Defense attorney's arranged drug buy illegal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a Bloomington attorney’s argument that his arrangement of a drug buy in an attempt to discredit a state’s witness against his client wasn’t a criminal offense because he’s “on the same legal footing” as prosecutors or police in planning controlled buys.

David Schalk was convicted of Class A misdemeanor attempted possession of marijuana after he arranged a drug buy with a state witness in his client’s trial for dealing in methamphetamine. Schalk wanted to prove that the witness was still dealing drugs in order to impeach his credibility at trial. Schalk convinced the two friends of his client to arrange a drug buy with the witness. They did so, but ended up keeping the drugs unbeknownst to Schalk. Schalk was unable to get a police officer to take the drugs and even contacted Monroe County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Robert Miller about what to do with the drugs.

Miller later contacted the sheriff’s department to report Schalk’s involvement in the scheme to buy marijuana from the witness. He was charged with Class D felony conspiracy to possess marijuana, which was reduced to the Class A misdemeanor attempted possession of marijuana after he waived his right to a jury trial. Schalk was sentenced to three months, suspended to non-supervised probation.

Schalk never denied providing the money for the drug buy, which his client’s mother reimbursed because she thought the money was needed for depositions. He argued that his conduct didn’t constitute a criminal offense and that there should be an exception to culpability under criminal statute for a defense attorney who arranges a drug buy to discredit a witness against his client at trial.

“While Schalk contends that his only intent was to deliver the marijuana to law enforcement or the court for use in defending his client at trial, such a purpose does not immunize him from prosecution,” wrote Judge Edward Najam in David E. Schalk v. State of Indiana, No. 53A01-1005-CR-210.

Schalk also argued, citing the statute allowing for a “citizen’s arrest” that the Indiana Legislature didn’t intend to prohibit residents from “taking prohibited drugs away from dealers so the drugs could be kept in police custody, used as evidence in court, and destroyed.” But there’s no evidence he tried to arrest Hyde, the judge continued, but he did arrange an illegal drug buy.

They also rejected Schalk’s argument that he has standing to assert his right to defend his client under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution.

“We agree that Schalk’s client has a right to legal representation guaranteed by both the federal and state constitutions,” Judge Najam wrote. “But we reject Schalk’s contention that an attorney, an officer of the court, who has given an oath to support the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Indiana is authorized to engage in criminal activity in defense of his client under either the Sixth Amendment or Article I, Section 13.”

A footnote stated that the trial court in Schalk’s client’s proceeding removed him as counsel after a hearing.


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. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.