Peterson attorneys argue motions

<span>As the Nov. 16 Drew Peterson trial date slowly approaches, attorneys on both sides of the murder-for-hire case argued pretrial motions on Tuesday during a hearing at the Randolph County Courthouse.</span>

<span>Peterson, 61, is alleged to have attempted to orchestrate the killing of Will County State's Attorney Jim Glasgow from behind the walls of Menard Correctional Center in Chester.</span>

<span>Glasgow prosecuted Peterson's 2004 murder conviction of third wife Kathleen Savio, for which the former Bolingbrook Police sergeant is currently serving a 38-year prison term.</span>

<span>The court was closed to the public and the media for more than an hour as counsel for the defense and prosecution argued over "A people's motion to admit relevant evidence of Peterson's conduct and other acts evidence."</span>

<span>Circuit Judge Richard A. Brown granted defense attorney Lucas Liefer's request to close the court as the publication of the subject matter could affect potential jurors.</span>

<span>In open court, Brown heard arguments on several motions, including a defense motion to suppress evidence as it relates to eavesdropping.</span>

<span>Previously, the State had filed a notice for the use of an eavesdropping device for a period of time between October 20, 2014 and November 23, 2014.</span>

<span>On November 20, an extension was approved to use the device until December 22.</span>

<span>The recordings contain conversations between Peterson and "Individual A" that allegedly involve Peterson asking that individual to find someone to kill Glasgow in exchange for money.</span>

<span>Illinois Senior Assistant Attorney General Bill Elward - who is assisting Randolph County State's Attorney Jeremy Walker with prosecution of the case along with Assistant Attorney General Steve Nate - said during the hearing that there are "extensive mentions" of Glasgow in the recordings that contain "animosity" regarding why Peterson hates Glasgow and wants to have him killed.</span>

<span>"The defendant makes numerous statements that he wants Jim Glasgow killed," Nate told Brown. "Those are his words. There's no going around those words."</span>

<span>Nate brought up an alleged defense argument that Peterson was "joking" and "not serious" during those conversations, and was being "entrapped."</span>

<span>"That's not our defense, I never said that," Liefer said in his counterargument to the joking allegation, adding that he didn't know if "joking" was a legitimate defense.</span>

<span>Nate stated that Peterson had previously offered someone $25,000 in 2003 to kill Savio and had previously threatened the life of his second wife, Victoria Connolly.</span>

<span>"That may have happened in Will County, but they haven't proven in this county that Drew Peterson hired someone to kill his third wife," Liefer said.</span>

<span>Liefer said there was no reasonable cause for an eavesdropping device to be used as there were no affidavits (written, sworn statements that can be used as evidence in court) attached to the application.</span>

<span>"The informant never swore to anything while he was feeding this information to two state's attorney administrators," he said.</span>

<span>Walker argued that the informant said Peterson had written a letter to him specifying what he wanted done.</span>

<span>The informant can't produce the letter, but Walker said there are police statements in which the informant identifies the contents of the letter.</span>

<span>"Someone in Menard may be wanting a big audience and whether or not he wants it, Mr. Peterson can provide that audience," said Liefer, who added that there was "nothing but hearsay" in the application.</span>

<span>The two attorneys later argued reasonable suspicion versus probable cause.</span>

<span>"You can't look at this as a warrant situation," Walker said. "This is not a warrant situation. We're not kicking down someone's door."</span>

<span>Brown asked both counsels to submit a "checklist" of issues, stating that he had made some notes during the nearly two-and-a-half hour hearing on what he has to rule on.</span>

<span>"I just want to make sure I cover each one of these trial issues," he said. "I'll read all of this and think about it and give a written order.</span>

<span>"If I miss something, let me know."</span>

<span>The parties will be back in court on Sept. 29 at 9 a.m. to discuss one, possibly two more motions yet to be filed by the defense. If needed, a date of Oct. 2 was set aside as well.</span>