rainbow6867的部落格

(CNN) -- Stacy Peterson disappeared five years ago, but the suspicions and fears she harbored about her husband haunted his murder trial and proved crucial in his conviction.

Her words came to life through two crucial witnesses who conveyed Stacy's remarks to jurors. That's hearsay evidence, or what one person tells another outside a courtroom setting.

The allowance of that evidence could possibly form the basis of an appeal by attorneys for former suburban Chicago police sergeant Drew Peterson, 56, who was found guilty Thursday of the 2004 killing of ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

Stacy Peterson's words and her husband's conviction could also mean that he could face a new murder trial -- this time for the death of Stacy herself.

"Stacy, you are now next for justice," said Savio's brother Nick Savio, after the verdict was read.

Savio was Peterson's third wife; Stacy, his fourth.

Stacy disappeared in October 2007 but her body has never been found.

Before Drew Peterson can be charged again, prosecutors would have to prove that Stacy is dead and then, that she was murdered.

"The longer someone is gone, the easier it is to prove they haven't just run away and that they are deceased," said prosecutor James Glasgow.

"October 28, 2007, is in our rear view mirror now," he told reporters. "We are going to look at that case and assess it as it stands today, and if we feel confident in going forward, we will be doing so."

Drew Peterson once fueled outrage in the media with his flippant attitude. He sat stone-faced in court as the verdict was read and returned to his jail cell as a murderer with little public sympathy.

His case, however, could live on in the court system for years.

"You know what they say, a conviction is a first step in a successful appeal," said Joel Brodsky, Peterson's lawyer.

"Believe me, there's several world-class appellate lawyers just waiting to get their teeth into this."

An appeal could be based on a number of issues, including potential prosecutorial misconduct.

But at the heart of the Peterson trial controversy is the court's allowance of Stacy Peterson's disturbing comments.

Jurors heard what she had said through the testimony of two key witnesses, Rev. Neil Schori, Stacy Peterson's pastor, and Harry Smith, Savio's divorce lawyer.

Schori testified that Stacy told him her husband had killed Savio and then coached her to lie to police about it. Smith said Stacy called him and asked if "the fact that he killed Kathy could be used against him."

Stacy Peterson disappeared days after that conversation with Smith.

Her statements would be struck down in most courts of law -- in 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that hearsay violates a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront a witness testifying against him or her.

But Illinois passed a law in 2008 that allows such hearsay evidence in rare instances when prosecutors believe a person was killed to prevent his or her testimony.

The law quickly became known as "Drew's law."

Defense attorneys argued it was unconstitutional. They said it unfairly targeted Drew Peterson because it was passed after the case had already made national headlines.

"He is absolutely innocent," Brodsky said of Peterson after Thursday's verdict, and said his client was convicted "based almost entirely on hearsay."

Kelly Saindon, a former prosecutor in Chicago who attended parts of the Peterson trial, said the hearsay evidence was key.

"That was exactly the turning point when the prosecution hit their stride," she told HLN. "Stacy's voice came in and everyone knew she was gone and that Drew Peterson was a murderer.

"You could see it on the jury's face," she said.

Savio was found dead in her dry, clean bathtub on March 1, 2004.

Drew Peterson's lawyers said her death was accidental -- that she fell, hit her head and drowned.

Savio's killing did not garner much publicity until Stacy Peterson disappeared and investigators began looking again into the circumstances. They exhumed her body and determined she was murdered.

Drew Peterson was later arrested and charged in May 2009 with first-degree murder.

Jurors never saw any physical evidence connecting Peterson to Savio's death. Nor was there testimony placing him at the crime scene. But they heard what Stacy said.

The jury of seven men and five women deliberated for nearly 14 hours before reaching their verdict.

When the panel adjourned for the night Wednesday, the jury was 11-1 in favor of a guilty verdict, juror Ron Supalo told reporters. He was the holdout and said it was Schori and Smith's testimony about what Stacy had said that finally swayed him.

"The hearsay evidence was big," he told CNN affiliate WLS-TV. "It seemed all the evidence was pointing toward the defendant being guilty."

Schori said he was "hugely honored to be able to give Stacy a voice."

"The jury did the right thing," he said. "And justice is coming for Stacy's family, too. It's going to happen."

Peterson was married to Savio in 2001 when he had an affair with then-17-year-old Stacy Cales, who eventually became his fourth wife.

Savio and Peterson filed for divorce in October 2001 and when Savio died, a court was deciding how common property would be divided. Savio was expected to receive part of Peterson's pension and other support.

Peterson is set to be sentenced in late November.

Illinois no longer has the death penalty. Peterson faces a maximum of 60 years in prison.