4:50 p.m. Glasgow defends integrity
An angry Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow stopped briefly to speak with the media outside the courthouse as he and his assistants made their way back to their offices across the street.
"My office always stands ready to protect the integrity of the process in every case that we try," he said. "We stand ready to appear in court tomorrow morning to receive the judge's desicion and proceed with this trial."
4 p.m. 'Avalanche of prejudicial evidence'
In arguing for a mistrial, defense attorney Joel Brodsky said the trial has been filled with “an avalanche of prejudicial, illegal evidence” and the case should be thrown out.
Brodsky asked that the judge declare a mistrial with prejudice, which would mean Peterson could be freed and could not be tried again. Prosecutors vehemently argued against the move.
Judge Edward Burmila said he was surprised that Peterson only wanted a mistrial if he is freed and not retried.
Prosecutors apologized to the judge for the error, but said it could be remedied by telling jurors to disregard mention of an order of protection.
3:50 p.m. No mistrial ruling today
Judge Edward Burmila says he will take mistrial motion under advisement and issue a ruling Wednesday morning.2:55 p.m. Mistrial options
A judge has several options for declaring a mistrial. The case could be tossed completely, what is called mistrial with prejudice, or a mistrial without prejudice could be declared, which would allow the state to retry the defendant with a new jury, experts said. Throwing the case out completely is extremely rare, experts have said.
2:25 p.m. Another motion for mistrial
For the third time in as many weeks, the judge is considering mistrial in the Drew Peterson murder case. He has given prosecutors until 3 p.m. to come up with an appropriate response for their latest mishap.
The judge had ordered prosecutors not to make any mention of an order of protection during questioning of former Bolingbrook police officer Teresa Kernc because it’s too prejudicial to the jury and because Kathleen Savio did not obtain an order of protection against Peterson at that time. Kernc was testifying about interviewing Savio after an alleged threat made against her by Peterson in 2002.
Just minutes into her questions, assistant state’s attorney Kathleen Patton asked Kernc if she suggested getting an order of protection to Savio. The question prompted an objection from the defense, and after the jury was escorted out of the courtroom, a strong rebuke from Judge Edward Burmila.
Burmila seemed incredulous, at times laughing in apparent frustration, after the misstep.