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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT