Will Drew Peterson walk because Joel Brodsky stinks? Read the filing

Drew Peterson kisses Joel Brodsky

Drew Peterson kisses Joel Brodsky

In a final pre-sentencing attempt to spring Drew Peterson or to at least get him a new trial, more documents were filed on Thursday claiming that Joel Brodsky did a terrible, awful, downright erroneous job of defending his client, Drew Peterson, against the murder charge for which he was convicted three months ago.

While the memo singles out attorney Brodsky, claiming that he “singlehandedly deprived Drew of his right to effective assistance of and conflict-free counsel”, a finger is also pointed at Judge Edward Burmilla for allowing testimony to be heard from attorney Harry Smith, in an alleged breach of attorney client privilege.

Attorney David Peilet, who stepped in as lead attorney when Joel Brodsky withdrew from Peterson’s defense, filed the memo which was penned by Steven Greenberg.

The state has until January 10, 2013 to respond.

~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>


33 thoughts on “Will Drew Peterson walk because Joel Brodsky stinks? Read the filing

  1. I think these attorneys lie but as far as Brodsky is concerned…he’s scum..he used the Peterson case to become the media whore that he was and is…Peterson is guilty and Brodsky knows it…maybe Brodsky is the reason they are out there looking…the reward or maybe to get back at Peterson…either way I hope they find her….

  2. Hence;
    “Brodsky has publicly admitted that he called the “Green Room” atthe Today Show, seeking to have his name passed on to Peterson,advising that he could represent Peterson in the inquiry concerning thedisappearance of Stacy Peterson and the re-investigation of the demise of Kathleen Savio.”
    So Drew was already making the media rounds. By him requesting (free) help; wouldn’t an attorney have to contact him anyways? Since he went to the media?
    As much as I can’t stand Joel Broedsky & what an an idiot he is; I have no sympathy for Drew Peterson. You get what you bargain for!
    My sympathy goes out to Kathy & Stacey and their families.
    WTH does Steve Goldberg or Greenberg (sp) (I forget this last name) see in Drew? As much as I like Steve; I question his motives. No doubt that Joel made a mochery of the system and a fool of himself; but two wives; 1 missing, 1 dead, a corrupt cop, I don’t need to go furthur lol.
    As much as I enjoy your blog; let’s hope the next (and only) trial you cover for Drew is the murder of Stacey Peterson.
    Has Kathy or Stacey’s family ever visit this blog that you know of? If so have you ever had contact with them? If it’s a person question; I’ll understand if you don’t anwer.
    Keep up the good work ladies!

  3. The “missing” wife, we all know is dead. Also notice how the attorney brings that up in this document? How insulting (or what ever he said) it was, meaning that he [Steve] knows Stacey is dead.

  4. This bit from the questioning of Brian Falat, when Brodsky almost switched to an alibi defense:

    MR. BRODSKY: Mr. Schori testified that Stacy told him that she gave an alibi for Drew Peterson for Saturday night. Ok. That was –

    THE COURT: And we went to bed and then we got up the next morning and so we were all at home. That’s not an alibi?

    MR. BRODSKY: Doesn’t say he never left my side, doesn’t say he was in bed with me all night, doesn’t say —

    THE COURT: I’ll tell you what. You’re the captain of the ship. You want to travel in that direction, you go right ahead that’s up to you.

    MR. GREENBERG: Come here, captain.

    MR. BRODSKY: My shipmate wants me.

    MR. GREENBERG: You are about to witness a mutiny.

    MR. KOCH: And, Judge, just so its clear, the State’s position will be if they go down this line of questioning we are going to ask the Court to revisit the whole marital privilege —

    THE COURT: I think that’s crystal clear and there is a whole panoply of areas that would have to be revisited.

    MR. BRODSKY: OK. We will withdraw that last question your Honor.

    While this is a cringe inducing transcript, it still doesn’t point to any actual legal errors. So what if the “Counsel Was Concerned With The Irrelevant and Unfocused”? IMO there is still nothing to show that Brodsky’s representation was erroneous and that the errors caused his client to be convicted. Can everyone get a new trial just because their lawyer isn’t very good? How about it only one of their lawyers sucks and they have five more who are very good?

    And again, Drew Peterson appeared to be aware of and completely on board with any and all publicity and “ethical improprieties” attributed to Joel.

  5. Facs, couldn’t agree with you more. ROFL when I read pages 13 & 14 of Greenberg’s memo to court. Can’t see how “ignorant and incompetent” counsel = ineffective counsel. Eagerly awaiting the prosecution’s response 😉

  6. Greenberg has so much comtempt for Brodsky..after the verdict and the dream team was in front of the media..they made it clear what a great job they did….and blamed it all on allowing hearsay evidence in..which I guess is not a source for a new trial….but as I read all the pages…it appeared to be a lot of sour grapes….monday morning quarterbacking….that is not grounds for a retrial….

  7. When reading the memo, it’s impossible not to be struck with how personal the conflict is between Greenberg and Brodsky. The memo is supposed to be written on behalf of Peterson but the inclusion of a trial transcript excerpt that just happens to include clever retorts by Greenberg and the sarcasm directed at Brodsky demonstrate a personal resentment and dislike of the man.

    Anyone else get that impression? I think it detracts from the seriousness and intent of the document and I’m sure that will weaken an already weak argument in the eyes of the judge.

    Joel Brodsky isn’t the only one of Drew’s lawyer with an ego and a penchant for the press.

  8. If Brodsky’s credentials were not up to par for a murder trial lawyer…why did it take 3 yrs. and a trial to figure it out…when I saw Brodsky sitting in the audience at the Dr. Phil Show and answering a few questions….he had idiot written all over his face….

  9. When reading the memo, it’s impossible not to be struck with how personal the conflict is between Greenberg and Brodsky

    I could not agree more. This seems to be more about Greenberg wanting to be right, and Brodsky wrong.

    During the trial Greenberg was right there in the middle of the media circus as much as Brodsky was.

    Nice try Mr. Greenberg, but I don’t think this is gonna fly!

  10. OT – for just a second… My heart is breaking for the families of these poor children who have been gunned down at school – By a COWARD! 😥

  11. ditto….is this becoming a yearly thing..do we have to put the machines in schools like the airport…these people either get arrested or killed….it’s not a win situation…were losing our freedom once again…

  12. Hi Ms Fabulous and welcome. I hope we will get the chance to cover one more trial as well (Where is Stacy?).

    As for family members, we do have contact with some family members but they are in no way affiliated with the blog or the running of it. Some people associated with the case are in support of our efforts and others don’t like the blog at all.

    I completely respect anyone’s right to like or dislike the blog.

  13. Isn’t the defendant ultimately responsible for what his/her lawyer does or does not do in court? Greenberg should be filing charges on Drewpy! (For more reason than one, obviously).

  14. Technically, I think the defendant is only responsible for what they themselves do in court (like if they insist on taking the stand against their lawyer’s advice).

    Since the lawyer is hired by the defendant they have the responsibility of providing a professional, vigorous and ethical defense and if they do something counter to that, it could be argued that they didn’t receive an adequate defense.

    But in Drew’s case, he knew Joel and his limitations and chose to stick with him. Brodsky has argued to the media that his decisions were based on strategy and that he had consulted some high-powered attorneys before deciding to call Harry Smith to the stand. Greenberg may try to assert that there was no consensus to do that. Well, he should have argued against it more successfully, if he felt so strongly.

    He agreed to get on the Joel Brodsky defense bus and to defer his decisions to the “Captain”. Now he regrets it? Too bad, so sad.

  15. That makes me so mad he had a supposedly dream team of attorneys. There is no way he had ineffective council.he deserves the death penalty not a new trial. His lead attorney has represented him for years so that should not count now. Please don’t let that murderer set free.

  16. Thanks, Facs. I know here in Texas the defendant has the right to take or turn down a plea bargain, too, and of course to represent him/herself in lieu of an attorney. The court usually appoints an attorney of record just to guide-and I swear I think that’s all Brodsky was doing in Drew’s case. Drew, IMO, was actually defending himself. Once again, he thought he was a smart cookie. If it went wrong, as it finally did, he blames the Brod. If he won, he would take all the credit.

  17. Former Drew Peterson Lawyer Joel Brodsky Calls Current Lawyer Crazy

    Last week, one of the lawyers working to get wife-killer Drew Peterson a new murder trial blamed attorney Joel Brodsky for blowing the case. On Tuesday, Brodsky slapped back, filing a court paper claiming former co-counsel Steve Greenberg “suffers from a severe mental illness.”

    Brodsky has followed his withdrawal—or discharge—from the criminal case by pulling out of a wrongful death action filed against Peterson in 2009.

    In his motion to withdraw from the civil case, which says virtually nothing about withdrawing from the civil case but quite a bit about Greenberg, Brodsky alleges that Greenberg was on board with the ill-advised Smith strategy but now denies it because “his mental illness requires that he can never be wrong.”

    Brodsky also claims Greenberg “developed a hatred and resentment of Joel Brodsky,” not to mention that Greenberg is supposedly “fixated and obsessed” with him.

