NO. 3:13-0157 _______________________________________________________________________ _ IN THE APPELLATE COURT OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,) Appeal from the Circuit Court Plaintiff-Appellee, ) of the 12th Judicial Circuit ) Will County, Illinois ) v. ) Indictment No.: 09 CF 1048 ) ) DREW PETERSON, ) Honorable Edward Burmilla, Jr. Defendant-Appellant. ) Judge Presiding ) BRIEF AND ARGUMENT FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT Counsel for Defendant-Appellant: STEVEN A. GREENBERG HAROLD J. KRENT STEVEN A. GREENBERG AND ASSOC., LTD. CHICAGO-KENT COLLEGE OF LAW 53 W. JACKSON BOULEVARD, SUITE 1260 565 WEST ADAMS STREET CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60604 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60035 (312) 879-9500 Of Counsel: JOHN W. HEIDERSCHEIDT ANDREW S. GABLE 703 SOUTH DEARBORN STREET 330 S. WELLS STREET, SUITE 400F CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60605 CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606 ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED TABLE OF CONTENTS POINTS AND AUTHORITIES …………………………………………..……….i-iv NATURE OF THE CASE ………………………………………………………....1 JURISDICTION ………………………………………………………….……..…1 STATEMENT OF FACTS …………………………………………….………….1-12 ARGUMENT I. DREW WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL WHEN ATTORNEY HARRY SMITH TESTIFIED ABOUT A PRIVILEGED CONVERSATION WITH STACY THAT HAD BEEN RULED INADMISSIBLE, AND WAS HEARSAY OPINION INSINUATING DREW WAS GUILTY OF MURDER. …………………………………………………………………………………13 II. DREW’S PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY, BY SIGNING A MEDIA RIGHTS CONTRACT WHEN RETAINED, CREATED A PER SE CONFLICT. …………………………………………………………………………..……21 III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN ADMITTING PASTOR SCHORI’S TESTIMONY, BOTH AT THE FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING HEARING AND AT TRIAL, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CLERGY PRIVILEGE DOCTRINE. ……………………………………………………………………………..…26 IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE, VIA THE FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING DOCTRINE, HEARSAY STATEMENTS THAT THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY FOUND UNRELIABLE. ……………………………………………………………………………….34 V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING JEFFREY PACHTER’S TESTIMONY BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE OF THE TESTIMONY UNDER RULE 404(b), WHICH WAS PREJUDICIAL PROPENSITY EVIDENCE. ………………………………………………………………………………..45 VI. DREW WAS NOT PROVED GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ………………………………………………………………………………..48 VII. THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS DENIED DEFENDANT HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND CAST DOUBT UPON THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCEEDING. ……………………………………………………………….………….……..52 CONCLUSION ……………………………………………………………………..54 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE ……………………………………………55 APPENDIX (Under Separate Cover) POINTS AND AUTHORITIES I. DREW WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL WHEN ATTORNEY HARRY SMITH TESTIFIED ABOUT A PRIVILEGED CONVERSATION WITH STACY THAT HAD BEEN RULED INADMISSIBLE, AND WAS HEARSAY OPINION INSINUATING DREW WAS GUILTY OF MURDER. A. Attorney Smith never should have testified since, as the trial court held, the discussion was protected by attorney-client privilege. Exline v. Exline, 277 Ill. App. 3d 10 (2nd Dist. 1995)…………………….……… 13 People v. Cochran, 313 Ill. 508, 526 (1924)……………………………..…….… 14 United States v. Young, 470 U.S. 1 (1985)…………………………………..…… 14 People v. Taylor, 244 Ill.App.3d 806, 819, 612 N.E.2d 943, 952 (1993) …..…14 Glasser v. United States, 315 U.S. 60, 71, 62 S. Ct. 457, 465, 86 L. Ed. 680 (1942) ………………………………………………………………………………………… 15 Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 179 (1987)……………………………15 B. Drew received ineffective representation when counsel, for no understandable purpose, called Attorney Smith as a witness so that he could tell the jury that Stacy had information about how Drew killed Kathleen, that Drew thought Stacy was telling people he killed Kathleen, and that Drew was a dirty cop. People v. Jackson, 318 Ill.App.3d 321, 741 N.E.2d 1026 (1st Dist., 2000). …… 16 People v. Orta, 361 Ill.App.3d 342, 343, 836 N.E.2d 811, 813 .(1st Dist. 2005)……………… …………………………………………………..……..16 Vissser v. Packer Eng’g Assocs. Inc., 924 F. 2d 655,659 (7th Cir. 1991)….....…18 United States v. Santos, 201 F. 3d 953, 963 (7th Cir. 2000)……………………….18 McMann v. Richardson, 397 U.S. 759, 771 (1970)………………………………..…18 Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 687 (1984)…………………………………18 People v. Albanese, 104 Ill.2d 504, 525–26, 473 N.E.2d 1246, 1255–56 (1984)…18 People v. Fletcher, 335 Ill.App.3d 447, 453, 780 N.E.2d 365, 370 (5th Dist. 2002)…………………………………………………………………………19 People v. Lefler, 294 Ill.App.3d 305, 311, 689 N.E.2d 1209, 1214 (1998)…...…19 People v. Salgado, 200 Ill.App.3d 550, 553, 558 N.E. 2d 271, 274 (1990).…19 People v. Baines, 399 Ill.App.3d 881 (2010)………………………………………....19 People v. Phillips, 227 Ill.App.3d 581, 590, 592 N.E.2d 233, 239 (1st Dist. 1992) ……………………………………………………………………...…20 People v. Moore, 356 Ill.App.3d 117, 127, 824 N.E.2d 1162, 1170–71 (1st Dist. 2005)……………………………………………………………………..…...20 People v. Rosemond, 339 Ill. App.3d 51, 65-66, 790 N.E. 2d 416, 428 (1st Dist. 2003)…………………………………………………………………………20 People v. Bailey, 374 Ill.App.3d 608, 614-15 (1st Dist. 2007)……………….….20 4 II. DREW’S PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY, BY SIGNING A MEDIA RIGHTS CONTRACT WHEN RETAINED, CREATED A PER SE CONFLICT. People v. Hernandez, 231 Ill. 2d 134, 144 (Ill. 2008)……………………..…….…21 Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 344-345 (1963)……………………….….…21 Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct Rules 1.7 and 1.8 (2010)……………..…23 Illinois v. Austin M., 2012 IL 111194 ¶ 81………………………………………….23 People v. Daly, 341 Ill.App.3d 372, 376, 792 N.E.2d 446 (4th Dist. 2003)….…23 Taylor, 237 Ill.2d at 374–75, 930 N.E.2d 959…………………………………..…24 People v. Gacy, 125 Ill.2d 117, 135 (Ill. 1988)………………………………….…24 People v. Stoval, 40 Ill 2d 109 (1968)………………………………………………25 Rules 1.8(b) and 8.4(a)(1) of the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct………25 People v. Coslet, 67 Ill. 2d 127 (Ill. 1977)…………………………………..…….25 III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN ADMITTING PASTOR SCHORI’S TESTIMONY, BOTH AT THE FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING HEARING AND AT TRIAL, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CLERGY PRIVILEGE DOCTRINE. People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365, 369, 721 N.E.2d 539, 542 (1999)………..26 A. There is no requirement that the counseling be in a private place 735 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/8-803 (West) ……………………………………….27 People v. Campobello, 348 Ill. App. 3d 619, 636 (3rd Dist. 2004)………..…27 Snyder v. Poplett, 98 Ill.App.3d 359, 362 (1981)…………………………..…27 People v. Diercks, 88 Ill.App.3d 1073 (Ill App. 1980)………….