Joel Brodsky and Steve Greenberg both to stay on Drew Peterson defense team. Sentencing pushed to 2013

UPDATE 10:16:

Attorney Joe Lopez reports that the ineffective assistance motion will not be heard today.

UPDATE 11:06:

Craig Wall tweets: “Brodsky seemed downcast in courtroom. Now meeting with Peterson in back room. No telling what will happen until its on the record in court”

Joe Hosey tweets: “…Michelle Gonzalez, met with Drew Peterson in a back room. Gonzalez says she expects Peterson to dump Brodsky.”

UPDATE 11:18:

Craig Wall tweets: “Joel Brodsky- paraphrasing the Blues Brothers movie- says the band is back together again. So maybe he convinced Peterson to keep him. Until the attorney situation for Drew Peterson is officially on the record in court we will just have to wait. Joe Lopez following the Blues Brother theme says ‘We are on a mission from Drew’. He says Gonzalez and Carroll will not be on the case. Lopez says Brodsky will remain lead counsel for Drew Peterson. Still waiting for court to start. Brodsky more chipper in hallway.”

UPDATE 11:35:

NBC Chicago reports: “Attorney Darryl Goldberg, who quit Peterson’s legal team during the trial, told NBC 5′s Charlie Wojciechowski that four sheriff’s deputies were guarding the room where Peterson is waiting for the hearing in order to keep Brodsky out.” (Have to assume this was prior to Brodsky’s discussion with Peterson in said back room.)

UPDATE 12:16:

Joe Hosey tweets: ” long story short: Carroll and Gonzalez out, Greenberg and Brodsky in. Judge verbally slapped around Brodsky pretty good.”

Craig wall tweets: “Judge Edward Burmila ripped Brodsky for motion asking him to rule ‘quietly and without fanfare’.”

UPDATE 12:42:

Steve Greenberg has withdrawn his motion to withdraw from the defense. Sentencing now scheduled for January 10, 2013

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yesterday Drew Peterson spent fifteen minutes alone with the body of his deceased mother who passed away on Wednesday. It was the first time in three years that he had ventured outside the confines of jail and courthouse.

This morning he appears in court to address before Judge Stephen Burmilla two motions which address his legal representation. Attorneys John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez have filed a motion for a new trial based on ineffective counsel by Peterson’s lead attorney, Joel Brodsky. Gonzalez says that Peterson hired them to do this, and Carroll states that Drew told him “Go ahead” with the motion.

Yesterday, Joel Brodsky distributed his own motion alleging that Drew Peterson never gave Carroll and Gonzalez legal authority to challenge his effectiveness. His motion also asked that they be charged with contempt and that a grand jury and special prosecutor be called to investigate leaks of impounded documents.

Does Drew Peterson really want to boot Brodsky, or is this motion just something he wanted filed in case his appeals fail? in any case, the motion details some nasty allegations against Joel Brodsky who is not pleased.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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>

Advertisements

157 thoughts on “Joel Brodsky and Steve Greenberg both to stay on Drew Peterson defense team. Sentencing pushed to 2013

  1. Peterson confirmed in a phone call Thursday afternoon that he doesn’t want to change attorneys, Brodsky said.

    “He trusts me, he knows I’m only looking out for his best interests,” said Brodsky, claiming Carroll offered Peterson only “crazy advice” during two jailhouse meetings.

    “I straightened him out. Drew knows I’m not going to lie to him,” said Brodsky, who filed his own motion Thursday seeking to boot Carroll off the case.

    He also wants them held in contempt for filing a “totally and completely unauthorized” request to overturn Peterson’s conviction.

    Carroll and Gonzalez were supposed to meet with Peterson only to discuss legal issues pertaining to his police pension, Brodsky said.

    Brodsky contended Peterson may not have been thinking clearly during his discussions with Carroll–particularly on Thursday–because he was upset about his mother’s death.

    “I’m sorry Drew had to endure the haranguing of a snake oil salesman on the day he had to go visit his mother,” Brodsky said.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/15691583-418/battle-between-drew-peterson-attorneys-flares-up-again.html

  2. Here we go…………….The clowns are gathering, ready to come out and jump to the Ring Masters Tune. Only one clown may be missing in person, he says he may choose not to come, because a letter is already there, to go onto the record, representing him, so he need not come. The important thing is to get the letter on record. Besides.. Looks better that way, for later, he thinks. He didn’t have anything to do with any of it…..Wonder if he has forgotten who wrote that letter that is attached to one of those motions??? The clowns have lined up, everything is in place AND,
    All the Ring Master has to do is show up, Crack the whip, and announce……Let the Circus Begin……………

  3. This whole saga is doing my head in.

    I get that everyone deserves a fair trial. Peterson had that. His lawyers must know he is guilty. They have to!

    Now that he is convicted can’t they just walk away happy they vigorously defended him, but knowing that in the grand scheme of things a killer is where he belongs.

    Why why why are they crawling out of the woodwork to try and get this sociopath out of prison?

    It makes me despise defence lawyers.

  4. Of course they know he’s guilty, but you see, adversarial justice has reached its logical extreme.

    He’s been convicted fair and square.I know that jury members have indicated that Harry Smith’s testimony was figuratively the tin hat on the evidence, but I believe there was still enough to see him convicted without it.

    Ladies and gentlemen of the mommykiller’s defense: it’s not about you. Get over yourselves.

    Of course it is sad news to hear of anyone’s mother’s passing. It’s one of the saddest experiences known to humanity. Peterson inflicted this unneccessary misery on his own children.He jeopardised their financial security and all by disqualifying himself from his pension in the same stroke(s).
    The children would want for absolutely nothing if their loving mothers’ loving families (and friends) are allowed by their mommy’s murderer to have normal contact. So stuff your pension. Stephen P: get a job.

  5. I’ve been advised by defense lawyers here that if a client tells his lawyer he’s guilty, they are supposed to resign from the case, but they’re not supposed to disclose to anyone. One could begin to wonder where the boundary lies between ensuring a fair trial and accessory after the fact if a lawyer has heard a confession of guilt of any kind to the charge against their client.

  6. And DP needs to let Stacy’s children say goodbye to her

    Ain’t that the truth Bucket! Drew got to say goodbye to his mother. Stacy’s children should be able to do the same!

  7. Just when you thought a case couldn’t get any more strange!!

    By the way, it is common practice to allow inmates to attend funerals or wakes of first degree relatives.

  8. I don’t think anything can soften drew up….you have to be a very cold person to take another person’s life…he thought he got away with it….had kathleen been cremated …he would have…but Staci is a different story…..he needs to tell his children…the older they get…the harder it will be on them…

  9. “He trusts me, he knows I’m only looking out for his best interests,” said Brodsky, claiming Carroll offered Peterson only “crazy advice” during two jailhouse meetings.

    “I straightened him out. Drew knows I’m not going to lie to him,” said Brodsky.

    I was reminded this morning of the time when Chrissy Raines was living with Drew despite all the press and the warnings of her family.
    Then the Nightline special aired and she saw Drew say how he loses interest in a woman once the passion wanes and that he feels he is entitled to seek it elsewhere. Then Lisa Bloom got in her ear and arranged something like an intervention with her family and she did leave Drew, only to return after a week or so. At that point Drew and Joel went on Dana Pretzer’s show where Joel explained how Chrissy was just confused and overwhelmed and swayed by the people around her pressuring her to leave Drew.

    Joel:

    “I’m not really offended or mad at Chrissy for what happened. She, as Drew said, didn’t have, didn’t know what was going on, didn’t understand what these people who try to pretend to be sincere with her, pretend to be acting in her best interests, what they were all about. Now she understands and I think she’ll be much better able to deal with it.”

    Isn’t it odd that Joel is now using essentially the same words about Drew that he once used about Chrissy?

  10. Joseph Hosey‏@ShorewdILPatch

    Stil waiting for the #drewpeterson hearing to start

    Is it a hearing for something else?

  11. Harley, that would make sense but I don’t know what else there is to be heard.

    Drew continued his decision on Greenberg until November 16th. So what is there to talk about today if not the motion for a new trial due to ineffective assistance?

  12. Craig Wall
    ‏@craigrwall
    Brodsky seemed downcast in courtroom. Now meeting with Peterson in back room. No telling what will happen until its on the record in court

  13. Craig Wall‏@craigrwall

    Atty Michelle Gonzalez: #DrewPeterson wants her and partner John Paul Carroll to handle the case. She says Brodsky is out. Waiting 4 court

  14. Joseph Hosey‏@ShorewdILPatch

    John Paul Carroll’s partner, Michelle Gonzalez, met with #drewpeterson in a back room. Gonzalez says she expects Peterson to dump Brodsky

  15. Craig Wall‏@craigrwall

    Until the attorney situation for #DrewPeterson is officially on the record in court we will just have to wait.

  16. Craig Wall ‏@craigrwall
    @josharrk Lopez following the Blues Brother theme says “we are on a mission from Drew” He says Gonzalez and Carroll will not be on the case

  17. Craig Wall‏@craigrwall

    @josharrk Lopez following the Blues Brother theme says “we are on a mission from Drew” He says Gonzalez and Carroll will not be on the case

    Sooooo, It would appear that Drew is still jerking them all around. 🙄

  18. Craig Wall‏@craigrwall

    @josharrk Lopez says Brodsky will remain lead counsel for #DrewPeterson. Still waiting for court to start. Brodsky more chipper in hallway

  19. So, maybe this is the deal today:

    Judge Burmila is not going to hear the motion for a new trial due to ineffective counsel, but Drew is going to make some decisions about who is representing him.

    But I’m still wondering what the official proceedings are going to be once court is finally in session.

  20. Anna, I get the feeling the guard situation came earlier today – probably to allow Gonzalez and Carrol to meet with Peterson first.

    Since then, Joel Brodsky has met with Peterson, and appears happier than when he was first seen in court.

  21. Well yeah, if Brodsky met with Drew after Gonzalez did, he may have looked happier because Drew probably just lied to him some more, to placate him for a little while. I just don’t see Drew telling Brodsky to his face that he is out. He is a coward.

    Will be interesting to see how it all shakes out. This is like watching a bad break-up. 😕

  22. I’m with you jud…that piece of poison will explode and take others with him…he’s still in denial that he got a fair trial…he’s not going to cry uncle anytime soon…

  23. Joseph Hosey ‏@ShorewdILPatch
    #drewpeterson long story short: Carroll and Gonzalez out, Greenberg and Brodsky in. Judge verbally slapped around Brodsky pretty good

  24. No change in Peterson attorneys for now
    By Janet Lundquist
    October 12, 2012
    12:16PM

    JOLIET — The defense team for Drew Peterson remained intact after a hearing Friday morning in Will County Circuit Court.

    However, Peterson was granted more time by Judge Edward Burmila to consider claims made this week in a motion filed by two outside attorneys.

    Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, was convicted in the slaying of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Burmila had the task of sorting out what has become a confusing mash of motions and accusations, as two lawyers each claim Peterson wants him, but not the other guy.

    Tuesday, Naperville attorney John Paul Carroll and his partner Michelle Gonzalez filed a motion for a new trial for Peterson based on Peterson’s claims that lead attorney Joel Brodsky provided ineffective assistance.

    The motion lists 14 reasons why Peterson believes Brodsky failed in his representation of Peterson.

    The motion also includes a scathing 15-page letter attorney Steve Greenberg sent Brodsky after Peterson “fired” Greenberg from his defense team. Greenberg recently filed a motion to withdraw from the case, but the issue was postponed after he spoke with Peterson.

    After Friday’s hearing, Greenberg also remained on the defense team.

    http://heraldnews.suntimes.com/news/15694038-418/no-change-in-peterson-attorneys-for-now.html

  25. If Brodsky got his way this time, I would be willing to bet that Greenberg will still be out. I don’t see Bodsky allowing him to stay on.

  26. Craig Wall‏@craigrwall

    #DrewPeterson update: Joel Brodsky still on the defense team. States atty Glasgow says he’s never seen such defense drama in 31 years

    🙂

  27. The Herald-News‏@Joliet_HN

    #DrewPeterson wanted to hire Carroll and Gonzales this morning, but changed his mind in front of the judge.

  28. Craig Wall
    ‏@craigrwall
    Judge Edward Burmila ripped Brodsky for motion asking him to rule “quietly and w/o fanfare” on contempt motion against Gonzalez & Carroll

    Craig Wall @craigrwall
    Gonzalez said after court that #DrewPeterson stuck with Brodsky out of loyalty and not wanting to hurt Brodsky’s reputation.

  29. Joseph Hosey @ShorewdILPatch
    Peterson can still claim ineffective counsel due to Brodsky blowing the case. Brodsky tried to talk him out of it but Peterson wants to …

    @PamelaBosco1
    @ShorewdILPatch that is what all this is about. Just so Drew can claim that. Just another defense team tactic.

  30. Craig Wall‏@craigrwall

    @SGcrimlaw has withdrawn his motion to withdraw from the #DrewPeterson case. So the firing that wasn’t isn’t. Sentencing now Jan 10 2013

    Wow Facs, you nailed that one! 😉

  31. With the wisdom of the Court, Judge Burmilla put off major decisions until a later date:
    PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS vs. PETERSON DREW W
    10/12/2012 9:30 am 403 Motions

    10/12/2012 9:15 a.m. Funeral Friday, from Modell Funeral Home, 7710 S. Cass Ave., Darien to Our Lady of Mt. Carmel Church Mass 10 a.m.
    “No change in Peterson attorneys for now” “Sentencing now Jan 10 2013″

  32. In court today, Peterson told Judge Edward Burmila he did not authorize the ineffective counsel motion filed by Carroll. But, when Burmila told Peterson to consider getting advice from an independent attorney, Peterson asked for more time to think about it.

    Gonzalez said she was at a loss to explain Peterson’s change of heart.

    “He seems to have a loyalty to Mr. Brodsky,” Gonzalez said. “He was concerned about Mr. Brodsky’s reputation. He’s been his attorney for years.”

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-backs-longtime-attorney-20121012,0,1497899.story?track=rss

  33. It seems awfully clear that Dp is behind all this mess, pitting lawyers against each other, still maintaining control of the people around him. He needs to be sentenced before Jan 10, more like immediately.

  34. I agree with Harley. As much as I despise Joel Brodsky, I am truly glad that he is still Peterson’s lead attorney.

    Joel might eventually get Drew to boot Greenberg, but ultimately the decision is up to Drew.

  35. I totally agree….but then again..brodsky has an extra 2 mos…to dig a larger hole in his reputation…he must be the joke at every attorney’s party or at the local watering hole…he give stupid a whole new meaning….

  36. I’m furious that sentencing has been delayed by this utter bullshit. Delaying his transfer to prison is a defense attorney’s second-best ‘win’. So the mommykiller gets to hang some more in a privileged position for the holdays. How nice for him.

  37. If anything comes from this, my hope is that Ms. Gonzalez and Mr. Carroll can see clearly the games that Drew pulled on them. Hopefully they will forget his name and move on. Drew played them all for fools and will continue to do so during his time to “think about it”.

    Sheesh, this is more and more like “Brokeback Will County”. I can’t quit you Drew. I can’t quit you either Joel.

    🙂

  38. Harley,
    IMO….I will add another one to that list of “I can’t quit you Drew”, and that is Stevie Boy. Looks like he begged Drew enough, After he fired him, to keep him on, too. Seems like the Court made it official for him today, to Not have to Quit Drew. My, My, My, just what does Drew do to all of these attorney’s to have them jumping through hoops, and begging for him not to fire them?? Please, please, please, Drew, I can’t quit you Drew, please keep me on, don’t fire me….Please, don’t.

  39. Gonzalez said Peterson told her he wanted her and co-counsel John Paul Carroll to take his case, but Peterson backed out when he got in front of the judge.

    “I believe he was influenced by Mr. Brodsky,” Gonzalez said.

    Gonzalez and Carroll’s motion for ineffective counsel squarely blames Brodsky—and only Brodsky—for blowing Peterson’s case and getting him found guilty of murdering his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

    Brodsky called Gonzalez and Carroll “bottom-feeders” who “are going to get a disciplinary committee complaint today.”

    A short time later, Brodsky said he could not talk about the disciplinary committee complaint he threatened to file, but stuck by his criticism of Gonzalez and Carroll.

    “People like that shouldn’t be practicing law,” he said. “The sooner they’re disbarred, the better.”

    He also said the motion blaming him for losing Peterson’s murder trial is “absolutely fantasy.”

    “These (are) nonsensical, fantasy allegations Carroll cobbled together from his deluded mind,” Brodsky said.

    Brodsky then tried—but failed—to quip: “Delusion’s not just a river in Egypt.”

    Judge Burmila scheduled an Oct. 30 hearing to address whether Peterson will pursue a new trial based on Brodsky’s allegedly ineffective counsel.

    During Friday’s hearing, Peterson asked to speak alone with Lopez about the issue. Before they went off to the side to talk, Brodsky hissed at Lopez that Peterson “cannot adopt the allegation.”

    http://bolingbrook.patch.com/articles/lawyer-drew-peterson-putting-brodsky-s-rep-above-own-interests

  40. Brodsky then tried—but failed—to quip: “Delusion’s not just a river in Egypt.”

    OMG! That made me LOL! 😆

    Yeah, Jeannie I just don’t get any of them. When Greenberg said, “I love Drew, and Drew loves me.”, it’s just bizarro world. Since when is it professional to profess your love for your client? 🙄

  41. brodsky never fails to put his foot in his mouth..everytime he opens it…that takes talent …I can tell how proud drew is of him….he’s so worried about his reputation…..i know his wife is proud too…climbing that society ladder can be a bitch ….

  42. My advise to Brodsky,
    Don’t light up that pre victory cigar, just yet….This circus ain’t over, til the Ring Master Sings !!

  43. Harley,
    I agree, not too professional of Greenberg, to tell the media, How I love Drew and Drew loves me, is it? Especially, after Drew had just fired him, and put in a complaint on him. Of course, Drew has to sort of stay in good standings with him now, if he is going to call him as a witness in a new trial for him, so he had to postpone his firing in the Court.
    I think the whole thing is BS. Why would any one believe Greenberg, or Brodsky….It all looks like a personal vendetta to me….He said, She said, type of deal, to get back at the other one. I don’t think either one of them gives a rip about Drew, I think what bothered them both the most, was they didn’t get to be on some TV shows, and they each blame the other one, for not getting on TV.

  44. My guess is that Greenberg and Brodsky both want to stay on Drew Peterson’s defense team because they feel that they can get Drew a new trial on appeal and they think they can win the second time around (ie; not call Harry Smith to testify) and they want to be there when that happens. They accepted the case pro bono thinking that they could win it and they don’t want to back out now.

    For Greenberg I think it’s a matter of confidence, principle and competitiveness. He wants that win.

    For Joel, I think it goes beyond that. His relationship with Drew is personal and he feels he owes it to Drew to stick with him, even if what he brings to the table is a detriment to his client (which is something he will never see. He thinks he’s a good lawyer).

    Drew’s motivation to keep them is different for each of the men as well, I think.

    He probably does feel a sense of loyalty to Joel. After all he hand-picked the man and they are close on a personal level (and his services are free). He’ll only kick him to the curb as a last resort.

    As for Greenberg, Drew has every reason in the world to want to keep him. Greenberg has the experience to back up his cocky attitude and he’d be nuts to say goodbye to free counsel of Greenberg’s caliber.

    Drew’s high profile status is the milkshake that brings the boys to the yard. But nothing is for free…even if it’s pro bono.

    As for how Brodsky and Greenberg feel about each other, I’m sure there is mutual dislike and they would prefer to each be on the defense team without the other, but if Drew doesn’t fire either of them and neither of them withdraws, they are going to have to figure out a way to work together. And if they are uncomfortable and unhappy with that situation it makes me very pleased.

  45. For Greenberg I think it’s a matter of confidence, principle and competitiveness. He wants that win.

    For Joel, I think it goes beyond that. His relationship with Drew is personal and he feels he owes it to Drew to stick with him, even if what he brings to the table is a detriment to his client (which is something he will never see. He thinks he’s a good lawyer).

    I agree with you about Greenberg Facs. He tried so hard to keep Harry out. He needs to keep the lovey dovey crap out of it. It makes him look as bad a Brodsky.

    As for Joel – all joking aside, I really think he has some kind of personality disorder. I just don’t see how his relationship with Drew can be normal or healthy. I think it is far deeper than any of us realize. IMO

  46. Hey, I didn’t use the words “normal” or “healthy”, and I agree with you that it is neither.

    Especially if while he’s pledging allegiance to the flag of Drew, he’s also threatening him with disclosure about information that should be covered by attorney/client privilege.

  47. My first reaction upon reading this was, “why does Peterson get to go do anything in the outside world at all? Are you kidding me?!”

    I agree with the person above who said that he could use this for sympathy. I feel bad that he lost his mother, but as author Martha Stout says, the most universal behavior of unscrupulous people is an appeal to our sympathy.

  48. Does anyone else feel your skin crawl when you listen to this interview with Brodsky? I’ve run it several times and it clearly shows Joel is in a state of delusion and denial (like those rivers he talked about before). 😉

  49. What is there to stop Glasgow calling Harry Smith as a witness at a hypothetical second trial? The truth genie is out of the bottle, after all.

  50. Joel needs Greenberg and he knows it, but it is STILL not about them. It’s about justice for Kitty and Stacy. End of.

  51. thanks again facs….I too listened to brodsky’s voice and it didn’t sound like it did during the trial…he mentioned that the two attorney’s were bottom feeders…talk about the pot calling the kettle ….lol…this too shall pass..and soon be able to put the energy in finding Staci…..

  52. Bucket, wasn’t there an issue about “opening the door” or something? IIRC there was some issue where if the State called Smith and asked him certain questions, then the defense was going to be allowed to ask him about alleged perjury and that was why they never did, although Smith came to court every day and sat in the hall way on the chance he’d be called. Then finally Joel called him as a last resort to try to impeach what Neil Schori said Stacy told him…and we all know what happened then.

    Well, I don’t think Drew is going to get a new trial so it’s probably all moot now, but I certainly wish they could get him sentenced instead of all this dicking around.

  53. You’re right, Facs. Thanks.
    There won’t really be a second trial. It’s all over bar the shouting (and name-calling and perhaps even some punching, lol).

  54. Thanks Facs and Bucket, for bringing up that delicious moment in court when Brodsky questioned Smith. I never get tired of remembering that jaw-dropping debacle! And yes, no second trial, but probably a lot more hogwash to come before the end of this mess.

  55. As usual Joe Lopez is picking his words carefully when replying to tweets about the case. As to Joel threatening to disclose what he knows about Drew if he were to be fired, Lopez had this to say:

    a client waives attorney client privilege if the client alleges ineffective assistance

    So I did a bit of research and that’s not completely the case. Actually:

    The waiver should be no broader than needed to ensure the fairness of the proceeding. Any requirement of production of attorney notes, etc. should be carefully tailored to protect Sixth Amendment rights.

    The attorney/client privilege is waived in regards to any of the claims of ineffective counsel. It does not give the attorney carte blanche to blab everything that the client has told him.

    If a defense lawyer believes that the ineffective assistance of counsel allegation triggers an exception to confidentiality, the committee observed that Comment 14 “cautions lawyers to take steps to limit ‘access to information to the tribunal or other persons having a need to know it’ and to seek ‘appropriate protective orders or other arrangements . . . to the fullest extent possible.’” The committee explained that under the self-defense exception, the lawyer must limit disclosure of information relating to the representation of the client only to what is necessary to respond to the ineffective assistance of counsel claim.

    http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/criminal_justice_magazine/cjw11ethics.authcheckdam.pdf

  56. I don’t understand why Brodsky needs more time to prepare for the sentencing. What is to prepare for? Drew is being sentenced, not having another trial.

  57. I was reading up about the pre-sentencing phase and I guess there needs to be an investigation which takes into consideration the convicted party’s history and circumstances and then a report is generated based on those findings. The defense can provide their own report with letters of support, a client statement, etc. and prepare their client for the interview.

    Then, once the probation officer’s report is done, I think the defense and the state get to respond to the report before the judge hands down the sentence.

    Add to that the fact that Judge Burmila asked Drew to take some time and think more about whether or not he wants to consider the motion for a new trial based on ineffectiveness of assistance.

    And then the holidays…

    If you Google “pre-sentence” there’s a lot of info out there.

    http://www.colleluorilaw.com/pre-sentence-report/

  58. Sounds to me like DP has himself in a bit of a pickle, unless I am understanding it wrong. Request for a new trial can only be based on ineffective council in this case, Correct? So in order to claim that, he would have to let Brodsky go. He doesn’t want to let Brodsky go because he thinks JB might tattletale on him, of course he said its out of worry about JB reputation which I call bull. So he has to keep Brodsky on, meaning he cannot claim ineffective council. What else can he base a request for retrial on? Of course, he will long be all cozy and lived in, in his permanent home, before anything of this instance happens, which I don’t believe actually ever will. He had what? 4 or 5 lawyers working for free for him. I don’t think it will hold any merit anyway

  59. Harley, I agree. I don’t begrudge the amount of time it takes to put the reports together, etc, but the last month has been nothing but defense team bickering and theatrics which has done nothing to help their client. It’s just delaying the inevitable.

    If I were Drew, I’d kick the whole lot of them to the curb and ask for a public defender.

  60. drew is definitely in a pickle…but that also sounds close to being blackmail…in a legal sort of way….I bet drew would like to go back to 2004 and rethink his life…greed and murder wouldn’t be first on his list…

  61. I assume that once he finally is sentenced they’ll start working on appeals, but lord knows what they’ll try to base them on. Meanwhile Drew will be in prison and we can still hope that information about Stacy comes out.

    If Joel has Drew snowed into thinking that he’ll spill Drew’s secrets if he’s fired then Drew is stupider than I ever thought. I have to imagine that both Carroll and Greenberg have informed him that if Joel violates their attorney/client privilege beyond what might be necessary in court (to argue against ineffective assistance), that not only would it probably cost Joel his career but that it could not be used to convict him of Stacy’s murder.

    But if Drew has truly been duped into keeping Joel out of fear of disclosure then he must have some pretty scary secrets.

  62. I never thought of DP as smart. Streetwise yes, but not smart. Look at his choice of younger and younger women as he got older. And the way he behaved after Kathleen’s death and Stacy’s disappearance. That is just NOT smart. He just thought he could con everyone. That is not smart, if he wanted to be “loved”. Plus he is a narcissist, so he cannot see beyond his own pleasures. And His and Brodskys relationship went way beyond lawyer and client. I would not doubt it if JB has information on DP, as I am pretty sure he confided in him, even if in a around about way. Not at all.

  63. Oh, I think DP has shit on JB, too, don’t you? Who knows what their precise agreements are? Cuts from future book earnings? Who knows? or even; who knows?

  64. No kidding. I was surprised and appalled at the chicken wing stuff and they weren’t even taking very good measures to hide that. I’ll never forget how Chrissy Raines said that one reason she left was that she couldn’t stand the constant scheming going on with those two. Can’t even imagine how far that may have gone…

  65. I am wondering if some of Drews, not deciding on what to do, because of his concern for Brodsky, isn’t more of their scheming. They were always trying to make him look good to the public. Maybe this is just more of the same ole con game. Getting sympathy, and showing what a “great guy” Drew is. Some one who would not murder anyone, he cares more for his attorney’s wellfare, than his own, how could someone like that commit murder???? And FINALLY the other attorney’s convince him, that he has to think of himself, and turn on Joel.
    Facs, you are so right….They were always scheming something, so why would they stop now?

  66. Facs,
    That is great info on the pre sentencing phase. I didn’t know all of that went on. Makes sense, once you know about it, tho.

    I’m with you, DP should throw out the lot of them, ( I was hoping the Judge would do that, yesterday) and get a public defender. Someone that is not all about the publicity they get. I can’t see that any of them are that great of an attorney. I know that Greenberg thinks the only thing that lost the case was Smith’s statements, but I think he is wrong. There was a lot more to that trial than one witnesses statements. IMO

  67. I found this article about pre sentencing, and found it really interesting. Do you think this would apply to the Savio’s? If so, wonder if they know about doing this, before sentencing?

    I knew about the victim’s impact statement in Court, at sentencing, but this sounds like you should go to the Probation Officer’s office and make statement to the Probation Officer, himself…..Before Court Sentencing, as soon as possible after guilty verdict, to have any real impact to the Judge, on sentencing of the convicted defendant. The Probation Officer will put that information, their statements, from the victim’s family, into the Pre Sentencing Report that he prepares for the Court. That way, the Judge can take their Statements into consideration, when he is deciding the Sentence. He decides the Sentence BEFORE going into Court that day, for sentencing. So the Judge needs ALL information to be considered, on the Sentence he gives out, to be in that Pre Sentence Report from the Probation Officer, Before Court.

    The victim, or victim’s family can still, go ahead and make statements Again in Court, as they face the convicted person.

    This is the link………….

    http://justicewomen.com/handbook/part2_h.html#top

  68. susan is leaving for calif. to speak of domestic abuse..she is on facebook with me..I will let her know..but wouldn’t Glassgow office say something to the family…if jeannie hadn’t posted it ….let’s just say it isn’t common knowledge…thanks…

  69. What a moron Brodsky is. He posted a story about an overturned conviction to his FB page saying that it involved hearsay.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/10/12/tennessee-death-sentence-overturned/1630757/

    I read the story that he posted and was baffled to see that it didn’t mention any hearsay evidence. So, wondering why it is that Joel brought up hearsay in relation to the case, I did a little reading about it.

    One thing the appeal on behalf of the convicted man complains about is that hearsay testimony which might have implicated another person was NOT included at trial because the judge sustained objections to it being admitted.

    So the defense is complaining that hearsay that might have implicated someone else was not admitted to his trial. They WANTED the hearsay to get in.

    http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/OPINIONS/tcca/PDF/064/RimmerMichaelOPN.pdf

    (BTW, the decision was overturned because the defense wasn’t told about a witness who said he saw another man with the defendant on the night in question and that they both had blood on their hands as they moved something into the trunk of a car, so not exactly a ringing exculpation of the defendant.)

  70. I know you got into it in more detail Facs, but my first thought when I read this on his FB page

    No body, hearsay evidence, and a prosecutor who is willing to ignore the law to get a conviction result in a wrongful conviction. Sound familiar?

    I was like what? There was a body, Kathleens. Remember Brodsky? The body in the waterless bathtub?

  71. Well, I second the discription of Brodsky as a moron. He continues to make a complete fool of himself. Interesting that he forgot about the body in the case at hand :-O The more he says the worse it gets… My theory is that Drew can’t fire him because then Joel will completely come unglued and babble everything he knows.

  72. That’s always a possibility given the meltdowns Joel has had in the past, but keep in mind that attorney/client privilege would keep anything Joel had to say from being used in a court case against Drew. AND Joel Brodsky would most likely never work again if he blabbed anything that Drew has told him concerning an ongoing investigation.

    Not only that…it would all be HEARSAY! LOL

  73. The one thing all of these defense attorneys have in common is that they will do anything to get their client set free. No matter how moronic or phoney or pathetic it makes them look. They are working hard together but I hope judge does not fall for any ineffective counsel claim.

    LOL @ Joel trying to show similarity between case in TN … I guess he fully expects Drew to be charged with Stacy’s murder and just jumped the gun with the “no body” comment.

  74. Ho ho, good one about the HEARSAY, Facs! Guess we’ll just have to keep listening to Brodsky’s prattle and hope he someday drops a clue that helps to locate Stacy – anything’s possible if he keeps shooting his mouth off 😉

  75. From Facebook:

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
    Unfortunately there are people with ulterior motives that are trying to confuse Drew for their own personal benefit. I am working on it – but I also have to pay attention to my other clients who also need my attention so things may not move as fast as some would like. However, be assured that when some of these very disturbing facts come out in the near furture you will be shocked at who has been backstabbing Drew and those who are standing by him. As the saying goes “the truth will set you free”.
    3 hours ago

    Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
    People confused Drew with blatent lies and deception and they took advantage of his state of mind due to his mothers recent death. He was confused. Now things are straightened out. There is much more to come and when it gets out what certain people did everyone will be shocked and a new trial will be required. Wait and see.
    about an hour ago ·

    Again…this sounds exactly like what he said when Chrissy Raines left Drew and told the world that their engagement was “more of a stunt” because Joel thought it would be a good idea…and then she was drawn back into the fold.

    She…didn’t have, didn’t know what was going on, didn’t understand what these people who try to pretend to be sincere with her, pretend to be acting in her best interests, what they were all about. Now she understands…

    I’m sure that “disturbing facts” abound regarding Brodsky’s relationship with Drew Peterson. But they don’t involve other attorneys.

  76. I’m assuming Brodsky must have some adoring followers on facebook who believe him. But the “disturbing facts” we heard in court put Drew where he is today. Yep, bet there are lots more, but they won’t be setting Drew free.

  77. Drew, the former undercover cop, was confused by blatent lies and deception? LMAO Doubtful!

    Even if the visits from “people” coincided with the death of his mom, I doubt very much it affected Drew at all … but it makes for a sympathetic tale for a defense attorney to use.

  78. Oh Noway, can’t you see how busy poor Brodsky is with all his other clients, but he’s working on “it” and as soon as he concocts “it” we’re going to all be “shocked”. LOL I don’t think anything Brodsky can say or do would shock us any more.

  79. Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
    Of course I am still representing Drew. The allegations by the bottom feeders Carroll and Gonzalez are baseless lies and they will be facing a disciplinary panel for their lies and unethical conduct soon enough. All the judge said was for Drew to get independent lawyer to review the allegations (which he already acknowledged to me are just plain lies). Once that is done we move ahead to post trial motions, sentencing and the appeal.
    about an hour ago

  80. what attorney has 2 f/b pages..that alone tells he is insecure..he constantly wants to explain what he does and how you have to believe…his lies…their is nothing that comes out of brodsky’s mouth that too many people are going to believe…he has followers ..they made comments on in session…but very few..

  81. Joel may be busy with his many clients, and Drew Petersons pre-sentencing and motions, but he still makes time to explain himself on Facebook and to trawl the blogs and news stories to post his comments:

    Joel A;. Brodsky
    Oct 14, 2012 11:41 AM CDT

    What the article leaves out, and what lawyers will understand, is that John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez, filed their motion without filing their appearance or even asking for leave to appear for Peterson!!! Lawyers understand how unethical this is, to file a motion in a case where you dont have an appearance or have asked for leave to appear. What is further even more horrendous is that Carroll and Gonzalez spent a total of less than one (1) hour with Peterson (mostly talking about non-trial issues, but then they have the chutzpah to criticize the trial attorney in a case that had 5 weeks of pre-trial hearings and another 5 weeks of jury trial (and over 50,000 pages in discovery and over 800 disclosed witnesses on the witness list), and where Carroll and Gonzalez never observed even one day of the trial – but still Carroll and Gonzalez file a post-trial motion (talk about lack of preperation). And Carroll and Gonzalez have the nerve to talk about ineffective assistance!!!! Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black. Bottom feeders is a kind description; given that they were never authorized to do anything in the homicide case and that they were never asked to appear in the case, incompetent meddlers is the better description.
    John Paul Carroll has had his law license suspended once already and a second suspension is currently pending before the Illinois supreme court for unethical behavior in another homicide case. Enough said.

    I would just point out that Joel has also has his license suspended for misconduct. So “Pot meet Kettle” yet again.

    Lest there be any misunderstanding about my stand on the motion: I think it’s lame and should be dismissed, but that opinion is based only on my belief that nothing Joel Brodsky did during the trial can be categorized as “ineffective assistance”. I think Drew Peterson had a fair trial and that any missteps the defense made were errors in strategy and were not the result of incompetence or intentional misrepresentation.

    But I do love to see Joel called out for all the unethical crap he has been pulling for the last five years. If it upsets Joel to learn the opinions of his peers, so much the better.

    I find it pretty funny to hear Joel Brodsky call Carroll and Gonzalez “bottom feeders” after he crawled out of obscurity and attached himself to this case in exactly the same fashion.

  82. I don’t know who is representing Jeff Ruby.

    The only White I’m familiar with is Judge Stephen White who was the presiding Judge over the Savio murder case until two years ago. He is now retired.

  83. he was the one on in session and he said he was in private practice….he laughed when they arrested Ruby….at that time he said….I’d like to take that one on…he made it sound like they didn’t have a snowballs chance…..it was brodsky who had him arrested….

  84. This is the comment right below Brodsky’s big comment on that article.
    LOL

    2.
    BMF
    Oct 15, 2012 3:15 PM CDT

    @ 1: If you are the above-mentioned Joel Brodsky: What part of “No comment” do you not understand?

  85. He is trying to swoon everyone with his legal knowledge. Poor dude. Don’t think he knows yet that he is laughing stock in his circle of peers

  86. Drew Peterson’s ex-relative to speak Wednesday at Madera event
    By Jacob Rayburn – The Fresno Bee
    Monday, Oct. 15, 2012 | 03:26 PM

    The sister of the woman murdered by retired Illinois police officer Drew Peterson will speak Wednesday, Oct. 17 at the Community Action Partnership of Madera County’s 11th annual Soup Bowl Event.

    Peterson was convicted in September of killing his ex-wife Kathleen Savio. The case gained national attention in part because Peterson is also suspected in the unsolved disappearance of his wife. Savio’s sister, Sue Doman, will discuss the effects of domestic violence on family members during her Madera appearance.

    The event is from noon to 1:30 p.m. at the United Methodist Church, 500 Sunset Ave., Madera. Tickets are $15 and include a soup buffet, salad, drinks, desserts and a ceramic soup bowl made by children at the John Wells Youth Center.

    Details: Victim Services at (559) 661-1000.

    http://www.fresnobee.com/2012/10/15/3030351/drew-petersons-ex-relative-to.html

  87. I know it must be hard to keep remembering such a tragic death over and over….she is very brave…infact Kathleen and Staci’s families have been on an emotional roller coaster for a long time..it’s time for some closure…

  88. I realize this is probably getting a little boring now but I did want to make sure to point out that John Paul Carroll was not some unknown entity to Joel Brodsky and certainly no stranger to Drew Peterson, as Joel would have you believe. Compare his Friday interview on Roe & Roeper to what he posted on a discussion board back in 2008.

    CONN: We asked this question earlier. Who got the final rose? Joel Brodsky is on the Super Celebrity Hotline. What a weird week it was, Joel! Because here you are, a lawyer for ever and ever and ever, for Drew Peterson and then all of a sudden another guy pops up…

    BRODSKY: From I don’t know where…

    CONN: …and we talked to his co-counsel earlier this week and it’s, “Oh no. Drew Peterson wants us because this Brodsky screwed up the case. We don’t want him. He’s out and Drew’s got the whole new thing and that’s what we’re going to do.” And then there was a court case today and they brought Drew in over this, right?

    BRODSKY: Right.

    CONN: OK, so then Drew comes into the court room in Will County and you got you and your lawyers and then they’ve got this new guy and his lawyers and they basically say: This is the final rose ceremony. Who do you like and who are you going with? And what did Drew say?

    BRODSKY: He was going with me.

    CONN: Was he ever in contact with these people?

    BRODSKY: Well, I mean he did contact them briefly because, Carroll being an ex-cop, he wanted to ask him questions about cop pension issues but never ever did he, and Drew said he never authorized them to get involved in the Savio case. Never. The judge asked him flat out, are they authorized to do anything or file anything in your case and Drew flat out said no.

    CONN: Did the judge ask any more about the stuff that’s been in the press? His claim, I think it was even in his filing, his claim that I feel like a traitor to Joel but I got to go with you?

    BRODSKY: No. He did nothing like that. He asked Drew flat out, who do you want to go with? Who’s your lawyer and he said, “Joel Brodsky.” He asked Drew, “Did you read this? Did you see this pleading?” He goes, “Not before it was filed. I saw it afterwards.” He goes, “Did you read it?” And he says “Yes, I read it.” “And who do you want to go with?” “I want to go with Joel Brodsky.” That was it. John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez have been kicked to the curb.

    CONN: Are they still going to represent him on the other issue?

    BRODSKY: No. They’re gone now. Drew can’t trust them. In fact I was just talking to him and he goes “Ah, they went rogue once. How can I ever trust them?”

    CONN: Did you ask for a push back of sentencing?

    BRODSKY: Well, yeah because we needed more time because of all the confusion that these bottom feeders caused.

    ROEPER: I can tell that you’re taking all of this in stride. Did you thump your chest and say “How you like me now, bitch?” when you got this rung or…

    CONN: Boom! Boom!

    BRODSKY: Drew would send me copies of the letters that Carroll had been sending him for years saying, “Oh, let me in. I can do this. I can do that. I got this, I got that experience.” He’s been obsessed with trying to get into this case for years. He tried this opening but he went with the guys that he trusts and that he thinks are the best lawyers and John Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez have been kicked to the curb where I think they belong and that’s the end of that. They’re history.

    CPNN: That’s the end of that.

    Quite different from what Joel Brodsky was saying back in May of 2008:

    “Drew got a lot of inquires. He interviewed a dozen attorneys. He picked me to be lead counsel and Andrew Abood as second chair, and John Carroll will add his special knowledge if there is a trial (hes a lawyer and former Chicago homicide detective) He picked me because he trusts me and believes in my ability. The attorney client relationship is a special one, especially in criminal cases. You have to be comfortable with and trust each other. Its more than just a legal services relationship, the lawyer is an attorney, adviser, psychiatrist, counselor, coach, etc.”

    John Carroll and Joel Brodsky jointly filed a motion on behalf of Drew Peterson in December 2007 for the return of property seized by search warrants.

    Carroll had not filed an appearance in the Savio case as of September 2009.

  89. And:

    By BJ LUTZ
    Updated 3:15 PM CDT, Wed, Sep 2, 2009

    Talk about lowering the bar.

    In 2004, an Illinois disciplinary board suspended the law license for three months of Drew Peterson’s attorney, Drew Brodsky, after he signed a dead man’s name to close the inactive bank account of a client’s estate, public records show. Brodsky signed the dead man’s name again to cash a $23,000 check from that account.

    Three years later, Peterson hired Brodsky.

    Fast-forward five years, and another attorney on Peterson’s legal team is also facing discipline for reportedly forgetting to tell his clients — who in 2007 were charged with first-degree murder, armed violence, concealment of a homicidal death and possession of cannabis with intent to deliver — about a plea deal prosecutors had offered. A jury found found the clients, brothers Jaime and Edgar Castro, guilty on all counts.

    John Paul Carroll later remembered the offer and came forward after his conscience got the best of him.

    “I said to myself, ‘I’ll be dead and they’ll still be in prison,’” Carroll told the Herald News of his decision to reveal the plea deal.

    A circuit court judge ultimately allowed the Castro brothers to take the original plea deal after Carroll motioned for a new trial.

    Carroll said he’s working with the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee but said he doesn’t know what they’ll do with him.

    http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/drew-peterson-legal-team-problems-56739232.html

  90. Facs, not boring! But just downright disgusting to see how Brodsky blatantly misleads and twists absolutely everything in an attempt to make himself look smart and competent. When you said “lowering the bar” it just made me wonder how he could ever pass the bar exam in the first place. Surely you can’t lie your way through that? 😦 It’s a mystery to me.

  91. No special treatment for Drew Peterson: Inmate funeral furloughs fairly common
    By Janet LundquistOctober 16, 2012 3:24PM

    The fact that convicted wife-killer Drew Peterson was allowed out of jail to see his dead mother at a Darien funeral home last week didn’t sit well with some people.

    Sheriff’s deputies escorted Peterson to the funeral home on Oct. 11, where he was allowed to spend about 30 minutes with 84-year-old Betty Morphey.

    Peterson was outside the jail for about an hour, sources said.

    “I was not informed that was being done,” Will County State’s Attorney Jim Glasgow said. “I would’ve strongly advised against it, but it was not unlawful.”

    Not only is it lawful, Will County Sheriff Deputy Chief Ken Kaupas said the sheriff’s department often allows inmates who lose an immediate family to see their loved one — while the inmate is still in custody, of course.

    “It wasn’t (done just) because it was Drew Peterson,” Kaupas said.

    The department follows its “normal security procedures” for the visits, he said, though he would not detail the procedures.

    Requests must be reasonable, too, Kaupas said. The sheriff isn’t likely to take an inmate out of state.

    Inmates in the Illinois Department of Corrections are allowed to privately view a dead relative’s body or see a critically ill relative — but not both, said Stacey Solano, spokeswoman for the department.

    The decision is made on a case-by-case basis by the prison warden, she said. The warden considers the inmate’s escape risk, criminal history and disciplinary record, among other things.

    Families also must pay in advance for the inmate’s transportation and guard escorts, Solano said.

    So far this year 100 inmates have been allowed visitation with a dead relative, Solano said.

    “You’re weighing a lot of issues, and not just necessarily the committed individual but also the impact to their families,” said George DeTella, formerly warden of Stateville Correctional Center in Crest Hill, now chief of the Office of Risk and Emergency Management for the DuPage County Health Department.

    “It’s a balancing act,” DeTella said. “The biggest concern was the overall safety and security issue, as well as impact that it had on operations.”

    Federal inmates are, in rare circumstances, allowed to see terminally ill relatives or attend their funerals, said Chris Burke, spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Prisons.

    Imprisoned former Illinois Gov. George Ryan was allowed to spend several hours at his wife’s beside the June 2011 night she died of complications from lung cancer at a Kankakee hospital.

    Ryan, serving time on federal corruption charges, was quietly escorted from a Terre Haute, Ind. prison to be with Lura Lynn Ryan four separate times about 130 miles away, even after an appellate court denied his lawyers’ requests for a hospital visit. He did not attend his wife’s funeral.

    Inmates in minimum security camps who meet certain requirements have been given furloughs to attend funerals in which a family member would pick them up, take them to the service, and return them at a certain time, Burke said.

    Other inmates have been escorted by guards, sometimes shackled, to see a terminally ill loved one or to attend a funeral.

    Visits are allowed at the discretion of the warden of each institution, and require numerous approvals before they happen, Burke said.

    “You have to kind of weigh the benefits,” Burke said. “It is a very powerful, impactful event that occurs in an inmates’s life. And as an agency, we have to look at the individual inmate’s well being as well as the safety of our staff and the public. We kind of balance that.”

    http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/15787219-418/no-special-treatment-for-drew-peterson-inmate-funeral-furloughs-fairly-common.html

Comments are closed.