Drew Peterson fires attorney Steven Greenberg from his defense team

Steven A. Greenberg

According to a tweet from the Chicago Tribune’s Stacy St. Clair, Drew Peterson has fired Attorney Steven Greenberg.

Greenberg, an experienced criminal defense attorney, handled most of the motions in Peterson’s trial for murder and was widely thought to be the most effective attorney on his defense team.

During the last days of Peterson’s trial, Greenberg was overheard in a courtroom hallway warning Attorney Joel Brodsky not to call Kathleen Savio’s divorce attorney, Harry Smith, to the witness stand — advice that fell on deaf ears. The testimony of Smith, which placed Drew Peterson at the scene of Savio’s death, was cited by jurors as being the key piece of evidence that made them decide to convict Peterson.

Since the guilty verdict was handed down on Thursday there have been indications in the media that all was not good between Joel Brodsky and Steven Greenberg. Courtroom observers had also commented on the dynamic between the two attorneys. one described a scene in which Drew was sandwiched between the two sparring members of his team, a hand on the shoulder of each, in an attempt to intervene during an argument.

A few weeks into the trial Joel Brodsky’s wife, Elizabeth, had criticized Attorney Greenberg via Twitter writing, “Greenberg should pay more attention to the case and less to the media maybe he wouldn’t make so many mistakes.”

After the guilty verdict and the subsequent write-ups in the media, she accused Greenberg via Twitter of having thrown people “under the bus”:

@inhiheels has identified herself in past tweets as “Ellie Brodsky”.

Which makes one wonder, was it truly Drew Peterson who was unhappy with Greenberg’s defense?

Visit the comment thread for some great quotes from Steve Greenberg. As of 9:30 CST Joel Brodsky posted a status update on his Facebook page:

Joel A. Brodsky, Attorney at Law
11 minutes ago

REGARDING STEVE GREENBERGS TERMINATION AS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR DREW PETERSON:

Steve Greenberg was given a job to for the defense team, which was to bring motions and make objections, as well as cross examine a few witnesses. He failed to bring the most important motions, such as to bar the 2004 “botched investigation” evidence, saying he would object when the state tried to get the evidence in. Then he failed to object when the State started with this evidence, potentially causing the loss of several important appellate issues. He also missed several other important objections which are required to preserve issues to appeal. It was then that Mr. Greenberg was relieved from the job of making objections. Further, even though Mr. Greenberg he did win many of the motions, these were on small issues. Greenberg lost the big ones, such as barring the hearsay previously found to be unreliable, and keeping the “hit man” testimony out. During the trial he was frequently absent from the defense table because he was hanging out in the press room, or by the TruTv television tent. He also failed to attend almost all after court team meetings, and was unprepared for his cross-examination of the few witnesses he had, fumbling for papers while the witnesses were on the stand. Mr. Greenberg was let go because of his failure to accomplish most of the tasks he was brought on board to take care of.

Also, for the record, Greenberg did not object to Harry Smith being called as a witness by the Defense, and in fact was in favor of him being called as late at the day before Smith was called. Further, Smith was never barred from testifying, nor was his testimony reduced in scope by a motion that Mr. Greenberg made and any statements to that effect are false. Finally, Greenberg never argued with me not to call Smith, and his statement to that effect is not true. Greenberg didn’t change his story on the Harry Smith issue until after Smith testified and he felt that the testimony may have hurt Drew’s case, and only then did he vocally (to others but not to the defense team members), start saying that it was a mistake. It is nothing more than a blatant attempt to distance himself from the conviction that was not really anyone’s fault, as the jurors public comments show that they were going to convict Drew Peterson no matter how lacking the evidence was.”

~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

Interview with State’s Attorney, James Glasgow, on Drew Peterson trial

During Drew Peterson’s trial for murder his defense team never seemed to turn down a chance to be heard and seen in the media, but the prosecution was keeping a low profile. Finally, lead prosecutor, James Glasgow, can speak out about the case, the hearsay, the trial, the defense team, and Drew Peterson; and boy does he have his say! You need to listen to this interview he did yesterday on WLS’s Roe and Roeper show.

[Partial transcript]

ROE: I think there’s been a lot of misunderstanding in the last couple of days. You explained it, I think, very well in your press conference yesterday and we’ve had a lot of people calling in with concerns about that so let’s jump into that for a second. The hearsay law is not as simple as “well now anyone can just say anything about anybody and go to court and get a conviction on somebody that they don’t like because they heard some conversation” right?

GLASGOW: Correct. There’s a very–first of all you have to prove by a preponderance of–if I have preponderance of evidence that you willfully diverted the witness, under the law that I had written, that diversion had to be murder, so I mean it was the ultimate diversion and…

ROE: Hold on. Let me back up a little. Let’s take that out of legalese. So what, basically the law that you guys drafted–and there are some other laws around the country that are similar to this–but the law that you drafted specifically said that if you kill somebody to silence them because they were going to testify against you for another crime, that hearsay evidence surrounding that individual who is now dead can be entered into court, but before you do that a judge has to sign off on this. A judge has to sign off, based on the preponderance of evidence, in kind of a mini-trial in advance.

GLASGOW: Yes. And these statements have to be relevant and probative to the issue at hand. They’re not just any statement, Roe. If someone is murdered in a bathroom and it’s made to look like an accident and they happen to have been told by the murderer, “I could kill you and make it look like an accident” that’s pretty relevant and pretty probative.

ROEPER: Jim, what about the criticism, and I agree, as Roe said, it’s been widely misunderstood and sometimes misreported but some of the defense attorneys were saying yesterday that it’s so specific that it was written for one case.

GLASGOW: Those guys don’t tell the truth about anything, now do they? In Giles v California, which was recently decided by the Supreme Court a couple of years ago–and I actually flew out and watched the argument–Antonin Scalia , who is a very conservative justice and who is a champion of cross-examination and confrontation, found that 400 years ago the concept of forfeiture by wrongdoing was in place in the common law. It was there when the drafters of the constitution wrote the constitution. That’s one of his tests to determine whether or not he’s going to go along with something in the common law. But anyway, the federal government, in 1997, enacted a law that was section 804(b) now adopted in Illinois, January first, 2011, which is basically forfeiture by wrongdoing and it’s “equitable forfeiture”. If you deliberately destroy evidence by getting this witness out of the way, you can’t come in, thumb your nose at the judge, laugh and say, “Ha,ha you can’t get me now!” That’s basically the concept.

~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.~

Drew Peterson jury members speak out about deliberations and verdict

~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.~

Drew Peterson Guilty of Murder: One juror held out until today

Today the jury in the Drew Peterson trial  for the murder of Kathleen Savio returned a verdict of guilty. They took three votes during their deliberations. The first was 7 :guilty, 4: not guilty, 1: undecided. By last night the vote was 11: guilty and 1: undecided.

By the end of deliberations last night, one juror was not convinced, but today he went back into the courthouse and asked the other 11 to convince him. They did.

~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.~