Pantagraph.com Weather forecast, local radar and more
NewsTuesday, November 6, 2007 5:53 PM CST
Comments Comments (18) | E-mail this page E-mail this page | Print this page Print this page | Enlarge type Enlarge type | Reduce type Reduce type | Search archives Search archives | RSS RSS feeds | Add to My Yahoo! Add to My Yahoo!
Pelo attorney wants special prosecutor, charge dropped
By Edith Brady-Lunny
eblunny@pantagraph.com
Advertisement

BLOOMINGTON -- The defense attorney for a former Bloomington police officer charged with raping four women is asking that a special prosecutor be appointed to handle the state’s case and that indictments charging the officer with stalking a woman be dismissed.

The motions were among pretrial motions filed last week by attorney Michael Rosenblat in the case against former Sgt. Jeff Pelo. The court also has been asked to bar a jury from hearing evidence about the photo-lineup and voice identifications police offered to victims.

The 18-year veteran of the police department resigned his position with the city last week.

Pelo’s past working relationship with the McLean County state’s attorney’s office makes it necessary that a special prosecutor be appointed to avoid the appearance of impropriety, said Rosenblat.

Pelo, 42, was charged in June 2006 with stalking a woman and the attempted residential burglary of her home. He was stopped by a Bloomington patrolman outside the woman’s home. About a month later, Pelo was charged with raping four women between December 2002 and January 2005.

The grand jury that indicted Pelo on the stalking charges was given false and inaccurate testimony from Bloomington Det. Larry Shepherd, Rosenblat said in his motion.

The jury was told the stalking victim identified Pelo as a man who was watching her from a vehicle in the parking lot of her employer on April 7, 2006. The incident actually took place a year earlier, said Pelo’s attorney. When asked by police to identify a photo of any suspect who looked familiar from any circumstance, the woman pointed to Pelo.

“That is a far cry from having been identified … as the person who was following her,” said Rosenblat.

Chief felony prosecutor Mark Messman, who questioned Shepherd before the grand jury, said he could not comment on the defense motions. He said the state will file a response to Rosenblat’s allegations.

The photo identifications of Pelo should be suppressed, the defense argues, because police were overly suggestive in their presentation to the women who viewed the photos.

The state also provided misleading information to the court in obtaining samples of Pelo’s voice, said Rosenblat.

The alleged stalking victim did not have a conversation with the prowler, said Pelo’s attorney. Police wanted the voice samples for the sexual assault investigation, he said.

“All of the complaining witnesses had different physical descriptions of their offender, had a poor opportunity to observe the defender, and were shown the photo line-up at a minimum of 18 months, 14 months in the stalking case, after the offense, and all failed to identify the defendant as their attacker or stalker,” Rosenblat said in his motion.

Prior to Pelo’s arrest, police asked the public’s help in solving several sexual assaults with enough similarities to suggest that one attacker may have been responsible.

Police conducted several searches of the home Pelo shared with his wife and three children. Among the long list of items police were looking for were dark-colored clothing, ski masks, duct tape and flashlights that could be shined in victims’ faces.

Video
Most commented stories
Browse online archives
Recent issues:
Reader comments on this story - 18 total

Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff.

Think about it wrote on Nov 7, 2007 1:31 PM:

" So he was stalking the victim for a year longer than grand jury was aware of...yet the defense asserts this is grounds for dropping charges? What a dirty defense tactic, the victim suffered for such a long time. Defense wants to deprive victim of prosecuting the man both police and boyfriend confronted outside the victims home on different ossasions...identified by victim in line-up...on a technicality. Ironic if charges get dropped on the basis of a fact that would have served to convince grand jury Pelo was an even greater danger to victim had they known. After all, victim reported incident when it happened, why would judge deprive her of prosecuting someone terrifying her for over a year and a half? "

ES wrote on Nov 6, 2007 7:17 PM:

" Enough is enough. Let's be fair to all of us and move this trial along. I just do not think this is fair how they are stalling this thing. "

displeased wrote on Nov 6, 2007 3:22 PM:

" I am just curious, if he is convicted will he be required to pay back the City of Bloomington for the large salary he collected while incarcerated. I bet some of the other inmates there wish they could continue getting paid while awaiting trial. Don't understand why he wasn't placed on unpaid leave. Anyone have an answer? "

so...if the victims wrote on Nov 6, 2007 2:20 PM:

" couldn't identify pelo in the photo line-up, wouldn't that be something the defense would WANT to present? Why suppress it? "

