ILNews

Bisard trial costs Allen County nearly $26,000

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Allen County court that conducted the criminal trial of a former Indianapolis police officer accused of killing a man and injuring two others while driving intoxicated has totaled up how much Marion County owes it: $25,588.13.

The trial of former Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer David Bisard was moved to Allen County from Marion County due to pretrial publicity. Bisard was convicted in November of Class B felony operating with a blood-alcohol concentration higher than 0.15; Class C felonies operating while intoxicated causing death and reckless homicide; and Class D felonies OWI causing serious injury, operating with a BAC 0.08 causing injury, OWI causing serious injury, operating with a BAC of 0.08, and two counts of criminal recklessness. He was sentenced to 13 years.

The trial was conducted in Allen Superior Judge John Surbeck’s court over the course of 17 days. The Allen Superior Court and the Allen County clerk have submitted paperwork to the Allen County auditor, which will then send it to the Marion County auditor. The Indiana Supreme Court released the change of venue record and claim Wednesday.

The most expensive costs were mileages, meals, lodging, per diems and materials paid to or for jurors at $18,592.58; and “all other expenses necessarily incurred by the county due to this change of venue” which notes “(Overtime Hours for Sheriff) at $4,260.80. The one-page form also notes it cost $1,750 to house Bisard during the trial.

In August 2010, Bisard’s squad car crashed into motorcyclists stopped at an intersection in Indianapolis. Eric Wells was killed in the crash; Mary Mills and Kurt Weekly were severely injured. A blood draw taken the day of the crash came back with a 0.19 percent BAC, although responding officers at the scene did not note any signs of impairment regarding Bisard.

 

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT