ILNews

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.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. "associates are becoming more mercenary. The path to partnership has become longer and more difficult so they are chasing short-term gains like high compensation." GOOD FOR THEM! HELL THERE OUGHT TO BE A UNION!

  2. Let's be honest. A glut of lawyers out there, because law schools have overproduced them. Law schools dont care, and big law loves it. So the firms can afford to underpay them. Typical capitalist situation. Wages have grown slowly for entry level lawyers the past 25 years it seems. Just like the rest of our economy. Might as well become a welder. Oh and the big money is mostly reserved for those who can log huge hours and will cut corners to get things handled. More capitalist joy. So the answer coming from the experts is to "capitalize" more competition from nonlawyers, and robots. ie "expert systems." One even hears talk of "offshoring" some legal work. thus undercutting the workers even more. And they wonder why people have been pulling for Bernie and Trump. Hello fools, it's not just the "working class" it's the overly educated suffering too.

  3. And with a whimpering hissy fit the charade came to an end ... http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2016/07/27/all-charges-dropped-against-all-remaining-officers-in-freddie-gray-case/ WHISTLEBLOWERS are needed more than ever in a time such as this ... when politics trump justice and emotions trump reason. Blue Lives Matter.

  4. "pedigree"? I never knew that in order to become a successful or, for that matter, a talented attorney, one needs to have come from good stock. What should raise eyebrows even more than the starting associates' pay at this firm (and ones like it) is the belief systems they subscribe to re who is and isn't "fit" to practice law with them. Incredible the arrogance that exists throughout the practice of law in this country, especially at firms like this one.

  5. Finally, an official that realizes that reducing the risks involved in the indulgence in illicit drug use is a great way to INCREASE the problem. What's next for these idiot 'proponents' of needle exchange programs? Give drunk drivers booze? Give grossly obese people coupons for free junk food?

ADVERTISEMENT