Drew Peterson's Ex-Lawyer Can't Reveal What Happened To Stacy: Court

JOLIET, IL — Joel Brodsky, the former high-profile criminal defense lawyer for ex-Bolingbrook police sergeant and convicted murderer Drew Peterson, cannot disclose his prior conversations with Peterson in which Brodsky claims to know what happened to Stacy Peterson, Drew's fourth wife whose body has never been found.

A 29-page ruling was issued by the Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District. The ruling is a victory for Peterson, who has a post-conviction motion assigned to Will County Circuit Judge Dave Carlson now that his case's longtime presiding judge, Ed Burmila, has retired.

Former Peterson Lawyer Brodsky Takes Aim At Alderman's Seat, Lightfoot

"The trial court got it right when it characterized this principle as a bedrock of our legal system. It is absolutely essential that a client have the ability to speak confidentially to their attorney. For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion. The judgment of the circuit court of Will County is accordingly affirmed," the appeals court ruled.

Ten years ago, in 2012, Peterson was convicted of killing his third wife, Kathleen Savio, of Bolingbrook, and given a 38-year prison sentence. For Peterson's murder trial at the old Will County Courthouse, Brodsky served as Peterson's main criminal defense lawyer.

Peterson was sentenced to another 40 years in a jailhouse murder-for-hire plot that had targeted State's Attorney James Glasgow.

On Oct. 19, 2021, Peterson, who is serving his sentence at the Indiana State Prison in Michigan City, filed his post-conviction motion, accusing Brodsky of providing ineffective assistance of counsel at Peterson's murder trial, lying about his experience defending accused killers, encouraging Peterson to do a media blitz to increase Brodsky's fame and threatening to withdraw as chief trial lawyer if Peterson decided to testify in his own defense, according to the opinion issued by the Third District appeals court.

Then, seven months ago, Brodsky sat down with WGN News of Chicago for a TV interview about Stacy Peterson's disappearance.

According to the appeals court opinion, Brodsky told WGN, "It’s something that weighs on my conscience. I would never do anything that would hurt a former client, but he’s in prison, he’s never getting out. So, if he’s a man, he’d say 'I’m done, here’s what happened,' so people can have closure.

"I’m thinking about maybe revealing what happened to Stacy and where she is. I know everything about both of (Peterson’s) wives—everything."

The May 17 WGN article was headlined, "Drew Peterson’s former attorney considers revealing killer cop’s secrets."

The day after the WGN interview with Brodsky aired, Peterson filed an emergency petition with Will County's judiciary, arguing Brodsky's behavior was in conflict with the Illinois Rules of Professional Conduct of 2010 and the canons of ethics applicable to attorneys, court records indicate.

In May, Burmila granted Peterson's petition, stating: “Petitioner’s Emergency Order is GRANTED, and Joel Brodsky is hereby enjoined from speaking about his representation of Mr. Peterson and from disseminating or disclosing any information regarding such representation, or any information obtained in the course of such representation, to any media outlet or to any individuals other than his own counsel. This order to remain in effect until further order of this Court.”

According to the appeals court opinion made public on Monday: "In this appeal, the sole issue is whether the circuit court erred by granting Peterson’s emergency motion and entering the May 19, 2022, order after Brodsky’s WGN News television interview and the subsequent written article. Brodsky raises several arguments to challenge that ruling, including that the circuit court lacked both personal and subject matter jurisdiction, the circuit court’s order constituted an invalid prior restraint of speech, defendant’s motion was legally insufficient, and Peterson waived the privilege that attached to the communications relating to Stacy. For the reasons explained below, we reject Brodsky’s arguments."

According to the appeals court, Brodsky maintained that Will County's Circuit Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Brodsky’s comments to WGN News referred only to Stacy and that he “never said he was thinking about revealing what happened to Kathy Savio."

"We find this argument singularly unconvincing," the Illinois court of appeals ruled. "While Brodsky’s interview did focus on the whereabouts of Stacy, he specifically stated, 'I know everything about both of his wives— everything.' It is difficult to conceive how disclosure of Peterson’s role in the disappearance of Stacy would not taint any jury pool in a new trial for the murder of Savio."

In addition to that, Brodsky challenged Judge Burmila's May 19 order as a violation of his freedom of speech.

"He articulates this challenge by maintaining that the order is over broad and vague and there is neither evidence nor findings to support the order," the appeals judges agreed.

"While we acknowledge that prior restraints should not be justified by mere possibilities, we find the character of the present evil undeniable and its likelihood palpable. These conclusions are supported by Brodsky’s obvious lack of respect for the attorney-client privilege. We conclude that the circuit court’s May 19, 2022, order, which operated as a prior restraint of Brodsky’s speech, was necessary due to the clear and present danger or reasonable likelihood of a serious and imminent threat to Peterson’s right to a potential new trial," the appeals court wrote.

"Brodsky could not be allowed to so brazenly threaten to disseminate, to the public, the contents of the privileged communications at issue in this case. Further, we conclude that, in light of the particular statements made by Brodsky in the WGN News television interview and subsequent written article, the circuit court’s May 19, 2022, order was neither over broad nor vague."

For more, read the entire 29-page opinion by the Illinois Third District court of appeals.