[GRAPHIC: AROUND THE CLOCK]
[GRAPHIC: MORNING EDITION, CLTV]
FEMALE VOICE: The flamboyant father and son duo that defended Rob Blagojevich want off the case. Sam Adam, Sr., and Sam Adam, Jr., have submitted a request to withdraw as lead attorneys in his corruption retrial. And the judge could grant the request as soon as today. Because Blagojevich is broke, he'll have to use public funding and can only have two attorneys at the retrial. The Adams say they are not abandoning their client and have proposed staying on as unpaid advisors.
[GRAPHIC: Rod Blagojevich Case, "Financial realities make it impossible for the Adams to continue as lead attorneys. Because they believe in the Governor's innocence, they both will remain members of the legal team in advisory roles and part of the Governor's arsenal to fight the charges." Glenn Selig, Spokesman for Rod Blagojevich]
FEMALE VOICE: A spokesman for Blagojevich says financial realities make it impossible for the Adams to continue as lead attorneys. Because they believe in the ex-Governor's innocence, they both remain members of the legal team in advisory roles and part of the Governor's arsenal to fight the charges. Now Blagojevich's retrial is scheduled to begin in January.
[GRAPHIC: Blagojevich Defense Shake-Up]
FEMALE VOICE: Joining us now to talk about the Blagojevich and Peterson cases is criminal defense attorney Thomas Glasgow. Thanks for coming in, Thomas.
THOMAS GLASGOW: Thank you for having me.
FEMALE VOICE: Let's start with the Blagojevich case. There's much been made about this being such a financial hardship.
THOMAS GLASGOW: Mm-hmm.
FEMALE VOICE: Well, if it's a financial hardship for the Adams attorneys, why would any attorney want to represent Blagojevich then?
THOMAS GLASGOW: Well, the case itself has a bit of celebrity to it. It is an interesting case. It's an interesting case by the fact of you've got a conspiracy. And the conspiracy obviously is something that is difficult for jurors to wrap their heads around because of the decisions and the hung jury that we had before on 23 of the 24 counts.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay. So then in this case then, if you want to take it just to get your name out there and increase your profile, you have to stop and think. In the case before, there were seven attorneys, several paralegals. Now you know that there will only be two attorneys and one paralegal. And there's still a lot of charges out there that you have to deal with. I imagine this is going to have to put the defense in a very difficult position in trying to prepare for this case.
THOMAS GLASGOW: Absolutely. Retrials are incredibly difficult. They're much more difficult than doing the trial itself, number one, because you already know what the prosecution's going to do. You know what the previous defense time or yourself had on the last trial. You've got to try and retool and have a new game plan for everything that you're going to do. Not only that, you have to review every bit of the transcripts and everything that was done before to see whether or not you're going to do the same thing or you're going to take a different tact or to be prepared for impeachment of testimony for witnesses that begin to be inconsistent in their testimony the second time around.
FEMALE VOICE: Now also interesting about this, these set of attorneys won't have the benefit of what the defense did last time because the defense last time didn't even put on the case, correct?
THOMAS GLASGOW: Well, that's correct. And they don't have to put on a case this time.
FEMALE VOICE: Oh.
THOMAS GLASGOW: There's no requirement that the defendant say or do anything in order to prove his innocence. They can just rely on the state or the government's inability to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Now they can choose to put on a case. But I really do think that there's going to be a different case that's put forth by the government in this matter because of things that have changed since the first trial.
FEMALE VOICE: Okay. Now let me ask you this. Something that could be interesting, would it--should Blagojevich be convicted this time around, would the fact that he has such a smaller defense team be an issue that could be brought up on appeal saying, hey, I didn't have a proper defense. I didn't have enough attorneys representing me. This case was too huge. Is that something that they could use as an appealable item?
THOMAS GLASGOW: No, that's not really something that's appealable. And the reason being is because you're entitled to attorneys. You're not entitled to 25 attorneys.
FEMALE VOICE: Oh.
THOMAS GLASGOW: You're not entitled to ten attorneys. You're not entitled to seven attorneys. You're entitled to competent attorneys and competent representation. And that's what the law is allowing here. They're giving two competent attorneys, two attorneys who have experience in this matter, and two attorneys that actually were on this case before. So they've got a good feeling for what has occurred. And it's not going to be any basis for an appeal later on down the road.
FEMALE VOICE: All right. Let's move onto the Drew Peterson case. A decision is expected this morning on whether he will actually be tried on the charges that he had an illegal gun in his possession.
THOMAS GLASGOW: Yes.
FEMALE VOICE: Should he be found guilty in this gun case, how do you expect that it will impact his murder trial if at all?
THOMAS GLASGOW: That's a very good question. First of all, under federal law, as long as the police chief has written certain documentations for the retired police officer, he's allowed to carry weapons. Now whether or not this weapon falls within that particular characterization of things that he could have or if it was approved by that police chief, then that is a question of whether or not they're going to be able to prosecute him successfully on that. Secondly, whether or not this is going to affect his trial is really going to be dependent on whether or not he is going to be convicted on the weapons charge. And if he is, it does present problems for him being able to testify in a secondary trial in the murder case because now he's a convicted felon. And a convicted felon doesn't have the same--it doesn't resonate with the jury the same as someone who gets on the stand and just tells their story. Well, not only does he tell a story and you question his believability, but now he's a convicted felon.
FEMALE VOICE: Now the prosecution is allowed to bring up the fact that he is a convicted felon, even though it may have no bearing on the actual murder trial itself?
THOMAS GLASGOW: Only if he has to testify.
FEMALE VOICE: Only if he has to testify.
THOMAS GLASGOW: If he testifies, they can use it for impeachment purposes. They can say, hey, you know, if you're a convicted felon, you have a reason or a motivation not to tell the truth because you're facing an enhanced sentence. They can't bring up sentencing in front of the jury. But that's the basis or the reason that they allow these convictions to come in.
FEMALE VOICE: All right. Now what impact if any would this case, this decision on this gun case, have on his son, Peterson's son, because he is a police officer? He's with the Oakbrook Police Department. He was actually brought into this case because the gun was actually given to him. And police confiscated it from him. But now he's also the primary caregiver for Drew Peterson's young children. So how does all of this impact him at all?
THOMAS GLASGOW: Well, if he's convicted of this, it's a--there's a possibility, although--albeit small, there's a possibility that DCFS could say, you know, we don't want you to care for the kids. You're not a person of good moral character. It's a--the bigger issue is whether or not he loses his job and being able to provide for the children. If he's not able to provide for the children, the conviction obviously is going to disqualify him as a police officer. It's not going to allow him to carry a weapon. So therefore, he's not going to be able to pursue his job. They probably would end up, you know, dismissing him and allowing--not allowing him to be a police officer anymore anywhere. So that would impact the children in that sense. But in any other sense, you know, he is the relative. He's a direct relative. He is someone who's a caretaker. He'd have to be shown to be someone who is not of good moral character or was not in the best interest of the children for them to be in his care and custody.
FEMALE VOICE: Oh, my. Lots going on in the legal system today. Should be interesting to see how it all works out. Thomas Glasgow, thanks for coming in and giving us your opinion on some of these cases this morning.
THOMAS GLASGOW: Thank you very much.
