Drew Peterson was back in court this morning for motions to overturn his conviction and get a new trial.
Attorneys Steve Greenberg and David Peilet will file a motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by Peterson’s long-time lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, who withdrew from his defense last month.
After his withdrawal Joel Brodsky gave numerous interviews in which he defended his defense of Peterson and stated that he was stepping down to put an end to the friction between himself and his co-counsel:
Now Brodsky says:
Judge Edward Burmila is giving the defense until December 14 to file their pre-sentencing motions and the state will have until January 9 to file its responses to those motions.
This pushes Drew Peterson’s sentencing date further into 2013, but no date has been decided upon yet.
Last month Attorneys John Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez also filed a motion requesting a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by Joel Brodsky. Drew Peterson told Judge Burmilla in open court that he did not authorize the motion so it was denied.
Prior motion filed October 9. 2012:
Joel Brodsky’s response. Filed October 11, 2012:
Attorney Steven Greenberg’s open letter to Joel Brodsky dated September 24, 2012:
Read more at ABC7
Read more at WGN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. You can contact admins directly by sending an email to petersonstory@gmail.com.~
The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>
http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/16429618-417/drew-peterson-attorneys-request-new-trial-claiming-brodsky-botched-case.html
I guess the ideal scenario here is that Joel Brodsky has to testify and we get the satisfaction of hearing him get reamed out for being a moron, but that they can’t prove any or his errors amount to ineffective counsel.
There’s no errors. I did not do anything ineffective.
ROFL
Is that a Chicago dialect meaning that there are no errors and he didn’t do anything ineffectively?
I am a good lawyer. I am a good lawyer. I am a good lawyer, I am!
wait…I remember hearing that they all agreed to put Smith on the stand….whether Greenberg did or didn’t want too…drew wanted him on the stand..IMO that is written in stone…and just because brodsky is an idiot and needs to take a sabbatical…isn’t grounds for a new trial….unless it’s for Stacy…
say facs..if brodsky takes the stand..can they ask him where Stacy is…or is that something else that’s ineffective…..
The only one who says the decision to put Harry Smith on the stand was a consensus is Joel Brodsky. So it’s his word against the rest of the co-counsel-hardly written in stone.
If Joel takes the stand to defend the claims of errors on his part, the attorney-client privilege is waived but only so far as it relates to those claims. Joel can’t be asked anything about what Drew may have divulged as far as Stacy’s whereabouts.
I don’t see Drew getting a new trial based on what Joel did in court. Not when he had a six-man team of attorneys. Besides Joel has explained why he called Harry Smith to the stand. He says that it was in order to attempt to impeach Stacy and that he got counsel from other attorneys who told him it was a good move. It was a poor decision, but there was nothing erroneous about it, IMO.
An error has to be an actual error for it to amount to ineffective assistance. I saw a recent case where a lawyer admitted that he had erroneously advised a client to plead guilty to a certain crime because she would only have to serve half of the sentence. It turned out that he was wrong because of the circumstances, she actually had to serve the full time of her sentence. Now THAT’s an error. Or take the case of Jon Carroll whose clients were offered a plea deal but he never mentioned it to them until after they were sentenced. Oops! That’s a bad one. Those are examples of actual errors that can mean a conviction is thrown out and a client gets a new trial.
Brodsky’s decision to call Harry Smith was bad strategy and it probably was Stacy’s testimony that nailed Drew’s ass, but an error in judgment isn’t the same thing as a technical error.
Joel Brodsky:
Joe Lopez:
…
http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/drew-peterson-publicity-deal-a-bad-idea-killer-needs-new-trial-lawyer
Facs as Lopez’s comment above shows, it seems that calling Harry Smith to the stand was something that all the counsel eventually agreed to. If I’m not mistaken, this was the same type of statement made by Greenburg shortly after Smith’s testimony.
Later, after the jury said this was a primary reason for their conviction is when I believe Greenburg came out to throw Joel under the bus.
I find it very interesting that THIS is their rationale for a retrial. It tells me they’re desperate since all three major attorneys were verbally “on board” the day after the testimony.
Do we know if this is a hearing only asking for a retrial due to Brodsky’s ineffective counsel, or are they also asking for a retrial based on other things? IOW, is this just a matter of throwing as much stuff against the wall as they can think of in the hopes that something sticks?
So far, we’re only hearing about this one motion but apparently it lists 24 different points. Greenberg says that it’s like opening the closet and everything falls out, and yet their first attempt is to appeal Drew’s conviction because Joel signed an agreement with a PR firm? It really does look like they don’t have much as far as grounds for appeal. (which makes me happy!)
AFAIK Greenberg has always maintained that he was against calling Smith to the stand, but ultimately I don’t think it’s really going to matter whether everyone was on board or not. I’m sticking with my opinion that it was a bad decision but not an error so regardless of who decided to call Smith, it’s not grounds for a new trial.
http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/11/16/peterson-lawyers-seek-new-trial-claiming-mistakes-by-brodsky
So much for “no more finger-pointing”.
IMO the defense is just doing their thing, and I don’t like it, but it’s their right to try every trick in the book. Lord, we will all celebrate the day they’ve exhausted every possible motion and appeal and Drew is put away for good!
You’re right, Winsome. The team needs to provide a ‘vigorous defense’ and they’ll be appealing Drew’s conviction now, and after sentencing, for years to come no doubt. It’s just part of the process.
I’m relieved that so far the motions don’t seem very compelling.
was that an old picture of drew or was it taken this morning..he is always smiling…how does one do that….we know he doesn’t have a conscience…but does he think he’s just one of the guys going to court…I’ve always felt this is a joke to him..and I don’t believe it’s police humor….
The photo of Drew at the top is from October 30.
Facs, thanks for video of Brodsky flapping his lip again. The man cannot keep quiet – I have to admit, I’d love to see him put on the stand and questioned!! It would be great intertainment 😀
Oh my. I think it will be hard to show that your lead attorney went “rogue”.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-files-appeal-cites-ineffective-counsel-20121116,0,1299370.story
rogue could mean dishonest or mischievous…which one can it be…or maybe he means both….lol
Strangely enough I once again believe Joel Brodsky when he says it was a joint decision and that Drew wanted Harry Smith on the stand, considering quite a while ago Joel mentioned in the Press they were going to call Harry Smith to proof Stacy was a liar ………
Don’t tell me Joel would have been able to steamroller a whole team of lawyers, plus and including Drew, if they all thought it was such a bad idea (!!)
Can’t wait for the fireworks to start when Brodsky realizes Drew is selling him out as well…….
Looks like today’s motion claims not only that Joel made errors, but that Judge Burmila erred in letting Harry Smith take the stand and that Judge White erred in deciding back in 2010 that hearsay statements could be allowed in due to forfeiture by wrongdoing. It also says that Joel messed up when examining Scott Rossetto back in 2010, but it wasn’t Joel that did the examination.
Oh for Christ sakes, where is the firing squad and swift justice. he was found guilty, after trying to cover his ass doing bad deeds, and almost succeeded. Just be done with this crap, and put him out of his smiling misery, which will include the moron lawyer antics
ditto
Some updates to the Tribune story:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-appeal-1117-20121117,0,7036417.story
I’d like to know how many chicken wings it took for Joel to make the ultimate sacrifice to “resign” and for him to only have “Drews best interest” at heart (!!)
I ‘m sure I interpreted the arrangement between DPand JB as constituting conflict of interest right from the beginning, and said so more than once. Now, I’m not saying anyone pays attention to what I say, but others must have come to the same conclusion.
To counter that as grounds for ineffective counsel, JB long ago cited the “White Noise” method: put out so much rubbish that people will become confused and not be able to tell what is true or even where any ‘information’ has originated. He cited its use in the defense OJ. I can see that as aggravating and twisted (if one is actually seeking truth and justice) as it is, he has a point of view, and has already described his method on TV more than once.
The White Noise is produced by the massive, sustained publicity/fame grab. They look exactly the same. Neat, huh?
Greenberg et al have always been well on board with wooing the media, nevermind going along with calling Harry Smith. (And BTW, how many times were they cautioned by the judge about calling HS?)
By Jove there was a point at which Steve Greenberg was defending the decision to call Harry Smith to the stand:
http://www.suntimes.com/14802637-418/drew-peterson-wont-testify-in-his-own-defense.html
I stand corrected!
LOL – Greenberg’s explanation of WHY Brodsky insisted on calling Smith to the stand, typical CYA, and the way they wish the testimony would have come out. But of course Brodsky the bumbler had no way of stopping the prosecution from getting to the truth once Smith was called as a DEFENSE witness. Even at this point I think Greenberg would have rallied around the “Captain” grudgingly. But then Brodsky started blaming Greenberg for sinking the ship, and that’s when the s___ hit the fan… Ya gotta admit if someone was ineffective it was Brodsky!
I was pretty sure the Three Stooges at least pretended to give a unified front regarding Smith’s testimony. Because of that, I think it will be very difficult to claim “inefficient counsel” based on Smith’s testimony.
If they had hotly protested and only gave in due to arm-twisting by Brodsky, they should have approached the bench and made a formal statement to Burmilla saying they were putting it on record that they protested bringing this witness to the stand.
Since they didn’t make any kind of stink when they could have, it will make their efforts now look like sour grapes.
I agree with you, Facs. Ineffective strategy is not the same as ineffective counsel.
Are they now saying for more than 5 years Drew was bullied by Joel into doing everything he didn’t want to do ?
More than that, are they saying that Brodsky bullied five other attorneys for years and they went right through the trial silently doing Brodsky’s bidding? I’m sure the sunglasses stunt was done under duress…..right?
Puhleeze….
In the town of lawyerville..brodsky..greenberg…& lopez have to be the topic of dinner conversation…they had an excuse….comment..or answer for everything they did…and if anyone thinks that drew was bullied…drew missed his calling…he should have been an actor..he was a natural…remember like attracts like..they all fit in the idiot column…
Drew Peterson involved himself in media stunts both with and without Joel Brodsky. He made media appearances before Joel responded to his public plea for free representation and if it hadn’t been Joel Brodsky, I believe Drew would have found some one else who was as media and money hungry as himself to partner up with and look for ways to profit from the attention that could be drawn from the mysterious circumstances of Stacy Peterson’s disappearance.
Drew Peterson is not the victim of this situation.
Who knows Drew better than his own sons? Was Tom Peterson blaming Joel Brodsky for his father’s awful behavior in the years following Stacy’s disappearnce? Nope. He placed the blame exactly where it belong–on dear old dad:
http://tinyurl.com/apmdyas
I find it a bit strange that he can front up to court claiming ineffective counsel with some of the lawyers in that original trial?
So bizarre!
I actually find this comment by Brodsky *very* interesting:
“He actually threatened that if we didn’t, he was going to take the stand and testify,” Brodsky said. “That would have been the absolute disaster, so to speak.”
Hmmm. Why would he see Drew taking the stand as a disaster? I thought the only time lawyers didn’t want their client to take the stand was when the client was guilty?
Aussie, I thought the same thing when Brodsky said it would have been a disaster if Drew took the stand… a very telling statement. Could it be he knows as well as the rest of us that his client is a lying murderer and would have found himself in deep trouble when the prosecution was able to question him? Of course Brodsky’s questioning of Harry Smith turned out to be pretty disasterous for the defense too 😉
also remember when in sessions was interviewing joe lopez…and he said he didn’t have any misgivings on putting an innocent man on the stand..and Beth said …so you plan to put drew on the stand…
I think it’s common for lawyers to NOT have their client take the stand regardles, but all the same I found it interesting that Drew testifying would have been a disaster. I mean being innocent and all. 😉
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone. Hope you all have a very nice day, with friends and family.
Happy Thanksgiving, everyone! While you are enjoying that turkey, remember to be thankful for living in the greatest country on earth. No where else do people have the freedom to do what we can do in this country and have the material possessions so readily available. Thank you to all those who have served in the military to help keep peace in our land and maintain our freedom!
Happy Thanksgiving to you, too, Pearlsgirl, and all of you.
I’d like to point out, just for the record, that the world is full of other countries who enjoy the same freedoms. I’m thankful this is so, but still sad for others who are not free to speak their minds or marry whom they like. That’s all. 🙂
Happy Thanksgiving to each and all! We are truly blessed to have our freedoms and be able to express our opinions here. Thanks to all who come here for caring about Kathleen, Stacy and justice.
We have a lot to be thankful for this year! Happy Thanksgiving!
🙂
A belated Happy Thanksgiving to all….did anyone read in-session…where the women was to cook dinner as her punishment…the comments were too funny…2013 is going to be interesting….everyone from 2012 wants a new trial…lol..I think they all need more time in jail…
In addition the the ‘disaster’ of Drewpy taking the stand is the continal litany by Joe Lopez, that “Brodsky knows more about this case than anyone else.” Hmm…
And the closet analogy of “everything falls out”:I think these speak volumes, but not in the way they are perceived.
Every statement can be taken diffeerent ways, depending upon one’s viewpoint.
I don’t see how a man who has had an entire team of attorneys can possible file this motion. I hope it gets thrown out. It’s time to focus on Stacy’s case.
Agreed Still learning.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/16615965-418/lawyer-to-argue-vaughns-trial-tainted-by-drew-peterson-case.html
As we’ve seen with the Peterson case, attorneys are going to try anything to get a conviction overturned, but this sure seems like a bit of a stretch.
TWEETS
Joseph Hosey @ShorewdILPatch
Lenard also blamed buffoonish behavior of lawyers for #drewpeterson For turning off jury in Vaughn case.
Lenard said the behavior of Joel Brodsky, Joe Lopez and Steve Greenberg “gave criminal defense lawyers, all of us, a black eye.”
Lenard specifically pointed to the lawyers’ “where’s Stacy?” Schtick
That’s certainly a new twist – blaming lawyers from another case for causing your client to be convicted… who knows, it might work :-). Captain Brodsky and his crew were pretty disgusting, but IMO it was the evidence and a thoughtful, reasonable jury that convicted Drew, not publicity. Hope that was true in the Vaughn case also.
If the Vaughn jurors were turned off by the “Stacy Who” antics of Peterson’s defense, then the argument could be made that they would have a favorable view of attorney George Lenard.
After all, he was part of the Peterson defense for a short time but left over differences with Joel Brodsky.
It certainly made me like him more.
and the plot thickens….I really don’t think it was a black eye…more like scum….greasey…sarcastic crude remarks….with dark glasses…media whores….Lenard was definitely on the right track…but needed to go lower….
The plot doesn’t thicken for me.
Just another lawyer hoping to get a mistrial for his murderer client. The Peterson trial had nothing to do with anything that happened at the Vaughn trial.
51 points to the Vaughn motion so you know that Lenard is just tossing out whatever happens to cross his mind and hoping that something sticks.
But nothing is going to stick. Vaughn’s crimes were even worse than Drew Peterson’s, and there was plenty of evidence to convict.
when JUDGE WHITE was ON TRUE TV, or insession he said that , there should not be an over turn verdict at all . me thinks they trying to draw straws on this. but he also said he made sure during his time for peterson there was not going to be an appelit issue . so the bafoons are wrong
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/behavior_of_drew_peterson_lawyers_targeted_in_motion_for_new_trial_in_neigh
Another typical Brodsky statement. “I guess if it rains tomorrow, it’s MY fault.” Me, me, me, poor me, blamed for everything. I don’t think he was singled out by Lenard, but at any rate I’m glad Rozak didn’t buy any of it, and the sentence was imposed.
“Rozak said alleged obnoxious behavior by Peterson lawyers would make Lenard look good in comparison…”
There is no alleged about it!