ILNews

Ex-Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi defends himself in court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

While the ex-prosecutor in the state’s largest county waits to hear whether he will get a black mark for misconduct on his record, the Marion County disciplinary action against Carl Brizzi has broader professional conduct implications for attorneys throughout Indiana.

Testifying before Shelby Circuit Court Judge Charles O’Connor just a week after leaving the elected prosecutor’s office, Brizzi defended himself on the stand against disciplinary charges alleging he violated the Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct by making public statements on two pending high-profile murder cases in 2006 and 2008.
 

Brizzi Brizzi

The man who served as the county prosecutor for two terms from 2003 to 2010 appeared in court Jan. 7 on the disciplinary case against him. Two continuances last year prolonged the hearing until after he’d finished his eight years in office.

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a formal complaint against Brizzi Oct. 1, 2009, accusing him of making statements that went beyond the public information purpose and prejudiced the two cases, in violation of Rules 3.8(f) and Rule 3.6(a).

One of the allegations stems from an April 2008 news conference when Brizzi made statements about accused multi-state serial killer Bruce Mendenhall. The second allegation involves a 2006 news release about the Indianapolis Hamilton Avenue slayings, where seven people were killed and Brizzi went after co-defendants Desmond Turner and James Stewart. At the time of charging, Brizzi noted in a news release, “They weren’t going to let anyone or anything get in the way of what they believed to be an easy score.”

While investigation on this disciplinary matter began in 2007 and the disciplinary commission filed official charges in late 2009, the litigation has moved slowly because of the commission’s broad request for discovery from multiple media outlets in Indianapolis.

Originally, a two-day hearing was set before Judge O’Connor in April 2010 and then continued until October. But the ongoing discovery issues that motions described as “broad” and “voluminous” pushed the hearing back to January 2011.

Brizzi is being represented by Indianapolis attorney Kevin McGoff of Bingham McHale.

Arguing for the disciplinary commission, attorney David Hughes said Brizzi’s comments were prejudicial against the individuals. He asked questions during the hearing that implied the motivation behind the statements was part of a larger message the prosecutor was sending at a time when Indianapolis was experiencing higher crime trends and, in 2006, when Brizzi faced a heated re-election race.

“In today’s media market, what a prosecutor says in public really matters, especially in a big market like Indianapolis,” Hughes said.

Attorney Matthew Symons, who now works as a deputy prosecutor in Marion County and previously served as Brizzi’s media relations manager and his 2006 campaign manager, was the only other person aside from Brizzi to testify. He spoke about the prosecutor’s office standards and practices in holding press conferences and communicating with the media.

On the stand, Brizzi furthered Symons’ explanation and said he strived as prosecutor to help explain what was happening in his office and with criminal proceedings in a way that the public could easily understand. He discussed how he found out about the Hamilton Avenue slayings when he was out of the state in 2006 and how he always worked to be mindful of due process and potential prejudice issues.

At one point, Brizzi described how he always said or made it clear that the charges were only allegations and not meant to insinuate a person had actually been found guilty before the commencement of court proceedings.

“It’s a delicate balance you have to strike,” he said in reference to a question from his attorney about how the conduct rules apply to prosecutor statements. “The public doesn’t know what we’re reviewing in the office, so we must tell them. I want to give out as much information as I can to the public, without interfering with a defendant’s right to a fair trial.”

Brizzi testified that he could not recall the particular context behind the isolated comments that are alleged to be rule violations. Because the Turner and Mendenhall cases were both capital cases involving the death penalty, Brizzi said he wanted to make sure the general public understood why he was making such a “monumental decision” involving both defendants.

Hughes argued that the comments were prejudicial, and during the hearing he and Brizzi sparred over whether the statements were valid based on public record and basic public knowledge at the time. Brizzi contends that in his initial decision to pursue the death penalty against Turner it was important to talk about the five aggravators that were “facts” and led him to make that decision; but Hughes dismissed that notion and said it amounted to the prosecutor attempting to try the case through the media.

On the broader statewide implication points, Hughes argued the statements were prejudicial to the administration of justice as soon as they were spoken and that “actual prejudice” of jurors shouldn’t be required as proof. He cited a comment by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy indicating that actual prejudice shouldn’t be the test in these misconduct actions because then any “Disciplinary Commission is a fool’s errand.”

Responding to a specific question from Hughes, the former prosecutor said he has never witnessed public opinion shaping criminal proceedings. The answer drew a cynical response from Hughes, and Brizzi clarified his answer to say he has never observed that impact because the process ensures a defendant receives a fair trial and that he has not been in the practice of filing charges without the belief of a person’s guilt based on the evidence.

Though Brizzi said he isn’t sure whether Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) have a built-in timeline that might distinguish between statements being made in real-time versus two years later, his understanding has always been that the professional conduct rules focus on the bigger picture of ensuring a fair trial and unbiased criminal proceedings.

“If it’s a strict ‘you said it’ test, then we would’ve been done a long time ago,” he said. “I said it and admit that. But it’s not (the test), and I don’t think this was prejudicial to the trial and the evidence shows that. I do not believe I violated those rules.”

Both parties have until Feb. 25 to submit proposed findings, and then Judge O’Connor will issue a report for the Indiana Supreme Court’s review. The state’s five justices are the final decision makers on this matter, and if no agreement is reached between the parties then the justices will decide whether any misconduct occurred and, if so, if sanctions are necessary.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • blind justice or ulterior motives
    If he had to bury his child had he/she been the victim instead of Eric Wells, would he have dismissed the charges against the Indy police officer? Ambiguity in the case as he claimed?? He needs to stand up like a man and answer the question.

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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT