The debate over “Drew’s law” is centered on two recent Supreme Court rulings. One ruling says hearsay evidence violates the 6th Amendment, which means that a defendant cannot confront witnesses against him. The other says statements made to law enforcement officers are admissible as evidence of a crime, even in cases involving domestic violence. The debate is likely to continue for some time.
The Drew Peterson case is one of the most well-known. This Illinois police officer was convicted of murdering his third and fourth wives. Under the law, the prosecution is required to rely on the words of the deceased or missing spouses to establish guilt. The jury must weigh the evidence presented in each case to determine if it is credible. If it finds a defendant guilty, the judge will rule on the admissibility of the hearsay evidence.
In the Kathleen Savio murder case, the prosecution presented a pathologist as a witness to the jury and told them that her death was an accident. Brodsky argued that this evidence was hearsay and therefore was not admissible. However, it is likely that the judge will find otherwise. This case is one that is expected to be litigated, and the outcome will determine whether or not Drew’s law can be used.
Under the law, the prosecution will be required to provide hearsay evidence if the defendant is found guilty of a crime. The law was enacted to protect Peterson from the possibility of being convicted of a crime based on circumstantial evidence. In other words, if a victim of a homicide was killed by their husband, the court will have the right to hear their words.
When a defendant is accused of a crime, it’s important to consider whether the evidence was obtained through hearsay. In Drew Peterson’s case, the pathologist testified that she had no knowledge of her wife’s death. Likewise, the prosecution used hearsay statements from three women in the trial of the other woman. This is a very common method, but it’s important to make sure the evidence is reliable.
In the Kathleen Savio case, the jury was required to hear hearsay statements from the murder victim. The law requires that the prosecution be able to prove the murder before hearing the hearsay. Those convicted in these cases have to face the consequences of their actions. When a witness is murdered, the law will prevent that evidence from being heard. By making the trial more complicated, the judge can have an additional motive for a killer.
As the case with Drew Peterson has demonstrated, hearingsay testimony is sometimes used to prove a murder case. It has proven that the killer may not have intended to kill the victim before the trial. A second reason for the use of hearsay evidence in a murder trial is because of the lack of evidence from the victim’s witnesses. This is true even in the case of a false witness, and in the case of a murderer who was unable to testify, the law may help.