(Drew's Law) Evidence Law Changed to Help Prosecution with Case

Former police officer Drew Peterson is charged with murdering his wife.  The issue here is hearsay testimony from friends of the victim that implicate Peterson.  The investigation was botched and the prosecutor specifically asked for a change in the law to help him with a botched case. Unlike many laws that are named after victims, this one is named after the defendant-- "Drew's law." This may have happened before, but it's the first time I've seen an evidence rule changed specifically to help a particular prosecutor get a specific conviction.  Yes, once passed the rule of evidence applies to all cases, but this troubles me.  Does this comport with due process which requires "fundamental fairness?"  Secondly, it may be unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment confrontation clause.  Even if guilty, Peterson is entitled to due process and Sixth Amendment rights. The case will go to the jury today after the challenged hearsay was admitted. If convicted, this case may get to the U.S. Supreme Court. I wonder if changes will be requested in Florida law to help the prosecution in the George Zimmerman case?



P.S. Internet searches are so great.  They  allow everyone the opportunity to become a e-investigative reporter.