Second continuance for Brizzi

October 26, 2010
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Lawyer reporter Michael W. Hoskins wrote this blog post.

By the time Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi faces a disciplinary hearing on alleged misconduct about how he publicly discussed pending cases, he’ll have finished his term and will no longer be prosecutor in the state’s largest county.

A two-day hearing was set to start today before Shelby Circuit Judge Charles O’Connor, but both parties asked for a continuance because of discovery issues that have been ongoing for most of the year. A new date is set for January, and this is the second time the hearing has been pushed back – it was originally set for the end of April.

Brizzi has denied that he’s violated any professional conduct rules, as the Disciplinary Commission accused him of last year. A formal complaint filed Oct. 1, 2009, alleges the prosecutor’s public comments about two murder cases crossed the line and violated conduct rules. Brizzi's statements went beyond the public information purpose and prejudiced the pair of cases, according to the complaint, and amounted to violations of Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.8(f) and Rule 3.6(a). One issue came with an April 2008 news conference where Brizzi made statements about accused multi-state serial killer Bruce Mendenhall, and a second allegation involves a 2006 news release about the Indianapolis’ Hamilton Ave. slayings, where seven people were killed and Brizzi initially sought the death penalty. A comment in that news release stated about the defendants, "They weren't going to let anyone or anything get in the way of what they believed to be an easy score."

"The above public statements of the Respondent ... were not necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and did not serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and the same were extrajudicial comments that had a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation ..." the complaint says.

Responding to the complaint, Brizzi's answer came after two previous extensions that delayed the case for about three months. He admits to the general information about the underlying cases the statements were made about, but declined to admit or deny the specific claims cited in the complaint because the documents they were reportedly taken from were not included as part of the verified complaint.

After the April hearings were postponed because of discovery, the Oct. 26-27 dates were set. The Disciplinary Commission attorney and Indianapolis attorney Kevin McGoff, who represents Brizzi, filed a continuance motion on Oct. 19. The motion delves into the “broad” and “voluminous” discovery requests to Indianapolis media outlets, as well as requests that Brizzi’s office couldn’t fill and had to contact the county’s information services agency to explore. Some of those documents have just recently been received, and more will likely follow, the motion says.

Now, the hearings are set for January - a time that Brizzi won’t be in office any more since he isn’t seeking a third term.

While the hearing officer and ultimately the Indiana Supreme Court can find that misconduct occurred and decide a penalty is warranted, the fact that Brizzi will at that time be out of office could factor into the decision-making on what type of penalty – if any – is necessary. Attorneys can’t be faulted for lingering discovery issues that sometimes just can’t be avoided, but some may find it disappointing that this matter couldn’t have been closer to resolution by the time Brizzi leaves office. The public’s confidence in this elected office is shaken. And some in the legal community have said their confidence in this elected prosecutor has been shaken. This continuance means he gets to finish his term without answering to these specific allegations.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Playing the Game
    It is a real shame that justice is not determined by what is right or wrong, truth or lie, just or unjust, but all about how you play the game, find the loopholes, and then skip scot-free. We sure do have the best justice that money and more money and laywers and more lawyers can buy.
  • Brizzi
    Brizzi routinely made announcements to the press about big busts, which later turned out to be busts as cases, because the cases were dropped or the jury found defendants not guilty. Brizzi was a show man & politician. He was a lousy prosecutor.

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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT