Two of Drew Peterson’s lawyers jump ship

Peterson with Andrew Abood. George Lenard

Two Peterson attorneys withdraw

April 14, 2010

By JOE HOSEY jhosey@stmedianetwork.com
JOLIET — Drew Peterson’s ship might not be sinking, but his lawyers sure are jumping off fast enough.

Two of Peterson’s attorneys — George Lenard of Joliet and Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Mich. — filed motions to withdraw from Peterson’s murder case.

The motions for both men cited “irreconcilable differences with co-counsel Joel Brodsky” and stated that “to go forth and proceed to trial would violate our firm’s ethical duty to zealously represent the best interests of our client.”

Brodsky, Peterson’s self-proclaimed “lead attorney,” was the first of the three lawyers to be retained by the former Bolingbrook cop. The Chicago attorney had taken a back seat to Lenard and Abood during the landmark hearing held in January and February to determine what hearsay evidence will be allowed at Peterson’s murder trial.

Peterson is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in March 2004. A state police investigation of Savio’s death ended with detectives concluding she accidentally drowned in her bathtub. But when Peterson’s next wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in October 2007, the state police got another crack at figuring out what happened to Savio and decided that Peterson murdered her.

The state police also believe that Peterson may have had a hand in slaying the missing Stacy, but have failed to find her body, much less determine what has happened to her.

Peterson has not been charged in connection with Stacy’s disappearance. He remains in the Will County Jail.

Abood said Peterson is aware of his and Lenard’s decision to pull out of the case.

“We’ve done our due diligence,” he said, adding that “We left on good terms.”

Abood declined to discuss Peterson’s reaction to losing two-thirds of his defense team.

“I don’t want to comment on Drew’s emotional state,” he said.

Lenard and Brodsky did not immediately return calls for comment.

Lenard is scheduled to appear before Judge Stephen White on April 29 to discuss the motion. On Wednesday morning it was not known if Lenard’s and Abood’s withdrawal would push back the slated June 14 start to Peterson’s trial.

Read the story at the Sun Times

~By commenting you agree to be bound by the rules of this blog. If you spot a rule violation, send an e-mail to petersonstory@gmail.com.~ Line and paragraph breaks are automatic in comments. The following HTML tags are allowed: <a href=""> <abbr> <acronym> <b> <blockquote> <cite> <pre> <em> <i> <q> <strike> <strong>

Advertisements

56 thoughts on “Two of Drew Peterson’s lawyers jump ship

  1. Not a good day for Drew. I wonder if we’ll start seeing more public statements in the media now. Seems those things quietened down once Lenard was on the case. Oh to be a fly on the wall to hear the argument that led to this. For both of the lawyers to quit at the same time is a big deal.

  2. Called him out by name, heh “Irreconcilable differences with co-counsel, Joel Brodsky.” Ego too big there, Joel?

    Wonder when Joel will announce who he wants to have join him now? That will be interesting. Anyone we’ve heard of Joel?

  3. The attorney Joel is bringing on has been confirmed. Joseph Lopez is the attorney that was Karen Conti’s opposing counsel in the Drew Peterson Mock Trial.

    Shakeup of Drew Peterson’s defense team as 2 attorneys file motion to be removed from case
    By Associated Press

    12:09 PM CDT, April 14, 2010
    CHICAGO (AP) — There’s been a shakeup on the defense team representing Drew Peterson, just two months before the former Bolingbrook police officer is scheduled to stand trial in the slaying of his former wife.

    But lead attorney Joel Brodsky says Peterson’s trial will begin in June as scheduled.

    Attorney Andrew Abood says the motion he and attorney George Lenard filed Wednesday cites “irreconcilable differences.” Neither he nor Brodsky would elaborate.

    Brodsky says attorney Joseph Lopez will join the defense team. Lopez represented one of several reputed mobsters convicted in 2007 in a major racketeering conspiracy.

    Peterson is charged with murder in the 2004 death of Kathleen Savio. He’s a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson but hasn’t been charged.

    Peterson denies any wrongdoing.

    http://www.fox2now.com/news/sns-ap-il–drewpeterson-attorneys,0,3597993.story

  4. Remember this? Kind of funny…

    Hung jury in mock trial of Drew Peterson

    May 29, 2009
    By JOE HOSEY jhosey@scn1.com

    CHICAGO — Drew Peterson might want to give Joseph R. Lopez a call.

    Lopez, a high-profile attorney, managed to hang a jury in his defense of Peterson at a Thursday night mock murder trial at Chicago-Kent College of Law. WGN Radio sponsored the event and will broadcast it June 14 and 21.

    The attorneys involved in the mock trial based their cases on information reported through the press, as they do not have access to the state’s evidence…

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/1597324,Peterson-mock-trial_jo052909.stng

  5. Posted: Wednesday, 14 April 2010 1:56PM
    2 of Peterson’s attorneys leaving the case

    Steve Miller Reporting
    CHICAGO (WBBM) — The Drew Peterson defense team is changing: Two lawyers are dropping out and one lawyer has signed on. And that new lawyer says the Peterson defense needs some help.

    Out: Attorneys George Lenard of Joliet and Andrew Abood of East Lansing, Michigan.

    Both lawyers filed motions saying they had “irreconcilable differences” with the lead attorney on the Drew Peterson case, Joel Brodsky.

    Attorney Andrew Abood.

    “Any time you have three lawyers working on a case there can be problems.”

    Brodsky says there were irreconcilable differences on defense strategy.

    He says attorney Joseph Lopez is joining Peterson’s defense.

    “Joe and I have already discussed defense strategy and we’re in agreement, so I think that Joe Lopez and I perhaps another lawyer – we’re talking to another couple of people – will be prepared to try this case starting on June 14.”

    Lopez, known for his flamboyant style and often flashy clothes, represented convicted mobster Frank Calabrese Sr.

    “I think the defense does need some help and I think they’ve recognized it. I’m no stranger to murder cases. So they’ve asked me to come aboard,” Lopez tells Newsradio 780.

    http://www.wbbm780.com/2-of-Peterson-s-attorneys-leaving-the-case/6803898

  6. “I think the defense does need some help and I think they’ve recognized it. I’m no stranger to murder cases. So they’ve asked me to come aboard,” Lopez tells Newsradio 780.

    What happened to that overconfident, there’s no evidence, no proof, no murder, attitude we’ve been hearing about?

    Haven’t there been mock trials held, with Abood saying they had a good outcome?

    WTF?

  7. Looks like Lopez has a couple of cases in Will County at the moment:

    LOPEZ JOSEPH R. 4 16 10 930 405 CARDENAS LUIS M 06CF002799 RCS
    LOPEZ JOSEPH R. 4 30 10 930 402 FLORES ROBERTO 08CF002590 SDW

  8. Well, if he gets used up and he has to drop off, they can always try Mike Robinson’s guy. He’s managed to keep Robinson’s case going on forever.

    Funny, George Lenard hasn’t had nearly the problems handling Stebic’s unusual circumstances, although similar, as he now seems to be having with Peterson. Ooops, I mean Brodsky. He’s having trouble with Brodsky. I gotta keep that straight.

  9. Look, Joel is a blustering hothead. We know some of the names he’s called radio show hosts, and that he’s bullied and threatened numerous people who have butted heads with him (Pinkus, Phelps, LeFort, etc.) He’s been seen arguing loudly, publicly and profanely with his own wife.

    Peterson picked Joel to be his “lead attorney” because he felt that the two of them clicked — not because of his legal expertise. I’m not surprised at all that his…erm…style could be grating to other, more professional attorneys.

  10. Let me add something to your comment, Facs. I have never, ever, and don’t believe I ever will, heard of an attorney using his own client to promote his own personal business establishment by offering him up on radio interviews. If that isn’t insanity, I don’t know what is. Drink his beer, eat his chicken wings. Say you’ve been there and it’s a great place. Then, Drew will do an interview.

    Dates with Drew, whore house gigs, blogging for ideas of what it would take to convict Drew (remember, Joel asked the bloggers on SYM what it would take for them to find him guilty), white noise.

    It’s all nuts. Why would any attorney want to be associated with any of this mess?

  11. Well ant this a hellofa thing Lenards gone Aboods gone now Lopez in if memorey serves me I think Lopez lost the Calbrese Sr. case? So I have to say to Petersons defence team NA NA NA NA NAN HEY HEY DROOPY YOU DUMB BASTERD YOU ARE GOING DOWN!!!!!!!!!!

  12. rescueapet :Let me add something to your comment, Facs. I have never, ever, and don’t believe I ever will, heard of an attorney using his own client to promote his own personal business establishment by offering him up on radio interviews. If that isn’t insanity, I don’t know what is. Drink his beer, eat his chicken wings. Say you’ve been there and it’s a great place. Then, Drew will do an interview.
    Dates with Drew, whore house gigs, blogging for ideas of what it would take to convict Drew (remember, Joel asked the bloggers on SYM what it would take for them to find him guilty), white noise.
    It’s all nuts. Why would any attorney want to be associated with any of this mess?

    Turkeys of a feather… flock together?

  13. Hi Guys. Just saw this, and was wondering if anyone else was thinking maybe Judge White revealed his decision to the attorneys about the hearsay being admitted, and possibly caused some “irreconcilable differences” over opinions of how the trial might play out? Just speculation I know, but I couldn’t help wondering. Interesting mess of feathers going on here.

  14. Okay, everyone, we asked Karen Conti for a general opinion on what would be the reason for the attorneys to withdraw.

    KAREN CONTI:

    When attorneys seek to withdraw from representation in criminal cases, judges may deny the request. The judge’s job is to ensure a fair trial and attorneys withdrawing (especially well into the trial preparation) can impact a defendant’s rights negatively for obvious reasons. Therefore, the lawyers must allege some sort of conflict. That can be about not being paid or about disagreements as to strategy. It could be that Drew agrees to the withdrawal. But normally if the client agrees to the withdrawal, the motion would be presented with language that says the client agrees, which makes the judge’s job easier. (Judges do not want to force a defendant to use an attorney.)

    This is speculation, but It is possible that Drew made some incriminating statements to his attorneys and now insists upon testifying to the contrary. It is unethical for a lawyer to put a defendant on the stand and elicit testimony that he knows is false. It is NOT wrong to make the state meet its burden of proof and cross exam and argue that the defendant is not guilty. A lawyer just cannot suborn perjury.

    On a final note, sociopaths are very difficult to deal with. They can be charming and manipulative, but can also have fierce tempers. They are not playing by the same rules as the rest of us and do not understand why the court processes have to be observed as to them. Very often, sociopaths fire their attorneys who will not go along with their plans. I do not imagine that Drew Peterson is an easy man, husband, or client to deal with.

  15. Thanks, Rescue and Karen!

    CFS – good thinking. I wonder as well about the timing of this decision. Did Judge White’s ruling on the hearsay cause Joel to come up with a strange defense theory to work from like…Stacy killed Kathleen…and these two just didn’t want any part of it?

  16. Exactly Facs. Sort of like jumping ship before it sinks, was my thinking, and for several possible reasons. Fighting a losing battle being the main one, although I’m sure Mr. Lopez would state otherwise.

  17. After rewatching that video clip I don’t think Lopez would have any problem with attacking the victims. Note that he refers to Drew meeting up with Stacy and Scott Rossetto “after their grand slam breakfast, or rather after their grand slam…one or the other. I’m not really sure…”

  18. Theo @#18 – Yes, you are correct:

    Lopez, known for his flamboyant style and often flashy clothes, represented convicted mobster Frank Calabrese Sr.

    I heard snippets of the attorneys, Abood and Brodsky, speak on WBBM News Radio. Abood said he thinks they did a good job representing Drew. Joel says he always was, still is, and always will be the lead attorney.

    Oh, Joy.

  19. Noted defense attorney joins Drew Peterson’s legal team

    April 14, 2010
    BY STEVE WARMBIR AND NATASHA KORECKI Staff Reporters

    Drew Peterson, going to trial in June for allegedly killing his wife, now has a “Shark” in his corner.

    Well known criminal defense attorney Joseph “The Shark” Lopez, who once represented a mob hitman who killed 13 people, is joining Peterson’s legal defense team.

    Moments before filing his appearance in the case Wednesday, Lopez said he’s getting involved to see justice done.

    Peterson “is being blamed for some kind of accident,” Lopez said. “It’s not justice. Justice never rests, and I want to help.”

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police officer, is charged with murder in the 2004 death of Kathleen Savio. He’s a suspect in the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, but hasn’t been charged.

    Lopez, practicing law since the early 1980s, has represented clients in dozens of murder trials over the years. Most recently, he represented Outfit killer Frank Calabrese Sr. in the historic Family Secrets mob case in federal court, one of several well known mobsters Lopez has worked with over the years. Lopez, known for his colorful courtroom attire and quick wit, also represented Peterson in a mock trial for a local radio station.

    Lopez is coming into the case as two attorneys are leaving.

    Attorney Andrew Abood says the motion he and attorney George Lenard filed Wednesday cites “irreconcilable differences.” Neither Abood nor Peterson’s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, would elaborate.

    Contributing: Associated Press

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/peterson/2159252,drew-peterson-shark-lopez-041410.article

  20. Maybe someone needs to tell Drew that Lopez’s client in the Family Secrets case was found guilty of murder and was sentenced to life last year.

  21. Well Facs, a lot has changed since Lopez did that mock trial. If he uses the same notes, he might as well hang it up. Not very impressive in my book. Besides, he’s too condescending to the jurors. Hopefully the real ones will see through him. He also seems to be more Brodsky’s style, if you guys know what I mean. “Refined” or “Esteemed” is not an adjectve I would use to describe either one of them.

  22. Funny – there’s no press release out on Selig’s site touting the news about losing two lawyers but gaining a shark…

  23. Talk about dual idiots (thanks to, in part, Glenn Selig):

    Rod Blagojevich’s ego, narcissism, and motor mouth have no bounds. After his hiring of the same publicist as Drew Peterson, the celebrity moron, it is surprising the federal judge did not put a stop to the stand up circus that is Rod Blagojevich. I am surprised he has allowed him to keep giving all these interviews, having a radio show, and appearing on entertainment shows.

    http://themiddleclassguy.blogspot.com/2010/04/celebrity-idiot.html

  24. Sounds almost like the two that left might have wanted to make a plea deal, but Brodsky wanted to take it to trial. From Joe Hosey’s article above:

    “The motions for both men cited “irreconcilable differences with co-counsel Joel Brodsky” and stated that “to go forth and proceed to trial would violate our firm’s ethical duty to zealously represent the best interests of our client.”

  25. It sure sounded more like a disagreement between the lawyers than something specific about Drew. It could really be anything though. Maybe Brodsky is saying Drew should take the stand and they disagree. Maybe they think he should cop a plea to get a lesser sentence. Maybe Joel is going to request a pretrial appeal (interlocutory appeal) for any hearsay that was going to be allowed and the others disagreed since it would mean Drew sitting in jail for at least another year before the trial proceeds. So many possibilities.

  26. Think, it could be anything, but as I said upthread, my first thought too, was maybe Judge White told them his decision on the hearsay evidence, which helped to create the dissention. If it’s in, I don’t see how Drew has a chance at being exonerated, but we just don’t know enough about it at this point, dang it. And we all know how Brodsky is, so there are no surprises there. He’s going to ride this train as long as he can, gravyless or not.

  27. Karen Conti did say:

    don’t be surprised if we don’t know what the true reasons are. It would be a breach of attorney client privilege to publicly disclose the juicy details.

  28. I don’t think the case is so much of a gravy train right now though. I’d think he’d want it done soon so he can start writing his memoirs. 🙂 It will be interesting to see if the defense asks for more time to prepare the defense if they are going to just find out about the hearsay evidence and now lost two lawyers.

    IMO Drew really needs a lawyer that someone makes him look sympathetic to a jury.

  29. rescueapet :Karen Conti did say:

    don’t be surprised if we don’t know what the true reasons are. It would be a breach of attorney client privilege to publicly disclose the juicy details.

    Absolutely Rescue, but that certainly leaves the door open for speculation. They are the ones who said “going to trial would violate their ethical duty to represent the best interests of their client.” That says quite a bit to me, whether it was meant to be a disclosure or not. We shall see one great day, as the old hymn goes.

  30. thinkaboutit2 :I don’t think the case is so much of a gravy train right now though. I’d think he’d want it done soon so he can start writing his memoirs. It will be interesting to see if the defense asks for more time to prepare the defense if they are going to just find out about the hearsay evidence and now lost two lawyers.
    IMO Drew really needs a lawyer that someone makes him look sympathetic to a jury.

    Me either Think. That’s why I called it “gravyless.” Brodsky says they’re going to trial on schedule, but I wondered that too. Sure would be a good excuse for an extension though, so it wouldn’t surprise me.

  31. rescueapet :CFS – yes, I thought that too. Like, he tells them where Stacy is, and we’ll……

    I meant if he went ahead and entered a guilty plea and avoided trial, in exchange for a lesser sentence than he might get if convicted, but your idea is plausible too Rescue. There’s something going on for sure.

  32. That was an interesting re-read Facs. By the looks of things, Lenard has/had so much going on, I don’t know how he had the time for Drew anyway. Busy guy. But Brodsky is aiming for quality, not quantity, don’t cha know? He’s probably just jealous because he can’t seat five attorneys at his table, so that’s his lame excuse. Trouble is, he can’t keep quality or quantity, lol.

  33. 2 attorneys for Drew Peterson withdraw
    They cite ‘irreconcilable differences’ with co-counsel Joel Brodsky

    By Alicia Fabbre, Special to the Tribune

    5:35 PM CDT, April 14, 2010

    Drew Peterson lost two members of his defense team on Wednesday as attorneys Andrew Abood and George Lenard withdrew from the case citing “irreconcilable differences” with co-counsel Joel Brodsky.

    Will County Circuit Judge Stephen White approved Abood’s and Lenard’s requests to withdraw from the case. When asked if he objected to their motions, Peterson hesitated before telling White he had no objections.

    “I think (Peterson) understands, and I think he’s disappointed that we’re no longer on the case,” Abood said after the hearing.

    Peterson is charged with killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, in 2004. State police also suspect that Peterson was involved with the disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, but he has not been charged.

    In their motions, Abood and Lenard said they differed with Brodsky over strategy and that proceeding with the case would violate their “ethical duty to zealously represent the best interests” of their client.

    Brodsky admitted to differences with his co-counsels about defense strategy but declined to elaborate.

    Abood and Lenard spent several minutes speaking with Peterson before the motion hearing. After the hearing was over, Abood shook hands with Peterson and wished him “good luck.”

    “It was a pleasure working with Drew Peterson and Andrew Abood,” Lenard said after the hearing. “It’s unfortunate it got to the point that it did, but there were no alternatives.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-met-0415-peterson-attorneys-20100414,0,2832012,print.story

  34. “It was a pleasure working with Drew Peterson and Andrew Abood,” Lenard said after the hearing.

    Hmmm, he left someone out of that didn’t he? LOL

  35. rescueapet :Karen Conti did say:

    don’t be surprised if we don’t know what the true reasons are. It would be a breach of attorney client privilege to publicly disclose the juicy details.

    Oh… to be a fly on THAT wall!

  36. Shake-up on Peterson defense team Two out, new high-profile attorney in
    Drew Peterson may be fickle in love, but his devotion to lead attorney Joel Brodsky hasn’t wavered.

    Two months before Peterson’s trial on charges he murdered his third wife is set to begin, two of the former Bolingbrook police sergeant’s attorneys bowed out. Andrew Abood and George Lenard withdrew Wednesday, citing “irreconcilable differences” with co-counsel Brodsky.

    The attorneys sparred over key trial issues, sources said, such as whether Kathleen Savio’s 2004 bathtub drowning in her Bolingbrook home was a suicide. Brodsky opposes the suicide defense and plans to argue Savio slipped in the bathtub, consistent with the original autopsy findings suggesting an accidental drowning, the sources said.

    Another point of contention dealt with how to present evidence of Peterson’s alibi at the time the 40-year-old Savio died. The three lawyers recently met with Peterson in the Will County jail. Peterson sided with Brodsky – his original attorney and with whom he feels most comfortable, the sources said.

    “We did everything we could under the circumstances,” Abood said, declining to divulge specifics. “We’ve done our due diligence. There comes a point in time when you have to step aside. Certainly all the theories we intended to pursue would have been based on the evidence.”

    Brodsky said jury selection still should begin June 14 as scheduled. Though Peterson lost two attorneys, he gained veteran Chicago lawyer Joseph Lopez, who recently represented Frank Calabrese Sr., in the landmark Family Secrets federal mob trial.

    “It’s a very interesting case,” said Lopez, who represented Peterson in a mock trial for a Chicago radio station and said he is up to speed on the evidence. “It was an accident; a slip and fall.”

    The 56-year-old Peterson also is a suspect in the October 2007 disappearance of his fourth wife, Stacy, 23, but he hasn’t been charged with any wrongdoing in that case. Stacy Peterson’s family spokeswoman, Pamela Bosco, said the family fears the attorney shake-up may cause a trial delay.

    “We just want it done and for this circus to be over with,” Bosco said.

    This isn’t the first defense controversy. Naperville attorney John P. Carroll was briefly on the team but never appeared in court. The former Chicago homicide detective came under fire for a couple of recent cases, including his handling of a downstate death penalty case in which he submitted a $2 million bill to the state’s capital litigation fund, prompting reforms after outraged legislators alleged abuses.

    http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=373145

  37. …such as whether Kathleen Savio’s 2004 bathtub drowning in her Bolingbrook home was a suicide. Brodsky opposes the suicide defense and plans to argue Savio slipped in the bathtub, consistent with the original autopsy findings suggesting an accidental drowning, the sources said.

    SUICIDE? Where did that come from? Did she hit herself on the head and then hold her own head under water? That doesn't even make any sense.

    Unless I see something from Abood and/or Lenard saying they wanted to pursue this defense, I don’t believe this.

  38. I agree. Where in the world did anything come up about suicide? I can’t even make sense out of that theory, no matter how I look at the autopsy evidence. I sat and listened to their forensic expert weave his bizarre theories about possible scenarios, and as weird as they all were, I don’t recall an explanation as to how she bruised herself up, cracked herself on the head, and then forced herself to remain underwater to drown herself. Suicide? Accident is unbelievable, but this is crazy.

  39. Well, well. That’s certainly not what I expected Rescue. Karen Conti was right, if those “sources” know what they’re talking about, but it sure does sound Brodskyesque to me. What surprises me is how they were “supposedly” going to use suicide as a defense when there were no drugs or alcohol in her body, no cuts to her veins or arteries, no gunshot wound, no ligatures around her neck, etc, etc, etc. Doesn’t even make sense, but a lot in this case sometimes doesn’t. Just sounds like another excuse Brodsky made up and got in the press to make him look less like the villian in the split. Seriously. I may be wrong, and it wouldn’t be the first time, but I wouldn’t put it past him using unnamed sources for his benefit.

  40. I see we all feel the same way about that article. I believe it’s a figment of somebody’s warped imagination.

  41. So maybe they are tired of chicken wings at all the meetings, just once they would like a burger or a salad. IN MY OPINION it sounds like “we think he is guilty and we want to save our reputations.”

    The source (of all evil?) does sound a bit like Joel, especially the “his original attorney and with whom he feels most comfortable, the sources said.”

    The suicide comment seems strange, it sounds like the source is saying that is what Abood or Lenard wanted to use as the defense. I’m guessing they are smarter than to try that one, after all they choose to leave.

  42. I would have an easier time of it if they tried to put the blame of her non-accidental death on someone else, rather than either stick with accident or suicide.

    Why would these two attorneys leap to suicide, when they had their own forensic specialist list a bunch of accident theories. Unless this forensic specialist has changed his way of thinking after he was advised the lead investigator admitted the initial investigation was botched, and towels appeared in the room after it was verified they weren’t there in the first place. Towels which he used in his report as indicating she was preparing for a bath.

    IDK, it’s as strange as usual when it comes to Drew Peterson/Joel Brodsky.

    Unless, the suicide theory is that she went around telling people Drew was going to kill her, but she one-upped him by killing herself and wanting him to take the fall for it. That’ll work, heh?

  43. yes, yes….I’ll show Drew was her suicidal motive, after all what did she have to live for, Drew had left her and she would never find anyone as awesome as he. So she threw herself around to cause brusing, whacked her head, held herself under water….then realized someone would find her, she better clean up the bathroom with her last breath. (end sarcasm)

  44. Isn’t this stuff crazy, by the way? It isn’t about what the truth is, or what the facts are. It’s about which strategy is the most plausible, and which is the best one to present to the jury in order to get them to believe what the defense wants them to. These guys meet, talk out scenarios, and then argue who has the best bullshit to present. Just dandy. Apparently, Abood and Lenard think their bullshit is better than Brodsky and Drew’s.

  45. Rescue, that is probably the most sickening part of this. If they can find one shred, lie, truth or twist of a fact, that can cause 1 juror to say “hmmmm…” They have had a great day.

Comments are closed.