Drew Peterson’s sentencing hearing is underway this afternoon after Judge Edward Burmila denied his request for a new trial.
Peterson, 59, was convicted last fall of drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in her bathtub. The former Bolingbrook police sergeant faces 20-60 years in prison.
Savio’s sister Anna Marie Savio-Doman read a statement as the sentencing hearing began.
“My loss of my baby sister is beyond words. There will be no more birthday parties, backyard gatherings, holiday celebrations or other family activities to share,” she said. “The laughter, hugs, guidance, advice, sense of security and those opportunities to say, ‘I love you’ are forever gone.
“One of the hardest things for me is knowing the pain and fear that Kathleen must have suffered at the time of her murder. The horror and betrayal she must have felt when she realized that someone she had trusted and loved more than anything was actually killer her. I wonder if she could feel her heart breaking when she thought about leaving her two boys forever. The helplessness she must have felt knowing she was going to die.
“I have to say it hurts a lot. I hope it gets better, but I am not confident it will get better. I still talk to her. I hope she can hear me.”
Prosecutors have said they plan to argue that Peterson also killed his fourth wife, Stacy, who went missing in 2007, in asking for the maximum sentence. They also indicated that Peterson’s second wife and estranged oldest son could testify.
Defense attorneys had argued their client deserved a new trial because former lead attorney Joel Brodsky’s inept performance violated Peterson’s right to a fair trial. But Burmila denied their motion earlier this afternoon after two days of arguments.
"It was clear to the court from the very beginning that Mr. Brodsky was out of his depth," Burmila said. But the judge noted that Peterson was represented by five other attorneys. "Each of these attorneys brought something to the table."
As they entered the courthouse this afternoon, Peterson’s attorneys had expressed confidence they would be granted a new trial. Attorneys David Peilet and Steve Greenberg said their arguments regarding ineffective counsel and conflict of interest were powerful reasons to grant a new trial.
“I’m not much of a prognosticator, but if we don’t get a new trial here, we’ll get one from the next court,” said Greenberg.
The hearing on a motion for a new trial began Tuesday and centered primarily on Brodsky's trial decision to call Wheaton divorce attorney Harry Smith, who represented Savio in her bitter divorce fight with Peterson and also fielded a call from Stacy about her divorce options shortly before she vanished.
Smith testified at trial that Stacy had asked him if the fact that Peterson killed his third wife could be used as leverage in a divorce.
Several jurors said after trial that the testimony convinced them of Peterson's guilt. There was no physical evidence tying Peterson to Savio's death, which was initially treated as an accident.
“It was an awful decision,” defense attorney Steve Greenberg argued in court. “It ruined the case -- we brought out the worst possible evidence, and the best evidence for the state.”
The defense also argued that media licensing contracts -- that included a movie and book deal – meant Brodsky had a conflict of interest in seeking the best possible outcome for Peterson in the case.
The unorthodox defense motion included several odd moments, including Brodsky taking the witness stand to be questioned by his former defense team nemesis Steve Greenberg. Brodsky sued Greenberg for libel earlier this month. Later, the defense tried to call Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow to the witness stand, but the judge would not allow it.
On Wednesday, Brodsky had a roughly five-minute conversation with Stacy Peterson’s sister Cassandra Cales. Cales declined to talk about the conversation.
“We were just discussing how to make sure that her sister Stacy isn't forgotten after Drew goes away,” Brodsky said.
mwalberg@tribune.com
sschmadeke@tribune.com