Ad deja vu

October 25, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Reporter Mike Hoskins wrote today's post.

Consider 2010 an echo of the general election season back in 2008, when two attorneys were vying for the Indiana Attorney General post.

One ran an advertisement criticizing how the opponent had previously represented clients that are of the type that the AG would have to prosecute. Some attorneys took issue with that, saying it’s not fair to criticize lawyers for the clients they keep.

Now, the legal community in Marion County has a sense of déjà vu.

Leading up to the Nov. 2 general election, the Marion County Prosecutor’s race has brought those same issues to light. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi is leaving office at year’s end, and Republican candidate Mark Massa and Democratic candidate Terry Curry are battling for that post. Both have servitors in the state’s largest county, and Curry has also served as a defense attorney and mediator while Massa has most recently spent his time as counsel to Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Recently, Massa ran a television ad condemning Curry for defending a convicted child molester on appeal. A video is online at YouTube. The case involved Steven Young, and in 2001 on direct appeal the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the man’s convictions and 80-year aggregate sentence.

Using that as ad material, Massa created the commercial entitled, “One Question for Terry Curry” and poses whether the Democratic candidate can “get tough with child predators” when he has “no problem defending them?”

That ad has caused some Indianapolis attorneys to speak out against Massa, criticizing him for that ad.

Bob Hammerle – who raised concerns about the same issue in the 2008 AG race and unsuccessfully requested the Disciplinary Commission to weigh in – has spoken out. Lawyers shouldn’t be judged by the clients they keep, he believes, and says: “I’m so disappointed with Mark Massa that I can’t even find the words to describe it. This shouldn’t be allowed to stand from the lawyers’ perspective.”

Attorneys Jon Little and Ryan Ray are also disappointed and disgusted, saying that Massa has lost their votes.

“Your ad against Mr. Curry is essentially condemning him for upholding our oath and protecting the Constitution,” says a letter from Little and Ray to candidate Massa. “As attorneys we should be doing everything in our power to bolster the confidence in our judicial system and the offices of the court. In running your misleading advertisement, that condemns an officer of the court for doing his job, you have violated the very oath of the office of prosecutor should be so desperately trying to abide by following the current administration. You have disrespected the courts of justice, judicial officers, and the Constitution. Your condemnation of the actions of a fellow attorney simply upholding our sworn oath and the Constitution raises serious questions about your own integrity.”

At this point, no one has said they’ve contacted the Disciplinary Commission about Massa’s ad. But when Hammerle did that two years ago, he didn’t get very far. At the time, the agency didn’t find an appropriate basis for formal action because if dealt with public affairs and political discourse – the heart of the First Amendment.

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
  1. 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.

  2. 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?

  3. 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

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT