Drew Peterson wants a federal judge to reverse his 2012 murder conviction in the drowning death of his third wife.
Peterson's attorney, Steve Greenberg, filed a motion in Chicago on Sunday asking that the court re-examine the murder case. The 65-year-old former Bolingbrook police officer is currently serving a 38-year sentence in the death of his third wife, Kathleen Savio and a 40-year sentence for plotting to kill Will County State's Attorney James Glasgow. Peterson is also a suspect in the 2007 disppearance of his fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, but he has not been charged in the case.
The move comes almost exactly one year from the day the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear Peterson's appeal.
The latest motion, called a petition for writ of habeas corpus, centers around the court testimony of divorce attorney Harry Smith who was contacted by Stacy Peterson. Smith testified that Stacy had asked if she would "benefit in the divorce if she accused Drew of killing Kathleen." It was Smith's testimony that brought Stacey's financial motives to light.
The motion also alleges that Peterson was deprived of effective assistance in counsel. In November 2007, Joel Brodsky represented Peterson and the motion alleges instead of advising Peterson to remain quiet, Brodsky devised a "joint media agreement" in which Brodsky would receive 85 percent of proceeds from "harmful public appearances," which were entered as evidence at the murder trial.
The U.S. Supreme court in 2018 refused to take up Peterson's bid and two previous rulings by the Illinois Supreme Court rejected the appeal of his 2012 conviction. Peterson is currently serving his sentence till 2081 in a Indiana federal prison.
“The Trial Court, the Illinois Appellate Court, and the Illinois Supreme Court, have unanimously rejected Peterson’s claim of ineffective assistance of counsel," Brodsky said in a statement Monday. "The reasons that Peterson was convicted have nothing to do with me or any of his counsel. The Illinois Supreme Court put a great deal of work into its well written Opinion, and anyone who wants to know why Peterson was convicted should read it.”