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. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT