INTHECIRCUITCOURTOFTHETWELFTHJUDICIALCIRCUIT WILLCOUNTY,STATEOFILLINOIS PEOPLEOFTHESTATEOFILLINOIS, PLAINTIFF, v. DREWPETERSON DEFENDANT. ) ) ) ) )NO.

:09CF1048 ) ) ) )

MEMORANDUMINSUPPORTOFSOMEISSUES CONCERNINGCONFLICTOFINTEREST&INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCEOFCOUNSEL 1

DrewPeterson: I'maskingAmerica'sattorneys,pleasehelpwithmycase TelevisionHostMattLauer: Thereareprobablyalotoflegalexpertsandlawyersout there,rightnow,sayingthisguyshouldnotbesittingonthisshow, talkingtothisguyrightnow,whilehe'sthesubjectofthis investigation...perhapseventheseinvestigations.Whydidyou decidetodothisinterview?

Defendantisrequestinganevidentiaryhearing.

DrewPeterson: I'mdoingallthatIcan,mygod;getthemediaoffmyback! Get'emoffmyfamily'sback!That'sallI'masking.AndI'mhere today(pause)toletthemseemyface,hereIam,pleasegetaway frommyhouseandleavemyfamilyalone. DrewPetersoninterviewwithMattLauer,TodayShow, NBCNovember14,2007.(Emphasisadded) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puYz12gbChw In2007,whenDrewtooktotheairwaves,heneededserious representation;anevenkeeled,seasonedtriallawyerwhowouldartfully guidehimthroughthecomingstorm.Instead,hewasluredinto acceptingCaptainJoelBrodsky2. MuchhaschangedsinceDrewPeterson's2007requestforlegal assistance.Adeathinvestigationreopened,anevidentiarystatute passed(DrewsLaw),hewascharged,theStatetriedtwomurdercases byapreponderanceofevidencestandard(HearsayHearing),an interlocutoryappealfollowed,asixweekmurdertrialwasheld, featuringbulletsthatwerenotused,hitmenthatwerenothired,hearsay withinhearsay,colorcoordinatedwardrobes,"agiftfromGod,"anda guiltyverdictwasreturned. AttorneyBrodskyexpectedthatDrewPetersonwouldbehisticket
TotheextenthecanDrewwillattachsupportingexhibits.With respecttocertainexhibitscounselwillaskthatthedocumentsbesealedbeforebeing produced. 2
2

tothelegalelite.Regrettably,hewaspoorlyequippedtotryacaseofthis magnitude,resultinginhornbookerrorsandasmorgasbordofethical violations.IndividuallyandcumulativelyBrodskysinglehandedly deprivedDrewofhisrighttoeffectiveassistanceofandconflictfree counsel3. BrodskyhaspubliclyadmittedthathecalledtheGreenRoomat theTodayShow,seekingtohavehisnamepassedontoPeterson, advisingthathecouldrepresentPetersonintheinquiryconcerningthe disappearanceofStacyPetersonandthereinvestigationofthedemiseof KathleenSavio.Thetwoconsequentlymet.Throughoutthemeeting BrodskyliedtoPetersonbymisrepresentinghisqualifications,goingso farastotellPetersonthathe,Brodsky,hadpreviouslysuccessfullytried murdercasesandotherseriousfelonies. AfterPetersonagreedtoretainBrodsky,counselexploited Petersontoelevatehisownprofile.Brodskyhiredapublicityagentfor thetwoofthem.HeparadedDrewacrosstheairwavesasifDrewwerea sideshow,suggestingcarnivallikeprankstoheightenpublicrecognition ofhimselfandhisclient,asexemplifiedbytheinfamousWinaDate WithDrewandaBunnyRanchRealityShow.IntheprocessBrodsky accumulatedlargebillsforhotelstays,meals,andspatreatmentsforhe
WhileitistruethatBrodskywasnotsolecounsel,hisobstinacy, insistenceonhisway,refusaltodiscuss,andthirstforthespotlightrenderedthe opinionsofothersimpotent. 3
3

andhiswife,allpaidforbytherespectivemediaoutlets. BrodskyrepeatedlyendowedcolumnistMichaelSneedofthe ChicagoSunTimeswithfodderregardingDrewinordertokeep Brodskysnameinthenews.Hewouldconstructthestory,writethe letter,orprovidetheleak.Indoingsoheroutinelybreachedattorney clientprivilege.Alwaysbrazen,BrodskywouldleakinformationtoSneed sothathecouldthenappearonnationalnewsshowsthatsamedayand commentontheveryinformationthathehadsecretlyleaked. Perhapshismostaudaciousstepcalculatedtogetariseoutofthe mediawasthelistingofStacyPetersonasapotentialdefensewitness.In factheneverspoketoStacyregardingKathy,neverinterviewedher,and didnotknowwheretoserveherwithasubpoena. OncetrialbeganBrodskyinsistedonobtainingasmuchmedia hysteriaforhimselfaspossible.Likeapetulantchild,hecouldnotmask hisdiscontentwhenothersonthedefenseteamreceivedattention,andhe hadnot.ThroughoutthetrialBrodskystacticswerefocusedonhisown selfglorification,ratherthanlegalacumenofthebestinterestsofhis client. Thencamethecrmedelacrme,whenBrodskypresentedwhat couldonlybedescribedasaconfession,throughprivilegedhearsaythat thecourthadcompletelybarredtheprosecutionfromintroducing4.
4

TherehasneverbeenanysuggestionthatStacywasaneyewitnessor 4

EthicalImproprieties Atitsgenesis,theattorneyclientrelationshipforgedbetween BrodskyandPetersonwasethicalcatastrophe.Towit,attorneyBrodsky:

1.

SolicitedDrewPetersonasaclient,withpecuniary gainasasignificantmotive.SeeIllinoisRule7.3 ProfessionalConduct;

2.

Misrepresentedhistrialexpertiseandexperience5;

3.

Encouragedapreindictmentmediablitz, sensationalizingthemattertoMr.Peterson'sextreme detriment.SeeIllinoisRule3.6ProfessionalConduct;

participant.Accordinglyherknowledge,ifshehadany,couldonlyhavecomefrom beingtoldsomethingbyDrew,hencetheconclusionitwasaconfession. OnJanuary15,2008theChicagoTribunepublishedanarticletitled RepresentingDrewPetersonLandingBignameClientawatershedMomentforthe Lawyer,WhosemoreFamiliarhandlingcivilsuitsanddrug cases.Articles.Chicagotribune.com/200801 15/news/0801140689_1_drug_cases_lawyers_Drew_Peterson

5

(Thesecondparagraphreads,afterall,Brodskyhasneverdefendeda homicidecase.Heisonmorefamiliarturfhandlingdrugcasesandcivillawsuits. BrodskyexplainedinthatarticlehowhehadsolicitedPetersonscase.) 5

4.

Signedapublicitycontract,creatingaperseconflictof interest.SeeIllinoisRule1.8ProfessionalConduct6,People v.Gacy,125Ill.2d117,#(1988);

5.

Threatenedtorevealconfidentialinformation,

affectingDefendantandothers,throughouthis representation,andafter.MostrecentlyinaNovember24, 2012,correspondence,thisisofcoursethelastthingyou orIwouldwant,butthiscouldhappenasanunintended consequenceofunfoundedineffectiveassistanceaccusation, whichisnotfullythoughtthrough.7

Rule1.8provides:conflictofinterest:currentclient:specificrules subparagraph(d)priortotheconclusionoftherepresentationofaclient,alawyer shallnotmakeornegotiateanagreementthelawyerliteraryormediarightstoa portraitoraccountbasedonsubstantialpartoninformationrelatingto representation.PetersonrelieduponBrodskysadviceinsigningthecontract.Atno timewasheadvisedtoeitherobtainorconsultwithindependentcounselpriorto enteringintothecontract.ThecontractprovidedthatSeligMultimediawasto renderserviceswithrespecttopublicityandpromotionalservicesinthe entertainmentindustry,whichincludeorprocuringinsolicitingappearances, productendorsements(includingcommercials,photoopportunitiesand/orinterviews forPetersonand/orBrodskyontelevisionshows,newsrelatedtelevisionshows,talk shows,panelshows,realityshowsand/orotherliveortapedappearances,and/orin magazines,newspapersandtabloids,and/orsoliciting,procuringand/ornegotiating bookdealsforPetersonand/orBrodsky(Agreement,paragraph2).
6

ThemattersBrodskyreferstoarecoveredbybothattorneyclient privilegeandworkproductconcernsandhecouldnotbecompelledtorevealany. Theletterwillbemadeavailableshouldtherebeanevidentiaryhearinginthis matter. 6

7

Eachoftheabovereferencedpointspossessesauniqueflavorof improprietyworthyofcondemnation,butpointsthreeandfour,which arenotmutuallyexclusive,deservemoredetailedanalysis.

TheImproperAgreementandPublicity

Soonafterhebeganhisrepresentation,Brodskyenteredintoan agreement(hereinafterAgreement)withPetersonandapublic relationsagent,GlennSelig,inwhichBrodskywastoshareinany literaryormediarightsandthereforeenteredintoabusinesstransaction withtheclient.ThecontractwasaclearviolationofRule1.8oftheRules ofProfessionalConduct. Theideaofenteringintosuchanagreementissoobviously unethicalthatcounselhasbeenunabletolocateasinglecasewherean attorneyhasactuallybeenfoundconflictedforsimilarconduct.Thisis likelybecausenocrediblepractitionerwouldeverengageinsuch conduct,becauseitgivesrisetoaperseconflict. InPeoplev.Gacy,125Ill.2d117(1988)theIllinoisSupremeCourt wasaskedtoevaluate,inconnectionwithGacysPostConviction Petition,whethertrialcounseloperatedunderaconflictofinterest becausehe:
7

wasofferedabookdealinAprilof1979,[andthat]even whileherefusedtoacceptthisoffertheseedwasplantedas tohowmuchmoneywasorcouldbemade.Theofferwassix millionforbookrights.Fromthatpointforward,[trial counsels]mainconcernwasmakingandkeepingrecordsas hecalledit;topreservetherecordforabook.Tapeswere madeonallpreviouslycoveredconversations,allwritingby thedefendantwastakenandkeptbythedefenseattorney evenaftertrial.Hewasmoreconcern[ed]withthatthan preparationforthedefense.At134. ConsideringtheclaimtheSupremeCourtwrote: Hadtrialcounselactuallyacceptedthisallegedbook offer,thisclaimwouldbeworthyofseriousconsideration underourRule5104(b)(107Ill.2dR.5104(b)): priortotheconclusionofaspectsofthemattergiving risetohisemployment,alawyershallnotenterintoany arrangementorunderstandingwithaclientoraprospective clientbywhichheacquiresaninterestinpublicationrights withrespecttothesubjectmatterofhisemploymentor proposedemployment. Therationaleforthisruleisthattheacquisitionof financialrightscreatesasituationinwhichtheattorneymay
8

wellbeforcedtochoosebetweenhisownpocketbookandthe interestsofhisclient.Vigorousadvocacyoftheclient's interestmayreducethevalueofpublicationrights; conversely,ineffectiveadvocacymayresultingreater publicityandgreatersales.Infact,ithasbeenheldthatthe acquisitionofsuchbookrightsbyadefendant'sattorney constitutesaconflictofinterestwhichmaysoprejudicethe defendantastomandatethereversalofaconviction.(See Peoplev.Corona(1978),80Cal.App.3d684,145Cal.Rptr. 894.)[...] Underourprecedents[...]wehaveheldthattheacquisition byanattorneyofafinancialstakeinlitigationdirectly adversetothatofhisclientisaperseconflict,which warrantsreversalevenintheabsenceofprejudice.(See,e.g., Peoplev.Washington(1984),101Ill.2d104,77Ill.Dec.770, 461N.E.2d393;Peoplev.Coslet(1977),67Ill.2d127,7 Ill.Dec.80,364N.E.2d67;Peoplev.Stoval(1968),40Ill.2d 109,239N.E.2d441.)Insuchcases,defensecounsel'stietoa personorentity***whichwouldbenefitfroman unfavorableverdictforthedefendant***might subliminallyaffectcounsel'sperformanceinwaysdifficult todetectanddemonstrate.Moreover,suchaconflictmight
9

subjecttheattorneytolaterchargesthathisrepresentation waslessthanfaithful.(Peoplev.Spreitzer(1988),123Ill.2d 1,16,17,121Ill.Dec.224,525N.E.2d30.)However,themere factthatthedefendant'sattorneywasoffered,andrefusedto accept,acontractforpublicationrightsdoesnotconstitutea tiesufficienttoengenderaperseconflict.Wecouldnot thereforereverseonthebasisofthisallegedconflictwithout someshowingofprejudicei.e.,withoutashowingthatthe allegedconflictcausedspecific,identifiabledeficienciesin defensecounsel'sperformance.Peoplev.Gacy,125Ill.2d 117,13436,530N.E.2d1340,134748(1988).

Heretheagreementtraversedthecoursefrowneduponbythe Gacycourt.8Thelawyerenteredintoatransaction.Theagreementwas
8

AbookwaswrittencalledDrewPetersonExposed.Defensecounselwas

paidforDefendantsinvolvementwiththatpublication.Atapretrialhearingthere wastestimonythatBrodskytriedtosellavideoofDrew: THEWITNESS:ThevideowastobeofMr.Peterson andhisallegednewfiance,ChristinaRaines,athome.He wasgoingtogiveMr.Petersonacameraandhewasgoingto takevideoofMs.Rainesandhimandtheirlifetogether,and hewanted$200,000forthevideo. Transcript,July2,2010,pg.92. 10

notsimplytobenefittheclientbutwastobenefitthelawyer.Thenature andextentofhowthelawyerwastobenefitwasundetermined,obviously dependentuponthequalityandquantityofdegreeofexcitement, information,andanticipationthatthecasegenerated.9 Perhapsthisexplains,inpart,whyDrewwasparadedaroundinan unprecedentedmediablitz.Asthiscourtoncerhetoricallycommented whendiscussingvideosofinterviewswithDrewandBrodskyHowcould itnotbeprejudicialtothedefendantregardlessofwhatthestatement is?Transcript,June6,2012,seriatim.

Othermonieswerepaid.Presentdefensecounselisintheprocessofputtingtogether documentationofpaymentthatwasmadedirectlytoattorneyBrodsky.

SeealsoModelABARule1.8whichisevenmoreexpansivethan theIllinoisRuleandistheRuleuponwhichIllinoisisbased.
9

11

IneffectiveAssistance10 InawidelycriticizedmoveBrodskycalledattorneyHarrySmithto thestand.Priortothisrenegademove,thecasewasgoingwellforthe Defendant,withsomeofthejurorscommentingafterwardsthatthey couldnothaveconvictedtheDefendantbeforeHarrySmithwascalled. Nobodywhowatchedorparticipatedinthetrial,exceptfor Brodsky,thoughtthattheideaofcallingSmithwasanythinglessthan delusional.Knowingwhateveryoneknew,basedonthevoluminous recordthatalreadyexisted,thiscouldnothavebeensensiblestrategic reason. TheprosecutorcalledHarrySmithstestimonyagiftfromGod. HerecognizedthatcallingSmithwasamiraclefortheprosecution.11Not strategy! Variouscommentators,pundits,andStatesAttorney GlasgowhavecommentedthattheDefendanthadsixattorneysandthus itismathematicallyimpossibleforhimtoraiseanineffectiveassistance claim.Counselhasbeenunabletolocateasinglecase,inany jurisdiction,holdingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceiscontingentupona lowermassofattorneysor,alternatively,anycasethatheldconductof counselthatwasotherwiseineffectivetobereasonabletrialstrategy simplybecauseaDefendanthadateamofattorneys.
10

Amiracleiscommonlydefinedas:1)anextraordinaryevent manifestingdivineinterventioninhumanaffairs;or2)anextremely outstandingorunusualevent,thing,oraccomplishment. http://www.merriamwebster.com/dictionary/miracle

11

12

CounselWasConcernedWithTheIrrelevantandUnfocused

Thingswereunravelingfortheselfproclaimedleadcounsellong beforecallingSmith.Hewasunabletoconcentrate,andclearlystrained. Hewasconcernedwithpublicity,theimmaterial,annoyingopposing counsel,andminimizingcreditforhiscocounsel.Allofthisisprovable andlargelyconfirmedwithinemailsBrodskywrote. BeforecallingSmithBrodskycalledSergeantBrianFallat.During theexaminationBrodskysoughttoconveystatementsbyStacythathad previouslybeenruledinadmissible,resultinginthefollowingexchange: MR.BRODSKY: Mr.SchoritestifiedthatStacytoldhimthatshe gaveanalibiforDrewPetersonforSaturday night.Ok.Thatwas THECOURT: Andwewenttobedandthenwegotupthenext morningandsowewereallathome.Thatsnot analibi? MR.BRODSKY: Doesntsayheneverleftmyside,doesntsayhe wasinbedwithmeallnight,doesntsay THECOURT: Illtellyouwhat.Yourethecaptainoftheship. Youwanttotravelinthatdirection,yougoright aheadthatsuptoyou.
13

MR.GREENBERG: MR.BRODSKY: MR.GREENBERG: MR.KOCH:

Comehere,captain. Myshipmatewantsme. Youareabouttowitnessamutiny.

And,Judge,justsoitsclear,theStatesposition willbeiftheygodownthislineofquestioningwe aregoingtoasktheCourttorevisitthewhole maritalprivilege

THECOURT: Ithinkthatscrystalclearandthereisawhole panoplyofareasthatwouldhavetoberevisited. MR.BRODSKY: OK.Wewillwithdrawthatlastquestion

yourHonor. Althoughthecaptainwassavedfromtorpedoinghisshipatthis point,theexchangeistelling.AttorneyBrodskydidnotunderstand testimonythatDrewwashomewhenStacywenttobed,andhomeinthe morningwhensheawoke,wascircumstantiallyanalibi,i.e.hewashome allnight.Furthermore,inarguingitwasnotanalibihewassuggesting thatDrew,infact,couldhaveleftthehouseduringthenight,an argumentwhollyinsupportoftheStatestheory.Itwasfortunatefor DefendantthatonthisoccasioncounselwasabletoprevailuponBrodsky toabandonthelineofquestioning.

StacysConversationWithHarrySmithWasPrivileged
14

WhenStacyspoketoHarrySmithitwasfortheexpressandsole purposeofobtaininglegaladviceintheformofaconsultationabouta potentialdivorceaction.Accordingly,anattorneyclientrelationshipwas created.Anyconversationshadduringthecourseofthis,albeitlimited consultation,wereprivileged.Assumingforthemomentthedecisionto callattorneySmithwasreasonabletrialstrategy,theprivilegeissue remained.ThisCourthadalreadydeterminedthattheconversationwas privileged.TheCourtshouldhave,withallduerespect,notallowed attorneySmithtotestify,irrespectiveofwhoneverwantedtocallhim. JustastheCourtprohibitedtheprosecutionfromcallingSmith,it shouldhaveprohibitedthedefense.Foritiswellsettledthatattorney clientprivilegeisneithertheprosecutionsnorthedefendantstowaive, butbelongstotheclient.Indeed,bythetimeattorneyBrodskysoughtto callattorneySmiththerolesoftherespectivepartiesinrelationto Smithstestimonyhadcompletelyreversed.WhileithadbeentheState thathadrepeatedlyattemptedtocallSmith,onlytoberepeatedlyshut downastheCourtunswervinglyfoundthematterstheStatesoughtto introducetobeprivilegedand/orirrelevant,whenattorneyBrodsky soughttocallSmiththeStateappropriatelyarguedthetestimonywas privileged.AttorneyGreenbergrefusedtoargueagainsttheStates positionbecauseitwaslegallyandfactuallyvalid,ifnotstrategically
15

