Peterson’s lawyer Rusty Hardin wrote the motion opposing the prosecution’s motion to remove Montgomery County Judge Kelly Case because he called the lawyers on the case media “whores” and has a history of animosity toward District Attorney Brett Ligon.

Hardin called the state’s motion “a tale of sound and fury, one that is, by turns, long on vitriol and ad hominem attacks, but tellingly short on legal analysis, and utterly silent on legal authority.”

A hearing on the prosecution’s motion is set for 1:30 p.m. Wednesday in front of Judge Jeff Walker, from Fort Worth. Hardin argued the motion is so lacking the court should toss it out without a hearing.

Ligon asked Case to recuse himself last week, but Case declined, so the prosecution filed the formal petition.

Hardin cites several reasons the state’s motion should fail, claiming it lacks sound procedural and substantive footing.

Adrian Peterson’s lawyer’s 15-page motion was released on Thursday. “As Abraham Lincoln once said of a slippery rival, ‘He had such a high regard for the truth that he uses it sparingly.’” Rusty Hardin, Peterson’s lawyer

Procedurally, Hardin said prosecutors failed to file their motion sooner. The incidents with Case that trouble Ligon date back to 2012. More recently, the media “whores” comment was made Oct. 2, six days before Peterson’s arraignment on Oct. 8.

Ligon brought up the judge’s comment as that hearing was about to start, asking the judge both for an apology and to recuse himself. The judge promptly apologized but declined the latter request.

On the substance, the defense lawyer said the prosecution’s motion also fails to cite a single supporting case. “As Abraham Lincoln once said of a slippery rival, ‘He had such a high regard for the truth that he uses it sparingly.’ Similarly, the state apparently has such a high regard for controlling case law that it does not use it at all,” the motion said.

Hardin pointed out that Texas law sets a “high threshold” for the recusal of a judge. Ligon’s motion doesn’t meet the requirement because it’s “based almost entirely on conclusory statements, conjecture, and mere assertions of bias.”

Similarly, he dismissed the state’s claims of bias stemming from the judge’s decision to allow media in the courtroom and agreement to a Dec. 1 trial date. He called the media “whores” remark the “ultimate red herring recusal allegation.”

Trial date tentatively Dec. 1

Peterson has been sidelined since he was indicted Sept. 11 for whipping his 4-year-old child with a switch, leaving red welts visible days later when the boy went to a regularly scheduled Minnesota doctor’s visit. The running back has maintained he wasn’t maliciously injuring his child but believed he was reasonably disciplining him in the same manner he was raised.

He is on the NFL commissioner’s exempt list, so he is still drawing his $11.75 million salary.

Peterson was indicted on one felony count of reckless or negligent injury to a child. In a footnote to his new petition, Hardin mentioned that the grand jury hearing Peterson’s case initially declined to indict him and did so only after additional evidence was presented.

During the arraignment, Case set Nov. 4 as the next hearing date on the Peterson matter and agreed to a tentative trial date of Dec. 1. Those dates depend in large part on whether Case continues as the judge.

Once the judge matter is settled, attention will turn to the prosecution’s motion to revoke Peterson’s $15,000 bond through Set Em Free Bail Bonds in Houston.

Before taking a required drug test last Wednesday, Peterson told the test administrator he had smoked a little marijuana. He didn’t say when he smoked it, but on the basis of that admission, prosecutions filed the revocation request.

The results of his drug test haven’t been released.

@rochelleolson