Attorneys John Carroll and Michelle Gonzalez say they do, and they filed a motion in court asking for a new trial and calling attorney Joel Brodsky ineffective counsel. Peterson was found guilty in the 2004 murder of his third wife, Kathleen Savio, earlier this year. Brodsky was his attorney.
Gonzalez and Carroll say the motion was filed at Peterson's request.
"The family called us and told us to go meet with him. We met with him twice and he specifically asked us to do this, and that's why we did it," Michelle Gonzalez said.
However, Brodsky insists his client never gave Carroll or Gonzalez permission to represent him or file the motion, which cites 13 allegations of ineffective counsel claims. Many accuse Brodsky of lying to Peterson, including an allegation that Brodsky implied he had murder trial experience, which he didn't. Peterson was Brodsky's first murder case. The motion also alleges Brodsky pushed Peterson into pre-trial publicity and ignored his client's request to waive a jury trial.
"I read the motion. A lot in there is not true. I don't know where the information came from," Joe Lopez, who represented Peterson during the murder trial, said.
Lopez said it was Brodsky's decision to call Savio's divorce attorney, Harry Smith, as a witness. Smith's testimony tipped the scales toward the prosecution and many jurors say it sealed the deal for a guilty verdict. Carroll and Gonzalez included that decision in their motion.
Despite that, Lopez does not believe the motion will hold water.
"I'm sure the court will make an inquiry and get to the bottom of this, because a slot of shenanigans and hanky-panky has been happening and I'm sure the court wants resolution as to who will represent Drew and how this case will proceed," Lopez said.
Brodsky would not go on camera, but called Carroll a "whack job" who had "gone rogue" during a phone conversation with ABC 7.
On Friday, all four attorneys are scheduled to meet in court. Judge Edward Burmila is likely to ask Peterson in open court who represents him.