ILNews

Brizzi regrets perception damage

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If he had it to do over again, Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi said he wouldn't get involved in a real estate deal with a local criminal defense attorney.

The eight-year prosecutor in the state's largest county spoke with Indiana Lawyer today on the heels of recent reports that have damaged his reputation and hampered his public perception. He denied doing anything illegal or unethical, but said he'd take a different path if there was a chance.

"In hindsight, even if I knew there was nothing illegal or unethical being done, if I had to do it all over I wouldn't do it again," Brizzi said. "This creates an appearance issue that's been distracting, and now I have to disprove a negative. It's hard to recover from that. It's not worth it."

In its April 14-27, 2010, edition Indiana Lawyer reported on the controversy, exploring how the state's legal community is watching and learning from what's unfolding in Marion County.

The issues surfaced in an April 3 article in the Indianapolis Business Journal, which is owned by the parent company of Indiana Lawyer. IBJ reported first that Brizzi intervened last year in a drug case to offer a reduced sentence over objections from law enforcement officers and his own deputy prosecutor. He insisted on a plea deal for accused drug dealer Joseph Mobareki that would be acceptable to Indianapolis criminal defense attorney Paul J. Page. Page is a lawyer at Indianapolis-based Baker Pittman & Page and a Brizzi friend, campaign contributor, and business partner on an Elkhart County real estate deal. According to the IBJ report, Brizzi also ordered his staff to return $10,000 in cash seized from Mobareki, and the money was routed through Page.

Other issues involving Brizzi's past campaign donations have been raised in recent months, raising questions about the general role of attorneys contributing to the political campaigns of judges and prosecutors they might appear before or argue against in court.

While not discussing the merits, other prosecutors and attorneys throughout Indiana said the issues are distracting and are a concern for the entire legal community.

Brizzi admits this situation is a public-perception nightmare, and he's devoted to repairing his own reputation and that of the prosecutor's office. He is in the final months of his second term and isn't running for re-election. So far, Brizzi has rejected calls for his early resignation because of the controversy.

With 45,000 cases a year, Brizzi understands that people will be looking at every case for possible questions or issues. That forces him to be even more careful in how he operates and navigates issues he hasn't faced before, he said.

"This is not a cookie-cutter operation, but I have to take extra care in every case that comes before this office," he said. "You can't put that genie back in the bottle."

Brizzi also said that if he were running again, he wouldn't accept campaign contributions from any defense attorneys who might be in the opposing counsel position at some point. He had to raise about $3 million during his last campaign and some of those contributions came from the defense bar in Marion County, he said.

"If prosecutors and judges are going to accept contributions from those in their courts or legal communities, we have to be able to apply that consistently," he said. "If there's the potential for a question, then it makes sense to not accept them."

A larger issue that perhaps warrants consideration from the Indiana General Assembly concerns state statutes that should be tweaked on the issue of campaign contributions in the legal community. The Indianapolis Bar Association in February created a task force to study the issue of campaign contributions and public confidence within the legal system. The IBA exploration follows a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last year in Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., 129 S. Ct. 2252 (2009) that dealt with judicial campaign contributions and subsequent recusals.

At the same time, Brizzi wondered if it might be time to revisit an issue that's been addressed by Indiana State Bar Association advisory ethical opinion No. 2 from 1982, which says there's no per se prohibition of business ventures between prosecutors and defense attorneys.

But there's a line that must be drawn and Brizzi said he doesn't know where that line should be.

"I don't think it's fair to say that elected prosecutors shouldn't be allowed (to be involved in) any other outside business," he said. "What about owning stock or rental property? Where's the line?"

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 have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT