Will County judge warns ex-Drew Peterson lawyer he may face new contempt case

A frustrated Will County judge warned a former attorney for convicted ex-Bolingbrook police officer Drew Peterson that he will face a new contempt case if he continued to interrupt and talk over her.

About a two-hour court hearing Thursday was punctuated by constant back-and-forth arguments between Joel Brodsky, Peterson’s former attorney, and Will County Judge Jessica Colón-Sayre.

Brodsky was in court for a case in which he’s accused of indirect criminal contempt for allegedly violating another judge’s gag order. He’s been ordered not to disclose his communications with Peterson, a former client convicted of the 2004 murder of his third wife, 40-year-old Kathleen Savio.

Brodsky’s constant interruptions of Colón-Sayre drove the normally calm and patient judge to the brink.

Colón-Sayre shouted, “Stop it!” to Brodsky and told him to stand further away from her. Brodsky had been standing close to the judge’s dais during arguments.

“I’m sorry I have to raise my voice, but you are constantly talking over me,” Colón-Sayre said.

Colón-Sayre then took a quick recess. A bailiff instructed Brodsky to stand behind a podium where attorneys usually stand when their case is called.

When Colón-Sayre returned to the courtroom, she told Brodsky to not interrupt her again. She warned Brodsky that if he continued to do so, she will find him in direct contempt of court.

But Brodsky still continued to talk over Colón-Sayre, as well as Special Prosecutor William Elward.

“Stop talking while I’m talking,” Elward told Brodsky.

Colón-Sayre noted throughout the hearing that many issues Brodsky was bringing up with the prosecution of the case should be addressed at trial.

“If you believe it is baseless, let’s go to trial,” Colón-Sayre said.

No trial has been scheduled. Instead, Brodsky insisted on having a court hearing for an update on his appeals connected to the case.

Yet even after settling on Jan. 30 as the next court date, Brodsky still had more to say to Colón-Sayre.

“I do not feel that I’m getting a fair hearing,” Brodsky said.

“I’ve tried really hard to accommodate you,” Colón-Sayre said.

Colón-Sayre said when Brodsky claimed that he hadn’t received a copy of the video that led to the indirect criminal contempt of court case, she allowed Elward to give him another copy in court and view the video on a computer in the courtroom.

The video is a Feb. 28 NewsNation interview of Brodsky, in which he pushed back against Peterson’s complaint that he made a mistake by not allowing Peterson to testify at trial.

“There’s one reason a lawyer can’t let a client testify, if the client wants to testify, and that’s if the lawyer knows the guy is going to get up on the stand and lie. So basically, Drew’s kind of confirming, I’m trying to walk right up to the line and not cross it, but what Drew’s doing is basically affirming that I know what happened,” Brodsky said in the interview.

A link to the video was provided in the March 1 petition accusing Brodsky of indirect contempt of court by allegedly violating a gag order.

Throughout Thursday’s hearing, Colón-Sayre denied Brodsky’s motion to move his case to a different county because Brodsky did not provide evidence of “actual prejudice,” only speculation.

She also told Brodsky to stop claiming that the case against him was not a criminal contempt case.

Colón-Sayre denied Brodsky’s motion to dissolve what he claimed was a gag order issued by retired Judge Dave Carlson earlier this year. But Colón-Sayre later learned from Elward that Carlson did not formally issue any gag order.

Colón-Sayre then determined there was nothing to deny. Brodsky still insisted Carlson did issue a gag order.

“No order was presented,” Colón-Sayre said. “Nothing was signed.”