New Attorney Motion Adds To Post-Drew Peterson Trial Drama

By Chuck Sudo in News on Oct 11, 2012 2:00PM

The attorneys for Drew Peterson have proven to be more entertaining than Peterson in the aftermath of his conviction for murdering his third wife Kathleen Savio. Now two attorneys who weren’t part of the Peterson trial have entered the fray.

Attorneys John Paul Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez filed a motion in Will County Court Tuesday afternoon seeking a new trial for Peterson and that they now represent him. That came as news to the current leader of Peterson’s legal team, Joel Brodsky, who told WLS-TV Carroll had “gone rogue” and was a “whack job.” Brodsky told the Chicago Sun-Times that Carroll was retained to help Peterson retain his police pension following his conviction. “He is boggled. That’s Drew’s word, ‘boggled’ as to how he did this.”

Carroll and Gonzalez said they met with Peterson at the family’s request. They met with Peterson twice and, according to Gonzalez, he requested they file the motion, which listed 13 claims of ineffective counsel. Carroll told the Sun-Times he kept the message from Peterson’s family. Carroll accused Brodsky of lying about his courtroom experience, forced Peterson into engaging in the pre-trial publicity that cemented public opinion of him as an arrogant buffoon, and threatened to share privileged information about Peterson if Brodsky was fired.

Brodsky has come under criticism post-trial for bringing Harry Smith, the divorce attorney for Kathleen Savio, to the witness stand during the trial, despite warnings from the rest of Peterson’s legal team and Will County Judge Edward Burmila that the move could backfire. Smith testified that Peterson’s missing fourth wife Stacy told him Peterson confessed Savio’s murder to her, a statement admissible under Illinois’ “hearsay law.” Jurors in the trial said Smith’s testimony was what sealed their vote to convict Peterson, and Peterson co-counsel Steven Greenberg called Brodsky’s decision “one of the worst mistakes in the history of jurisprudence.” (Greenberg was fired by Brodsky for providing ineffective counsel after the trial.)

Given that Peterson was convicted based on hearsay testimony, Carroll does have a point about ineffective counsel. But it’s going to be hard to prove Brodsky and his team was ineffective, given its sheer size: Peterson had five other attorneys. Civil rights attorney Kathleen Zellner told the Chicago Tribune this could be a rare occasion where the argument could be made.

We could find out who represents Peterson moving forward Friday. That’s when Carroll, Gonzalez, Brodsky and Peterson co-counsel Joseph “The Shark” Lopez will be in court with Peterson. Burmila is expected to ask Peterson directly who represents him.