E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Paul Beaty / AP file
Joel Brodsky, left, and Steven Greenberg, attorneys for Drew Peterson, conferred outside the Will County Courthouse in Joliet, Ill., in more cooperative times during Peterson's murder trial Sept. 6, 2012.
Drew Peterson, the ex-cop convicted of killing his third wife and whose fourth wife mysteriously disappeared, was in an Illinois courtroom Tuesday hoping for a new trial, but the proceedings were overshadowed by a vicious spat among members of the legal team that lost his murder trial last year.
The hearing recessed late Tuesday afternoon and was to resume Wednesday morning. If the judge rejects the request for a new trial, Peterson, 59, a retired Bolingbrook, Ill., police sergeant, could be sentenced immediately for the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, who died in 2004.
Peterson — who first became famous after his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, vanished in 2007 — could face up to 60 years in prison for his conviction in September.
Peterson's current lawyers argue that their former colleague Joel Brodsky — Peterson's lead trial counsel — botched his defense, justifying a new trial. Before the hearing Tuesday in Will County, Brodsky vigorously disputed that contention.
"I fought for five years defending Drew Peterson, very skillfully so," Brodsky told reporters.
Brodsky in particular disputed Peterson lawyer Steve Greenberg's argument that it was his decision alone to call Stacy Peterson's divorce attorney during the trial. The attorney, Harry Smith, testified that Stacy Peterson told him that Drew Peterson killed Savio and that he warned his client that she had to tell someone.
"Not only did they support (calling Smith, but) they realized it was the only move we could make, and I even have emails from Greenberg not only approving Smith being called, but actually suggesting a question or two that I ask him," Brodsky said.
The enmity between the lawyers is so deep that Brodsky withdrew Tuesday from representing Peterson in a in a wrongful death civil suit filed by Savio's sisters. After the retrial hearing, a second judge will hear that suit.
The lawyers' dispute threatened to overshadow the possibility that Peterson himself could be called to the stand, NBC 5 of Chicago reported. And even Greenberg acknowledged that it was a thin reed on which to base a decision to overturn Peterson's conviction.
"We're definitely facing an uphill battle today," Greenberg said.
NBC Chicago: Drew Peterson returns to court to request new trial
"But I'm confident," he added. "I know the law is on our side. I know the facts are on our side. ... Some people say it's a cold day in you-know-what when things happen. Well, it's cold today, so maybe it will happen."
Follow M. Alex Johnson on Twitter and Facebook.
Related Content:
- How will ex-cop Drew Peterson fare in prison?
- Drew Peterson fires one of his defense attorneys
- Holdout juror in Drew Peterson trial says hearsay evidence swayed him
- Will Drew Peterson's verdict be overturned?
This story was originally published on Tue Feb 19, 2013 8:16 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
That's a hoot, Mr. Arrogance himself never met a microphone he didn't like and paid the price.
"Pride goeth before a fall".
At least now he has a law named after him, way to go Drew.....ya scumbag. To bad they got you in P.C.
I'm not convinced this isn't all an elaborate show to get the conviction overturned.
This case is the definition of "Guilty as Hell" and no amount of Lawyer BS could change the perception of truth......
Drew Peterson Who??
I can't find his story in my Books of Pig-Tale
Hi, I am Pigotry, all my books are in my 'Pig-Tales' Collection
Peterson like the true Psycho he is could not help to make himself hated right in front of the camera. Stacy possibly knew and alibied him in his third wife's death. If so she got what she deserved.
It's all becoming clear now:
Plan A: use police connections to avoid accountability for Kathleen Savio in the first place. That worked for a long time, but when the wheels finally fell off,
Plan B: Fight evidence as "hearsay". If that doesn't work,
Plan C: Have your lawyers pretend to be Tweedledee and Tweedledum to get a mistrial declared. If that doesn't work,
Plan D: Trade information on Stacey's whereabouts for immunity from her murder and a reduced sentence for Kathleen's.
You could head off Plan C by having the lawyers surveilled, like they do in workman's comp fraud cases. And although it would be difficult, Stacey's family could head off Plan D by telling the DA to refuse his offer. They know she's dead. Having a body won't make any difference.
Another death from fire.... I think it's time for Owebama to outlaw matches.
They'll just find him guilty again, because he is. End of story. Off the pig now.
I hope you're right. My fear is that he will end up like OJ and Casey Anthony did- they got away with cold blooded murder.
Pick up the soap, Mr. Peterson. Pick up the soap.
Keep crying Drew, the Illinois river is still too low.
Whats the matter "tough guy" did the shine wear off of that "bling" you thought was so funny?...Tough...
