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.”

Advertisements

Oral arguments presented today in appeal of Drew Peterson’s murder conviction

Drew Peterson attorneys Steve Greenberg and Harold Krent presented arguments today 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, the question of counselor-client privilege and allegations of ineffective counsel on the part of Joel Brodsky.

The Chicago Tribune reported that,

A three-member panel of the 3rd District Appellate Court frequently interrupted the attorneys with questions about why the rest of Peterson’s legal team did not intervene if they disagreed with Brodsky’s actions and trial strategy.

They also appeared skeptical of claims that Peterson’s rights were violated when Burmila allowed Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, to testify that Stacy Peterson had called to ask what would happen if she did not reveal her husband’s role in Savio’s death.

Greenberg and Krent argued that Smith should never have been allowed to testify, because it violated attorney-client privilege.

But Justice Daniel Schmidt appeared skeptical.

“Is the privilege designed to protect the client or the person that killed the client?” Schmidt asked. “My guess is if I’m dead, I’m not going to mind if my attorney testifies about the guy that killed me.”

Also,

Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Marie Czech argued that the media rights agreement had expired before Peterson’s 2012 trial, and said Brodsky had nothing to gain by calling a witness that could sink his client’s case.

“There is absolutely no benefit to Mr. Brodsky for losing this case,” Czech said. “Winning this case brings new clients, brings fame. Losing the case, as we’ve seen with Mr. Brodsky, brings a loss of clients, ignominy.”

She also reminded the panel that Smith was called by the defense, not the prosecution.

After the nearly hourlong argument, Justice Mary K. O’Brien said the court would take the matter under advisement and would later issue a written decision. She did not say when that decision would be released.

Pastor Neil Schori attended today’s proceedings, commenting afterward about the allegation that his testimony violated Stacy Peterson’s right to privacy he said, “The defense continues to try to make this an issue. That Stacy wanted me to be quiet makes no sense.”

Drew Peterson Appeal update: Prosecution files appellate brief. Arguments to be scheduled after review

Press Release from the State’s Attorney’s office:

State’s Attorney Glasgow files appellate brief in Drew Peterson case

JOLIET – Will County State’s Attorney James W. Glasgow announced today (Thursday, Nov. 6) that his office has filed its appellate brief with the Third District Appellate Court in the matter of People vs. Drew Peterson (09CF1048).

The 60-page appellate brief was filed on Thursday morning in Ottawa.

State’s Attorney Glasgow prosecuted Drew Peterson and secured a First Degree Murder conviction against him in September 2012. Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police officer, killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who was found dead inside a bathtub in her home in March of 2004.

Peterson was sentenced to 38 years in prison. Defense attorneys appealed his conviction. They filed their appellate brief in January.

The defense now has two weeks to file a reply brief. Once that is completed, a panel of justices from the Third District Appellate Court will review the case and its sizeable record before scheduling oral arguments.

At this rate, I’m guessing we won’t hear the arguments before 2015. Spring, maybe?

Also, a September Facebook update from Stacy’s sister stating that she still is not allowed to see her sister’s kids.

cass-facebook-kids

Read it here: Drew Peterson’s appeal of murder conviction

ARGUMENTS

I. DREW WAS DENIED A FAIR TRIAL WHEN ATTORNEY HARRY SMITH TESTIFIED ABOUT A PRIVILEGED CONVERSATION WITH STACY THAT HAD BEEN RULED INADMISSIBLE, AND WAS HEARSAY OPINION INSINUATING DREW WAS GUILTY OF MURDER.

II. DREW’S PRINCIPAL ATTORNEY, BY SIGNING A MEDIA RIGHTS CONTRACT WHEN RETAINED, CREATED A PER SE CONFLICT.

III. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED AS A MATTER OF LAW IN ADMITTING PASTOR SCHORI’S TESTIMONY, BOTH AT THE FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING HEARING AND AT TRIAL, IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE CLERGY PRIVILEGE DOCTRINE.

IV. THE TRIAL COURT ERRED IN ADMITTING INTO EVIDENCE, VIA THE FORFEITURE BY WRONGDOING DOCTRINE, HEARSAY STATEMENTS THAT THE COURT HAD PREVIOUSLY FOUND UNRELIABLE.

V. THE TRIAL COURT ABUSED ITS DISCRETION IN ADMITTING JEFFREY PACHTER’S TESTIMONY BECAUSE THE STATE FAILED TO PROVIDE PROPER NOTICE OF THE TESTIMONY UNDER RULE 404(b), WHICH WAS PREJUDICIAL PROPENSITY EVIDENCE.

VI. DREW WAS NOT PROVED GUILTY BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT

VII. THE CUMULATIVE ERRORS DENIED DEFENDANT HIS RIGHT TO A FAIR TRIAL AND CAST DOUBT UPON THE INTEGRITY OF THIS PROCEEDING.

See the comments thread for more information.

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>

Drew Peterson’s old “new” lawyer files motion blaming Brodsky

John Paul Carroll

The Chicago Tribune is reporting that one-time Drew Peterson attorney, John Paul Carrol, has filed a motion to overturn Drew Peterson’s conviction and blaming misrepresentation on the part of lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, as the reason.

According to the motion signed by attorney Michelle Gonzalez:

“Attorney Brodsky had lied to Mr. Peterson on a number of occasions and when Mr. Peterson discovered the lies and talked about possibly discharging attorney Brodsky and retaining other counsel, attorney Brodsky indicated that in the event he was discharged, he would be ethically bound to publicly reveal some things that were discussed between him and Mr. Peterson.”

This accusation was also made by Steve Greenberg in a 15-page letter sent to Peterson and the media. The letter is attached to the motion and part of it.

Michelle Gonzalez

Joel Brodsky states to reporters that Attorney Carroll is in no way authorized to file such a motion and that Peterson himself is baffled as to the turn of events.

In September of 2009, John Paul Carroll, who had been part of the Peterson defense team, stepped down after the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Committee took under consideration a complaint that the attorney had violated the rules of professional conduct by failing to reveal a plea deal until after two clients were convicted on all charges.

He had a hearing in October of 2011 which resulted in a recommendation that he be suspended for 90 days from practicing law.

UPDATE 10/10 1:50 p.m.:

Attorney Steve Greenberg tells us that he has no involvement with the filing:

“There has been speculation that I am behind the most recent filing. So the record is clear, I have never met John Carroll, and only first spoke to him last week. I had no input on his filing. I stand on my prior comments and anxiously await the opportunity secure Mr Peterson’s release.”

Read the Motion:

UPDATE 10/11 5:44 p.m.:

Joel Brodsky’s motion in response (October 11, 2012)

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

Steven Greenberg may stay on Drew Peterson team after all

During a post-verdict court date this morning, convicted murderer, Drew Peterson, and Attorney Steven Greenberg had a friendly 30-minute tête-à-tête.

At the end of their talk, Greenberg asked the court to continue his motion to withdraw until November 16th at Peterson’s request.

Asked about the postponement attorney Greenberg quipped, “I love Drew, Drew loves me“. But Attorney Joel Brodsky, who had filed the motion to terminate Greenberg claiming that the veteran attorney of over 100 murder trials had not done his job, stated to reporters that Peterson is postponing Greenberg’s firing merely to ensure that his attorney/client privilege is intact while he confronts Greenberg (ostensibly over his poor performance).

Considering the very public feud that took place last month between Brodsky and Greenberg, one can only guess that the truth of the matter lies somewhere in the middle. One might also wonder if Greenberg is considering returning to the fold only on certain terms.

Peterson’s sentencing date is still set for November 26th and a court date for hearings is scheduled for October 18.

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