Drew Peterson defense argues wiretaps should be tossed By Stacy St. Clair Chicago Tribune
August 27, 2015, 10:44 AM
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-d ... story.html(excerpts)
Several irregularities surrounding wiretaps in Drew Peterson's murder-for-hire case — including a key eavesdropping consent form listing the wrong defendant's name — could put the recordings in jeopardy, according to newly filed court documents from Peterson's attorney.
In a motion filed this week, Peterson's attorney alleged that prosecutors made mistakes in how they got the recordings and questioned why a Will County judge met with a jailhouse informant nearly three weeks before authorities asked him for permission to record conversations between the informant and Peterson. The filing also claims that the investigation was tainted by a conflict of interest because of the involvement of prosecutors who work for Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow, the target of the alleged plot.
Peterson's attorney argues that the unusual circumstances surrounding the wiretaps, when taken in their totality, should render the recordings inadmissible at trial.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The nine-page defense motion suggests Will County prosecutors played a significant role in the solicitation investigation from its early stages as they interviewed witnesses, made prison visits and sought the legal documents needed to secretly record Peterson. Glasgow's participation was not mentioned when Peterson was charged.
The defense argues that Glasgow's office should have asked a special prosecutor to oversee the investigation because it had a conflict of interest. Legal experts said that neither Glasgow nor anyone who works for him should have been involved in the investigation.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
The defense motion includes an allegation that the informant never signed the necessary consent form to record conversations between himself and Peterson. Instead, the consent form
authorizes eavesdropping on conversations between Peterson and a man named Stephen Nardi, the filing states.
Nardi, a former Grant Park police lieutenant, was charged last year in Will County with criminal sexual assault. He has been out on bond since August 2014, records show, and has never been imprisoned. His attorney, Eugene Fimbianti, said Wednesday that his client was not involved in the Peterson case. He said he assumed a clerical error led to Nardi's name appearing on the consent form.
Peterson's motion also alleged that a Will County judge interviewed the informant in the case nearly three weeks before authorities asked him for permission to record conversations between Peterson and the fellow inmate.
Will County Chief Judge Richard Schoenstedt met with the informant on Oct. 3, 2014, at Stateville Correctional Center near Joliet, according to the filing. Schoenstedt authorized the eavesdropping application on Oct. 23 and then extended the court order on Nov. 20. The defense argues that the judge took on an investigative role when he interviewed the informant and, because of that, could not maintain the necessary neutrality in the case.
_______________________
For the full article click on the link.
The part of the article I put in red is not correct. From the actual motion and another article I had read the defense says that the Consent form authorizes eavesdropping on conversations between informant A and the suspect Stephen Nardi.
Here is a link to the motion that was with the article:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-drew-p ... story.html