During a courtroom break this afternoon, Drew Peterson’s former lead attorney Joel Brodsky chatted in the hallway with the sister of Peterson’s missing fourth wife, Stacy.
Stacy’s sister Cassandra Cales wouldn’t discuss the content of the roughly five-minute conversation, but Brodsky said, "We were just discussing how to make sure that her sister Stacy isn't forgotten after Drew goes away."
Peterson is the sole suspect in Stacy’s 2007 disappearance, but he has not been charged. Prosecutors have said they believe Peterson killed Stacy and plan to review the case and whether to bring charges.
Attorneys this afternoon argued about whether Peterson should get a new trial after his murder conviction last fall in the drowning of his third wife, Kathleen Savio. Judge Edward Burmila said he would deliver his ruling when court resumes at 1 p.m. Thursday.
If the judge does not grant a new trial, sentencing would come next for Peterson. Attorneys indicated that the sentencing hearing, if it happens, likely would be Thursday. Peterson, 59, faces 20-60 years in prison.
In arguing for a new trial, the defense said hearsay evidence and certain witnesses should never have been allowed at trial. Attorneys then turned to their argument that Brodsky's decision to call divorce attorney Harry Smith to testify scuttled Peterson's chance at a fair trial.
Smith testified at the murder trial last year that he had a phone conversation with Stacy about whether she could use knowledge about Savio’s death in a potential divorce proceeding against Peterson. Some jurors have said Smith’s testimony convinced them Peterson was guilty.
"It was an awful decision,” defense attorney Steve Greenberg said in court. “It ruined the case -- we brought out the worst possible evidence, and the best evidence for the state."
Greenberg said Judge Edward Burmila has the opportunity to undo the problems caused by Brodsky's insistence on calling Smith to the stand.
“We have to give the courts a chance to correct errors that were made during a trial, and that’s what we’re doing here today," Greenberg told Burmila. "Ultimately, if you boil it down, Harry Smith's testimony was probably the most incriminating piece of evidence against Mr. Peterson, and it was brought out by the defense. There could be no reasonable trial strategy."
"Whatever kernel of impeachment Mr. Brodsky thought he was going to get out of it paled in comparison to the mountain of damage that it brought out," Greenberg said. "It was awful strategy, and that strategy alone means Mr. Peterson should get a new trial from this court.”
Burmila asked if Peterson didn't bear some responsibility for listening to Brodsky over the objections of his other attorneys.
But Greenberg said a client doesn't get a say in trial strategy, and said that while Brodsky was wise to bring in experienced criminal attorneys, he never listened to them.
“It was a dictatorship," Greenberg said.
In the overflow room across the hall where media members and other court observers were listening to the proceedings in the courtroom, Brodsky groaned at every accusation.
"I'm a dictator," he said, shaking his head. "Unbelievable."
Earlier this afternoon, Peterson’s attorneys asked Burmila to throw out the jury’s guilty verdict and acquit their client of murder.
"Nothing the state has done, ignoring all the other glaring privilege issues, the record as a whole does nothing more than raise suspicion about what happened in the [Kathleen] Savio home,” Peterson attorney John Heiderscheidt said in court. “My heart breaks for the Savio family and the [Stacy] Cales family. I don't know what it's like to lose a loved one and I hope I never have to. But the courts don't exist to mend broken hearts alone."
“There will come a time when we all turn to ashes and dust, and all that will be left here is the court record," Heiderscheidt said. "And I'm certain that when we remove ourselves from the passions and prejudices aroused by various people throughout this trial, we will see that this verdict is unsupported by the facts. No rational trier of the facts could believe it."
"So you're asking me to enter a judgment of acquittal, not withstanding the jury verdict?" Burmila asked.
Heiderscheidt said yes, and said that the court has the authority to overrule a verdict that is so unsupported by the evidence.
Assistant State's Attorney Marie Czech argued that the evidence clearly showed Peterson murdered his third wife, something he had threatened to do on multiple occasions.
"He told Kathy Savio, 'I'm going to kill you and make it look like an accident,'” Czech said. "He said this with a knife to her throat."
The threats, the multiple injuries on her body that could not have been the result of a fall, all point to the fact that the jury's verdict was correct, she said.
Peterson’s attorneys have tried to show that ethical lapses and trial errors by former lead defense attorney Joel Brodsky are reason to give Peterson a new murder trial.
In a final twist to their unorthodox legal strategy, the defense attempted this afternoon to call Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow to the witness stand.
They wanted to ask about a comment made by Glasgow outside court during Peterson’s murder trial where Glasgow said the defense team’s decision to call Smith to the testify was a “gift from God.”
Defense attorneys said Glasgow’s comment shows that he understood that Brodsky's decision to call Smith was terrible.
But Burmila barred the defense from asking about that statement, and he said that if that's all the defense wanted to ask him about, he would not make Glasgow testify after all.
The hearing on a new trial began Tuesday and resumed this morning with retired Cook County Judge Daniel Locallo taking the witness stand.
Locallo was critical of media licensing contracts made by Brodsky and also of Brodsky’s strategy at Peterson’s murder trial last year.
Locallo testified that he believes Brodsky's contracts with media – which included a book and movie deal -- were in violation of rules of attorney conduct in Illinois because they could create a conflict of interest at the expense of his client.
"The conflict that is raised is who does Mr. Brodsky owe his loyalty to -- his pocket book or Mr. Peterson?,” Locallo said. “Because when that individual is represented by an attorney, you want that attorney to be focused to representing their client to the full extent. You do not want to have a situation where his attention may be diverted and he makes decisions more in line with the contract than in line with the best interests of Mr. Peterson.”
Locallo said that there was the possibility that Brodsky could make more money if the case dragged on through appeal, and he might not be motivated to aggressively fight the charges prior to and during the trial.
“There might be more interest in the case if there are subsequent proceedings," Locallo said. "If he’s successful on Mr. Peterson's behalf, the spigot might be turned off. Media interest would wane, and therefore his ability to receive compensation would end.”
Locallo also blasted Brodsky for calling Smith to testify.
“Up to that point there had not been any direct evidence about Mr. Peterson causing the demise of Ms. Savio. Brodsky puts on Mr. Smith, and now the jury is able to hear evidence about Stacy Peterson having a conversation with Mr. Smith about how it might be used (as) leverage against Mr. Peterson, the fact that he may have killed Kathleen Savio, how she was killed, how it might be used,” Locallo testified.
mwalberg@tribune.com
sschmadeke@tribune.com
Drew Peterson: Ex-attorney Brodsky meets with Stacy's sister
This article
Drew Peterson: Ex-attorney Brodsky meets with Stacy's sister
can be opened in url
http://espaciosdelmaestrazgo.blogspot.com/2013/02/drew-peterson-ex-attorney-brodsky-meets.html
Drew Peterson: Ex-attorney Brodsky meets with Stacy's sister
Rating: 100% based on 99998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Espaciosdelmaestrazgo News
Thanks for visiting the blog, If any criticism and suggestions please leave a comment
