Drew Peterson in court today. Joel Brodsky takes the stand to defend his representation

UPDATE 03:14:

Hearing in recess until 10 a.m. Wednesday

UPDATE 02:24:

Joel Brodsky is called to the stand. He initially refuses to enter the courtroom and states that he won’t voluntarily testify. Judge Burmila orders him to the stand and says as a subpoenaed witness he has no choice.
Under Greenbergs’s questioning about his financial arrangement with Glenn Selig’s PR Agency, Brodsky appears very nervous. He is slumped, rolling his eyes. Short delay while the prosecution reads the financial records. Brodsky back on the stand, confirms he and Drew Peterson opened a web site that earned 11 cents toward Peterson’s defense fund. Brodsky testifies to a total payment of $10,000 from ABC television for photos and video. Screaming Flea Productions (Bio channel) also paid $15,000 for licensing rights to video, film and still photos. Brodsky says that publisher, Derek Armstrong, paid $5901.18 to write a book with Drew Peterson in March 2008.

Reem Odeh posing with Derek Armstrong's book about the Peterson case

Reem Odeh posing with Derek Armstrong’s book about the Peterson case

UPDATE 02:24:

Peterson lawyers want to call retired Cook County Judge Daniel Locallo to the stand, but he is not at the courthouse. State objects to plan to call Locallo, saying Burmila wouldn’t need another judge’s opinion to make a ruling.

UPDATE 01:40:

Under cross-examination, Scott-Rudnick says he isn’t sure if Brodsky’s publicity agreement crossed the line.
Trial observer, Jennifer Spohn, is called to the stand. Spohn is questioned about a courtroom hallway conversation between Brodsky and Greenberg. She says she heard Greenberg tell Brodsky not to put Savio divorce attorney, Harry Smith, on the stand. She says that Brodsky said, “I’m doing it.” Now reports that Joel Brodsky is in the press overflow room asking what Spohn just testified to.

UPDATE 01:00:

Meanwhile someone who appears to be Joel Brodsky’s wife, Elizabeth, goes to Brodsky’s defense in the comments thread at the WGN trial page to say that Reem Odeh is:

…lying through her teeth. She attacked joel, there was a witness who was present at this time. Joel couldn’t do enough to facilitate her departure. He even moved her stuff out because she was causing such a scene in front of clients that joel couldn’t take her being in that office alone one more day. He was afraid she would steel files and cause damage to records which she threatened to do. This was only when she found out that joel signed a 10 year lease at the existing location after she spend a month prior shopping for offices to move to and was in now way interested in paying the rent which was unaffordable to her based on her type of clients (low income immigration). she didn’t handle anything else other than filling forms and appearing on immigration cases. even the more difficult ones she would refer out cause she couldn’t handle them. she has no knowledge of law. Had to be schooled on how to write a motion or any other similar type of documents on behalf of her clients going thru divorce which she started to accept only if it was a straight divorce no kids and uncontested. couldn’t even do those right.

UPDATE 12:14:

Lunch break until 1:15.

UPDATE 12:02:

Objection by the State is overruled and defense continues to detail alleged ethics violations by Joel Brodsky.

UPDATE 11:45:

Judge Burmila announces a break in proceedings so that Judge Michael Powers can hear Joel Brodsky’s motion to withdraw from the representing Drew Peterson in the Savio family’s civil case against him. Judge Powers granted Brodsky’s motion to withdraw from the civil suit. Attorney John Heiderscheidt will replace Brodsky.

UPDATE 11:37:

Drew Peterson is in court this morning in a prison jumpsuit instead of the suit he sported at the murder trial. He has shaved his beard.

Joel Brodsky’s former law partner, Reem Odeh, told the court that Joel Brodsky threatened her as she entered the court-house this morning and then testified about conversations with Joel Brodsky about opportunities to make money from the publicity of the case as well as to an incident during which Joel Brodsky attacked her when she tried to leave their offices with a copy of the PR contract.
spotcrime

Law professor Clifford Scott-Rudnick from the John MarshallL Law School was also called to testify. Scott-Rudnick says that Brodsky’s publicity contract appears to be “over the line” of attorney ethics.

…………………………………………….

This post will be updated throughout the day but check the comments thread below for the most recent news and tweets.

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

Advertisements

131 thoughts on “Drew Peterson in court today. Joel Brodsky takes the stand to defend his representation

  1. Awfully quiet in here for court day. I’ve been busy and thought the wires would be burning up with news…..

    What’s the hold-up? It”s 11:36 here — 10:36 in Chicago. Wasn’t this supposed to start at 9:00 your time?

  2. Who would have thought that Brodsky would be dumb enough to THREATEN a witness just minutes before a court hearing???? An attorney, no less!

    Boy, who would have seen this one coming? I hope Burmilla locks him up before the day is out!

  3. Is anyone from “the group” here actually inside the courthouse? Bucket……are you inside? Is Brodsky really flipping out in the courtroom? (BOY, I’d pay big money to see that!)

  4. Granny, no one here is in the courthouse. No electronic devices, no tweeting is allowed by courtroom observers. Only credentialed reporters in the overflow room are allowed to keep their laptops, phones, etc.

  5. Awww, shucks.. The last five minutes spent daydreaming of a man named Joel Brodsky being put into a straight-jacket and hauled off into the pokey just gave me an incredible thrill…….

    That would be poetic justice.

  6. Why in the world would they bring that up NOW? Brodsky’s ethics faux paxs were well known WAY before the trial. It was a strategy that Brodsky bragged about, for cryin’ out loud.

    Pretty dumb to use that as an excuse for a retrial. Better try another angle, Greenburg.

  7. It seems like deja vu…..Burmilla is over-ruling sound objections from the Prosecution. However, we know that in the long run, this prevents the Defense Team from saying Burmilla favored the Prosecution.

    It is going to be a L O N G D A Y!

    (And I still think that Burmilla should haul Brodsky out in handcuffs for threatening a fellow attorney!)

  8. Ex-partner says Peterson attorney attacked her

    By Steve Schmadeke and Matthew Walberg
    Tribune reporters
    12:11 p.m. CST, February 19, 2013

    Joel Brodsky’s ex-law partner testified that Drew Peterson’s former lead attorney had physically attacked her in the past and tried to intimidate her this morning before she took the witness stand.

    The testimony from Reem Odeh, a former attorney for Peterson, came during a hearing on motion for a new murder trial filed by Peterson’s defense team.

    Peterson, convicted last fall of first-degree murder in the 2004 bathtub drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, and his attorneys will argue that Peterson deserves a new trial in part because Brodsky’s work on the case was flawed. The 59-year-old former Bolingbrook police sergeant faces 20 to 60 years in prison at his scheduled sentencing Wednesday.

    Odeh said this morning that Brodsky talked to her often about how he thought the Peterson case would benefit himself and the firm.

    “On many occasions, especially when we would have our quarrels about financial matters regarding the case,” Odeh said.

    She also said Brodsky made a comment to her in passing outside the courtroom this morning. Odeh testified that she could not recall Brodsky’s exact words but “I perceived that he was trying to intimidate me or threaten me.”

    She also testified that Brodsky had attacked her previously.

    “There was an incident where he physically attacked me and the police had to be called,” she said. “Just remembering what I had to go through is very very upsetting.”

    Odeh said she left Brodsky’s firm in 2010 under “very disturbing” circumstances. Many of her files and belongings were packed up and shipped out, and she took with her a copy of a contract between Brodsky, Peterson and a publicist.

    She said she didn’t take the documents as a hedge against any future action by Brodsky or others.

    “I thought that Mr. Brodsky was very furious with me for ending the partnership and leaving. So I gathered everything I could get my hands on and left.”

    The hearing began this morning with questions from Judge Edward Burmila about one of Peterson’s attorneys.

    Burmila said he was “concerned” about whether defense attorney Steve Greenberg could give his full attention to Peterson’s case given that Greenberg has been sued for libel this month by Brodsky.

    “The issue now is that Mr. Greenberg’s personal name and financial interest could be at interest due to this lawsuit and the timing of it,” Burmila said to Peterson. “Someone could argue…that Greenberg is now pulling his punches because he’d be afraid that if he revisits these same issues, he’d be accused of once again libeling Mr. Brodsky. Do you still have confidence in these attorneys this morning…despite the pendency of this lawsuit?”

    “Yes, your honor,” Peterson replied.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial,0,1250332.story

  9. Ellie strikes back!

    elizabeth · 1 minute ago

    lying through her teeth. She attacked joel, there was a witness who was present at this time. Joel couldn’t do enough to facilitate her departure. He even moved her stuff out because she was causing such a scene in front of clients that joel couldn’t take her being in that office alone one more day. He was afraid she would steel files and cause damage to records which she threatened to do. This was only when she found out that joel signed a 10 year lease at the existing location after she spend a month prior shopping for offices to move to and was in now way interested in paying the rent which was unaffordable to her based on her type of clients (low income immigration). she didn’t handle anything else other than filling forms and appearing on immigration cases. even the more difficult ones she would refer out cause she couldn’t handle them. she has no knowledge of law. Had to be schooled on how to write a motion or any other similar type of documents on behalf of her clients going thru divorce which she started to accept only if it was a straight divorce no kids and uncontested. couldn’t even do those right.

    http://wgntv.com/2013/02/19/live-blog-inside-the-courtroom-of-peterson-trial-5/

  10. I’m not going to even feel the need to qualify this statement with an IMO. She IS a snob. I well remember her FB updates about her sojourn to the wilds of the Chicago suburbs where she was shocked to see that people don’t know how to dress!

  11. I wonder if Odeh has grounds to go after both Joel and Ellie. Ellie for defamation and Joel for witness intimidation.

    This three-ring circus needs a bigger tent. And to think…..this is just the beginning of the testimony.

  12. I think it may have been a mistake to bring up the Selig thing, because something it supports is that DP was aware of and participated in their nonsense totally willingly.

    The fundamental ugly truth is that JB and DP set out to wring all the $$$ and attention they could by exploiting the murders of Kitty and Stacy.

  13. I don’t think JB has anything to fear from Spohn’s testimony. Old news. Greenberg throws small fit at the last minute. JB was driving the bus. 😉

  14. Joel #Brodsky seems to have no clue about witnesses being excluded from hearing other testimony in an IL Criminal Court. #DrewPeterson

    😆

  15. Any clue as to how many witnesses to be called in this today? Hoping it will be all over by this afternoon and we can move on to sentencing tomorrow

  16. “Brodsky walked into the overflow room, asked reporters what Spohn just testified to.”

    HOLY COW! Where the HELL is security? Brodsky knows full well that a potential witness is NOT ALLOWED TO HEAR any testimony before they take the stand — whether or not they ever take the stand!

    LOCK THE DARN $%&$^% UP! He is NOT ignorant of the law, but believes he is ABOVE THE LAW!

    This is NUTS!

  17. Greenberg still doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He could have approached the bench before White was called and filed a protest to this witness.

  18. Yeah, I am also not impressed by what Spohn had to say. Sounds like Greenberg is more concerned with making sure he looks good than doing anything to spring Drew.

  19. He initially refused to come into courtroom and had to be ordered by the judge? Oh boy, this mans legal career just may be over

  20. The Herald-News ‏@Joliet_HN

    Brodsky initially refused to come into the courtroom. Burmila ordered him to take the stand

  21. Okay….now Greenberg is calling Brodsky up…..this should be good. I sure hope he asks him if he went into the overflow room to find out what was being said about him.

    This is the most incredible thing I’ve ever heard —- and Burmilla seems to be either oblivious or leaving LOTS of room for Brodsky to hang himself.

  22. Brodsky slumping, rolling eyes, clearly not happy to be a defense witness. Greenberg doing the questioning. Could get very interesting.

    Typical behavior I would expect from him.

  23. Facs, is there any attorney on board who can weigh in on the severity of Brodsky’s entrance into the overflow room? I’ve been a witness in several cases over the years — in multiple states.

    EACH one made a huge deal about not being able to hear any testimony before you were called to the stand. You were sent a Subpoena from the Judge and it clearly said that you were under HIS jurisdiction while in that building. You were to report at xx time to xx room and be under the watchful eye of a court Bailiff or Sheriff until you were called by the court.

    HOW can anyone say that Brodsky didn’t know this? Where was the security personnel who was supposed to be keeping an eye on witnesses? He should be held in contempt of court before the day is over or Burmilla needs to be cited for malfeasance.

  24. Who was the generous soul that donated 11 cents to Drew Petersons Defense fund – or was that 11 donations at 1 cent each ? – LOL !

  25. And Armstrong lied about whether or not Drew got any money from “exposed”

    SHERMAN: Well, here`s my question for Mr. Armstrong. Is he sharing in the profits, yes or no?

    GRACE: Is he, Derek, Mr. Armstrong? Did he make any money off this book?

    ARMSTRONG: No. Basically what.

    GRACE: Go ahead.

    ARMSTRONG: No, he`s getting no piece of it. His interest in this is to tell his story. My sense of it is that he likes celebrity. You know how he likes to be in the media. I think he wants a book. I think eventually he wants a movie. That`s what I think is at the bottom of his motivation.

    http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0810/07/ng.01.html

  26. I haven’t posted lately but have been reading the updates here for the past few months.

    They’ve only allocated today and tomorrow for this hearing and the sentencing. If this hearing goes over into tomorrow, is it likely the sentencing will be postponed and rescheduled to a later time, or is it possible that this can be continued into Thursday or Friday if necessary?

    It would be a shame if the Savio family had to have another long wait for the sentencing.

  27. What’s to say that the money didn’t go directly into Brodsky’s pocket or Selig’s pocket and not Drew’s? I’m confused……

  28. Good question, Molly.

    I still would like some clarification about IL law regarding witnesses. I’ve been in three different jurisdictions and each forbids a witness from having any contact with others who may be testifying or from reading newspapers or TV broadcasts about what was testified to prior to their own testimony. As I said, the subpoena calls out strict penalties — contempt of court, for one — if you violate any of those rules. There is a Sheriff or some other court-appointed person keeping an eye on the witnesses so that they don’t talk amongst themselves or with others.

    Brodsky was originally subpoenaed as a Prosecution witness? That means he can still be called to testify? And he sauntered back into the overflow room after his testimony?

    What in the world is up with that?

    HOW can there be a “fair” trial if the witnesses are allowed to schmooze with others during the trial — finding out what was said so they can alter their own testimony when their time comes up? No way Illinois can claim to have a “fair” trial for anyone if this is allowed.

    This is JUST CRAZY!

  29. Drew Peterson case: Brodsky takes stand

    By Steve Schmadeke and Matthew Walberg
    Tribune reporters
    3:28 p.m. CST, February 19, 2013

    Drew Peterson’s former lead attorney Joel Brodsky took the witness stand this afternoon to be questioned by his former defense team nemesis Steve Greenberg.

    The bizarre courtroom drama was part of a hearing on a motion filed by the defense seeking a new trial for Peterson, 59, who was convicted last fall of drowning his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Defense attorneys allege Brodsky’s work on the murder trial was flawed and therefore Peterson deserves a new trial.

    Testimony on the motion has concluded for the day and is scheduled to resume Wednesday at 10 a.m. Brodsky could be called to the witness stand Wednesday by the prosecution.

    Brodsky testified this afternoon that he entered into a yearlong contract with a publicist in 2007 and said he was paid money by ABC television. Brodsky’s former legal partner testified this morning that Brodsky often focused on the financial benefit of representing Peterson, and a law professor testified today that Brodsky’s contract with a publicity firm violated the professional code of conduct for attorneys.

    Brodsky testified that he opened up a trust account for Peterson’s case and deposited $10,000 from ABC television for photo and video licensing fees in 2008. In March 2008, he withdrew $10,000 for “attorney’s fees.”

    “Did you ever get anything in writing authorizing the disbursements?” Greenberg asked, referring to the $10,000 payment.

    “Oh, that payment?” Brodsky said. “I’m not sure. Maybe, maybe not.”

    Brodsky this month filed a libel lawsuit against Greenberg and claimed in court documents Greenberg was mentally ill. Greenberg has said Brodsky’s decision to put a key witness on the stand late in the murder trial last year led to Peterson’s guilty verdict. Some jurors said testimony from the witness convinced them that Peterson was guilty.

    This morning, Brodsky’s ex-law partner Reem Odeh testified that Brodsky had physically attacked her in the past and tried to intimidate her before she took the witness stand.

    Odeh said Brodsky talked to her often about how he thought the Peterson case would benefit himself and the firm.

    “On many occasions, especially when we would have our quarrels about financial matters regarding the case,” Odeh said.

    She also said Brodsky made a comment to her in passing outside the courtroom this morning. Odeh testified that she could not recall Brodsky’s exact words but “I perceived that he was trying to intimidate me or threaten me.”

    She also testified that Brodsky had attacked her when she left his firm in 2010.

    “There was an incident where he physically attacked me and the police had to be called,” she said. “Just remembering what I had to go through is very, very upsetting.”

    Outside court, Odeh said she never pressed charges because she wanted to end any contact with Brodsky.

    Also outside court, Brodsky said he never spoke with Odeh or threatened her before the hearing this morning and said she lied when she testified that he physically attacked her when she dissolved their partnership in 2010.

    Instead, it was he who fired her after she allegedly forged his signature on affidavits, he said.

    “This is a very angry person who I found out was forging affidavits,” Brodsky said.

    Brodsky also showed reporters copies of a disparaging text message sent from Odeh’s phone and directed at him.

    Odeh denied she forged affidavits when asked about it outside court. She also said the disparaging text was sent from her phone after it was stolen. She said several of the contacts in her stolen phone received disparaging messages and she later apologized to those people, including Brodsky, and explained her phone had been stolen and the messages were not sent by her.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-drew-peterson-trial,0,1250332.story

  30. “Brodsky testified that he opened up a trust account for Peterson’s case and deposited $10,000 from ABC television for photo and video licensing fees in 2008. In March 2008, he withdrew $10,000 for “attorney’s fees.”

    “Did you ever get anything in writing authorizing the disbursements?” Greenberg asked, referring to the $10,000 payment.

    “Oh, that payment?” Brodsky said. “I’m not sure. Maybe, maybe not.”

    LOL – Is this a comedy sketch or are these two actually in a Courtoom ?

  31. It’s completely bonkers.
    He must have been trying to invalidate his appearance as a witness. He was hostile for sure, lol. Perhaps that’s why the judge ignored it.

  32. My friend on F/B was in the courtroom today…she said Brodsky was very angry and said he was very mean to Reem…it was noticed by everyone…he really needs to be handcuffed and taken away….

  33. Also outside court, Brodsky said he never spoke with Odeh or threatened her before the hearing this morning and said she lied when she testified that he physically attacked her when she dissolved their partnership in 2010.

    Instead, it was he who fired her after she allegedly forged his signature on affidavits, he said.

    “This is a very angry person who I found out was forging affidavits,” Brodsky said.

    Oh really, and what legal action did Joel Brodsky take when he found out Reem Odeh “forged his signature on affidavits” ?

    Looks like he didn’t do anything – and considering he is such a Media hound, he didn’t even alert the Media at the time, let alone bring them into Court to wave them in everyones face.

    Out of the goodness of his heart Joel just kept quiet about it – until now …….

  34. AtlGranny,
    It’s the same here in California. Witnesses aren’t allowed to hear the testimony of other witnesses prior to their taking the stand and testifying. I’ve only been in small county courthouses, and most often it’s only a matter of being outside the courtroom in the hallway, with a bailiff who keeps an eye on the potential witnesses.

  35. So Steve Greenberg is mentally ill and Reem Odeh forges his signature, yet Joel Brodsky is a picture of sanity and never forged anyones signature …………….

  36. Takes me back to the time when Joel and Ellie were seen fighting in a restaurant and she was yelling at him, “I made you!”

    Oh, found it!

    January 31, 2010
    So I sat at the table next to Joel Brodsky last night at dinner. He & wife fighting the whole time. She was crying, they were outta control!

    NO not poor wifey. She was terrible. A raging bitch

    She was telling him she made him. Which in my opinion isn’t a good thing! He kept telling her to “shut the f**k up.”

    Yikes.

  37. Elizabeth needs to stop what she is saying about Reem. From things that I have overheard, Reem may have some info on both Joel and Elizabeth that could land them both in jail. She just wants to be left alone so that she can continue on with her life and career. Reem is a very sincere person and does not need to be threathened like this. Everyone knows the truth and that Elizabeth is just doing Joels dirty work. It was very obvious that Reem was very shaken by the verbal threat made by Joel in the hallway prior to Reem having to take the stand. Please Just Stop all this craziness.

  38. I agree with you Facs.. between watching this thing and the Arias trial, my brain is fried. But there are things that stood out to me on the DB thing, that has me concerned on whatever motive, but I do not believe in all honesty, they are acting smart right now. I think its between the lawyers vendettas. Drew? well, who cares, Brodsky’s lack of being a professional today, for example, and Greenberg being less then aggressive in whatever he was trying to prove, other then a vendetta between the two of them. but as long as DP gets sentenced, I am happy. Today was a joke, the appeals are gonna come no matter what. I believe that man is going to spend many years where he belongs before any appeal may give him hopes. And hopefully, the rest of that lawyer team will reap the benefits of what they sowed regarding this case. 😉

  39. I admire Reem and was glad when she got the hell out of there. She did the right thing by just having no contact with Brodsky.

  40. Gosh Joel. You are beginning to sound just like your former client! Everyone else is either mentally ill, lying, or trying to make you look bad. Look around. It isn’t them, IT’S YOU!

  41. how could she make him what he is…did she go to law school…maybe the one he hasn’t seen in 15 yrs put him through school….the one that was lucky enough to be the one that got away….please ….this man is walking our streets…mentally ill

  42. I’ve watched trials for some years and have never seen anything like this defense team! In most high profile criminal cases, no one likes the defense attorneys. They often stretch the truth in their defense of their client. Mark Geragos in the Scott Peterson trial is one case that comes to mind. But he doesn’t hold a candle to the terrible antics of the Drew Peterson defense team.

    At this point, I just want to get through this hearing and see Drew Peterson sentenced and sent off to prison. The families of his victims deserve that.

    I’m sure that in the years to come we’re going to see more appeals from Drew Peterson attorneys, but I cannot foresee any appeal that would overturn his conviction. And, I’m hopeful that someday there will be new evidence to bring Drew Peterson to trial for Stacy’s disappearance.

  43. To me it’s still looking like this is more about the Brodsky/Greenberg pissing contest than getting a new trial for Drew.

    If they weren’t wasting Will County taxpayer’s money I’d say ‘go nuts’.

    Can we PLEASE get Drew sentenced?

  44. Brown: Making Drew Peterson’s lawyer squirm might not win new trial — but it sure is fun to watch
    BY MARK BROWN February 19, 2013 7:46PM

    Are you familiar with the term “reluctant witness?”

    Well, they don’t get much more reluctant than Drew Peterson’s ex-defense attorney Joel Brodsky, called to the witness stand Tuesday by his former defense team colleagues to help make the argument Peterson deserves a new trial because Brodsky screwed up the case.

    During a brief but theatrical trip to the stand, Brodsky gave off more I-don’t-want-to-be-here body language than a cat thrown into the middle of a dog park on a weekend morning.

    He slouched sideways in the witness chair. He sighed loudly and repeatedly. He muttered under his breath to himself while shaking his head. He rolled his eyes. He closed his eyes.

    And at no time did he make direct eye contact with his inquisitor, Steven Greenberg, the former colleague on the Peterson defense team with whom he has been openly engaged in a blood feud since the former Bolingbrook police office was found guilty in September of the 2004 murder of third wife Kathleen Savio.

    Up until that verdict, the two lawyers had only been feuding semi-openly in what mostly appeared to be a clash of egos.

    Since then, they have been trading accusations ranging from legal malpractice to mental illness.

    The gist of Tuesday’s questioning was to bring out the fact that Brodsky arranged with Peterson in 2007 — before the former Bolingbrook police officer was charged — to hire a publicist to try to help arrange moneymaking ventures such as book or movie deals.

    Greenberg contends this was unethical because Brodsky was in effect going into business with his client, creating a conflict of interest because deals that might help them make money wouldn’t necessarily be the best moves for his defense.

    That certainly may be a valid issue for the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission, but I don’t see how it entitles Peterson to a new trial.

    Brodsky was such a reluctant witness that for a moment Tuesday he even declined to enter Will County Judge Edward Burmila’s courtroom when his name was called.

    Brodsky had been subpoenaed to testify by Will County prosecutors, not the defense, and appeared to be caught off guard when he was suddenly summoned to the stand by Greenberg.

    At first, he tried to argue with Burmila whether he should be there, before the judge forcefully reminded him of the very elementary legal principle that as a subpoenaed witness, either side was allowed to call him.

    If Brodsky’s camera-hogging antics during his five years as Peterson’s lead lawyer ever rubbed you the wrong way, then you would have loved to witness this squirmy performance from the vantage point I had in the jury box.

    For a while, I thought he was going to come completely unglued, but the questioning was mercifully cut short.

    Greenberg didn’t even explore the matter Brodsky must have been most expecting: his decision at trial to call as a witness a divorce lawyer whose testimony backfired when he told jurors that Peterson’s now-missing fourth wife, Stacy, confided in him that Peterson had killed Savio.

    Outside the courtroom, Brodsky was back to his old self, pausing to talk with reporters even as his own lawyer tried to pull him out of the media scrum, mouthing the words: “Shut the f— up.”

    Brodsky told reporters he wasn’t supposed to talk because he could be put back on the stand Wednesday, but kept talking anyway.

    When asked if Greenberg had “laid a glove” on him, Brodsky said: “I don’t see how.”

    He then allowed that the defense effort to win a new trial “wasn’t very impressive.”

    He denied that he looked uncomfortable on the witness stand.

    If the ploy works, then this could become the blueprint for all such high profile defendants in the future. Put together a large team of defense lawyers, set them against each other and if they don’t win you an acquittal in the first place, you have them blame each other in the aftermath to win a new trial.

    Obviously, that can’t be allowed to happen, which is why the tactic shouldn’t prevail and probably won’t.

    But it made for good courtroom theater.

    “In 30 years, I’ve never seen this before,” said veteran Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

    Once is enough.

    http://www.suntimes.com/news/brown/18342948-452/brown-making-drew-petersons-lawyer-squirm-might-not-win-new-trial-but-it-sure.html

  45. Great coverage, Facs!
    I’ve never seen anything like it. I don’t think Brodsky pulling out $10,000 for attorney fees was a big deal. I think that’s the standard retainer fee for murder trials. Drew didn’t want his own money touched, so he wanted to milk the media. I don’t see where it’s relevant to his conviction. Drew was totally part of the plan, acting of his own free will.

    Ellie Brodsky is something. I remember the Facebook days when poor Reem couldn’t plan anything without Ellie wanting to tag along. She even wanted Reem to include her on her European travel plans.
    Ellie- your negative rant against Reem only serves to show the world what a b*tch you’ve become.

  46. I know DP is a spousal abuser…XXXXXXXXXXX his treatment of Reem isn’t any different then the abuse a women takes from a husband…mental and physical…Elizabeth needs to listen to her husband and shut the F*** up…they have had their 5 minutes of fame ….now move on….but then again Reem has a nice case for the judge….

    MOD EDIT/Had to remove a bit of this. It’s fine to state your opinions but please refrain from stating unproven facts about people.

  47. He slouched sideways in the witness chair. He sighed loudly and repeatedly. He muttered under his breath to himself while shaking his head. He rolled his eyes. He closed his eyes.

    Sounds like a child. :mrgreen:

  48. I was wondering if anyone had information on DP’s actions while JP was on the stand. I did read that he was joking with his lawyers during the day, but would be interested in hearing about his actions/reactions while JB was talking about the payments etc. Did he hang his head, was he attentive, or did he want to crawl under a rock?

Comments are closed.