A Will County judge gave a life sentence this morning to Christopher Vaughn, the Oswego man convicted of killing his wife and three children in 2007.
Vaughn, who looked back over his shoulder at his family as he was led away, was sentenced to four consecutive life terms in prison by Judge Daniel Rozak.
"Our hearts ache with the knowledge that they were priceless to everyone but the one man who should have loved them more than their own life," said Jennifer Ledbetter, Kimberly Vaughn's twin sister, while fighting to hold back tears on the stand during victim impact statements.
Christopher Vaughn read along as victim impact statements from four members of Kimberly's family were read. Prosecutors read two and Ledbetter and Kimberly's mother read theirs.
Vaughn showed no emotion but seemed to wipe his eyes several times as Ledbetter read her statement.
In a matter-of-fact tone, Kimberly's mom, Susan Phillips, called Vaughn "a selfish coward" who instead of divorce had "destroy(ed) the very best thing that he had, a loving wife and three amazing children" and caused incredible pain for the surviving family.
Vaughn had been scheduled to be sentenced Monday for the 2007 slayings of his wife and three children, ages 12, 11 and 8, who were shot in the Oswego family's SUV on what Vaughn had said was a trip to a Springfield water park.
But Rozak halted Vaughn's sentencing so he could review transcripts and television broadcast reports before ruling on the motion for a new trial. The courtroom was packed with Vaughn's family, his wife's family, reporters and at least three jurors from the trial.
Earlier this morning, Rozak denied the novel motion for a new trial, saying he did not believe the "antics" from another high-profile murder trial next door prejudiced the jury.
Vaughn's September trial overlapped with the trial of Drew Peterson, the former Bolingbrook police sergeant convicted of killing his third wife. Vaughn's attorney, George Lenard, argued that part of the reason his client didn't get a fair trial was because the press conferences held by Peterson's lawyers outside the courthouse damaged his own credibility as a defense attorney.
But Rozak said he had admonished jurors to avoid all news coverage during the trial.
Also, Rozak said any comparisons he heard between the two defense teams characterized Lenard as "the second coming of Clarence Darrow while the others were like a rerun of Mo Howard in 'Disorder in the Court.' "
Lenard, who cited 51 grounds for a new trial, began his more than two-hour oral argument Monday by taking some shots at former Peterson co-counsel Joel Brodsky.
Lenard criticized a news conference held by Peterson's new defense team that he said seemed to mock the disappearance of Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy. Prosecutors believe Peterson killed Stacy, but he has not been charged. He was tried this summer for the 2004 drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
"That gave criminal defense attorneys — all of us — a black eye," Lenard told the judge, saying jurors may have been so disgusted by this "show" that they were unfairly prejudiced against Vaughn's defense team.
"I think they need to apologize about what they said out there," Lenard later told reporters outside the courthouse.
Prosecutors called the argument "unbelievable," and Peterson attorney Joe Lopez tweeted it was "hilarious to blame us for his loss."
"It's unbelievable that the Drew Peterson case would find itself in the Christopher Vaughn case," Assistant State's Attorney Mike Fitzgerald said.
"If they thought the Drew Peterson trial was going to be an influence, why didn't they do something about it at the time?"
Lenard said he never expected media coverage of the two trials to overlap. He also cited as grounds for a new trial closing arguments that he said were a "personal attack" against him and the speed with which jurors returned a verdict.
Fitzgerald said jurors might have returned a verdict in less than an hour because they found the evidence of Vaughn's guilt "overwhelming."
Lenard said that in his 28 years of practicing law, he's never before seen jurors return a verdict so quickly without asking to review evidence.
"I don't know exactly what it is that they were thinking, but 45 minutes and not asking for any exhibits, not wanting to hear any testimony, that's extremely rare. I've never had that situation before and that's odd."
sschmadeke@tribune.com
Twitter: @ChicagoBreaking
