The attorney accused by a former colleague of blowing the Drew Peterson murder trial has surrendered his financial records, but lawyers for the convicted wife-killer want even more.
Attorney Joel Brodsky at first resisted a subpoena for his financial records but eventually complied, to an extent. Attorney Steve Greenberg—who still represents Peterson and is fighting to get him a new trial—wants additional documents from Brodsky
"There's still more records," Greenberg said after a Friday morning hearing before Will County Judge Edward Burmila. "Hopefully we'll get them and that will be that."
If Brodsky doesn't cough up the records, Burmila will convene a hearing Wednesday. The judge ordered that Peterson—who has been locked up at the county jail since his May 2009 arrest—be present for the hearing.
Brodsky failed to respond to a phone message left at his office.
Within two months of losing Peterson's murder trial, the other attorneys on the case moved on without Brodsky. Greenberg has said Brodsky was "discharged" from the defense team, despite Brodsky's teary-eyed insistence he withdrew of his own volition.
The remaining attorneys have worked to get Peterson a new trial based both on Brodsky's allegedly poor performance in the courtroom and on allegations he put his interest in making money in the media and entertainment industries ahead of his client's welfare. Brodsky has said he hoped to use the Peterson case as a springboard to a job on a cable news show, but his dreams of small-screen stardom have gone unfulfilled.
The allegations of poor lawyering during the trial stem from Brodsky's decision to call Wheaton attorney Harry Smith as a witness. Smith represented Peterson's slain third wife, Kathleen Savio, during her divorce from Peterson. Smith also said he spoke with Peterson's missing fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, just before she mysteriously vanished in October 2007.
Greenberg has said the move was a death blow to Peterson's defense, and after the trial, jurors said Smith's testimony clinched their decision to vote guilty.
While on the witness stand, Smith repeatedly hammered home to the jury that Stacy told him Peterson killed Savio.
The hearing to determine whether Peterson gets a new murder trial has been set to start on Feb. 19 and is expected to continue for at least another day.
What does one argument have to do with the other? What does using Peterson by Brodsky as a money-making machine prior to his trial have to do with lousy legal strategy of putting on a witness that backfired for the defense? All the while being represented by a team of so-called experienced attorneys? For sure, the whole group involved with this case are the most unprofessional, unorthodox bunch of goofs to grace a courtroom. I don't think they much care, though, as long as they can get their mugs in front of a camera, or a microphone stuck under their noses to give them even more recognition for the next criminal client that comes their way.
The rest of the legal team should also lose their law licenses as well for knowing what Brodsky was going to do and allowing it to happen. Legal malpractice.