Candidate wants prosecutor to step down

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County Republican prosecutor candidate Mark Massa has called on Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, also a Republican, to step down in the wake of a five-month-long Indianapolis Business Journal investigation.

Massa, a former general counsel for Gov. Mitch Daniels and deputy prosecutor in Marion County, on Wednesday announced a series of ethics reforms he plans to enact if elected. Highlights of the plan include a new public integrity unit within the Prosecutor's Office and a whistle-blower hotline for public employees to report malfeasance among elected officials.

He also said the man he hopes to replace should resign before his second four-year term ends Dec. 31. Massa cited a series of "disturbing published reports" detailing Brizzi's business dealings while in office, including an investment with a prolific defense attorney.

"I believe the prosecuting attorney should inspire public confidence, not public cynicism," Massa said in response to questions from reporters outside the federal courthouse in Indianapolis.

"I will work simply for the paycheck from the people every two weeks, and I'll work hard to earn it," he added.

Brizzi has resisted calls from former supporters to resign, and he has a personal interest in sticking around: He will be eligible for a public pension if he finishes his second term. With eight years of service, he would be entitled to earn 24 percent of his highest annual salary of $125,000, or about $30,000 per year once he reaches retirement age, by IBJ's calculation. The IBJ is a sister publication of Indiana Lawyer.

Brizzi, 41, said in a statement late Tuesday that he has no plans to resign.

"I have received no communications from anyone concerning a request to resign, period," Brizzi wrote. "Instead of adding to rumor-mongering or allowing innuendo to substitute for fact, I believe it is in the best interest of our community to focus on real-world issues, such as the safety of our residents and the effective prosecution of criminals."

Massa promised that, if elected, he would not engage in outside business interests, serve on the board of any for-profit company or accept gifts of any kind. reported earlier Wednesday that Massa has been talking with Republican elected officials, seeking their support for a call for Brizzi to resign.
The request for Brizzi to step down comes just days after IBJ exclusively reported on Brizzi's personal intervention last year in a major drug case to offer a reduced sentence to a business partner's client.

Brizzi insisted on a plea deal for Joseph Mobareki that would be acceptable to defense attorney Paul J. Page, despite objections from both law-enforcement officers and his own deputy prosecutors. Brizzi also directed his staff to return $10,000 in cash seized from Mobareki. A year earlier, Page had arranged for Brizzi to own 50 percent of an Elkhart office building worth $900,000 without investing any cash or co-signing a loan.

If Brizzi stepped down before his terms ends, the responsibility under Indiana law to fill his position would fall to the Marion County Republican caucus, which likely would appoint Massa. If Brizzi were removed from office, the governor would appoint a replacement.

State law spells out a process for impeachment by the Indiana General Assembly should a prosecutor be convicted of a misdemeanor. A felony conviction could lead to removal from office by the Indiana Supreme Court.

Questions about the Mobareki case are only the most recent of Brizzi dealings to attract scrutiny. He has invested in public companies affiliated with Timothy Durham, the target of a federal securities fraud investigation. He bought a stake in the downtown Indianapolis restaurant Harry & Izzy's. And he has invested in real estate deals with John Bales, the real estate broker who represented the Prosecutor's Office in its lease deal.

Terry Curry, the Democratic candidate for prosecutor, said Brizzi's involvement in outside investments and business dealings sends the wrong message.
"It is clearly poor judgment to enter into business relationships with anyone while you are the full-time prosecutor of Marion County," Curry said in an interview. "I can absolutely pledge as prosecutor I wouldn't enter into any kind of outside business relationships."


Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?