What was he thinking?

February 17, 2011
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Marion, Ill., attorney was indicted Wednesday in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana for attempting to provide heroin to a federal inmate in the Federal Correctional Complex in Terre Haute.

Robert A. Drew, 68, was arrested in August 2010 after authorities learned an attorney was allegedly bringing drugs into the prison. Law enforcement officials stopped Drew’s car when he entered the prison’s parking lot and found a green leafy substance in his car. Drew also produced a package that was taped on his body that contained a substance that later tested positive for the presence of heroin.

Drew faces a maximum of 20 years in prison and a $250,000 fine. His initial hearing will be scheduled before a U.S. Magistrate Judge in Terre Haute.

I’m always shocked when I read about attorneys blatantly breaking the law. As those who are paid to know the law, when they break it, it’s surprising. Repeatedly smuggling drugs into a federal prison? That’s a dumb move bound to get caught, especially when there are signs up at the prison warning that you and all your belongings are subject to search. It’s also surprising he was able to get away with it several times before he was caught.

According to court documents, Drew said he got the drugs from a package delivered via Federal Express or U.S. Mail. I found an old news article dating to when he was arrested in which he told police he snuck the drugs into the prison because he and his family had been threatened.

I also found a more recent news article in which Drew was shot this January at an Illinois casino. Details were scant on this incident. This guy is not having a good year.

Another article said he was a former county judge and a defense attorney in southern Illinois at the time of his arrest. According to the Attorney Registration & Disciplinary Commission of the Supreme Court of Illinois, Drew was admitted to practice in 1977 in Illinois and is listed as voluntarily retired and not authorized to practice law. No date was given as to when that status took effect, but it did happen within the last 365 days. The ARDC also says that Drew has no public record of discipline or pending proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT
  • Hope he wasn't framed.
    One thing that hit me when reading that story was the fear expressed by several criminal defense attorneys as to how easy it would be for the jailors to frame them for "smuggling" drugs into the jail during jail visits, by simply claiming to have "found" drugs in their briefcase. It certainly isn't beyond the realm of possibility that, especially in smaller jurisdictions, good defense attorneys who make life difficult for law enforcement could find themselves targeted for a little retribution.

    But, at least with what's described here, it seems like this guy wasn't framed.

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT