OUTSIDE CHICAGO -- A local lawyer filed court papers blaming Drew Peterson's lead attorney Joel Brodsky for blowing the Drew Peterson case.
John Paul Carroll's motion for a new trial also accuses Brodsky of lying to Peterson and pushing the convicted wife-killer into the public eye to make money.
"Attorney Brodsky assured Mr. Peterson that they would both make money from the publicity attorney Brodsky had generated about the case and that they were in this business venture together," Carroll, of Naperville, wrote in his motion for a new trial "based on the ineffective assistance of attorney Joel Brodsky."
"This was the prime motivation of attorney Brodsky, rather than being motivated to provide the best legal defense for his client," the motion says.
ALSO READ: Drew Peterson's Mother Dies
Carroll's motion also accuses Brodsky of lying to Peterson about his alleged lack of experience or talent as a lawyer, his legal rights, and other unspecified matters.
On top of that, Carroll claims that when Brodsky got caught lying, he threatened to "publicly reveal some things that were discussed between him and Peterson."
And, as have several others involved in the trial, he blamed Brodsky for fumbling the case by calling Wheaton attorney Harry Smith to the witness stand.
Ostensibly called to tarnish the reputation of Peterson's fourth wife, Stacy Peterson, Smith instead repeatedly hammered home to the jury that Stacy supposedly told him how Peterson killed his third wife, Kathleen Savio.
Jurors later said the guilty verdict they handed down hinged on Smith's testimony.
Brodsky failed to return calls for comment on Carroll's allegations that he is a liar and that he performed less than adeptly in his defense of Peterson.
Likewise, Carroll could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Carroll had been involved in Peterson's legal affairs before. He appeared in court on Peterson's behalf in December 2007 when the accused wife-killer was seeking the return of his guns and vehicles from the state police.
After Peterson was arrested and charged with Savio's murder in May 2009, Brodsky said Carroll would be joining the former Bolingbrook cop's defense team, but he never filed an appearance.
Another of Peterson's attorneys, Joseph "Shark" Lopez, said that fact alone should have precluded Carroll's filing of the motion.
"It looks like the vultures are circling the dead coyotes," said Lopez, who anticipated a heated hearing on Carroll's motion in front of Judge Edward Burmila on Friday.
"It's going to be so important, the Shark's going to swim out there—fins up," Lopez said.
Another of Peterson's attorneys, Steve Greenberg, whom Peterson supposedly fired but seems to be back on the case, also may attend Friday's hearing. When contacted Tuesday night, Greenberg first asked why the hearing had been called. He then failed to respond when told it was for Carroll's motion.
If Carroll makes his way onto Peterson's defense team, it won't be his first high-profile murder trial. In 2007 he defended brothers Jaime and Edgar Castro, who were accused of a drug killing in Kane County.
Carroll lost the case. After the Castros were convicted, he suddenly remembered that prosecutors had offered a 15-year plea deal and admitted he neglected to mention this to his clients.
Judge Timothy Sheldon allowed the Castros to take deal after all. If Sheldon had not done so, Carroll has said, Edgar Castro would have been sentenced to 45 years and Jaime Castro would have gotten 35 years.