    But Greenberg wasn’t the only one Brodsky was going after in his court filing—he also took a swipe at Peterson, whom he had seemingly developed a deep friendship with during the five years of their association following the mysterious disappearance of Peterson’s fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, in October 2007.

    “Drew Peterson, because he is facing the likelihood of having to spend the rest of his life in prison, is, like a man grasping straws, knowingly accepting and agreeing to make false allegations against Mr. Brodsky based on Greenberg’s ill-conceived advice and counsel,” Brodsky wrote in the motion.

    When told of Brodsky’s filing, Greenberg said it was just additional evidence to be used when he tries to prove Brodsky was ineffective in his defense of Peterson.

    “Taken as a whole, it’s so nonsensical, and the fact that he filed such a pleading will be exhibit A to support our allegations that (Brodsky) should never have been leading the charge,” Greenberg said. “Those of us who remain (on the defense team) are focused on getting Mr. Peterson a new trial, and not on Mr. Brodsky.


  18. Where it says Tuesday in the above story, read Monday.

    I guess Joel kind of had to withdraw from the civil case seeing as Drew is claiming ineffectual assistance from him. It wouldn’t make sense to keep an attorney after you claimed that he got you convicted of murder.

    FYI, these are the parties listed for wrongful death civil case:

    Plaintiff SAVIO HENRY J

    Plaintiff DOMAN ANNA M


    Defendant PETERSON DREW

    Defendant CARROLL JAMES B

    And recent events:

    12/17/2012 Motion TO WITHDRAW
    12/17/2012 Copies & Cert. Copies

  19. Drew Peterson’s attorneys accuse each other of ethical violations

    By art golab Staff Reporter December 17, 2012 10:02PM

    The battle between Drew Peterson’s attorneys escalated Monday as Joel Brodsky claimed his co-counsel Steve Greenberg suffered from mental illness and had an “intimate relationship” with a TV reporter to draw more attention to himself.

    Brodsky hurled those accusations and others in a court filing responding to a memorandum filed last week by Greenberg that charged that Brodsky botched the Peterson trial by spending too much time chasing publicity for himself and their client and that Brodsky committed a “smorgasbord of ethical violations.”

    Greenberg is hoping to overturn Peterson’s conviction for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, on the grounds of incompetent counsel.

    Brodsky’s biting rebuttal alleged that Greenberg did his share of chasing the media by leaking sealed documents to a newspaper reporter, and that Greenberg suffered “from a severe mental illness known as pathological narcissism.”

    Brodsky also accused Greenberg of conducting an “intimate relationship” with a cable TV reporter “which he developed during the trial to get more attention for himself.”

    Brodsky’s charges were made in a motion to withdraw from defending Peterson against a wrongful death lawsuit that Kathleen Savio’s relatives filed against Peterson.

    Brodsky offered no proof for these allegations.

    To the allegation of mental illness, Greenberg responded, “I think that my acts in the courtroom and in connection with the case and the quality of the work I did and how I conducted myself pretty much speaks for itself.”

    About the alleged affair: “I was focused on trying a case and my two teenage kids were assisting and staying with me so I wasn’t intimate with anyone,” Greenberg said.

    “I really don’t want to dignify anything Joel Brodsky says at this point because it’s so far out there,” Greenberg said.


  20. This is the third time (and the third female reporter) that I’ve heard Joel erroneously accuse Steven Goldberg of dating in order to get better press.

    Sounds like someone is obsessed, and it ain’t Greenberg.

  21. The energy used to fight their battle …using the media to print their words..with each accusation makes drew appear more guilty…do they not think the judges ..other attorneys are reading this circus….bickering with Brodsky puts you on his level…the rest of the team probably wants to hide under a blanket..Brodsky is a media whore and a horrible attorney…if he died tomorrow …his obit would say he put Smith on the stand and lost the Peterson case…

  22. From the Trib –

    By Steve SchmadekeTribune reporter
    10:24 a.m. CST, December 18, 2012

    In an unusual motion, Drew Peterson’s former defense attorney is calling his defense-team rival “mentally ill,” accusing him of leaking documents to the Chicago Tribune and speculating that he may be called to testify before a grand jury investigating his high-profile former client.

    Joel Brodsky on Monday filed a motion asking to withdraw as Peterson’s defense attorney in the civil wrongful-death lawsuit filed by the family of Kathleen Savio, Peterson’s third wife, who the former Bolingbrook police officer was convicted this fall of drowning in 2004.

    The motion was not unexpected – Brodsky was pressured to leave the defense team not long after Peterson’s murder conviction. But what typically is a brief motion filled with boilerplate language became almost the complete opposite in Brodsky’s hands.

    The motion for leave to withdraw was filed not long after Peterson’s defense team asked for a new trial based on what they said was Brodsky’s inept legal performance.

    In his motion, Brodsky fires back and alleges his defense team rival Steve Greenberg “suffers from a severe mental illness known as pathological narcissism.”

    Brodsky also claims that his former client is “like a man grasping straws” who has overlooked better legal arguments to attack Brodsky with “blatantly false and ill-considered allegations of misconduct.”

    He also accuses Greenberg of leaking sealed documents from the Peterson case to a Tribune reporter.

    Brodsky does not explain in the motion the legal relevance those claims have to his request to withdraw from the civil case. But he argues later in the motion that, because of what he calls an “unfathomable error” by Greenberg, he expects to be called before a grand jury investigating Peterson.

    Greenberg’s alleged error is quoting from a letter Brodsky sent Peterson in November in which Brodsky allegedly threatened to reveal damaging information about Peterson if he were removed from the case.

    The grand jury reference is presumably to a possible grand jury investigating Peterson for the murder of his missing fourth wife Stacy. Prosecutors have said Peterson murdered her, though he has not been charged.

    Greenberg on Tuesday dismissed Brodsky’s motion.

    “It’s nonsensical — he doesn’t understand thelaw,” Greenberg said of the motion, which he compared to “a letter to the editor.”

    “We, unlike him, aren’t filing anything or doing anything to make the situation worse,” Greenberg said.

    “My psychiatrist says I’m OK,” he joked.

    Peterson’s defense team has said they believe their client will be charged in connection with Stacy’s 2007 disappearance. Will County’s top prosecutor has said he will have attorneys in his office review her case again with an eye towards possibly bringing charges.

    A hearing on Peterson’s motion for a new trial based on Brodsky’s alleged ineffective assistance of counsel is scheduled for Jan. 10.


  23. Defamation of Character =
    Any intentional false communication, either written or spoken, that harms a person’s reputation; decreases the respect, regard, or confidence in which a person is held; or induces disparaging, hostile, or disagreeable opinions or feelings against a person.

    I’m just not sure that Greenberg is the one that is mentally ill. Just sayin’…. 😉

  24. A comment on the Tribune story brought up something interesting:

    Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession

    Rule 8.3 Reporting Professional Misconduct
    (a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects, shall inform the appropriate professional authority.

  25. You can read the motion here (I’ll have it up on the site in a bit):

    Brodsky says in the motion, Greenberg “suffers from a severe mental illness known as pathological narcissism.”

    He says Greenberg has committed what is probably the single biggest legal mistake in the history of jurisprudence.

    In his motion for a new trial, Greenberg quotes from a letter Brodsky wrote to Peterson.

    That Brodsky says, removes attorney-client privilege and opens the door for the entire letter to be used against Peterson.

    He says it could lead to unearthing new evidence in the disappearance of his missing fourth wife, Stacy.

    Greenberg says the motion is “beyond bizarre.”


  26. Sorry, Facs, but I would think the entire Dream Team should stand before a tribunal if they want to claim that Brodsky’s ineffective counsel rose to the level of professional misconduct. Brodsky does nothing without tooting his own horn. They knew his antics and either looked the other way or went along with it because it suited them at that moment.

    How many attorneys jumped ship once they caught a whiff of Brodsky’s perpetual and incessant narcissism? They didn’t want to risk their own reputation by associating with Brodsky. These buffoons thought they’d ride Peterson’s notoriety wagon into the Big League. When that didn’t happen they began one big circle shoot.

    If Brodsky was so bad, they had plenty of time to report it. They even had the judge throwing up a huge flare during the trial, giving them the perfect opening to come to the bench and lodge a protest against Brodsky. They didn’t.

    All of this is thoroughly disgusting and none of them are without some guilt.

    What it does for me, though, is convince me beyond a shadow of a doubt that Brodsky sees Drew as the enemy now. Nothing is sacred to this man and Drew had better prepare himself for his new trial for the murder of Stacey as laid out by his good buddy Joel. I realize attorney/client privilege should be a protection, but Joel has shown no regard for following the rules. He will find a way to drop bread crumbs just to get back at Drew.

    JMHO, of course.

  27. That’s kind of what I’m saying. Greenberg could be held accountable by the Himmel Rule because he didn’t report any of Brodsky’s unethical behavior to the ARDC. Only after three years of working together did he decide that Joel’s business practices were effed up? He’s no “good guy” in all of this.

Comments are closed.