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.

Advertisements

Drew Peterson appeal of murder conviction to be filed soon

UPDATE: 1/13/14: Steven Greenberg reports that he has mailed the appeal.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Drew Peterson’s attorneys have until January 14, 2014 to file an appeal of his conviction for the murder of Kathleen Savio.

Although limited to 50 pages, they have been asking permission to submit something more along the lines of a novella – 175 pages: 50 pages outlining the facts of the case and another 125 pages of arguments. Apparently they feel that the publicity garnered by the case merits a more verbose appeal. Or perhaps the inflated egos of Peterson’s battling counselors require bloated prose. Whatever the case, the third district appellate court has again shot down the request and they will be obliged to stick to the limit.

Peterson’s appeal is set to be filed within the next three weeks but the oral arguments for and against are not expected to be heard until late 2014.

Attorney Steven Greenberg says that the appeal will focus on hearsay evidence which was admitted to trial and on allegations of ineffective counsel. Motions filed after Peterson’s conviction and prior to his sentencing asked for a re-trial on the same grounds but were denied by Judge Edward Burmila.

Sources:
Chicago Tribune
ABC 7

Drew Peterson may lose his $79k pension

Drew Peterson's mugshot February, 2013

Drew Peterson’s mugshot February, 2013


The Bolingbrook pension board has hired an outside lawyer to review the transcripts from Drew Peterson’s murder trial to determine whether or not the convicted killer should lose his pension.

In September of last year, it was reported that it was possible he could lose his $79,000 annual pension from the Bolingbrook Police Department as a result of the guilty verdict.

Under state law governing public employee pensions, a local pension board could revoke Peterson’s pension if it determines he used his police powers or even his skills as a veteran officer in the 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Shortly after his conviction Peterson’s then attorney, Joel Brodsky, was confident that Drew would be keeping his pension, saying:

“His pension is safe…That money goes to his kids now anyway, even though I’m sure Jim Glasgow would like to see them thrown out in the street. It’s not like the trial. You would have to present actual evidence to the pension board and they don’t have that.”

It appears that now that Peterson has been sentenced, the city is going to see if that evidence exists.

Peterson’s adult son, Stephen Peterson, currently has power of attorney over his father’s affairs. He has also been taking care of his half-siblings, Anthony and Lacy, who are the children of his father and Stacy Peterson, who has been missing since October 2007.

Stacy Peterson has not yet been declared dead so her children do not collect Social Security benefits on her behalf.

Read more at the Chicago Tribune

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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 in court today: New claims of ineffective assistance

Drew Peterson was back in court this morning for motions to overturn his conviction and get a new trial.

Attorneys Steve Greenberg and David Peilet will file a motion claiming ineffective assistance of counsel by Peterson’s long-time lead attorney, Joel Brodsky, who withdrew from his defense last month.

After his withdrawal Joel Brodsky gave numerous interviews in which he defended his defense of Peterson and stated that he was stepping down to put an end to the friction between himself and his co-counsel:

There’s no errors. I did not do anything ineffective. But what we have here is a situation where unfounded allegations that have been made are interfering with the movement of this case.

Now Brodsky says:

The guy is looking at first-degree murder and my feeling is that if Drew Peterson has 101 arguments to make I don’t want him to be able to make 100 arguments. I don’t want anybody to ever say that I impeded him in any way.”

Judge Edward Burmila is giving the defense until December 14 to file their pre-sentencing motions and the state will have until January 9 to file its responses to those motions.

This pushes Drew Peterson’s sentencing date further into 2013, but no date has been decided upon yet.

Last month Attorneys John Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez also filed a motion requesting a new trial based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel by Joel Brodsky. Drew Peterson told Judge Burmilla in open court that he did not authorize the motion so it was denied.

Prior motion filed October 9. 2012:

Joel Brodsky’s response. Filed October 11, 2012:

Attorney Steven Greenberg’s open letter to Joel Brodsky dated September 24, 2012:

Read more at ABC7
Read more at WGN
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~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>

Attorney Steve Greenberg strikes back

Today former Drew Peterson defense attorney, Steven Greenberg, sent a letter to Joel Brodsky taking him to task for speaking out to the press and in social media in an attempt to blame Greenberg for Peterson’s murder conviction.

Steven Greenberg‘s 15-page letter accused Mr. Brodsky of making false allegations against him in an effort to take attention off his own ineffectual representation of their client.

Joel Brodsky called Attorney Harry Smith to the stand to testify to some hearsay statements Stacy Peterson had made. But rather than questioning him effectively to elicit testimony to impeach Stacy Peterson, Brodsky’s examination resulted in Smith testifying that he had warned Stacy that she could end up concealing a homicide. The jury, which on September 6th convicted Drew Peterson of murder, cited this testimony as being among the most convincing arguments for Peterson’s guilt.

Several reports described Greenberg and Brodsky arguing prior to Smith being called to testify, with Greenberg set against the idea.

Joel Brodsky has replied to Greenberg’s demand for an apology by stating, “I am focused on Mr. Peterson’s appeal and getting the verdict reversed, and that is all that’s important.

When Mr. Greenberg was asked if he would like to reply to Brodsky’s statement he emailed this response:

“I too am focused on what’s best for my clients, and my former clients, including Mr. Peterson. I am also focused on preserving the integrity of my profession, which I consider to be a noble profession, and in defending myself against baseless false accusations, designed solely to deflect accountability from Mr. Brodsky. This could have been handled professionally. Instead he chose to try to “throw me under the bus”, rather than accepting responsibility for his own actions. I will not allow him to make me his fall guy! This is not about Harry Smith, or Joel’s other failed strategies. It is about my skill and integrity vs. his.”

Steven Greenberg’s letter to Joel Brodsky

~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 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.~

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.~