The examples and perspective in this article deal primarily with the United States and do not represent a worldwide view of the subject. Please improve this article and discuss the issue on the talk page. (December 2010)

Mock trials allow researchers to examine confirmation biases in a realistic setting

A mock trial is an act or imitation trial. It is similar to a moot court, but mock trials simulate lower-court trials, while moot court simulates appellate court hearings. Attorneys preparing for a real trial might use a mock trial consisting of volunteers as role players to test theories or experiment with each other. Mock trial is the name of an extracurricular program in which students participate in rehearsed trials to learn about the legal system in a competitive manner. Interscholastic mock trials take place on three levels: high school, college, and law school.

Practical Mock Trials[link]

Practicing litigators may use mock trials to assist with trial preparation and settlement negotiations. Unlike scholastic mock trials, these mock trials can take numerous forms depending on the information sought. For example, when faced with complex fact issues in a particular case, attorneys might convene a mini mock trial to try different methods of presenting their evidence, sometimes before a mock jury.

Competitive Mock Trial[link]

Competition framework[link]

Competitive mock trial functions in yearly cycles. Each year, a case packet is distributed to all participating schools in late summer to early fall. The case packet is a series of documents including the charges, penal code, stipulations, case law, and jury instructions as well as all exhibits and affidavits relevant to the case. During a mock trial, competitors are restricted to only the materials provided in the case packet and may not reference any outside sources. In order to prepare for competition, teams thoroughly read and analyze the case packet.

Mock trial teams consist of a minimum of six and a maximum of ten official members.^[1] Each team prepares both sides of the case: prosecution and defense in a criminal trial, plaintiff and defense in a civil action. Each side is composed of three attorneys and three witnesses, all played by members of the team. Therefore, the team's ten members must be organized into two teams of six for the prosecution/plaintiff and defense sides.^[2][3] It is important to note that high school mock trial is governed by state bar associations, meaning that cases, rules, and competition structure vary from state to state whereas all of college mock trial is governed by the American Mock Trial Association, meaning that every school uses the same case and is subject to the same rules.

Procedure[link]

A student giving his closing argument during a mock trial

The mock trial begins with the judge entering the courtroom. The judge then gives out the instructions to the jury (about what they are to listen to). The judge then lets the prosecution or plaintiff give an opening statement followed by the opening statement of the defense. After the opening statements, examination of the witnesses begins. The prosecution/plaintiff calls their witnesses first. A student competitor attorney for the prosecution/plaintiff does a direct examination of the witness. Once the direct examination is complete, the opposing team may cross-examine the witness. After the cross-examination, if the first team chooses, they may redirect the witness and, likewise, the other team may do a re-cross after this. This process is repeated for the two remaining plaintiff witnesses. Once the prosecution/plaintiff has finished with their witnesses, the process is repeated with the defense witnesses, having the defense attorneys direct and the plaintiff attorneys cross-examine.^[2]

Once all of the witnesses have been examined, the trial moves to closing arguments. The prosecutor/plaintiff again goes first. After the defense finishes their closing argument, the plaintiff may give a rebuttal argument if they still have time remaining. In some competitions, the rebuttal is limited to the scope of the defense’s closing argument.^[2] Time limits are set at each level of competition to prevent the trials from running too long and to keep rounds of competition running smoothly.

Judging[link]

Attorney evaluators give critique at the end of a mock trial competition.

There are several different ways that a mock trial can be judged. In one, the judges for scoring the mock trial consist of the presiding judge and two scoring judges, all of whom score the teams. In a second method, there are two scoring judges and the presiding judge, as in the first method, but the presiding judge does not score the teams, rather the judge simply votes or casts a ballot for one team or another.^[2] In yet another method of judging, there are three scoring judges and the presiding judge is not involved in the scoring of the teams. Often at college invitationals, there are two scoring judges, one of whom doubles as the presiding judge. Since enticing attorneys to judge is notoriously difficult (as judges are rarely compensated with more than a free lunch), it is rare to see more than two judges in a round at most competitions.

Unlike real law, the victorious team does not necessarily have to win on the merits of the case. Instead, evaluators score individual attorneys and witnesses on a 1-10 scale based on each stage of the trial. These consist of the opening statements for the plaintiff and defense, each of the witnesses’ testimony, direct and cross-examination by attorneys, and the closing statements for both sides. The team with the highest total number of points is often, but not always, the team that wins the judge's verdict. Given this method of scoring, it is possible for the defendant to be found guilty or lose the case but for the defense team to still win the round.

In some competitions, points can be deducted from a team’s score for testifying with information outside the scope of the mock trial materials and for unsportsmanlike conduct or abuse of objections. However, scores are completely at a judge's discretion, meaning that scores are arbitrary.

Power Matching[link]

In the first round of the tournament, all of the teams are randomly matched to compete with each other. After the first round of some tournaments, teams are “power matched” to go up against other teams with similar records (i.e. in the second round, a 1-0 team will be matched with another 1-0 team).^[2] If there is a tie in record, the judges will use the number of ballots and total points earned to decide the matching.^[2] This allows for teams to compete with other teams of similar skill.

National Championship Format[link]

In the national championship format, which is also employed by invitationals across the country, the tournament is power matched through the last round. While this determines the strongest team at the tournament overall, it does not provide an accurate representation of 2nd, 3rd, 4th place teams, etc., because they might have lost multiple ballots to a strong team who placed first.^[4]

Exceptions[link]

Of course, there are practical exceptions to the theory of power matching. Tab room coordinators who are creating brackets for each round may deviate from the rules of power matching in order to 1. allow each team to alternate between prosecution/plaintiff and defense between rounds, 2. avoid two teams from the same school competing against each other (Maryland Rule), 3. avoid having a team compete against a team it played in a prior round.^[5]

Power Protection[link]

When tournaments are power protected, it means that the first rounds of competition are power matched as stated above. In the last round(s), however, the team with the strongest record is paired against the team with the weakest record. This ensures that the best teams do not knock each other out of the running for a rank. Rather, it's anticipated that the stronger team will win and protect their chance at a rank, while there is no harm done to the weaker team who is already out of reach of a trophy. Additionally, this method gives weaker teams exposure to stronger programs that they can learn from.^[6]

Levels of competition[link]

High school[link]

The mock trial program was started to allow high school students to experience the courtroom in a hands-on role. The mock trials are set up and structured just like a real court, bound by the same rules.^[7] This can help the students to know exactly what role each of the different people in a court (judges, lawyers, witnesses, etc.) do in the judicial system. Cases typically have to do with problems faced by teens, and will usually involve teenagers as witnesses.

A high school mock trial team in Illinois

The National High School Mock Trial Championship started in 1984.^[2] This first competition consisted of teams from Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Wisconsin.^[2] The competition since has grown and now is considered to be an All-State tournament. Each year, various participating states around the country take turns hosting the tournament. The 2011 Championship was held in Phoenix, Arizona, and the National Mock Trial Board announced that Albuquerque, New Mexico will host in 2012 and Indianapolis, Indiana will host in 2013. New York State does not participate in the national competition; rather, it has its own intrastate competition consisting of over 350 teams throughout the state. It follows similar rules to that of the national competition. New York has three levels of play, county competition, regional competition, and the finals, which is held in Albany, New York in May. The state of Maryland also does not compete in the National High School tournament, and thus has their own statewide mock trial competition similar to that of New York. New Jersey and North Carolina both pulled out of the competition following the 2005 season due to a refusal by the organization to accommodate an Orthodox Jewish team that had won New Jersey's state championship.^[8]

Each state has its own case every year that is different than the national case. This means that the winners of the state competitions, who move on to nationals, must study and prepare a completely different case in time for the National High School Mock Trial Competition in May.^[9] The national competition is governed by National Mock Trial Championship, Inc.^[10] and the Constitutional Rights Foundation.^[11]

College[link]

Inter-collegiate mock trial is governed by the American Mock Trial Association or AMTA.^[12] This organization was founded in 1985 by Dean Richard Calkins of Drake Law School and serves as a regulator of mock trial competition at the collegiate level. AMTA sponsors regional and national-level competitions, writes and distributes case packets and rules, and keeps a registry of mock trial competitors and alumni.^[13]

On the inter-collegiate circuit, a mock trial team consists of three attorneys and three witnesses on each side of the case (plaintiff/prosecution and defense). The attorneys are responsible for delivering an opening statement, conducting direct and cross examinations of witnesses and delivering closing arguments. Witnesses are selected in a sports draft format from a pool of approximately eight to 10 available witnesses prior to the round. Typical draft orders are DPDPDP, but may vary substantially between cases. Judges are usually attorneys or coaches, and in some occasions, practicing judges.

All collegiate mock trial cases take place in the fictional state of Midlands, America. Midlands is not geographically situated and falls under the protection of the United States Constitution.^[13]

Tournament competition[link]

A tournament consists of four rounds, two on each side of the case, scored by two to three judges in each round. The season runs in two parts, the invitational season and the regular season. Invitational tournaments are held throughout the fall semester and into early spring across the country. At invitationals, teams have the opportunity to test out particular case theories and improve as competitors before facing the challenge and pressure of regular season competition.

The regular season begins in late January, starting with regional tournaments. There are typically more than 600 teams spread across 24 regional tournaments. Each school is limited to two post-regional bids to the "Opening Round Championship Series." Though there were once direct bids from Regionals to the National Championship Tournament, these bids no longer exist. 192 teams advance to the Opening Round Championship, which is held at eight different tournament sites. The top teams at each Opening Round Championship Tournament qualify for a berth in the National Championship Tournament. There are 48 total bids to the final tournament.

For 22 years, the National Championship Tournament was held in Des Moines, Iowa, the city in which collegiate mock trial began. The tournament left Iowa for the first time in 2007 when Stetson University in St. Petersburg, Florida hosted the Championship. The 2008 National Championship Tournament was held in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Between 2009-2011, the Championship returned to Des Moines in odd-numbered years, while even-numbered years featured a different venue. The 2010 Championship was hosted by Rhodes College at courthouses in downtown Memphis, Tennessee, while the 2012 Championship was held in Minneapolis. Beginning in 2013, future Championships will be awarded solely on a competitive bidding process, although Des Moines, if it bids, will be given preference during "landmark" years, such as anniversaries of AMTA's founding in 1985. The 2013 Championship will be held in Washington, D.C. with the University of Virginia handling hosting duties. AMTA is soliciting bids for the 2014 Championship as of April 2012.

Past championship results[link]

In 2006, the University of Virginia beat Harvard University to win the National Championship.^[14] In what was the closest final round in AMTA history, the University of Virginia won the championship by a single point using a tiebreaker, after a three judge panel split with one judge choosing Virginia as the winner, one choosing Harvard, and one calling the round a draw. The University of Virginia's victory ended the then-recent run by UCLA, which had won the two previous national championships.

In 2007, the University of Virginia again defeated Harvard University. This marked the first ever re-match of a previous year's final round. Virginia again won via a split decision, winning two of the three ballots in the final round. Virginia also became the 4th school to repeat as champions, joining UCLA, the University of Iowa, and Rhodes College, which accomplished the feat twice. Harvard University became the second program to finish as runner up in consecutive years, joining the University of Maryland, College Park. Maryland, however, had the distinction of losing to themselves in one of those two defeats.

In 2008, the University of Maryland prevailed over the George Washington University in a split-ballot decision (2-1). This was Maryland's fifth title, giving them more total wins than any other university in AMTA history.

In 2009, Northwood University defeated George Washington University 5-0 to claim its first National Championship.

In 2010, New York University defeated Harvard University 3-1-1 to win its first National Championship. This was Harvard's third championship round appearance in the last five years following its consecutive losses to Virginia.

In 2011, UCLA defeated defending champion New York University 4-1 to claim the Bruins' third title, the third-most in the history of the American Mock Trial Association.

In 2012, Duke defeated Rutgers 2-1, in what was the first championship round appearance for both squads.

The following is the list of winners of the National Championship Tournament, as well as the runners-up:

• From 1992 until 2010, the "Maryland Rule" was in effect, which placed both teams from the same school in the same division in order to ensure there wouldn't be another championship round between two teams from the same school. The Maryland Rule was repealed before the 2010-11 season.