No way he gets a new trial, Illinois is broke. the union pension payoffs alone are in arrears to the tune of a billion dollars. I simply cannot believe the state will waste even more money on this, of course this IS Chicago we are speaking of so.......?
I say give him another trial -- for killing Stacy. Shouldn't create as much "pretrial media blitz" or hopefully take as long. And we might have a better chance he'll be kept locked up.
(Hey, Scooter. Haven't caught your posts for a while.)
Where's Christopher Dorner when you need him.
excellent....well played.
Or Jeffery Dahmer !
This case will be decided in a higher court, they created Drew's law specifically to allow hearsay evidence to be used to prosecute this guy for a murder that at one time was classified as an accident. I believe that it is a long way from settled.
The hearsay statements in this case were not admitted because of Drew's Law; they were admitted in spite of it. There is a longstanding doctrine of common law called forfeiture by wrongdoing. The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed the validity of the doctrine in 2008. According to this doctrine, a defendant who makes a witness unavailable for the purpose of preventing that witness from testifying has forfeited his right to confront that witness in court. Drew's Law was passed in response to is 2008 ruling. The statute actually offers more protection than the doctrine, though, because under the statute, the trial court must find that the statements are reliable, a step that does not exist in the common law doctrine.
But Illinois courts already applied the forfeiture doctrine. In Peterson's case, the trial court applied Drew's Law and found the statements not sufficiently reliable and so ruled they were inadmissible. The state appealed that decision before trial, which happens in some cases. The Illinois appellate court found that it didn't matter whether the statements could come in under Drew's Law because they could definitely come in under the forfeiture doctrine. That is how the statements came in at trial.
And because this issue has already gone through the appellate courts of Illinois, there is no reason to think the appellate courts will rule differently now. Further, the US Supreme Court won't have any objection to Illinois applying the forfeiture doctrine. And as for the question of whether the statute should control over the common law doctrine, well that's a matter of state law that SCOTUS won't touch.
This
manpersonbeingthing called Drew Peterson makes me lose my lunch. He is utterly narcissistic, repulsive, egocentric, manipulative and evil. (Otherwise, I guess he's OK.)Pretty much the way i describe ALL attorneys. Here's an idea, one of them can Hire The "goldwater law firm" the other can hire " Sokolove Law firm and when they are all together in the same place, Have Barry target them with a drone, case solved. the worlds a little brighter place and ...oh wait....he is reputed to be another Chicago lawyer, never work....oh well it was a good idea for awhile there.
Hopefully there is no reason to give this guy a new trial - evidence "appears" to be overwhelming of his guilt...and if so....may he rot in prison with Bubba behind him
So appropriate that the scum bucket killer hires a set of scum bucket attorneys and gets convicted. The system works.
Sounds like the attorneys are just trying to be in the spotlight AGAIN! They are just as disgusting as their scumbag client.
makes ya wonder what office they are running for doesn't it.
love it. two attorneys seeking only to enhance their own careers lost and thus attack one another, meanwhile drew crys in P.C. ....love it....
The lawyers were buddy buddy until they came to the realization their client was guilty, and everyone knew it. Then they started fighting, and took the spat public. I doubt it was real. In my opinion, it was a set up for the appeal to get a new trial since they knew they couldn't win the original trial.
Now, if he gets a new trial, he has the defense that he was only found guilty the first time because his lawyers were incompetent, not because of any "evidence". Actually a shrewd tactic. I just hope it didn't work.
He doesn't deserve a new trial, but being the narcissistic prick that he is, he believes he deserves one. He was found guilty and should rot in prison the rest of his life. Where's that smirk face now, Mr. I am smarter than everyone else?
oh they botched it up- ok, so just let him go then... NOT!
Peterson seems to think that he can keep getting do-overs; 4 or 5 marriages, at least two murders, and now he wants two trials. Aren't you glad that your job does not require you to try to get serial murderers to walk free? Those attorneys can't be too happy with themselves or their lives.
Hang this guy by his nuts and be done with it....
Peterson's only problem is that he was sick enough to kill one wife and arrogant enough to think he would get away with killing a second. Karma - it catches up to you eventually.
Hey Drew - did your lawyers botch trial if you had been found innocent?
yeah, i didnt think so.
Why do we keep wasting time on this? Put the idiot in jail and leave him there.
Well, Dumbass...if you didn't want your defense @!$%#ed up, why did you hire a lawyer?
It's time that Kathleen and Stacy got the justice they deserve. It's been long overdue and cannot come fast enough.
Let's make this simple. Sentence all the attorneys and Drew Peterson to death. I don't think people would miss some scum sucking lawyers and a psychopath.
I want to say he was a predator.Seems like the women had to have a flaw or vulnerability to go for a fat middle aged guy like him/me.Too bad they didn't have caring families to cock block him