:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/shawmedia/YZCYBNWJLRHHCRLXQFDO4TVNLA.jpg)
Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow is seeking a special prosecutor to handle a case where former Bolingbrook police Sgt. Drew Peterson’s past attorney is accused of violating a 2022 gag order.
On Monday, Glasgow filed a motion for a special prosecutor in the indirect contempt of court case filed Friday against Joel Brodsky, a former attorney for Peterson. The motion is scheduled for a hearing Wednesday before Will County Chief Judge Dan Kennedy.
Glasgow’s motion said he wants to recuse his office from the case because Brodsky was Peterson’s defense attorney, which is “currently in a post-conviction position.” In 2021, Peterson filed a post-conviction petition to overturn his 2012 conviction of the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, 40.
Glasgow’s motion said Brodsky “may be a witness in future post-conviction hearings.”
That possibility had been raised by Peterson’s own attorneys with the Will County Public Defender’s Office in their emergency motion for a gag order on Brodsky in 2022. Retired Will County Judge Ed Burmila had granted the motion.
“Given the allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, Joel Brodsky, is potential a witness in these post-conviction proceedings,” said Jason Strzelecki, Will County assistant public defender, in a May 18, 2022, motion.
Brodsky had filed a motion Monday to dismiss the petition that alleged he violated Burmila’s gag order when he appeared last week on a NewsNation program about the Peterson case.
The petition, which asks a judge to hold Brodsky in indirect contempt of court, is also set for a hearing Wednesday.
Brodsky’s motion to dismiss the petition argued attorney-client privilege is “narrow.”
“It only covers communications between an attorney and client made in confidence for the purpose of obtaining legal advice and nothing more,” according to Brodsky’s motion.
Brodsky further argued the petition for indirect contempt of court does not allege he violated attorney-client privilege. Because of that, Brodsky contended the petition should be dismissed for failing to “state an offense, on its face.”
His motion said a decision from the 3rd District Appellate Court regarding Burmila’s gag order said he was prohibited from violating attorney-client privilege “and no more.”
“I am sure that I do not have to argue that it is the appellate court’s construction of what is prohibited by the gag order that prevails,” according to Brodsky’s motion.
:quality(70)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/shawmedia/O3OHWILQBFFF3OESFSK6XJ2OPY.jpg)
Brodsky contended gag orders are considered “presumptively unconstitutional” based on a ruling in a federal case against former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Last year, a federal appeals court largely upheld a gag order on Trump in his 2020 election interference case but narrowed the restrictions on his speech to allow him to criticize the special counsel who brought the case, according to a report from the Associated Press.
Brodsky’s motion criticized Peterson’s attorneys and prosecutors. The motion said the court record shows “agreed continuance after agreed continuance and lawyers who do not know what they are doing.”
“It is truly amazing that the public defender somehow has the chutzpah to try to charge me with contempt,” according to Brodsky’s motion.
Brodsky’s motion claimed Peterson’s attorneys “should be charged with criminal negligence” and prosecutors should be charged with “neglect of duty.”
Brodsky’s motion concluded by saying “enough is enough.”
“I am intelligent enough to know where the line is. The appellate court has made that line clear and I have not crossed,” according to Brodsky’s motion.