Ex-Drew Peterson lawyer awaits new appeal in indirect criminal contempt case

A case in which the former lawyer of convicted killer Drew Peterson is accused of violating a judge’s gag order will face further delays because of his new appeal to a higher court.

On Friday, both parties in the indirect criminal contempt case against Joel Brodsky agreed to meet again for a status hearing May 15.

Brodsky is waiting on a decision from the 3rd District Appellate Court in Ottawa of his appeal of what he claims was a new gag order issued against him last year.

Joliet attorney Chuck Bretz was in court Friday on behalf of Brodsky, who did not make an appearance. Bretz is the latest attorney for Brodsky, who has cycled through three attorneys and has represented himself.

Brodsky is the former lawyer of Peterson, a former Bolingbrook police sergeant who was convicted in a 2012 trial of the murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio.

In 2021, Peterson petitioned to vacate his murder conviction, which has yet to receive a ruling.

A judge issued a gag order on Brodsky in response to his 2022 interview with WGN-TV. In the interview, Brodsky said he was considering revealing what Peterson allegedly told him about his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, who vanished in 2007.

That gag order was upheld by an appellate court.

But Brodsky is now appealing what he claims was another gag order issued last year by Will County Judge Dave Carlson, who retired a few weeks after that decision.

Carlson told Brodsky not to discuss the Peterson case after Brodsky was accused of indirect criminal contempt. The case was filed last year after Brodsky spoke about the Peterson case with NewsNation.

Brodsky requested that Will County Judge Jessica Colón-Sayre dissolve what he characterized as Carlson’s gag order. Colón-Sayre denied Brodsky’s request because Carlson never issued such a court order.

In Brodsky’s appeal, he contends that Carlson’s order to not discuss the Peterson case is “unconstitutionally” silencing him from discussing the alleged misconduct of the 2012 trial.

Brodsky claimed that his exchange with Colón-Sayre over the issue was “truly Kafkaesque,” and she engaged in “delusion” by saying Carlson issued no gag order.

He asked the appellate court to assign another judge to the case.

Brodsky asked for sanctions against Special Prosecutor Bill Elward. He accused Elward of “abusive litigation” and “lying” about discovery in his contempt case.

In response, appellate prosecutors argued that Carlson did not issue a gag order but only set a condition of pretrial release when he told Brodsky not to discuss the Peterson case.

Appellate prosecutors also argued that the appellate court has no legal authority to make a ruling because Carlson never issued a gag order to begin with.

Appellate prosecutors said there is no “objective support” for Brodsky’s claims against Colón-Sayre and Elward, which only are based on his “perception of events.”