Video: Drew Peterson murder conviction appeal oral arguments

Part 1: Argument for the appeal by attorney Steven Greenberg

Part 2: Argument for the appeal by attorney Harold Krent

Part 3: Argument against the appeal by assistant state’s attorney Marie Czech (1)

Part 4: Argument against the appeal by assistant state’s attorney Marie Czech (2)

Part 5: Rebuttal by attorney Steven Greenberg

Last week Drew Peterson attorneys Steve Greenberg and Harold Krent presented arguments to three Illinois appellate justices in hopes of overturning Peterson’s 2012 conviction for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

The appeal centered around a number of points – namely the admittance of hearsay statements under the forfeiture by wrongdoing exception, the question of counselor-client and lawyer-client privilege and allegations of conflict and ineffective counsel on the part of Joel Brodsky.

Last week also saw a change in date for Peterson’s murder-for-hire trial. Originally he had asked for a speedy trial and the date was set for July, but his attorney, Lucas Liefer, decided that they could not be ready by then. The trial is now set for August 28th.

Attorney Steven Greenberg who unsuccessfully defended Peterson against murder charges at trial in 2012, and is now one of his appellate lawyers, was interviewed about the oral arguments as well as Drew’s more recent murder case

Attorney Joel Brodsky, who is named in Peterson’s appeal as providing ineffective assistance and having a per se conflict of interest, replied to the charges via “The Publicity Agency”. The PR firm is run by Glenn Selig who is also named in Peterson’s appeal.

“I was amazed and shocked at the flagrant lies told, and the blatant hypocrisy demonstrated by Attorney Steve Greenberg during oral arguments before the Illinois Appellate Court on Drew Peterson’s appeal of his murder conviction. As to the accusations about my seeking publicity during the Peterson case, Steve Greenberg’s hypocrisy is beyond all bounds. The provable truth is that Attorney Steve Greenberg begged me to let him come onto the Peterson case to work for free and he wanted to do so for the publicity. He certainly did not want to work for free out of the goodness of his heart. Further, for Greenberg to complain about me seeking publicity from the Peterson case is the height of dishonesty when the provable fact is that I had to stop him from appearing on a truTV segment called “Karas v. Greenberg”, which he attempted to do during the trial! Rather than preparing for the days hearing or appearing in the courtroom during the trial, Greenberg was on truTV giving away the defense’s strategy while seeking publicity for himself. During the trial, he even used his daughter to set up his own personal media interviews. It is the height of hypocrisy for Attorney Greenberg to accuse me of wanting publicity.

Furthermore, Attorney Steve Greenberg told blatant lies during the oral argument. He stated that Drew Peterson’s media interviews were played during the trial and were used as evidence against him. Perhaps Greenberg was too busy doing the “Karas v. Greenberg” TV bits during the trial to remember, but not one video of Drew giving a media interview was ever played at trial. Not one. The only thing related to Mr. Peterson’s interviews that was used as evidence was a written transcript of three (3) questions that Drew was asked during interviews. The questions were as follows: (1) what happened to Kathy” (Drew said “I don’t know”), (2) Were you surprised that Kathy’s body was exhumed (Drew said “yes”), and (3) Were you separated at the time? (Drew said ‘yes”). Hardly evidence against Drew. This shows that Attorney Steve Greenberg lacks any credibility and engaged in gross misrepresentations and hypocrisy during his oral argument to the appellate court.”

2 thoughts on “Video: Drew Peterson murder conviction appeal oral arguments

  1. CHESTER —
    Drew Peterson’s defense counsel has hit the “pause” button on the former Bolingbrook Police sergeant’s court proceedings.

    Back in Randolph County court on Friday for a motion hearing in his murder-for-hire case, Peterson’s request to delay his trial was granted by Judge Richard A. Brown for the reason his court-appointed attorney, Lucas Liefer, needs more time to prepare.

    “It is my understanding this is by mutual agreement,” Peterson said, when questioned about the decision by Brown.

    “That is true,” said Randolph County State’s Attorney Jeremy Walker, who is co-prosecuting the case with the Illinois Attorney General’s Office.

    Peterson’s trial had been scheduled for a July 6 start date, but now the motions hearing will continue on July 7 at 9:30 a.m. A new trial date of Monday, Aug. 31, was set, with jury selection to begin on Friday, Aug. 28, at 9 a.m.

    “As long as we can pick a jury in a day, which I think we will be able to accomplish,” Walker said to local media after the hearing.

    Brown seemed to be annoyed by the decision, stating that he had made arrangements for the July 6 trial to meet the defense’s request for a speedy trial demand – which means a case must be tried within 160 days of the demand for trial.

    “I was getting ready to go and now your attorney says ‘We’re not ready to go to trial,’” Brown said to Peterson.

    Brown added that notices had already been sent to potential jurors and he had received some questionnaires back on Friday.

    “I understand that if the attorneys need extra time, then I would like them to get extra time,” Peterson said.

    Walker told the Herald Tribune after the hearing that the speedy trial demand has not been withdrawn, just tolled.

    “(Tolled) is just a fancy word for hitting the ‘pause’ button,” Walker said. “It isn’t that it goes away, (the clock) just stops where we’re at right now.

    “If, for some reason, it comes to August and the state doesn’t want a continuance, but the defense does, that’s when the clock starts.”

    Walker said an August trial date was better “for all parties involved” and said there was a possibility of more motions being filed. There are currently three motions to be considered by Brown:

    • To permit impeachment (challenging the truthfulness of an individual testifying at trial) of Peterson about his prior first-degree murder conviction if he chooses to testify in this case.

    • To admit trial evidence that Peterson previously offered a person $25,000 in 2003 to “take care of” his ex-wife, Kathleen Savio, whom he was convicted in 2012 of killing.

    • Limit impeachment and prevent cross-examination of the prosecution’s witness regarding the facts or circumstances of the crime he was convicted of.

    “I don’t think there will be any more motions the State would file, but there is a possibility the defense may file,” Walker said. “I cannot expand on them until they’ve been filed.”

    Friday’s hearing, originally scheduled for 9 a.m., didn’t start until almost 10. The hearing was also attended by Peterson’s sister-in-law, Cassandra Cales, who has been a consistent presence during Peterson’s case proceedings.

  2. AP story: “BOLINGBROOK, Ill. (AP) – Officials in the Chicago suburb where Drew Peterson was a police sergeant have voted to compel him to provide deposition testimony as they decide whether he keeps his pension.

    The Bolingbrook Police Pension Board voted Wednesday, when board attorney Richard Reimer said the next step is to contact authorities at the southern Illinois prison where Peterson is being held. Peterson is serving a 38-year term for the death of his third wife Kathleen Savio. The 61-year-old has appealed his conviction.

    Peterson’s attorney Steven Greenberg had filed a motion to quash the deposition, saying Peterson can refuse to answer questions to avoid self-incrimination.

    Peterson earned a $79,000 annual police pension. To revoke Peterson’s pension the board must rule he used his law enforcement powers in Savio’s death.”

Comments are closed.