favorable.ThusattorneyBrodskyargued. DefendantPetersonrealizesthatanargumentwillbemadethathe haswaivedthisclaimbecausetypicallythedefensecannotcreatean errorandthencitethaterrorinanefforttogainanewtrial.However, whenviewedinthecontextofotherwiseinepteffortputforthinthe presentmentofthiswitness,aswillbedetailedbelow,theclaimbecomes notonlywhethertheCourtfailedinitsgatekeeperfunctionbutwhether counselrenderedineffectiveassistanceinurgingtheCourttoabandonits role.OfcourseitcannotbesaidthattheDefendantinvitedineffective assistance.

SmithsTestimonyWasADisaster Whencounseldevastateshisownclientscasehehasbeen ineffective.Peoplev.Phillips,227Ill.App.3d582(1992).Anyonewho wasinthatcourtroomknewtheSmithtestimonywasthedeathknell. (punintended) TounderstandwhythedecisiontocallattorneySmithwasso obviouslyineffectivesomehistoricalbackgroundisrequired.12Atprior hearingsattorneySmithtestifiedhehadreceivedaphonecallfromStacy

WhileSmithwasSaviosattorneyhismostdamagingtestimonyonly concernedhistelephoneconversationwithStacyandthushisinteractionswithSavio, aswellasstatementshemaderegardinghisrepresentationand/orthingsshemay havetoldhimareirrelevantandneednotbeaddressedherein. 16
12

Petersondaysbeforeshedisappeared.Althoughtheconversationswere privileged,asthisCourtappropriatelyfound,Smithhadrecklessly,and incompletedisregardofhisethicalobligation,testifiedbeforetheGrand Juryandatthehearsayhearing. WhenpreviouslyaskedabouthisconversationwithStacy,Smith statedthatshewantedtoknowifshewouldgainanadvantageinthe divorceifshesaidDrewkilledKathleen.Duringhispriortestimonyhe didnottestifythatStacyconcluded,DrewkilledKathleen.Hedidnot, duringhispriortestimony,testifythatStacyhadanyfirsthand knowledgethatDrewhadkilledKathleen.Hedidnot,duringprior testimony,statethatStacyhadhelpedDrewinrelationtothedeathof Kathleen. AttorneyBrodskybegantheexaminationbyinformingthejury thatHarrySmithhadbeenKathleenSaviosdivorceattorney.Hethen askedabouttheOctober24,2007phonecallSmithhadallegedlyreceived fromStacyPeterson.Theconversationwaselicitedwithoutthebenefitof anyfoundation(ofcoursetheStatewasnotgoingtoobject). Afteraskingafewquestionsaboutwhenthecalltookplace,and blessingthejurywiththeknowledgeSmithhadreportedallofthistothe police,Brodskystartedtolosecontroloftheexamination.Heblurtedout infrontofthejurythathewantedtoquestionthiswitnessasanadverse witnesspromptingthecourttoimmediatelysendthejuryout.When
17

thejuryreturned,quicklyenteringstumblingmode,Brodskycontinued byaskingSmithdidshe[Stacy]eventuallyretainyou?Inresponseto theobviousandirrelevantanswer,whichwasno,Brodskyaskedwhy not?YetagainsavingBrodsky,theStateintervened,sparingcounsel frominterjectingStacysdisappearanceintotheproceedings.13 Asthequestioningcontinued,thingsquicklyturnedfortheworse. AttorneyBrodskyaskedSmithwhetherStacytoldhimthatshehad informationregardingDrew.AfteralittlebitofbackandforthSmith toldthejurors,interalia,Shewantedtoknowifthefactthathekilled Kathycouldbeusedagainsthim.Brodskythen,inacomplete exhibitionofhisincompetence,tried,butwasunable,toimpeachSmith, inamannerthatonlyreinforcedthisdamagingremark.Brodsky repeatedlyaskedthewitnesswhetherhehadpreviouslytestified,under oath,thatStacyhad:

saidwecouldgetmoremoneyoutofDrewifwethreatened totellthepoliceabouthowhekilledKathy;

thatshe[Stacy]hadsomuchshitonhimatthepolice departmentthathecouldntdoanythingtoher;
13

thealibi.

ThisfollowedBrodskysattempttobringupStacyinrelationshipto 18

 againhow[Stacy]askedmeifwecouldgetmoremoneyout ofDrewifwetellthepolicehowhekilledKathy;and

yetagainshesaidshewantedtosayhowhekilledKathy.

Thusdefensecounselinterjectedthroughhisquestioningwhat amountedtothemostdamningevidenceofhisguilt.Heputitinas positiveevidence.Heneverimpeachedthewitness,neverbroughtforth anyconditionorthreat,andfailedtoaccomplishanythingfavorableto hisclient.HeditheredbeforethejuryasattorneySmithrepetitively daggeredtheconceptofdoubt,accomplishinginafewminuteswhatthe prosecutionhadbeenunabletopresentawitnesstosayDrewkilled Kathy.14 BrodskywasabletoleavethejurywiththeimpressionthatStacy knewsomething,withouttrulypresentingasinglefact.HadBrodsky beenthisdeftatcreatinganimpressionwhenhecrossedawitness,his greatnesswouldhavebeenapplauded.
HealsofailedtoimpeachSmithclaimheconseledStacythatshemay beanaccomplicetoconcealment.Thiswasnotonlylegallywrong,butwasalso whollyinconsistentwithSmithspriortestimony.Itdid,howeverandunfortunately, reinforcetheideaDrewkilledKathy(concealedahomicide). 19
14

Ofcourseanycompetentattorneynotonlyconsiderswhathe wantstobringoutondirect,butalsoanticipateswhatdamagingevidence couldbebroughtoutoncross.Notsurprisingly,theprosecutors capitalizedonthishorrendousblunder.Theybroughtoutmoreofthe privilegedconversation,including: thatStacysaidDrewwaspissedatherbecausehethought shehadtoldhissonthatDrewhadkilledKathleen; Hewasangry; ThatDrewwasconductingsurveillanceonherorfollowing her; Thatshehadtoomuchshitonhimforhimtodoanythingto her;and Thatshewantedtoknowifshecouldgetmoremoneyoutof Drewifshethreatenedtotellthepoliceabouthowhekilled Kathy. Justforgoodmeasurethelastpointwasreemphasized, Q.Shespecificallyusedthewordhowindescribing,notjust factthathekilledKathy,buthowhekilledKathy. A. Yes. Thedirectwastheiceberg,thecrosstherushingwater,andtheresult wastheCaptainhadsunktheship.
20

TheLaw

In Peoplev.Chandler,128Ill.2d233(1989),ourownSupreme Court wrote about the minimum level of meaningful adversarial advocacyrequired: Adefendantallegingaviolationofhissixthamendmentrightto effectiveassistanceofcounselmustgenerallymeetthetwoprongedtest announced by the United States Supreme Court in Strickland v. Washington (1984), 466 U.S. 668, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 80 L.Ed.2d 674, in ordertoestablishavalidclaim.Stricklandrequiresadefendanttoprove (1)thathiscounsel'sperformancewasdeficientbyhavingmadeerrorsso seriousthatcounselwasnotfunctioningasthecounselguaranteedthe defendantbythesixthamendment,and(2)thathiscounsel'sdeficiencies prejudicedthedefendant.Strickland,466U.S.at687,104S.Ct.at2064, 80L.Ed.2dat693;seePeoplev.Albanese(1984),104Ill.2d504,52627, 85Ill.Dec.441,473N.E.2d1246.Toprovethis,adefendantmustshow thathiscounsel'serrorsweresoseriousthattheydeprivedthedefendant ofafairtrial,atrialwhoseresultisreliable.Strickland,466U.S.at687, 104 S.Ct. at 2064, 80 L.Ed.2d at 693.TheCourtalsoemphasizedthat scrutinyofcounsel'sperformancemustbehighlydeferential,notingthat [b]ecauseofthedifficultiesinherentinmakingtheevaluation,acourt mustindulgeastrongpresumptionthatcounsel'sconductfallswithinthe
21

widerangeofreasonableprofessionalassistance.Strickland,466U.S.at 689, 104 S.Ct. at 2065, 80 L.Ed.2d at 69495.Inacompanioncaseto Strickland, theCourtindicatedthatinrareinstances,ineffectivenessof counsel will be presumed without application of the Strickland test. (UnitedStatesv.Cronic(1984),466U.S.648,104S.Ct.2039,80L.Ed.2d 657.) As this court has recognized, the Supreme Court in Cronic emphasized that the sixth amendment requires, at a bare minimum, that defense counsel act as a true advocate for the accused. Where counsel entirely fails to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing,thentherehasbeenadenialof SixthAmendment rightsthatmakestheadversaryprocessitselfpresumptivelyunreliable. ( People v. Hattery (1985), 109 Ill.2d 449, 461, 94 Ill.Dec. 514, 488 N.E.2d513,quotingUnitedStatesv.Cronic(1984),466U.S.648,659,104 S.Ct. 2039, 2047, 80 L.Ed.2d 657, 668.) Relying on People v. Hattery (1985),109Ill.2d449,94Ill.Dec.514,488N.E.2d513,defendantargues that defense counsel's actions constitute a failure to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing and that, under Hattery,hisconvictionsmustbereversed. Anineffectiveassistanceclaimrequiresconsiderationofhowa reasonablyeffectivedefenseattorneywouldconducthimselfif confrontedwithcircumstancessimilartodefendantstrial.Peoplev. Fletcher,335Ill.App.3d447,453.Thequestionofwhatconstitutes
22

soundtrialstrategyisnecessarilyfactdependent.Id,ascitedinPeoplev. Watson,2012Ill.App.(2d)091328.Tellingly,whilethereisa presumptionthatacriminaldefenseattorneysdecisionsaresound,when noreasonablyeffectivedefenseattorneyfacingsimilarcircumstances wouldpursuesuchstrategiesthatpresumptiongivesway.Peoplev. Faulkner,292Ill.App.3d391,394(1997).Soundtrialstrategy embracestheuseofestablishedrulesofevidenceandproceduresto avoid,whenpossible,theadmissionofincriminatingstatements,harmful opinionandprejudicialfactsPeoplev.Moore,279Ill.App.3d152,159, 663N.E.2d490(1996)Peoplev.Rosemond,339Ill.App.3d51,6566, 790N.E.2d416,428(2003). Theattorneytorpedoinghisclientscaseandaccordingly supportingaclaimofineffectiveassistanceisnotwithoutprecedence.In Peoplev.Moore,356Ill.App.3d117(1stDist.2005)defensecounsel elicitedincriminatinghearsaytestimonyduringhiscrossexaminationof twoofthestateswitnesses.Theytestifiedinresponsetodefense counselsquestioningthatpeopleinacrowdnearthecrimescenehad toldthemthatsomeonewhowaswiththedefendanthadassistedinthe crime.Notingthattheexaminationviolateddefendantsrightto confrontbecausetheinformationwasobviouslyhearsaythecourtheld thattheincriminatinghearsaywasprejudicial,ineffectiveassistance. Counselprejudiceddefendantbynotonlybringingforthincriminating
23

evidencebutbyfurnishingtheprosecutionwithevidenceuponwhichto commentinclosing.TheCourtnotedthatdefensecounselprovided evidenceconnectingthatdefendanttoacrime.SeealsoPeoplev.Bailey, 374Ill.App.3d608,61415(2007)(defensecounselelicitedtestimony thatharmedthedefendantscasewhenhebroughtforthevidencethat thedefendanthadbeenseenspeakingtopotentialnarcoticspurchasers); Peoplev.Phillips,227Ill.App.3d581(1stDist.1992)(Defensecounsel elicitedhearsaystatementsaboutdefendantsconnectiontothecrimeon trialandothers. Thesameistrueintheinstantcase.Brodskyputinthe incriminatingwords,theprosecutionarguedtheirimportance,andthe jurorssaiditwasthedeathknell.

BrodskyhassaidsincethathehadtocallSmithtoimpeachStacys statementstoSchori.Thatisincontrasttotheexchangehehadwiththe CourtbeforecallingSmith.ThenattorneyBrodskywasaskedbythe CourtyouagreewithMs.Griffinthatthisdoesntimpeachthe statementtheymadetoreverendSchori.Infactyoucouldmakean argumentthatenhancesit.TowhichattorneyBrodskyreplied,One could.AttheconclusionoftheargumentstheCourtcommentedduring itsrulingandIdontseethatthestatementthattheDefendantwantsto useinthiscaseimpeachesthestatementthat[Stacy]madetoreverend

24

Schori.Itimpeacheshercredibilitygenerally. Thesixthamendmentrequires,atabareminimum,thatdefense counselactasatrueadvocatefortheaccused.UnitedStatesv.Cronic (1984),466U.S.648,659.Theconstitutionalrightofacriminal defendanttopleadnotguiltyentailstheobligationofhisattorneyto structurethetrialofthecasearoundhisclientsplea.Wileyv.Sowders (6thCir.1981),647F.2d642,650,cert.denied(1981),454U.S.1091,102 S.C5.656,70L.Ed.2d630.Puttingastatementofguiltiscounter intuitive. InPeoplev.Salgado,200Ill.App.3d550(1stDist.1990)defense counselwasheldtobeineffectiveforelicitingdefendantsadmission whiledefendanttestified: weperceivenologicalreasonforcounseltohave calleddefendantasawitnessandelicitedaconfessionon directexamination.Thetrialjudgespecificallystatedthat untildefendanttestified,thecourthadintendedtofindhim guiltyonlyonthetheftcharge,butbecausedefendant admittedthathecommittedtheresidentialburglary,the courthadnochoicebuttoconvicthimofthatoffense.By pleadingnotguilty,defendantwasentitledtohavetheissue ofhisguiltorinnocenceofresidentialburglarypresentedto thecourtasanadversarialissue.Defensecounselsconduct
25

inthiscaseamountedtoineffectiveassistanceofcounsel becauseitnullifiedtheadversarialqualityofthis fundamentalissue.Peoplev.Salgado,200Ill.App.3d550, 553,558N.E.2d271,274(1990). Similarly,inthecaseatbar,asthiscourtcommented,Iwillsay thatIthinkthatitsunusualthattheStaterespondsthattheinformation ofhowhekilledhercamefromtheverylastwitnesscalledbythe defendantinthecase.SeeAugust31,2012transcript. Likewise,inPeoplev.Baines,399Ill.App.3d881(2010)thecourt reversedbecausedefensecounselwasclumsyandconfusing,tothepoint hewasineffective: Fromthisexchangeitisclearthatthedefendantisguiding hisdefensecounselinhowtoconductthedirectexamination inordertoelicitrelevantinformation.Thisismostunusual, asonewouldexpectthelawyertodevelopthestrategythat guidesthequestions.However,therecordinthiscaseis repletewithexamplesofunusualbehaviorbydefense counsel.Itwasatthisjuncturethatdefensecounselelicited fromthedefendantadamningadmission.Underquestioning bydefensecounsel,thedefendantadmittedthatalthoughhe hadearliertoldthepolicethathedidnotknowWilson,his
26

allegedaccompliceinthecrime,infactheknewWilson quitewell.Thisevidenceisclearlyharmfultothe defendant.And,areviewoftherecordrevealsthatthe gravityoftheharmcausedbythisevidencewasloston defensecounsel,ashecontinuedtoquestionhisownclientin amannerwhichbolsteredtheState'scase. Thedefendantasserts,andarguedstrenuouslyduringoral argumentonappealbeforethiscourt,thatdefensecounsel wasclumsyinelicitinganadmissionfromDeveauxthathe (Deveaux)hadmisidentifiedaninnocentman,Hedley,asthe thirdmanwhoattackedhim.Asthedefendantpointsouton appeal,thiswasclearlyanextremelyimportantfactin attackingthestrengthofDeveaux'sidentificationtestimony. Areviewofthetranscriptconfirmsthedefendant'sassertion ofanextremelyclumsycrossexaminationbydefense counsel.At88889.

27

OtherwiseIneffective

AttorneyBrodskywasalsoineffectiveorotherwiseconflictedinthe followingrespects: a. HeencouragedPetersontoengageinasmuchpretrial publicityaspossible,advisingPetersonthatthemore publicityPetersonandBrodskyreceivedthelesschance Petersonhadofbeingindicted.Brodskysaidevenifcharged thepretrialpublicitywouldincreasePetersonschancesofan acquittal. b. DuringtrialPetersonwantedtowaivethejuryandproceed withabenchtrial.AttorneyBrodskyinitiallyrefusedto discussPetersonswisheswithhim,lateradvisingPeterson thatajurycouldnotbewaivedonceselected.
c.

Brodskyrepeatedlythreatenedtorevealprivileged informationifPetersonweretodischargehimorotherwise reducehisrole.Thosethreatshavecontinued notwithstandingthefactthatBrodskyhasnowbeen discharged.InaletterdatedNovember24,2012Brodsky wrotePetersonaletterinwhichcontainedthefollowing languageinwhichhethreatenstorevealconfidential information,affectingDefendantandothers,concluding

28

thisisofcoursethelastthingyouorIwouldwant,butthis couldhappenasanunintendedconsequenceofunfounded ineffectiveassistanceaccusation,whichisnotfullythought through.15 d. Refusedtopresenttestimonythattherewerenosecret activitiesattheBolingbrookPoliceDepartment,thereby impeachingStacy; e. RefusedtopresentevidencethatDrewhadservedasa militarypolicemaninWashington,D.C.,thisevidence, combinedwiththefactthattherewasnoevidence,thatwhile servingDrewhadkilledallofhismen,wouldhaverebutted Stacysoutrageousstatementandshownhertobealiar. Insteadthejurorswereleftwiththeimpressionthatthey werefreetospeculateastowhetherStacysstatementabout Drewmayhavebeentrueandjustcoveredup;and f. Withdrewarequestforamistrialwithgreatfanfare.

ThemattersBrodskyreferstoarecoveredbybothattorneyclient privilegeandworkproductconcernsandhecouldnotbecompelledtorevealany. Thelettermaybemadeavailableshouldtherebeanevidentiaryhearinginthis matter. 29

15

WHEREFORE,theDefendantDrewPeterson,respectfully requeststhatthisHonorableCourtprovidetheappropriaterelief, includinganacquittal,or,inthealternative,granttohimanewtrial,and foranyandallsuchfurtherandotherreliefasthisCourtdeemsjust, includingifnecessaryanevidentiaryhearing. Respectfullysubmitted, DrewPeterson,Defendant By:_______________________ OneofHisAttorneys StevenA.Greenberg StevenA.Greenberg,Ltd. AttorneyforDefendant 53W.JacksonBoulevard,Suite 1260 Chicago,Illinois60604 (312)8799500 JosephR.Lopez LisaLopez AttorneyforDefendant 53W.JacksonBoulevard,Suite 1651 Chicago,Illinois60603 (312)9222001 DavidPeilet 11555thStreet Suite400 ClarendonHills,IL60514 (312)3220009

JohnW.Heiderscheidt AttorneyforDefendant 725S.WellsSt. SuiteM100 Chicago,Illinois60607 (312)4319000

30

31