National Championship Round Participants

Forums and Social Media[link]

Beyond merely competitive interactions, collegiate mock trial has established a presence in cyberspace. Some mock trial teams have created forums for themselves on facebook.,^[15][16] and spoofs of characters from various cases have even made their way onto Facebook with their very own profiles.^[17][18] Furthermore, the American Mock Trial Association has a Twitter feed which provides updates on procedures and tournament results.^[19]

The most notable presence of collegiate mock trial on the internet is Perjuries [3], the national online mock trial community. On Perjuries, mock trial competitors, coaches, and alumni can create user accounts and post in a wide range of forums about mock trial and mock trial related issues. Here, participants can discuss everything from case strategy to incidents in competition that they found humorous. Furthermore, Perjuries provides a space for competitors to post tournament results and rank their competition. The cite is wildly popular boasting over 4,000 registered users, 1,000 discussions, and nearly 83,000 posts.^[20]

Law school[link]

In the United States, law schools participate in interscholastic mock trial/trial advocacy. Teams typically consist of several "attorneys" and several "witnesses" on each side. A round consists of two law students acting as "attorneys" for each side.

The trial typically, although not always, begins with motions in limine and housekeeping matters, then moves through opening statements, witness testimony (both direct examination and cross examination), and finishes with a closing argument, sometimes called a summation. Throughout the trial, rules of evidence apply, typically the Federal Rules of Evidence, and objections are made applying these rules.

Every team in a tournament is given the same "problem" or "case", typically several months in advance, but for some tournaments only a few weeks ahead of the tournament's start. The problems can be criminal or civil, which effects many procedural aspects of the trial, for instance the increased rights of a criminal defendant not to testify against himself. The cases are written in an attempt to create an equal chance of either side prevailing, since the main objective is not to identify the winner of the case, but rather the team with superior advocacy skills.

Occasionally the winners of mock trial tournaments receive special awards such as money or invitations to special events, but the status of winning a tournament is significant in and of itself.

Mock Trial Competitions*: Georgetown White Collar Crime Invitational Mock Trial Competition, American Association for Justice Student Trial Advocacy Competition (formerly ATLA) National Civil Trial Competition, Texas Young Lawyers Association/National Trial Competition Mock Trial Competition (NTC), Michigan State University National Trial Advocacy Competition (NTAC), California Association of Criminal Justice (CACJ) Mock Trial Competition, Capitol City Challenge, National Ethics Trial Competition at Pacific McGeorge School of Law, Lone Star Classic National Mock Trial Tournament

The following is the list of winners of the National Trial Competition (NTC):^[21]

In fiction[link]

• In an episode of the American television series The Fugitive, a once-famed attorney and current law professor named G. Stanley Lazer claims that he could reverse Richard Kimble's criminal conviction if the case went back to trial. To Kimble's chagrin, Lazer decides to prove his theory by conducting a mock trial with his students playing the prosecutor, defense lawyer, and jury in front of a live TV audience.
• In an episode of the American television show "Suits", Mike Ross, an employee of one of New York's top law firms, goes head-to-head with one of his co-workers in a mock trial.
• In the American television series Shark, the protagonist had a room on his house specially designed like a courtroom to make Mock trials before important cases. It was used in a couple of episodes.

See also[link]

• Kangaroo court
• Moot court

References[link]

External links[link]

• "Perjuries.com Mock Trial Forums" Online community forum discussing mock trial related topics.
• "International Online Mock Trial Competition" Mock Trial Online Competition hosted by practicing litigators.
• "Young Lawyers Division Statewide Mock Trial Competition" Pennsylvania Mock Trial. Pennsylvania Bar Association.
• "Florida High School Mock Trial." Florida Law Related Education. 2005. Florida Law Education Association, Inc. 4 Oct. 2006.
• "Mock Trial Competition." Constitutional Rights Foundation. 2006. Constitutional Rights Foundation. 4 Oct. 2006.
• "Mock Trials." Legal Explorer. 2006. State Bar of Wisconsin. 4 Oct. 2006.
• "Mock Trial Tournament." New York State Bar Association. 4 Oct. 2006. New York State Bar Association. 4 Oct. 2006.
• "Rules of the Competition." National High School Mock Trial Championship. 2006. National High School Mock Trial Championship, Inc. 4 Oct. 2006.
• "Tennessee State High School Mock Trial Competition." TBAlink. 2006. Tennessee Bar Association. 10 Oct. 2006.
• "Free Trial Advocacy Tips for Trial Lawyers" Winning Trial Advocacy Techniques blog
• "Massachusetts High School Mock Trial" Massachusetts Bar Association. 2007. Massachusetts Bar Association. 20 Feb 2007.
• "Ohio Mock Trial Ohio Mock Trial

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason has been specified. Please help improve this article if you can; the talk page may contain suggestions. (January 2012)

Drew Walter Peterson (born January 5, 1954) is a former Bolingbrook, Illinois, police sergeant who is suspected of killing his third and fourth wives.^[1] The story has received national media attention in the United States. Peterson has repeatedly denied involvement in both cases. On May 7, 2009, Peterson was indicted by a Will County, Illinois, grand jury and charged with the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Peterson currently resides in the Will County Adult Detention Center in Joliet, Illinois awaiting trial.^[2]

Early life and military service[link]

In 1972, Drew Peterson graduated from Willowbrook High School in Villa Park, Illinois, where he ran cross country. After high school graduation, Peterson joined the US Army. In 1974, he briefly attended the College of DuPage. Peterson later moved to Falls Church, Virginia, where he trained as a military police officer.^[3]

Law enforcement career[link]

Drew Peterson had a 30-year career as a police officer. He began working with the Bolingbrook Police Department in Illinois in 1977.^[4] In 1978, he was assigned to Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad, and in 1979, he received a "Police Officer of the Year" award from the department.^[3]

In 1985, Peterson was fired from the Bolingbrook Police Department after the village board of police and fire commissioners found him guilty of disobedience, conducting a self-assigned investigation, failure to report a bribe immediately, and official misconduct. He had been indicted two months earlier on charges of official misconduct and failure to report a bribe. Peterson was working under the auspices of the Metropolitan Area Narcotics Squad at the time. Indictments alleged he solicited drugs in exchange for information about his agency. The charges later were dropped. Special prosecutor Raymond Bolden said at the time the charges were not provable. Peterson won reinstatement with the department in March 1986. Judge Edwin Grabiec ruled police and fire commissioners lacked sufficient evidence to find Peterson guilty of the charges.^[3] Peterson was also accused of using excessive force for allegedly breaking the thumb of an arrestee in May 2007. The charges were later dismissed on the grounds that Peterson was not present during the arrest, nor on duty that day.^[5]

Marriages[link]

Carol Brown[link]

Peterson was married to his first wife, Carol (Hamilton) Brown, from 1974 to 1980. She divorced him after she learned about his infidelity.^[6] Peterson and Brown met in high school in Villa Park, Illinois, and together attended his senior prom.^[4][7]

Victoria Connolly[link]

Peterson married his second wife, Victoria (Rutkiewicz) Connolly, in 1982.^[7] Connolly has alleged a history of abuse during her 10-year marriage to Peterson,^[8] as has her daughter who lived in the household during this time, from the ages of 8 to 17. In 2007, Connolly stated that Peterson "was a legend in his own mind".^[7] She divorced him after Peterson started dating Kathleen Savio, who would later become his third wife.^[7] Their divorce was finalized on February 18, 1992, and Peterson married Savio two months later.^[3]

Kathleen Savio[link]

Peterson married Kathleen Savio (born June 13, 1963) on May 3, 1992.^[9] Their divorce was finalized on October 10, 2003.^[4] It was reported that between 2002 and 2004, police were called out to the Peterson house 18 times on domestic disturbance calls, including calls for returning children late after visitation.^[10] On March 1, 2004,^[11] Kathleen Savio's body was found in a waterless bathtub. Her death was initially ruled an accidental drowning by a coroner's jury that included a police officer who personally knew Peterson and assured the other jurors that Peterson was 'a good man who would never hurt his wife.'^[12]

However, following Stacy Peterson's disappearance, Savio's body was exhumed and underwent forensic examination on November 16, 2007.^[13] Dr. Michael Baden, a former New York City chief medical examiner who conducted the examination at the request of Savio's relatives and Fox News, concluded that she died of drowning following a struggle when her body was placed in the bathtub. The results of the official autopsy ordered by the county have yet to be released to the public.^[14] Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow told the press that after examining evidence in the case, he believed that the death was a "homicide staged to look like an accident."^[14][15] On February 21, 2008, Glasgow announced that a pathologist determined that Savio's death was a homicide,^[16] adding that the death had been investigated as such reopening the case following the exhumation.

Rev. Neil Schori, a pastor at Stacy Peterson's church, reported that Stacy had told him that Drew had killed Kathleen Savio and had made it look like an accident and that she was afraid of her husband.^[17] Stacy had provided Drew's alibi for his whereabouts on the evening on which Kathleen Savio died.

Stacy Ann Cales[link]

Peterson married Stacy Ann Cales (born January 20, 1984) on October 18, 2003.^[3] She disappeared on October 28, 2007. Stacy Peterson was officially reported missing in the early hours of October 29, 2007, after her sister, Cassandra Cales, failed to hear from her when expected. Drew Peterson claims that Stacy called him at 9 p.m. on Sunday to tell him that she had left him for another man and that she had left her car at Bolingbrook's Clow International Airport.

The last recorded words from Stacy Peterson were left on a voicemail on her father's answering machine on October 17 at 12:37 p.m., 11 days before she disappeared. The message said, "Hey dad! It's me, Stacy, I just wanted to call you and tell you I love you. I also wanted to give you my new phone number. Okay, love you."^[18][19][20]

Legal trouble[link]

2007 disappearance of Stacy Ann Cales[link]

Several leads have been followed in the investigation by Illinois State Police with FBI involvement. Four search warrants have been issued and carried on Drew Peterson's property following Stacy's disappearance, including seizure of his vehicle and Stacy's vehicle, and Drew's firearms.

Following his fourth wife Stacy's mysterious October 28, 2007, disappearance, Peterson announced his plans to retire as a Bolingbrook police sergeant as of December 2007. On November 15, 2007, the Bolingbrook Police Pension Board voted to allow Peterson to collect his pension of $6,067.71 per month,^[21] stating current law gave them no option, as Peterson had not been convicted of a crime.^[8]

Rick Mims, Peterson's long-time friend, has admitted that Drew Peterson and Mims bought three blue containers from a cable company, where they both worked part-time in 2003, and has provided photos of the containers to police. Mims had also sold his story to the tabloids for an undisclosed sum of money. Peterson's stepbrother, Thomas Morphey, who has a history of drug and alcohol addiction, attempted suicide two days after allegedly helping Drew carry a large blue plastic container from Peterson's Bolingbrook home to his sport utility vehicle, fearing he may have helped dispose of the body of Stacy Peterson. Neighbors reported seeing Peterson and another man hauling a 55-gallon barrel, large enough to hold a person, out of the house shortly after Stacy's disappearance. Cassandra Cales, Stacy's sister, said she wanted Drew Peterson to take a lie detector test about his knowledge of a blue barrel or container that she said she saw in their garage two days before Stacy disappeared. Joel Brodsky, Peterson's attorney, has denied any container is missing from the home. There were also reports of truckers referring to the containers, but their stories were treated as not credible, after it was found they were not in the Bolingbrook area at the times they claimed.^{[17][22][23][24][25][26]}

[edit] April 2008 appearance on Larry King Live

Drew Peterson appeared on Larry King Live on April 11, 2008. His lawyer was present as an adviser regarding which questions Peterson should answer.^[27] The interview reran on May 9, 2009, two days after Peterson's arrest. Peterson also has made guest appearances (including one from county jail) on radio station WLS with Mancow Muller.^[28] After the appearance on WLS, Will County Judge Stephen White severely limited Peterson's access to the media.

2008 engagement to Christina Raines[link]

In December 2008, Drew Peterson's publicist Glenn Selig confirmed that Peterson was engaged to a 23-year-old, Christina Raines; she would be his fifth wife.^[29] On January 30, 2009, it was made public that Raines had moved out of Peterson's house. Her father, Ernie Raines, had issued an ultimatum, having her choose between him or Peterson. Raines had issued the ultimatum to his daughter because he didn't like the way Peterson began to control Christina; he was also scared that she would disappear as Stacy had.^[30] Raines moved out of Peterson's home "when she came to her senses", calling the engagement a publicity stunt designed to keep Peterson in the media spotlight.^[31] Then, in February 2009, Christina Raines and Peterson appeared on NBC's Today Show, confirming that she had moved back in with Peterson. Though his divorce from his fourth wife Stacy is not yet final, Peterson said he hopes to marry "as soon as possible". Christina Raines said her father made it clear he would not attend their wedding; she also admitted none of her friends or family support the relationship. When asked by NBC's Amy Robach if they would like to have more children, Peterson responded, "We have enough, we have 8 between us" (apparently including in the count his adult children, as there are only 6 children living in the home: the two he had with Kathleen Savio, the two he had with Stacy, and Christina's own two). Christina Raines replied, in a question-like tone, "Maybe one more?" When asked why she is with Peterson, Raines said, "I love him, he makes me laugh", and claimed to have no concern for her safety.

2009 indictment over Savio murder[link]

On May 7, 2009, Peterson was indicted^[2] by the Will County Grand Jury and arrested for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.^[20] Bail was set at $20 million.^[20][32]

In October 2009, Peterson sued JP Morgan Chase for revoking a home equity credit line that he wanted to use to pay legal expenses. His income of "nearly $109,000 per year" was not sufficient.^[33] In July 2010, Judge Stephen White ruled that Peterson would remain in the Will County Jail for the remainder of his trial and appeals process.^[34] Prosecutors argued he could pose a danger if released.

On July 21, 2010, it was revealed that hearsay statements indicating Drew Peterson killed two of his wives are not reliable enough for a jury to hear at his trial. After presiding over a lengthy hearsay hearing, Judge Stephen White issued a four-page sealed ruling in May obtained by the Daily Herald. White ruled that prosecutors proved Peterson killed both Kathleen Savio and Stacy Peterson "by a preponderance of the evidence," but nearly all statements attributed to Stacy Peterson "do not provide sufficient safeguards of reliability." (The standard of proof in homicide cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt"; "preponderance of the evidence" is the standard for fact-finding on questions of admissibility of evidence, even in a criminal case.) Stacy Peterson's statements are crucial to the prosecution's case, since it lacks other evidence.^[35]

In April of 2012, a controversial ruling was made in the murder case of Kathleen Savio^[36]. An Illinois appellate court ruled that prosecutors could use eight statements made by both the victim prior to her death and by Peterson's still-missing fourth wife Stacy prior her disappearance. The ruling reversed another judge's earlier decision that had prohibited the state from using the information at trial. Drew Peterson's defense had contended that introduction of these alleged hearsay comments would constitute a violation of the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to confront those witnesses testifying against him.

While several exceptions do exist to counteract such a defense, a new Illinois law coined "Drew's Law" allows prosecutors to stretch beyond these limitations. Passed while investigators were looking for Stacy Peterson, the legislation permits courts to consider statements from "unavailable witnesses," provided that prosecutors are able to prove the witness was killed to prevent his or her testimony.

Lifetime television movie[link]

In June 2011, Lifetime television began filming Drew Peterson: Untouchable, depicting the events surrounding the death of Kathleen Savio and the disappearance of Stacy Peterson. Rob Lowe portrays Drew Peterson in the film, and Kaley Cuoco (The Big Bang Theory) portrays Stacy Peterson. Peterson has filed a cease-and-desist letter demanding that production on the movie be halted.^[37] The film aired on January 21, 2012, and re-aired on May 23, 2012.^[38]

References[link]

External links[link]

	Chicago portal
	Illinois portal
	Biography portal

• Indictment (Illinois v. Peterson)
• Dateline NBC's interview with Drew Peterson
• Drew Peterson featured on America's Most Wanted
• Savio v. Peterson Complaint
• Will County Sheriff's Office Information for Drew Peterson