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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT