Agreed. He was and is a dirtbag, but I was surprised his conviction was not overturned, based upon your point. He should have been granted a new trial IMO.
I was surprised that the revision to the Illinois Hearsay rule used to convict Peterson was not declared unconstitutional (at least in his case) i.e. " ... No ex post fact law shall be passed."
I was very surprised that the hearsay testimony was allowed. Not that I didn't think Drew did it. I just thought the courts wouldn't allow it.
Agreed. He was and is a dirtbag, but I was surprised his conviction was not overturned, based upon your point. He should have been granted a new trial IMO.
I was surprised that the revision to the Illinois Hearsay rule used to convict Peterson was not declared unconstitutional (at least in his case) i.e. " ... No ex post fact law shall be passed."