Legal Jockeying wrote on Nov 6, 2007 8:52 AM:

" This case is getting to be like the LaGrone and Hamm trials. It is getting drawn out from all the legal jockeying that is going on. I know that it is important to to get all the information out and into the open for both sides but seriously, does it really take this long? "

delays wrote on Nov 6, 2007 6:47 AM:

" The tactics are clear now, the defense has been the reason for all of the delays. Let's let as much time pass so the incidents are so long ago it will be easier to create reasonable doubt. What a shame for the victims that this is dragging on. "

Jerry Mason wrote on Nov 6, 2007 5:57 AM:

" Don't get too excited, the defense attorney is just planting seeds of reasonable doubt in the minds of the potential jury pool, successfully I might add, judging by some of these posts. Let the trial begin. "

well.. wrote on Nov 6, 2007 2:36 AM:

" If he is found not guilty he will get back everything and then some....he will sue the crap out of the city...it willl be called the Pelo Coliseum. "

schmoo wrote on Nov 6, 2007 12:30 AM:

" Well I guess he'll be gettin out soon, charges will be dropped, the way they make it sound he couldn't be identified through a line up, let em out save the tax payers a bunch of money. so if there's no dna what case do they don't have, I thought he was apprehended in the act, I guess none of the women can identify him, maybe there being harrassed, can we just get on with this case, I couldn't believe all the motions that have delayed this fiasco, way to go" blm judges, attys, "you reallly boost the people's confidence with your bungling tactics. "

Re: To I don't care wrote on Nov 5, 2007 10:52 PM:

" The suppression of evidence you mention is covered by the Bill of Rights. That goes along with the presumption of innocence until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If you dislike those legal principles then I suggest you move to a country more in line with your thinking. Perhaps China? "

reader wrote on Nov 5, 2007 10:18 PM:

" I have this funny feeling that this case will not go anywhere. "

Unfortunately, wrote on Nov 5, 2007 5:50 PM:

" Victim testimony and eye witness accounts are often unreliable. That leads to reasonable doubt. It's not fair to the victims, I agree. It's terrible what they went through. Without DNA evidence though, the case against Pelo is not a slam dunk. Guilt or innocence is a moot point. It's all about the legal game now. Sad but true. "

To: I don't care... wrote on Nov 5, 2007 5:09 PM:

" I agree with you, except for the statement: "Who knows if he is guilty or not, no one does until all the evidence is presented..." This will never happen with suppression of evidence on the defense's part. "The truth, whole truth and nothing but the truth" is such a farce in today judicial system. "

I don't care~~ wrote on Nov 5, 2007 4:52 PM:

" if he resigned or not. It's a shame that attorneys try to discredit the victim in these circumstances. This is done in all these cases. The victim is discredited and then the criminal goes free. Sure memory fades, but the incident never does. It's something that sticks in the mind for a long time to come. Who knows if he is guilty or not, no one does until all the evidence is presented, but don't downgrade the victim in this. If that is all you have, then you don't have much for a defense. You'll have to dig a little deeper and that is where the truth lies. "

... wrote on Nov 5, 2007 4:28 PM:

" I thought it was implied in an earlier article he may have chosen to resign so he could get to $$$ owed him through his pension. Possibly for his legal fees. I don't think the reason has to be made public. It sounded like a speculative article, but it makes sense. A good defense costs big time bucks. Part of what's screwed up with this judicial system. I find this article very interesting though. The evidence will come out in trial, but at face value, the defense motion presented in the above article appears to have some teeth. "

I think wrote on Nov 5, 2007 4:23 PM:

" I think he resigned so he could get state assistance for his legal defense. There was an article earlier that I believe said that he and his wife were having financial problems and could not afford to continue paying for private lawyers. By resigning, he now qualifies as low income and can get help. "

In The Know wrote on Nov 5, 2007 4:16 PM:

" This defendant needed money to pay attorneys for his defense. By resigning his position as a police officer, he could then obtain funds in his pension. The attorneys have taken everything and needed more to continue. This is all the assets Pelo has left. What a shame if he is found innocent! "

HOw come wrote on Nov 5, 2007 3:56 PM:

" he resigned? Does anyone know why? "
Add your own comments

Please read the rules before posting comments.

You must be logged in to leave comments.
If you don't have a member ID, please register.

*Member ID:
*Password:
Remember login?
(requires cookies)
  Forgot Your Password?
 
Lee Enterprises Customer Service | 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323
Copyright © 2008, Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises. All rights reserved. | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy