Drew Peterson hearing today: No reduced sentence, Brodsky to face the music with ARDC

This morning Drew Peterson was taken on a six-hour drive to attend a hearing before Judge Edward Burmila.

The judge denied a motion to reduce Peterson’s 38-year prison sentence to 20 years. He still must serve out the remaining 34 years of the sentence (subtracting the four years he spent in detainment before trial).

Judge Burmila also denied a motion that would keep Peterson’s former attorney, Joel Brodsky, from talking publicly about the case and allegedly violating attorney-client privilege. However he did indicate that he felt Brodsky had decided poorly when making the media rounds after Peterson’s sentencing and asked the clerk to send a transcript of Tuesday’s hearing and the motion that prompted it to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission. Judge Burmila told the court:

I wish I could think of a word beyond, ‘shocked,’ that I could apply to Mr. Brodsky’s appearance on television.

He was referring to this appearance that Joel Brodsky made on WGN news the morning of February 22 in which he explained his decision to put a controversial witness on the stand and defended his approach to publicity.

According to Joel Brodsky, the Illinois rules of professional conduct allow him to defend himself against allegations of misconduct, and that is what he was doing in that interview and others.

Read more at the Herald-News

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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.~

About these ads

12 thoughts on “Drew Peterson hearing today: No reduced sentence, Brodsky to face the music with ARDC

  1. http://www.saukvalley.com/2013/03/05/police-board-hires-expert-in-effort-to-strip-drew-peterson-of-pension/ai3o2xm/

    Police board hires expert in effort to strip Drew Peterson of pension
    By Stacy St. Clair, Chicago Tribune (MCT)
    Created: Tuesday, March 5, 2013 4:50 p.m. CST

    CHICAGO — Drew Peterson officially lost his freedom last month — and now he could lose his pension, too.

    The Bolingbrook (Ill.) Police Pension Board has hired an outside attorney to help decide whether it should strip Peterson of his retirement pay following his murder conviction and sentencing. The move marks an ironic turn in the high-profile case, given that prosecutors argued that Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, partially because he did not want to share his pension with her.
    The five-member panel — which includes three current or former officers who worked on the force with Peterson — recently retained public pension expert Charles Atwell to review trial transcripts and determine whether the former police sergeant’s conviction requires him to forfeit his $79,000-a-year pension.

    [snipped]

  2. Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
    2 hours ago

    Judge Burmila needs to read Illinois Rule of Professional Conduct 1.6(b)(5), (“A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary ….. to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyers representation of the client.) and comment ten (10) to that rule ) “Paragraph (b)(5) does not require the lawyer to await the commencement of an action or proceeding that charges such complicity, so that the defense may be established by responding directly to a third party who has made such an assertion”). Maybe then he will see that nothing I did was wrong.

    It was Steve Greenberg, acting as Peterson’s lawyer, who sent copies of his motion containing the false allegations regarding the calling of Harry Smith to every media outlet in Chicago (the Tribune even published the entire motion and supporting memo), and made the false allegation in numerous public statements during the post-trial hearing, so it was Greenberg, on behalf of his client, that choose to make false allegations public, and therefore what choice did I have but to respond publicly, as allowed by Rule 1.6(b)(5)?

    Also, Judge Burmila may also want to look at, People v. Romero, 128 Ill. App. 3d 461, 464 (Ill. App. Ct. 5th Dist. 1984); People v. O’Banner, 215 Ill. App. 3d 778, 793 (Ill. App. Ct. 1st Dist. 1991); People v. Rowell, 375 Ill. App. 3d 421, 443 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 2006) and People v. Childs, 305 Ill. App. 3d 128, 137-138 (Ill. App. Ct. 4th Dist. 1999) regarding waiver of attorney-client privilege when an attorney is falsely accused of ineffective assistance.

    Any privilege regarding the decision to call Harry Smith was waived.

  3. “A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary ….to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyers representation of the client.

    Is he seriously trying to argue that a morning news show equates to a “proceeding”? :)

  4. RULE 1.6: CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION

    (a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to the representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b) or required by paragraph (c).

    (b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

    (1) to prevent the client from committing a crime in circumstances other than those specified in paragraph (c);

    (2) to prevent the client from committing fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer’s services;

    (3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client’s commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer’s services;

    (4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer’s compliance with these Rules;

    (5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer’s representation of the client; or

    (6) to comply with other law or a court order.

    (c) A lawyer shall reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm.

    (d) Information received by a lawyer participating in a meeting or proceeding with a trained intervener or panel of trained interveners of an approved lawyers’ assistance program, or in an intermediary program approved by a circuit court in which nondisciplinary complaints against judges or lawyers can be referred, shall be considered information relating to the representation of a client for purposes of these Rules.

    Adopted July 1, 2009, effective January 1, 2010.

    http://www.iardc.org/2010%20Rule%201.6.htm

  5. 03/05/2013 CF – Minute Entry
    03/05/2013 Motion to Reduce Sentence
    03/05/2013 Motion For An Order Restricting Comments By Former Defense Counsel
    03/05/2013 Case Law
    03/05/2013 Notice of Appeal
    03/05/2013 Criminal Cost Sheet

  6. …Roger Claar, Bolingbrook’s mayor since 1986, said people occasionally have mentioned Peterson in conversations or emails over the past few years. But he said he doesn’t think the media attention has had a negative effect on the village.

    “It certainly hasn’t been helpful to Bolingbrook, but I’m not sure how harmful it’s been,” Claar said. “Most people understand there are rogue employees everywhere. We just happened to have this one.”

    But for some of Peterson’s neighbors, there will be no closure until Stacy’s fate is known. Her absence is felt in the neighborhood every day, Bychowski said.

    Stacy’s two children still live in the family home with Peterson’s oldest son, Stephen, and are adored in the neighborhood, where they often play outside with other kids, Bychowski and other neighbors said.

    Peterson, 59, has not been charged in Stacy’s disappearance, although authorities have said he is the only suspect.

    “There’s so much uncertainty,” Bychowski said. “I believe I know what happened to Stacy. I just don’t know where she is. There’s no closure for all of us who knew her and loved her. There’s no closure for anyone.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-drew-peterson-bolingbrook-20130304,0,7226367.story

  7. An attorney publicly scolding a judge? Brodsky has now proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is out of his league.

    I hope they strip him of his license for good.

  8. WOW. Brodsky better be careful, I don’t think it is a good idea to piss off the judge and more than he already has! :)

  9. This is off topic but I was thinking about the appeals to come in Drew’s case, and how the defense has indicated that they will appeal based on the admission of hearsay statements (or at least that’s what Brodsky says they should appeal).

    But wouldn’t the fact that the defense filed a motion saying that they weren’t going to fight the hearsay stand in the way of any kind of appeal based on those grounds?

    This is from April 2012:

    Drew Peterson is ending the protracted battle over hearsay statements and is signaling he’s ready to go to trial in the slaying of his ex-wife Kathleen Savio.

    In a motion sent to the Third District Appellate court today, Peterson’s attorneys say they will not fight a recent higher court ruling allowing prosecutors to use previously excluded hearsay statements at the former Bolingbrook police officer’s murder trial.

    The defense asks that the appellate court send the case back to Will County courts as soon as possible, essentially waiving the 35-day waiting period to formalize a ruling.

    The move reflects a renewed effort by the defense to downplay the significance of the hearsay statements, which prosecutors say will allow Peterson’s ex-wives’ to speak from the grave…

    They opted to get on with the trial and challenge the hearsay evidence as it was introduced, which they did. Sometimes they were successful in keeping evidence out, other times they weren’t.

    Oh, and sometimes they introduced it themselves! LOL

Comments are closed.