After Thursday's surprising verdict in the Drew Peterson murder case, Peterson's lawyers remain adamant that they will appeal the guilty verdict, maybe even take it to the nation's apex court, the Supreme Court.
On Thursday, after 13 hours of deliberation a jury of 12 found former police officer Drew Peterson guilty of murdering his third wife Kathleen Savio in 2004.
The case is one of its kind for the Illinois justice system, as it is the first case allowed to continue purely on hearsay or "Drew's Law," a term coined as a result of the Peterson case. In fact it was for this very reason that the case faced chances of a mistrial, not once, but three times. The first two times was because defense attorney Joel Brodsky called for the case to be dismissed on grounds of mistakes committed by prosecutors. The third time it was the defense that withdrew their petition for a mistrial before the judge could rule.
After closing arguments on Tuesday Peterson's attorney Joel Brodsky told the Associated Press, "He's emotionally and mentally prepared for whatever happens."
Now Peterson awaits his sentencing, which will take place on November 26. He could face a maximum sentence of 60 years.
But Peterson's legal team is determined to file for an appeal. According to Brodsky, the fact that the jury based their decision on secondary hearsay evidence gives them enough leverage to appeal the decision.
"He is absolutely innocent," Brodsky insists, "Believe me, there's several world-class appellate lawyers just waiting to get their teeth into this," as reported by CNN News.
Brodsky says that since the verdict was "based almost entirely on hearsay," they have a fair chance in proving the evidence unconstitutional and said that they will fight the case till the Supreme Court.
"You know what they say, a conviction is a first step in a successful appeal," said Brodsky to CNN.
Even in closing arguments, the defense reiterated its fundamental argument throughout the case, which was that prosecutors were basing their accusations on hearsay evidence. Defense attorney, Brodsky has constantly argued that prosecutors only possess hearsay evidence and lack any physical evidence to incriminate Peterson.
Peterson's lawyer told ABC's Good Morning America, "We have always said, and this has never changed: They simply don't have any evidence. They have conjecture, rumor, speculation, hearsay, but they don't have any evidence. Even a predisposition jury is going to want to hear evidence, and they don't have any."
Evidently, the jury disagreed finding the various testimonies from a number of witnesses sufficient enough to convict Peterson of murder. The testimonies included Savio's sister and brother in-laws, another witness who said that Savio told her that Peterson once held a knife to her throat and threatened to murder her, another witness, who claimed to be the ex-lover of Peterson, testified in favor of prosecution telling the court that she was sure Peterson killed Savio. Probably, one of the most significant testimonies was by one of Peterson's co-workers, who testified that Peterson offered him $20,000 to kill Savio.
Peterson will receive his sentencing on November 26, he could be charged with a maximum of 60 years in prison.
Prosecutors are talking about trying Peterson for the disappearance of his third wife Stacy Peterson in 2007.
