ILNews

Commission urges discipline for former Marion County prosecutor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court’s Disciplinary Commission wants the state's highest court to find former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi committed misconduct when he made statements about two high-profile cases he handled as prosecutor. The commission indicated that Brizzi should have known that his comments could impact public perception and deprive defendants of fair trials.

In a 44-page review petition filed with the Supreme Court this week, the commission reiterated its argument in the case against the former prosecutor. The focus is on whether the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct require “actual prejudice” in proving an attorney’s statements go beyond what is allowed and damage a defendant’s ability to receive a fair trial.

The disciplinary commission filed a formal complaint against Brizzi in October 2009, accusing him of making statements that went beyond the public information purpose and prejudiced the cases. It argues that the statements amounted to violations of Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.8 and 3.6. In an April 2008 news conference, Brizzi made statements about accused multi-state serial killer Bruce Mendenhall, and a second allegation involves a 2006 news release about the Hamilton Avenue slayings in Indianapolis, where seven people were killed and Brizzi initially sought the death penalty. In that news release, Brizzi said the defendants “weren't going to let anyone or anything get in the way of what they believed to be an easy score.”

Shelby Circuit Judge Charles O’Connor held a disciplinary hearing in January to hear testimony, and commission attorney David Hughes said Brizzi’s comments were prejudicial against the individuals and that he should have known they could impact the fairness. He issued his hearing officer report in June and found in the former prosecutor’s favor. O’Connor recommended that disciplinary charges be dismissed on the grounds that the comments Brizzi made years ago fell under the safe harbor provision of the professional conduct rules and that pre-trial publicity didn’t actually prejudice the defendants.

The disciplinary commission disagrees, saying the hearing officer erroneously imposed a subjective standard on both rules and focused on whether the specific public statements, in hindsight, actually worked to prejudice the defendants.

“If Rule 3.6 were held to have no real practical application in a situation such as the case at bar where a considerable time elapsed between the date of the statements and the beginning of trial, then a prosecutor could control his professional discipline destiny by merely causing a considerable delay of the proceedings as to attempt to avoid ‘actual prejudice,’” the brief says. “The Commission is not saying that is what happened here in connection with the subject murder case, but these are very likely some of the reasons why Rule 3.6 is written the way it is, namely, one whereby the ‘reasonable likely’ standard is applied to offending comments as of the time they are made, and not by whether it can be proved that the prejudicial effect of them is still lingering in the public several years later at trial.”

Indiana has little caselaw on the subject of pre-trial publicity in the context of disciplinary rules. The disciplinary commission brief points to a 1999 Indiana Supreme Court case as well as other rulings from state and federal courts nationwide.

The justices have final say in the case and on what, if any, misconduct occurred and sanctions that might be imposed.

Brizzi left the prosecutor’s office at the end of 2010 and has opened his own solo practice in Indianapolis.
 

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT