Former prosecutor of Drew Peterson set to handle ex-lawyer’s contempt case

A familiar face will handle the case against convicted killer Drew Peterson’s former attorney, who is accused of violating his gag order by talking about his past client’s case on NewsNation.

On Wednesday, acting Will County Chief Judge Dan Rippy granted the appointment of Special Prosecutor Bill Elward to the case against Joel Brodsky, who represented Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant, in his 2012 trial. Peterson was convicted of the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, 40.

Brodsky is accused of committing indirect contempt of court by appearing last week on Ashleigh Banfield’s NewsNation program to talk about his former client.

Elward was on the prosecution team in Randolph County that won a 2016 conviction against Peterson for his solicitation of the murder of Will County State’s Attorney James Glasgow.

Elward was working for former Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan at the time. He has been working for the Illinois State’s Attorney Appellate Prosecutor’s Office after leaving the attorney general’s office.

Glasgow sought to recuse his office from the case against Brodsky because he is a potential witness in Peterson’s bid to overturn his murder conviction. In 2021, Peterson’s post-conviction petition accused Brodsky of ineffective legal representation. There has yet to be a ruling on that petition.

Brodsky objected to the appointment of a special prosecutor by arguing that the appointment should have been made before he was accused of indirect contempt of court.

“I think there’s some merit to that argument,” Rippy said.

However, Will County Assistant State’s Attorney Chris Koch, who was on the prosecution team against Peterson for the 2012 trial, argued that prosecutors had to file the petition against Brodsky to put him on notice that he was violating the gag order.

“Sometimes the state still has to do its job,” Koch said.

After Rippy granted the special prosecutor motion, the case was sent to Will County Judge Dave Carlson’s courtroom. Carlson told Brodsky that the case against him is “criminal in nature” and can carry felony penalties. Brodsky also was informed that he could face substantial prison time.

“This is a minor contempt,” Brodsky said.

Carlson set a date to hear Brodsky’s case April 1 to give Elward time to respond to Brodsky’s motion to dismiss the petition and possibly file an amended petition for indirect contempt of court.

There was some back-and-forth Wednesday between Brodsky and Carlson about what he could speak about publicly. Carlson said he was entering a new order for Brodsky to once again not talk about his representation of Peterson. Carlson also told Brodsky that he wants him to show up on his next court date.

“I’m going to run from this, judge?” Brodsky said.

After the hearing, Brodsky insisted that he did not violate the gag order, which restricts him from talking about his representation of Peterson.

“Anybody who wants to can go on YouTube and watch the video and tell me where ... I violated the attorney-client privilege,” Brodsky said.

After the Brodsky case, Carlson turned his attention to Peterson’s post-conviction case. He decided to quash the subpoenas sent to WGN-TV, NewsNation and NexStar Media Group from Peterson’s attorneys with the Will County Public Defender’s Office.

The subpoenas demanded a wide range of records, such as unpublished videos of Peterson’s interview with Banfield, all correspondence with Peterson and all communication with the Illinois Department of Corrections.

The subpoenas also requested “any and all financial records pertaining to any compensation with [Peterson].”

Steven Mandell, an attorney for the news organizations, said the subpoenas were “improper” and the information requested by them were protected under the Illinois reporter’s privilege statute.

One of Peterson’s attorneys said the videos were needed for a psychologist’s mental evaluation of Peterson. However, Mandell said that was not necessary.

Carlson quashed the subpoenas unless Peterson’s attorneys can prove their relevance at an evidentiary hearing, such as Banfield testifying about Peterson’s demeanor.

“That’s a whole separate issue, but that is not an issue we’re dealing with today,” Carlson said.

After the hearing, Mandell said he only could speculate about why Peterson’s attorneys requested financial records.

“It seems like they were sort of attacking the media for interviewing Peterson,” Mandell said.

Illinois law protects journalists from being forced to turn over unpublished material unless it can be shown that the information sought is relevant to the case, necessary to protect the public interest and can’t be obtained any other way, said Lin Weeks, senior staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.

“Further, the Illinois Supreme Court has made clear that the law exists to protect the news media’s constitutional right to gather and publish news, which is why subpoenas like the ones at issue in this case are so concerning,” Weeks said.

Weeks said that efforts to compel journalists to disclose their unpublished work “threaten to chill communication between reporters and their sources, depriving the public of important information.”

Peterson’s post-conviction case is set for April 1 as well. Carlson has not yet decided whether he will order Peterson to make what would be his second court appearance this year on that day.