On Friday, the 12 jurors who convicted Drew Peterson of first-degree murder of his third wife Kathleen Savio held a news conference in Joliet, Illinois.
The jury's decision has stirred quite an sensation since it was the first time in the state's history that an individual was convicted of murder purely based on indirect knowledge of witnesses i.e. hearsay evidence.
One juror, Ron Supalo told Fox News that he has uneasy about the decision the remaining 11 jurors had concluded. In the end, he agreed with the remaining team and voted the 58-year-old former police officer to be guilty.
Supalo told Fox News, "We (the jurors) weren't the U.S. Supreme Court," he said. "Right or wrong, this was the hearsay law, and we had to use it in this case."
Peterson could be facing up to 60 years in prison, since Illinois does not have the death penalty. Peterson will face his sentencing on November 26.
Joel Brodsky and the rest of the Peterson team plan on filing for an appeal.
The verdict was 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."
In closing arguments of the five-week trial, 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.
Now he will be taking the same argument to the appellate court. One of the Peterson lawyers said that they were willing to the case right up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
