A judge in Joliet heard secondhand testimony today from Kathleen Savio — six years after her mysterious death.
He told her nothing she could say or do would make her safe,” said Issam Karam, who worked with Savio at a Romeoville graphics company in late 2003 when the confrontation allegedly occurred.
Karam testified that, after Savio described how her former husband threatened her, she showed Karam a bruise on her arm from the encounter.
Will County prosecutors are trying to win a judge’s permission to use so-called “hearsay evidence” that they say links the 56-year-old former Bolingbrook cop to the March 2004 bathtub-drowning death of Savio, his third wife.
A new state law enacted in 2008 makes it easier for prosecutors to use statements from victims who allegedly were killed to prevent them from testifying against their attackers.
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Chicago Criminal lawyer is shocked by the attempts to shoehorn the Constitution in order to get the "bad guys"
This Chicago Criminal lawyer has posted here, here, and here about the systematic undoing of the Constitution. Folks, we have a real doozy on our hands with the Illinois law that permits hearsay testimony if the witness is now dead. In case you missed it, many refer to the law as "Drew's Law".
Hearsay is a legal concept that bars testimony given by a witness who relates information without personal knowledge of that information. For example: My friend tells me he was robbed by Santa Claus. In that instance, I'm not offering any information about the robbery except what my friend told me. There you have it, Santa Claus' lawyer would object to my testimony and that objection would be granted by the court.
The reason we have traditionally prohibited hearsay is because under our Constitution the accused has a right to confront those doing the accusing.
Sometimes, because hearsay is impermissible, with some limited exceptions, the government will not be able to prove their case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. But in this case, Illinois legislators were not going to let a little thing like the Constitution thwart the government in meeting its legal burden.
Here's the law referenced in the article.
There is no question in my mind that a court that permits this type of hearsay exception will find itself appealed.