentencing, complaining of false police reports, "rumors, gossip, outrageous lies and most importantly, unreliable hearsay."

"The state took an accident and staged a homicide," Peterson said.

Peterson faced a 20- to 60 prison term that, without a successful appeal, likely will keep him behind bars until he dies.

"Even the minimum sentence puts him at the end of the spectrum of his life," said Peterson attorney Joe Lopez, arguing for leniency.

That thought pleased Savio's brother.

"Drew Peterson took Kathleen's future," said Henry M. Savio. "And now she has taken his."

It will be nine years next week since the 40-year-old Kathleen Savio was found dead in the dry bathtub of her Bolingbrook home on March 1, 2004. She was discovered there by neighbors led to the scene by Savio's estranged cop husband, Peterson, who had left her to start a new life with his fourth wife, Stacy.

"I can hardly stand the pain at times," said Sue Doman, one of Savio's sisters, during the sentencing. "The thought of the last night of her life will always be with me."

In his ruling Thursday, Burmila said he thought Peterson's one-time lead counsel, Joel Brodsky, was not capable of defending Peterson on his own, but that did not mean Peterson did not get the vigorous defense he was entitled to from his entire legal team.

Brodsky was in a "different spectrum" of lawyerly skills than other lawyers on the case, Burmila said.

Defense attorneys had argued vigorously that Peterson deserves a new trial because Brodsky, bungled the case by calling divorce attorney Harry Smith as a witness.

Smith testified that Peterson's now-missing fourth wife, Stacy, told him Peterson had murdered Savio.

Simply calling Smith as a witness knowing he likely would implicate Peterson in Savio's murder amounted to providing ineffective counsel, defense attorney Steve Greenberg argued Wednesday.

"It's ineffective assistance to bring out incriminating testimony against your own client," Greenberg said. "It was probably the most incriminating evidence brought out against Mr. Peterson."

He added: "there could be no reasonable trial strategy to do that."

In response, Burmila said Thursday that had to presume Peterson endorsed Brodsky's decision to call Smith to the stand.

Defense attorneys in seeking a new trial also argued Brodsky had ethical conflicts during the trial because he had signed a contract with a publicist on Peterson's behalf for media, book and TV deals.

Brodsky, who has contended he did nothing improper by signing the publicity deal, testified during the hearing about those financial arrangements.

Surprisingly, he was not questioned about the decision to call Smith, though he has contended that other members of Peterson's legal team concurred with putting Smith on the witness stand.

"Harry was the consensus opinion of all the attorneys," Brodsky said Wednesday outside the courtroom, claiming neither he nor other defense attorneys made any crucial mistakes during Peterson's five-week trial.

"Drew got a good defense," Brodsky said.

Peterson didn't testify during the two-day hearings about his legal representation, but he could speak in court before he is sentenced.

If he proclaims his innocence regarding Savio's death — as his attorneys argued throughout his trial — he could not be cross-examined by prosecutors.

Immediately after Burmila's ruling, the sentencing hearing began with victim impact statements from Savio's sisters.

"I can hardly stand the pain at times," said Sue Doman, one of Savio's sisters. "The thought of the last night of her life will always be with me."
© Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC

(JOLIET) Drew Peterson won't get a new trial, a Will County judge ruled Thursday, refusing to throw out the former Bolingbrook cop's September murder conviction because of purported mistakes by his former lawyer.

The decision by Judge Edward Burmila clears the way for the 59-year-old Peterson to be sentenced for the 2004 bathtub drowning death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, the Sun-Times is reporting.

Peterson faces a 20- to 60 prison term that, without a successful appeal, likely will keep him behind bars until he dies.

His sentencing could conclude Thursday, though it remains uncertain whether Peterson — who didn't testify during two days of hearings — will speak before Burmila orders him to prison.

In his ruling Thursday, Burmilla said he thought Peterson's one-time lead counsel, Joel Brodsky, was not capable of defending Peterson on his own, but that did not mean Peterson did not get the vigorous defense he was entitlted to from his entire legal team.

Brodsky was in a "different spectrum" of lawyerly skills than other lawyers on the case, Burmilla said.

Defense attorneys had argued vigorously that Peterson deserves a new trial because Brodsky, bungled the case by calling divorce attorney Harry Smith as a witness.

Smith testified that Peterson's now-missing fourth wife, Stacy, told him Peterson had murdered Savio.

Simply calling Smith as a witness knowing he likely would implicate Peterson in Savio's murder amounted to providing ineffective counsel, defense attorney Steve Greenberg argued Wednesday.

"It's ineffective assistance to bring out incriminating testimony against your own client," Greenberg said. "It was probably the most incriminating evidence brought out against Mr. Peterson."

He added: "there could be no reasonable trial strategy to do that."

Defense attorneys in seeking a new trial also argued Brodsky had ethical conflicts during the trial because he had signed a contract with a publicist on Peterson's behalf for media, book and TV deals.

Brodsky, who has contended he did nothing improper by signing the publicity deal, testified during the hearing about those financial arrangements.

Surprisingly, he was not questioned about the decision to call Smith, though he has contended that other members of Peterson's legal team concurred with putting Smith on the witness stand.

"Harry was the consensus opinion of all the attorneys," Brodsky said Wednesday outside the courtroom, claiming neither he nor other defense attorneys made any crucial mistakes during Peterson's five-week trial.

"Drew got a good defense," Brodsky said.

— Sun-Times
© Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC

SweetJack Deal of the Day

loading...

Station Information

Employment Opportunities

Privacy Policy         Terms of Service         Advertise With Us

Copyright  Cumulus Media
Cumulus Media is an equal opportunity employer / AA