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

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT