Former Drew Peterson attorney wants contempt case moved out of Will County

A former lawyer for convicted killer Drew Peterson had a testy exchange with a judge at Monday’s pretrial hearing, where he said he wanted to move his indirect criminal contempt case out of Will County.

After Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s former lawyer, arrived late to his own pretrial hearing, he became visibly frustrated when Special Prosecutor Bill Elward said he made Brodsky an offer that was rejected. Elward had planned on requesting a trial date.

At the hearing, Will County Judge Jessica Colón-Sayre asked Brodsky to compose himself following a back-and-forth exchange about legal issues in the case.

“This is not going to become some sort of circus,” Colón-Sayre told Brodsky.

Brodsky said he didn’t need to file a motion to compel discovery he wanted from Elward. But Colón-Sayre said that he needed to do so. Brodsky then insisted the indirect criminal contempt case against him wasn’t criminal in nature. But Colón-Sayre told him that it was a criminal case.

At one point, Colón-Sayre asked Brodsky to stop talking as she tried settle scheduling issues in his case.

The indirect criminal contempt case was filed against Brodsky on March 1 after he participated in a NewsNation interview on Feb. 28 regarding the Peterson case. Brodsky was part of Peterson’s legal team that lost the 2012 trial that resulted in Peterson’s conviction of the first-degree murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

Brodsky stands accused of violating a retired judge’s 2022 gag order not to disclose his representation of Peterson’s case.

Adam Altman was only one of Brodsky’s three attorneys who was in court on Monday. He told the judge that Brodsky wanted to take more time to perform a “deeper dive into the evidence and applicable law.”

Brodsky said there was more litigation to be done and he wanted to file a motion for a change of venue.

“I don’t think I can get an untainted jury in this county,” Brodsky said.

Brodsky’s law license was suspended in 2019 for two years following allegations that he made “baseless, vitriolic claims against the plaintiff’s attorney and expert witness” in one lawsuit case and revealed in confidential information in another case, according to the Illinois Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.

Elward has contended Brodsky faces “potential lengthy incarceration in light of his blatant disregard for the sanctity of the attorney-client privilege.”

Brodsky claimed he did not receive discovery from Elward, who said in response that he did tender discovery to him. Brodsky said he was apparently supposed to receive a police report.

The evidence in the contempt case mainly consists of the Feb. 28 NewsNation interview, Brodsky’s statements to the press on March 6 and transcripts of the court hearing on the 2022 gag order.

Colón-Sayre, Altman and Elward found themselves wrangling over the date for the next court hearing that would fit with their busy schedules. After failing to agree on at least three court dates, they finally settled on coming back to court at 1:30 p.m. Sept. 23.

All three of Brodsky’s attorneys may potentially file a motion to withdraw from the case on that day, according to Altman.

When the Sept. 23 date was settled, Brodsky told Colón-Sayre that she doesn’t know if his other two attorneys could make that date.

But Colón-Sayre stuck with that date regardless.