Drew Peterson’s defense steps down from appellate process, ask for public defender

Attorneys Joe Lopez, David Peilet and Steven Greenberg

Attorneys Joe Lopez, David Peilet and Steven Greenberg

CBS Chicago reports that Drew Peterson’s lawyers have stepped down and asked the public appellate defender’s office to take over with the post-sentencing appeals.

This is something that Joel Brodsky had indicated was happening immediately after Peterson’s sentencing on February 22. At the time Attorney Steven Greenberg tweeted that he was staying on board for the appellate process.

“So the record is clear- We are continuing to represent Peterson on appeal-all counsel who finished the case, plus.”

Today on Facebook, Steve Greenberg writes:

“We expect that the appeal will ultimately be handled by either a law professor or a large firm, with our assistance.”

This change occurred in less than two weeks.

Steve Greenberg Tweeted on 9/20/12: "I promised if we lost I would come to a Glasgow fundraiser and I am a man of my word"

Steve Greenberg Tweeted on 9/20/12: “I promised if we lost I would come to a Glasgow fundraiser and I am a man of my word”

Joel Brodsky has written a response to the situation on Facebook:

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

ATTORNEY STEVE GREENBERG ABANDON’S DREW PETERSON TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S APPELLATE DIVISION:

For some reason it didn’t make the papers, but if you ask me the real big story from Tuesday’s (March 5, 2013) Court appearance in People v. Drew Peterson is that after the Judge rejected Peterson’s motion to reduce his sentence, the Court asked Steve Greenberg he and the other lawyers were going to represent Drew in his appeal. Greenberg’s answer was no, so the Judge appointed the State Appellate Defender (the public defender for appeals) to represent Drew in his appeal.

No wonder Drew was glum and looking at his shoes during Tuesday’s hearing. Like a one night stand, he was used by Greenberg for Greenberg’s own purposes, and then abandoned to the public defender. I bet Drew is sorry he listened to Greenberg’s lies about how making an false ineffective assistance argument would guarantee him a new trial.

Also, Will County States Attorney Jim Glasgow publically showed his disdain for Attorney Greenberg on Tuesday. When it was all over, and Drew was hauled off to his maximum security cell at Mendard Correctional Center (thanks to Greenberg’s incompetent post-trial motion), Steve Greenberg went up to Mr. Glasgow for the traditional handshake that opposing attorneys share after a trial is completed. However, Glasgow refused to shake Greenberg’s hand, turned his back on the backstabbing slanderer, and walked away. Way to go Mr. Glasgow.”

and

“That’s what you get when you have Steve Greenberg as your attorney – a dishonest and ineffective lawyer who throws you out like yesterday’s trash after he messes up your case. He lied to Drew so he could use the case to try to get at me, and then when it was over he abandoned Drew when he had no more use for him.”

Steve Greenberg has responded on Facebook as well to Brodsky’s statements:

“it is not unusual for the State Appellate Defender to be appointed at this stage. We expect that the appeal will ultimately be handled by either a law professor or a large firm, with our assistance. As far as Mr. Glasgow, he is an ungracious winner.”

Read more at CBS Chicago

About these ads

81 thoughts on “Drew Peterson’s defense steps down from appellate process, ask for public defender

  1. Hah, next thing we will hear is that his Kids want nothing more to do with him. Guess he will then feel truly abandoned and alone. Karma baby, Karma

  2. Of COURSE they jumped ship. Did anyone really think that they’d stay on board…really? Now that Drew is a six-hour drive away, that’s even more reason to take a hike.

    There’s no money in defending someone they know is guilty and who they know won’t be successful in any appeal.

    Drew had SIX “top notch” attorneys represent him at his trial. He had so much more than most other defendents do……including a huge amount of free publicity. Now that their efforts have resulted in a massive FAIL, they’re off to greener pastures.

    Who can blame them?

  3. I wonder if they all got together — Greenberg, Lopez, et al — in the courthouse with Drew after yesterday’s hearing so they could let him know they were withdrawing.

    That six hour drive back to the clink must have been pretty miserable. Oh…..poor Drew……It’s still better than the sentence he gave to Kathy and Stacy.

  4. Today’s “Events”

    03/06/2013 See Order Signed
    03/06/2013 Clerk’s Certificate of Mailing Notice of Appeal
    03/06/2013 Order for Free Transcripts/App of State Appellate Defender
    03/06/2013 Notice of Appeal
    03/06/2013 Case Title
    03/06/2013 Clerk’s Certificate of Notification to Court Reporters
    03/06/2013 Certified Mail Receipt-Copy of Motion & Transcripts sent to ARDC

  5. Does “Notice Of Appeal” mean that Drew is going forward with his appeal? On what grounds?

    Did his attorneys file an appeal and then jump ship?

  6. Here’s what I get out of that tweet:

    The appeal hasn’t been filed yet because the actual reason for the appeal hasn’t been “perfected” yet. Once it is “perfected” and filed, they must file for a separate appearance in the Appellate court in order to withdraw as his counsel.

    Twitter is so restricting.

    I really hope that Mr. Greenberg takes the time to come in here and help explain this. We know he reads this blog — and we promise to be respectful if he shows up again!!

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

    ATTORNEY STEVE GREENBERG ABANDON’S DREW PETERSON TO THE PUBLIC DEFENDER’S APPELLATE DIVISION:

    For some reason it didn’t make the papers, but if you ask me the real big story from Tuesday’s (March 5, 2013) Court appearance in People v. Drew Peterson is that after the Judge rejected Peterson’s motion to reduce his sentence, the Court asked Steve Greenberg he and the other lawyers were going to represent Drew in his appeal. Greenberg’s answer was no, so the Judge appointed the State Appellate Defender (the public defender for appeals) to represent Drew in his appeal.

    No wonder Drew was glum and looking at his shoes during Tuesday’s hearing. Like a one night stand, he was used by Greenberg for Greenberg’s own purposes, and then abandoned to the public defender. I bet Drew is sorry he listened to Greenberg’s lies about how making an false ineffective assistance argument would guarantee him a new trial.

    Also, Will County States Attorney Jim Glasgow publically showed his disdain for Attorney Greenberg on Tuesday. When it was all over, and Drew was hauled off to his maximum security cell at Mendard Correctional Center (thanks to Greenberg’s incompetent post-trial motion), Steve Greenberg went up to Mr. Glasgow for the traditional handshake that opposing attorneys share after a trial is completed. However, Glasgow refused to shake Greenberg’s hand, turned his back on the backstabbing slanderer, and walked away. Way to go Mr. Glasgow.

  8. Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law

    That’s what you get when you have Steve Greenberg as your attorney – a dishonest and ineffective lawyer who throws you out like yesterday’s trash after he messes up your case. He lied to Drew so he could use the case to try to get at me, and then when it was over he abandoned Drew when he had no more use for him.
    18 minutes ago · Like

  9. hmm Brodsky? I don’t think Glasgow would have shaken your hand either. No matter how you try to twist the current matter into your favor

  10. Good grief! Now we’re going to have Brodsky armchair-quarterbacking this whole appeal process, throwing out jabs at whomever he wishes, whenever he wishes?

    Seriously, Judge Burmilla, you should have shut the dude up when you had the chance.

  11. Steve Greenberg says on Facebook:

    it is not unusual for the State Appellate Defender to be appointed at this stage. We expect that the appeal will ultimately be handled by either a law professor or a large firm, with our assistance. As far as Mr. Glasgow, he is an ungracious winner.

  12. ​The Office of the State Appellate Defender is a state agency created by the State Appellate Defender Act (725 Illinois Compiled Statutes, Act 105). The principal function of the Office of the State Appellate Defender is to represent indigent persons on appeal in criminal cases when appointed by the Illinois Supreme Court, the Appellate Court or the Circuit Court

    http://www.illinois.gov/osad/Pages/default.aspx

    IMO, he doesn’t qualify.

  13. I wouldn’t shake Steve Greenberg’s hand either. The image I will forever hold of him will be standing outside hee hawing at the TV cameras laughing about “Stacy who”. He is as bad as the killers he represents.

  14. BTW, the status for Drew’s murder case has changed to:

    Case On Appeal

    and one more Event:

    03/06/2013 Notice of Appeal filed – ORDER APPOINTING STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER AND

  15. I don’t know if it’s automatic but I’d guess they were par for the course, especially in what is essentially a life sentence.

    The thing I am really curious about tonight is why Steve Greenberg was so adamant about the fact that he was going to be continuing to represent Peterson during the appeals process if that was not the case. If he knew that they were all going to withdraw and the appeals left to the State Appellate Defender, why state otherwise?

    I mean, to mis-state the facts wasn’t helping anyone–not Drew and not Greenberg–and the truth was bound to get out so why bother to lie…unless it wasn’t a lie on February 22.

    Was it just bravado? I’m baffled.

  16. Ha ha ha ha ha ha….”like a one night stand”….forgive me and excuse my while I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes…what a befitting “swan song” for the notorious womanizer/murderer and self proclaimed addict of the honeymoon phase of his relationships – in the very end he was nothng more than a one night stand LOL!!! :))

    I’m glad Judge Burmilla didn’t shut Brodsky up…the more he talks, the greater the chances of things slipping out….and at this point, with Drew now in prison and the entire defense team no longer representing him, hopefully somewhere between what he said/he said (Brodsky and Greenberg) more info and truth will come out :D

    If I had to venture a guess, Greenberg didn’t lie about representing Drew’s appeal since he knows all eyes are upon him…a bit of bravado perhaps but maybe something happened or was said between the 22nd and Tues that gave Greenberg pause – and second thoughts regarding his client ;)

  17. This is a lot to digest….and it doesn’t come as a surprise..my gut told me the dream team was breaking up when Lopez said he was leaving…it has no where to go but down…but then again my thoughts were if Stacy’s trial came up….Greenberg would want to be involved even if it was for the media attention…Drew is only getting what he deserves and it’s nice to see it spiral down in front of him….my guess is he’ll be looking at his shoes for 34 years…

  18. Something tells me now that the Dream Team has walked away, Brodsky is going to try and schmooze his way back into Drew’s “good graces” just so that he can be the center of attention again.

    Let’s face it. Drew and Joel are knit from the same cloth. Both see this from the same prism — it’s all about them. Joel saw Drew as his ticket to fame and even ugly, detrimental attention is better than no attention at all.

    With the nay-sayers out of the way, I suspect Joel will try to weazel his way back into the limelight by “championing” Drew’s cause all the way to the Supreme Court….

    Just a gut feeling…..

  19. To be a fly on the wall…atlgranny…and the crystal ball on the table sees it all…..let’s picture below the dirt to the very bottom…I see Brodsky dating Drew…it will all begin again…only difference Drew is behind bars this time …giving Brodsky all the limelight….

  20. Granny I have a similar feeling about Brodsky sliming his way into the limelight using his care and concern for his old buddy Drew. He wants us to believe he is the fine upstanding attorney maligned by that villain Greenberg who lost the case and then deserted Drew. Fortunately his antics will never get Drew out of prison. Unfortunately we will probably hear a lot of garbage from him for some time to come :-(

  21. I’m just waiting for the books to come out now.

    “Defending Drew”
    “Captain of the Ship”
    “Stacy Who?”

    And they’ll all be full of the egocentric reminiscences of egotistical men, and all a bit dull because they can’t violate attorney-client privilege, and none of them will tell us what we really want to know. Like, where is Stacy?.

  22. The above photo of the attorneys beautifully illustrates the maxim: A picture is worth a million words.

  23. Who will be the lucky STATE APPELLATE DEFENDER to represent M35067 in his appeal?
    An attorney (ahem) who will be fighting with the ARDC to keep his own license?

  24. I agree Goldiez, Facs really outdid herself by finding that photo. It’s a gem!

    And, once again a BIG Thank You to Facs for the hours she spends digging and retrieving things to keep this blog current and inciteful [pun intended]!

    If it weren’t for the antics of Brodsky, I’m afraid this whole Peterson fiasco would have been quite dull and boring, so……I guess I have to say that I’m looking forward to Joel’s next chapter as Drew’s spotlight has gone out.

    Take it away, Joel….

  25. That’s what I used to think. But, with the rant above it finally sunk in that this man has no shame…..no common sense……absolutely no clue as to how bad he looks.

    And I don’t think he cares. It’s all about him.

    Sociopath.

  26. As for Brodsky representing Drew again, no way can I see that being a possibility. Not after Drew turned on him and signed numerous motions blaming Joel for his conviction and accusing him of being unprofessional.

    In fact, I’m not even sure you could rehire an attorney after taking such a step. But then, he did it with Greenberg right?

  27. I was poking back on the blog and came across this September 25 letter from Drew which might be part of the reason why Greenberg decided not to stick around for the appellate phase. I mean, it certainly shows that Drew is not above turning on any of his attorneys (remember Greenberg was fired at the time Drew wrote this-to later be rehired) and it also could be the case that he DID intend to stay around but Drew gave him the boot again!

    In a letter shown to the Chicago Sun-Times, Peterson contends Greenberg mishandled his part of the defense and then rips him for attending a post-trial event for Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow…

    …In his letter, Peterson accused Greenberg of criticizing the decision to call Smith simply as an excuse to get more publicity for himself.

    He chastised Greenberg, an attorney since 1986, for attending a Sept. 19 event for Glasgow, who is running for re-election as the county’s top prosecutor. Glasgow personally led the team that prosecuted Peterson.

    That appearance, Peterson wrote, “can only project to the public that Mr. Greenberg is in favor of my conviction and approving of everything the state’s attorney has done to convict me.”

    In his letter to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, Peterson asks the agency to investigate Greenberg’s actions.

    An attorney for the commission wouldn’t comment on whether Peterson had asked for an investigation.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15362583-418/drew-petersons-lawyers-battle-one-another.html

  28. Meanwhile, Joel isn’t done lashing out at Judge Burmila:

    Joel A. Brodsky

    Interesting point about Judge Burmila. He was appealed in 30 reported cases (according to Lexis), and he was outright reversed in 11 of those, and in 2 more he was found to have made errors, but they were held to be “harmless” in the sense that there was so much evidence the errors wouldn’t matter. So he was wrong in 13 of 30 cases, or a 43% of the time.
    5 hours ago · Like

  29. If Joel plans to throw darts in Burmila’s direction he better have all the facts and they better be right…his little media dances will open a can of worms …that dance card better be filled with nothing but the truth…can Peterson rehire him…I asked a lawyer friend here and he said yes…but asked why would he..

  30. Interesting point about JB. Meaningless attack, half-baked.
    30 appeals over what period of time?
    30 appeals out of how many cases?
    Is it fair to count the harmless errors?
    11 out of 30 sounds OK to me.
    How many judges have a ‘perfect score’?

    How do you think this is going to help you in any way?

  31. Anna, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if Drew tries to rehire Joel. One certainty this long drawn out case has taught us all is – always expect the unexpected!

    My gut tells me Drew has a lot of regrets over the way he’s rolled the dice, so to speak – and esp at having fired Joel following his conviction. Those two weren’t just lawyer and client, they were seemingly best buddies, soulmates cut from the same cloth. When he fired Joel, IMO he only did so with great reluctance. And as much as I hate to say this, I do believe that for once Joel is telling the truth about why he put Harry Smith on the stand – because Drew wanted him to and threatened to take the stand if they didn’t. Knowing how Drew is – a narcissistic sociopath who micro-manages everything, who believes himself smarter than everyone else, knows how to play the system – and always needing to be in control, I’m certain he was the puppetmaster behind the scenes. He reluctantly fired Joel and again rolled the dice, banking on Greenberg to succeed in getting his conviction overturned or a new trial.

    Apparently Drew never learned two things – when you gamble, odds are you’re gonna lose and – when you try to control everything you control nothing!

    Now that Drew’s been a one night stand and used, betchya he’s hurtin’, regretfull and will attempt to rebound back into the arms of his ex, Joel….hey, it’s human nature :))

  32. FYI, Mrs. Brodsky has indicated that Joel will not be going back to defend Drew. She says it will be a “cold day in hell” when that happens and that Drew can “rot”.

    Of course minds and hearts do change, but for the present, I’ll take her word for it.

  33. I totally agree and you hit the nail on the head..soulmates cut from the same cloth…I would be surprised if he didn’t rehire him…Drew isn’t going to put his case in the hands of a public defender….not the guy who killed 2 women and left no evidence…he wants to use the system and like you said be in control…Joel will do it to stay in the media..but if he continues to go after Burmilia ….he better have the law on his side….

  34. sorry facs I was typing….cold day in hell …huh…where did I read Drew will never be charged or convicted…I guess that was one of those cold days in hell…lol….

  35. Well, you all know how I feel about “psychics” and speculation. I also don’t see any point in trying to predict the future (unless there’s some money anted up, and even then…) so I’ll stick to the present and what has been reported and just go on in that fashion as I have been doing.

  36. lol..and.another cold day in hell when Greenberg, flush with the blush of excitement, gushed…” What can I say? I love Drew and Drew loves me” as he ran right back after having been axed!

  37. Wouldn’t it have been the ultimate had Stacy walked into the courtroom as a witness for the prosecution? But alas… RIP Stacy. Praying for justice for you as well.

  38. Stacy did walk into that courtroom as a witness for the prosecution. Just not in the way she would have liked. Drew’s attempt to silence her has only made the truth surface to the top. I can only hope Stacy and Lisa Stebic, will both have their days in court.
    Keep the faith!

  39. Still with the blame…

    Peter XXXX (An attorney)
    I believe you were in over your head from the very beginning in spite of your unsavory client. All of you on the defense team needed a primer in trial practice 101.
    Saturday at 10:20pm via mobile

    Joel A. Brodsky
    Peter XXXX Did you ever try a case where the guy you brought in to do the motions and objections didn’t prepare, didn’t do his job, and instead constantly undermined you, constantly plotted to gain control of the case, the client, and get the most media exposure possible (including by leaking trial strategy and privileged information)? The person that did that in the Peterson case was Steve Greenberg and that is what I had to contend with.
    about an hour ago

  40. I’m still waiting for the announcement that Brodsky is going to be representing Drew in his appeal.

    Tick, tock, tick tock…..should be any day now.

  41. So Joel got Drew to sign a complaint with the ARDC against Greenberg in September. Now Joel has got one against himself courtesy Judge Burmila. Can they just call it even and move on?

  42. Yesterday’s events (I imagine the trial reports are compiled to make it easier for the appeals team to perfect the appeal):

    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-27-12 PREPARED BY ROCHINA DEBARTOLO
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-23-12 PREPARED BY ROCHINA DEBARTOLO
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-10-12 PREPARED BY ROCHINA DEBARTOLO
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-2-12 PREPARED BY ROCHINA DEBARTOLO
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 7-20-12 PREPARED BY ROCHINA DEBARTOLO
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 7-23-12 PREPARED BY CHRISTINA BASIS-PRINZI
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 10-1-10 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 7-18-12 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 7-23-12 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 7-24-12 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-7-12 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-14-12 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-23-12 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-31-12 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 9-5-12 PREPARED BY STEVE VITHOULKAS
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-24-12 PREPARED BY CYNTHIA JARZ
    03/11/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-16-12 PREPARED BY CYNTHIA JARZ

  43. Here is a list of the state appellate defenders and deputies. Don’t know yet which one(s) will be working on Peterson’s appeal. Other public defenders could also be involved.

    MICHAEL J. PELLETIER
    DAVID P. BERGSCHNEIDER
    PATRICIA UNSINN
    TONYA JANECEK
    ALAN D. GOLDBERG
    THOMAS A. LILIEN
    PETER A. CARUSONA
    KAREN MUNOZ
    JOHANNAH B. WEBER
    ANNE CARLSON

  44. All those ‘events’ reports are trial transcripts that are to be used in the Appeal.

    Thanks Facs, for being right on top of things!

  45. I think the “reports” may be more condensed than the full trial transcripts.

    AFAIK the transcripts are already available so would not require any further efforts besides transmitting them or printing them out. But I don’t really know. Could just be transcripts.

  46. Yes, that’s correct.

    Interesting that Drew was able to get them for free. In Illinois in the past, only defendants who had been sentenced to death and proven to be indigent were able to get them for free. Every other convicted person who wanted to appeal had to pay for them, even indigent persons. That must have changed after we got rid of the death penalty.

  47. Why should he get a public defender? Are they aware of his income?
    State prosecuted him and now the states going to represent him for free,(with his income).unbelievable!!!

  48. Looks as if the ARDC complaint is moving along as well…

    03/11/2013 Certified Mailing Card Returned Signed for ATTORNEY REGISTRATION
    03/11/2013 Certified Mailing Card Returned Signed for A.R.D.C. ON 03/07/2013
    03/12/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-30-12 PREPARED BY CHRISTINA BASIS-PRINZI
    03/12/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-15-12 PREPARED BY CHRISTINA BASIS-PRINZI
    03/12/2013 Report of Proceedings 8-3-12 PREPARED BY CHRISTINA BASIS-PRINZI

  49. So, so bitter…

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law shared a link.
    about an hour ago

    When he imposed this gag order, Judge Zagel showed what a class act he is. He didn’t name any particular lawyer, or blame any one particular person, and he didn’t say that anyone was in error or acting improperly. He was low key and a real gentleman, and he is maintaining firm control of the trial and not letting it turn into a circus. No “county judge who held a grudge” to quote Sir Paul McCartney.

    Judge imposes gag order in William Beavers trial

  50. What IS he talking about? How many times did Judge White try to shut him them up?

    It’s Burmila’s fault that JB et al behaved like disrespectful amateurs?

  51. I’m pretty sure he’s still reacting to Judge Burmila’s post-sentencing move to have the ARDC review the fact that Joel publicly said that Drew’s taking the stand would have been an “unmitigated disaster” (a possible a breach of attorney/client privilege).

    Burmila opted NOT to gag him, so he’s now whining about something that didn’t happen. :roll:

    But suggesting that it was Judge Burmila who created the “circus” at Drew’s trial is just nuts. The Joel & Drew Circus came to town in 2008 and still hasn’t really gone away…

  52. My guess is that Joel probably lies awake at night replaying Judge Burmila’s biting words about his lack of experience, over, and over, and over…

    “It’s clear from the beginning that (Brodsky) was out of his depth”

    “He did not possess the lawerly skills that were necessary to undertake this matter”

  53. JB said he didn’t disagree with those assessments….it wasn’t going to matter because he was getting others on board who were up to the task. He was just the bus driver. LOL

    He is smarting from the report to ARDC from a judge,though, sure enough. That probably doesn’t happen very often. Another claim to fame, heh heh heh.

  54. If that being the case…why didn’t Brodsky allow the ones with the experience do their job…staying in your expertise and making a fool of yourself..are two entirely different things…Lopez and Greenberg were in their element…Brodsky could have sat back and enjoyed the show…this is not hindsight…the writing was on the wall way before the trial began..

  55. I do remember Judge B admonishing lawyers (Lopez especially) for Tweeting from the court room. They then started going to the press overflow room to tweet (although Greenberg was seen lurking on Justice Cafe while in court)

    Lopez had his running blog in the Sun-Times during the trial, but it never disclosed any trial strategy (that I saw). It did strongly skew the facts in the favor of the defense team but of course that would fall under the protection of a “vigorous defense” I suppose.

    Greenberg was often out on the court house lawn chatting up Beth Karas for HLN, but IIRC he never disclosed strategy either. Beth would ask about what might happen that day and he’d say, “Wait and see.” or whatever.

    Although Lopez and Greenberg were obviously taking advantage of the situation to get camera time, I don’t recall either of them directly quoting conversations between themselves and the client, or blabbing details of the defense strategy either before or after trial.

    Joel is presently being taken to task for something he said after Drew got sent to the big house, supposedly in an attempt to defend himself against the claims that he was ineffective (at least that’s how he’s trying to justify it). Is it Judge B’s job to now follow the attorneys around and remind them to STFU?

  56. Well I keep checking back here to see if anything new is going on with the attorneys or appeals, and hoping something will finally come to be for Stacy. Glad DP is finally where he needs to be.

    In the meantime I have gotten completely submerged into the Jodi Arias thing. Amazing how much evil walks amongst us. So sick and tired of everyone trying to find a diagnosis and reason for all this. Sometimes, bad seeds are just that, bad seeds.
    Hopefully this will be the last one I will get drawn into. SP, DP, CA, and JA are enough to last me a lifetime.

  57. Judge upholds Oak Brook’s decision to fire Drew Peterson’s son

    Drew Peterson’s son deserved to lose his police badge for his actions following the 2007 disappearance of Peterson’s young wife, a DuPage County judge ruled this morning.

    Stephen Peterson, 33, was fired from the Oak Brook Police Department in 2011 after officials ruled that he delivered contradictory testimony, failed to disclose information and demonstrated poor judgment during an Illinois State Police investigation into the vanishing of Stacy Peterson, his father’s fourth wife.

    The village police and fire commission also said Stephen Peterson took three weapons from his father to prevent them from being seized when law enforcement agents searched Drew Peterson’s Bolingbrook home. Drew Peterson was charged with owning an assault rifle with an illegal short barrel, but the case was later dismissed.

    Judge Terence M. Sheen upheld the commission’s decision in a written ruling released this morning.

    Stephen Peterson, who had his young daughter with him at the Wheaton courthouse for the brief hearing, showed no visible reaction to the ruling. He is expected to appeal the decision, as he has long maintained that he was helping his father and his actions had nothing to do with his duties as an Oak Brook Police officer.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-judge-upholds-oak-brooks-decision-to-fire-drew-petersons-son-20130318,0,3131521.story?track=rss

  58. So he lost the federal case, he lost the local case and the commission handed down their decision long ago (which he already appealed and lost).

    Maybe time to look for another job?

  59. 2011MR000291

    STEPHEN PETERSON -VS- VILLAGE OF OAK BROOK ILLINOIS

    JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY OTHER THAN A TAX COMMISSION

    CLOSED

  60. This was the Judge’s ruling in the federal case. Hard to believe he thought he’d win it in a lower court after being dismissed there.

  61. Like father like son. The rules don’t apply to them.

    Which is why I truly hope there is a way to get Lacy and Anthony more exposure to people outside of the Peterson family.

  62. I agree, Granny! Since these consequences are all due to M35067 and jr’s own actions, I can only be concerned for Stacy’s young ones.

  63. PRESS RELEASE:

    State’s Attorney Glasgow to be honored for domestic violence initiatives

    by Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women’s Network

    JOLIET – Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow will by honored by the Chicago Metropolitan Battered Women’s Network for his prosecutorial leadership in the area of protecting the victims of domestic violence.

    State’s Attorney Glasgow will be honored at The Network’s 16th Annual “Chicago Chefs Spring Into Action” Benefit on Thursday, March 28 at the Wolf Point Ballroom in the Holiday Inn Chicago Mart Plaza.

    In choosing to honor State’s Attorney Glasgow, The Network cited the importance that the state’s attorney has placed on the impact of violence against women in our communities. Executive Director Dawn Dalton pointed to the Drew Peterson and Christopher Vaughn prosecutions as examples of the state’s attorney’s efforts.

    “From the moment Christopher Vaughn and Drew Peterson came into the public’s awareness, you named the acts for what they were – domestic violence,” Dalton wrote in a letter to the state’s attorney. “It is our experience that this is not always a first act of our elected leaders, and for this we applaud you.”

    State’s Attorney Glasgow stated: “It is extraordinarily gratifying to be honored by a network of organizations that has been instrumental in providing necessary services to the victims of domestic violence who are working to regain control of their lives. The Network also has provided critical leadership in raising public awareness about domestic abuse and the serious problems it creates for women, children and families in our society.”…

  64. Judge upholds Oak Brook’s firing of Drew Peterson’s cop son
    BY CHUCK FIELDMAN

    March 18, 2013 3:14PM

    The firing of former Oak Brook police officer Stephen Peterson in 2011 was been upheld Monday by DuPage County Judge Terence M. Sheen.

    After being fired by Oak Brook’s Police and Fire Commission, Peterson filed a lawsuit in DuPage County, seeking to overturn his dismissal.

    Peterson was dismissed after the Fire and Police Commission determined Peterson didn’t disclose important information to Illinois State Police during their investigation into the disappearance of his father’s fourth wife, Stacy.

    Drew Peterson, Stephen’s father, was sentenced to 38 years in prison for the 2004 murder of Kathleen Savio, his third wife.

    Authorities have said Stephen Peterson was given three weapons and $236,000 by his father shortly after Stacy Peterson vanished from her Bolingbrook home on Oct. 28, 2007, but didn’t immediately disclose that information to investigators.

    “In this case, it was in no way arbitrary or unreasonable for the board to conclude that Officer Peterson exhibited conduct incompatible with continued service as a police officer,” Sheen wrote in his opinion. “Therefore, this court finds that Officer Peterson’s conduct, when viewed in its entirety warrants the sanction of discharge.”

    In firing the younger Peterson, commission members in a prepared statement said he “used extremely poor judgment with respect to the weapons and the money he received from his father.”

    “We agree with the judges decision and the actions our Police and Fire Commission took,” Oak Brook Village Manager David Niemeyer said.

    Peterson has 30 days to appeal Sheen’s decision to the Illinois Appellate Court.~.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/18942297-418/judge-upholds-oak-brooks-firing-of-drew-petersons-cop-son.html

Comments are closed.