ILNews

Deputy prosecutor fired after arrest

Jennifer Nelson
May 8, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A deputy Madison County Prosecutor has been fired following her arrest for allegedly driving drunk. Deputy Prosecutor Janine L. Sutton was arrested for operating while intoxicated, a Class A misdemeanor.

Madison County Prosecutor Thomas Broderick Jr. released a statement Thursday regarding Sutton's termination, saying he was aware the allegations hadn't been proven yet in court but she needed to be fired to "ensure that the public have trust and confidence in the manner that we prosecute cases." It would be inappropriate to have a deputy prosecutor with a pending charge continue to prosecute other people charged with a similar crime, he said, adding that the "alleged inappropriate conduct would have had to occur over a period of time during working hours."

Sutton was involved in a single-car accident in Anderson around 4:15 p.m. Wednesday. Sutton admitted to drinking some wine earlier in the day and said she was on prescription medication that may impair her driving if she drinks alcohol, according to the Anderson Police Department's affidavit of probable cause. Sutton failed several field sobriety tests and blew .11 percent BrAC following the crash. When police arrived, she said she had to swerve in order to miss hitting someone who stopped suddenly in front of her. She later asked how her car was damaged because she claimed it couldn't have been from the accident. Witnesses said Sutton was stopped at a traffic light and then simply drove off the road without ever slowing down once it turned green.

Broderick filed a petition for the appointment of a special prosecutor for Sutton's case in order to avoid impropriety. Sutton, 49, was admitted to the bar in 1993, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys.

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