…………….29 State v. Orfi, 511 N.W.2d 464 (Minn. Ct. App. 1994)…………..…………….29 Washington v. Martin, 959 P.2d 152 (Wash. App. 1998)…………..………..30 Schwartz v. Wenger, 124 N.W.2d 489, 492 (1963) …………………………..30 Giraldo v. Drummond Co., 2012 U.S, Dist LEXIS 53759 (N.D. Ala.)…..…30 People v. Murphy, 241 Ill. App. 3d 918, 924, 609 N.E.2d 755, 760 (1992)…31 B. The scope of the clergy privilege includes marital counseling Oregon v. Cox, 742 P. 2d 694 (Ore. 1987)………………………………….…..32 Ohio v. Mason, 2011 Ohio App. LEXIS 2767 (June 30, 2011)………….……32 In re Grand Jury Investigation, 918 F.2d 374 (3d Cir. 1990)……………..…32 5 IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE, VIA THE FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING DOCTRINE, HEARSAY STATEMENTS THAT THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY FOUND UNRELIABLE. People v. Hanson, 238 Ill.2d 74, 97-99 (2010)………………………………….…34 725 ILCS 5/115-10.6 (b)………………………………………………………..…….34 In re D.T. 212 Ill.2d 347, 356 (2004)………………………………………………..34 People v. Williams, 188 Ill. 2d 365, 369 (1999)……………………………………34 Giles v. California, 554 U.S. 353, 360 (2008)……………………………………..34 A. The prosecution did not prove by a preponderance of evidence that Drew Peterson killed Kathleen Savio with the intent of making her unavailable as a witness for a legal proceeding. In re Marriage of Davies, 95 Ill.2d 474, 481 (1983)…………………..………35 In re Marriage of Black, 155 Ill.App.3d 52, 54 (3rd Dist.1987)………………35 Jensen v. Schwochert, No. 11-C-803 (Dec. 18, 2013)……………………..…..37 United States v. Lentz, 282 F. Supp. 2d 399 (E.D. Va 2002)……………..…..38 Wisconsin v. Jensen, 794 N.W.2d 482, 493 (Wisc. 2010)……………….……39 B. The prosecution did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Drew Peterson killed Stacy Peterson with the intent of making her unavailable as a witness for a legal proceeding. 1. There was insufficient evidence that defendant was responsible for Stacy Peterson’s disappearance. 2. Intent to prevent testimony at a future proceeding. In re Rolandis G., 232 Ill.2d 13, 43 (2008)…………………………..……40 C. Even if the common law forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine applies, the due process clause operates as an independent check on admission of hearsay statements. Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000)………………………..……….43 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 353 (1990)………………..…….…43 Tome v. United States, 513 U.S. 150 (1995)………………………………..…43 6 V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING JEFFREY PACHTER’S TESTIMONY BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE OF THE TESTIMONY UNDER RULE 404(b), WHICH WAS PREJUDICIAL PROPENSITY EVIDENCE. People v. Ward, 952 N.E.2d 601, 605-06 (2011)…………………………...…45 United States v. Prevatte, 16 F.3d 767, 774 (7th Cir. 1994)…………………45 People v. Mason, 219 Ill.App.3d 76, 80 (4th Dist. 1991)………………………45 Ill. R. Evid. 44(b)………………………………………………………….…..……..45 Ill. R. Evid. 404(c)………………………………………..………………….………45 People v. Dabbs, 239 Ill.2d 277, 295 (2010)…………………………….………45 United States v. Blount, 502 F.3d 674, 677 (7th Cir. 2007)………………..…46 United States v. Carrasco, 381 F.3d 1237, C.A.11 (Fla.) 2004 …………...…46 United States v. Skoczen, 405 F.3d 537, 548 (7th Cir. Ill. 2005)………………47 VI. DREW WAS NOT PROVED GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT People v. Smith, 185 Ill.2d 532, 542 – 543 (Ill. 1999) ……………………..….49 People v. Rivera, 962 N.E.2d 53, 65 (Ill. App. 2., 2011)…………………..….49 People v. Daheya, 2013 WL 5972978, (Ill. App. 1st Dist., 2013) ………...…49 People v.