Embattled Drew Peterson Lawyer Joel Brodsky Takes to Facebook
After the firing of arguably the most effective attorney on Drew Peterson's legal team, lawyer Joel Brodsky attacks Steve Greenberg on Facebook.
In a post entitled "REGARDING STEVE GREENBERGS (sic) TERMINATION AS ONE OF THE ATTORNEYS FOR DREW PETERSON," Brodsky launches a 404-word rant in which he effectively blames Greenberg for nearly everything that went wrong in the failed defense of convicted wife-killer Drew Peterson.
In the event Brodsky has second thoughts about the post, or how truthful parts of it may or may not be, here it is in its entirety:
"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 (sic) 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 (sic), and in fact was in favor of him being called as late at (sic) 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 (sic) public comments show that they were going to convict Drew Peterson no matter how lacking the evidence was.”