ILNews

Is COA opinion on threat to judge a threat to rights?

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Editor's note: This story has been updated with the state's March 12 response to the transfer petition.

Dan Brewington posted a torrent of online rants after a Dearborn County judge’s 2009 order separated him from his children. The father of two girls blogged that a judge who would do such a thing was a child abuser, corrupt and unethical.

Brewington was incredulous, writing that there never had been a question of his fitness as a parent. His screeds sharpened and also took aim at the qualifications, credentials and conclusions of a Kentucky custody evaluator whose reports the judge relied on to determine Brewington “to be irrational, dangerous and in need of significant counseling.”

IL_Michael_Sutherlin05-15col.jpg Indianapolis attorney Michael K. Sutherlin, shown recently in his office, says the intimidation conviction of Dearborn County blogger Dan Brewington is more than just a First Amendment case. He argues the Indiana Supreme Court should review the case.(IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

“When (Dearborn Circuit) Judge (James) Humphrey figured out that I was not going to stop publicizing the misconduct of his expert, Judge Humphrey dropped the biggest bomb in a judge’s arsenal, he took away my children,” Brewington blogged.

So it went, until Brewington’s actions led a jury to convict him of three counts of intimidation, including a felony count involving Humphrey; perjury; and attempted obstruction of justice. He was sentenced to five years in prison.

The problem is, “There’s been no direct threat to a person,” said Brewington’s Indianapolis attorney, Michael K. Sutherlin. He said the record shows Brewington spoke his mind, often to his detriment in his Internet posts, and Sutherlin acknowledges Brewington was a persistent bother. Nevertheless, Sutherlin said, “They can’t let this stand.”

While Sutherlin focuses on appellate arguments ranging from ineffective counsel to prosecutorial misconduct, an array of interests has come to Brewington’s defense, seeing a First Amendment case and pleading for the Indiana Supreme Court to grant transfer.

threatThe Court of Appeals in January reversed two of Brewington’s misdemeanor intimidation convictions – charges he threatened Humphrey’s wife and the custody evaluator – in Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana, 15A01-1110-CR-550. But the court’s 44-page opinion alarmed First Amendment advocates.

“If the Court of Appeals opinion is allowed to stand, then much criticism of legislators, executive officials, judges, businesspeople, and others – whether by newspapers, advocacy groups, politicians or other citizens – would be punishable,” First Amendment scholar and UCLA professor Eugene Volokh wrote in an amicus brief.

Volokh publishes the popular legal blog, The Volokh Conspiracy, which he used after the Brewington decision to rally like-minded people who saw a danger in an opinion they say too broadly interprets what constitutes a threat under Indiana’s intimidation statute.

In the amicus brief, Volokh wrote, “The Court of Appeals erroneously interpreted Ind. Code Section 35-45-2-1 (2012) to criminalize a broad range of constitutionally protected speech, without recognizing that this would render the statute unconstitutionally overbroad. … The decision also ‘erroneously labeled Brewington’s statements about Judge Humphrey as false statements of fact, rather than the figurative and hyperbolic statements of opinion that they are.’”

“We think that the precedent in the Court of Appeals ruling is wrong and dangerous,” Volokh said in an interview. “The language of the statute needs to be interpreted in a narrow way by the courts.”

The language in the code that got Brewington into trouble was that which defines intimidation as a threat made with the intent “that the other person be placed in fear of retaliation for a prior lawful act” by a threat that “expose(s) the person threatened to hatred, contempt, disgrace, or ridicule; (or) falsely harm(s) the credit or business reputation of the person threatened.”

Terre Haute attorney James Bopp Jr., known for his successful advocacy to eliminate political contribution limits in the Citizens United case, joined Volokh as an amicus brief signer. Amici curiae include groups ranging from the conservative family-values organization Eagle Forum to the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana.

“I think what we’ve been able to establish is there’s a broad public interest that we hope makes this case eligible for the court’s consideration,” Bopp said.

negangard Negangard

“The First Amendment was designed to protect everyone regardless of their viewpoint. Fortunately, people on all sides of the political spectrum can agree if you give government the power to punish people for comments about government officials, you’ve got a problem that would affect everyone,” he said.

Sutherlin said aside from First Amendment concerns, Brewington’s case is a potpourri of irregularity and potential error. He notes, for instance, Brewington’s perjury conviction was based on his grand jury testimony. Brewington said, “I don’t know” whether a person he identified in one of his Internet posts was Humphrey’s wife. Brewington’s answer was interrupted by the prosecutor, Sutherlin said, and that response was the basis of the perjury count.

“Grand juries are meant to seek the truth, not to play ‘gotcha,’” Sutherlin wrote in his petition to transfer.

“It’s a terrible record,” Sutherlin said. “Everywhere (Brewington) turned, he got screwed.”

Humphrey, who didn’t preside in Brewington’s criminal trial, said it would be inappropriate to comment about the case at this time.

But Dearborn-Ohio County Prosecutor Aaron Negangard said Brewington’s case is anything but a First Amendment matter. “The advocates for this have said they don’t want to get into the minutiae,” he said. “Why let the facts get in the way of the case?”

He said jurors decided Brewington’s guilt based on evidence that included witnesses who said Brewington had made them fearful with warnings such as, “I’ll destroy you.”

The state argues in its response to the transfer petition filed March 12 that the Supreme Court should take the case, but for far different reasons. “This Court should affirm Brewington’s conviction for intimidation because Brewington’s communications to and about the judge were truly threatening communications, conveying the threat that he would injure the judge or commit a crime against him,” the brief states.

Brewington’s speech is unprotected, the state claims. “Brewington communicated ‘true threats’ to Judge Humphrey, although he cleverly attempted to disguise them. Brewington’s communications to and about the judge included communications that both indicated Brewington’s capacity for setting things on fire … as well as communications that made clear to the judge that Brewington knew where the judge lived, and knew where the judge’s wife lived.

 “It is a disappointing irony that Brewington, who is no friend of free speech when it is spoken by his victims, now takes refuge in the First Amendment,” the brief says, noting the judge and custody evaluator have a right to perform their duties without fear of violent reprisal. “Brewington does not have the First Amendment right to place them in fear of such violent reprisals for their speech.”

“This was not just someone posting stuff on a blog, but he was threatening our judicial system by putting witnesses in fear,” Negangard said. “You don’t get to communicate threats to someone to get them to change their testimony or not testify. The First Amendment does not protect those types of actions, otherwise, we lose our justice system.”

volokh Volokh

Negangard noted that after Brewington was arrested in Hamilton County, Ohio, evidence was presented at Brewington’s bond hearing from a cellmate who said Brewington had broached the subject of murder-for-hire. Negangard said there was insufficient evidence to bring charges on that allegation.

Brewington’s co-counsel Sam Adams said those allegations are false and have been disproven. Brewington, he said, “never spoke with this inmate and his attorney in Ohio obtained the jail movement logs for both (Brewington and the other inmate), and it showed they were never in the same place at the same time.” ATF agents also investigated the allegation, Adams said.

“Our opinion is it was pretty much a jailhouse snitch trying to get his own charges lessened,” Adams said.

Negangard used the alleged jailhouse threat to secure bond for Brewington in the amount of $600,000. “The bond he sought was really excessive in light of the charges,” Adams said, though it has not been reduced on appeal.

Brewington has been behind bars since he was arrested in 2010. He is eligible for release in September, according to Indiana Department of Correction records.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Turley jump cite here
    Thanks to Advance Indiana for this. http://jonathanturley.org/2013/10/03/former-pennsylvania-congressman-suspended-from-practicing-law-due-to-criticism-of-judges/
  • National coverage
    Great coverage and comments on blog via Jonathon Turley. Looks like Indiana might help to spark a national discussion on whether lawyers have the right to make public statements against the judiciary. (Funny, none seek to discipline those who fawn over the judiciary. Imagine that.)
  • So much for a real journalist to report!
    Indiana's court system has racked up an impressive array of neo-totalitarian cases for journalists who value the First Amendment. Cases that really should be reported on in a national journal. This one, mine, Paul Ogden's, Wilkins, many others. And beyond this, questions of equal protection as to who is not restricted, judges who attempt suicide and lie to the police, lawyers who are serial drunk drivers caught carrying unregistered firearms, attorneys who fabricate subpoenaes, judicial agencies that ignore subpoenaes. Barriers to bar entrance via a deliberate denial of the NCBE, denial of US constitution and settled case law, etc. So much almost hidden that needs to be exposed. See the tip of the iceberg at http://www.ogdenonpolitics.com/
  • The 1st Amendment
    All speech is protected speech even if it is offensive to someone else. Words cannot harm a real person there was no threat and this is a travesty of justice!
  • Due Process
    This joke of a trial was not due process, it was not Constitutional as required, it was held under private statutes. The people are not to have loss of life or liberty WITHOUT due process. This mans liberty was stolen prior to due process and he didn't even get due process on top of that, just a kangaroo court with impostors using private statutes, Color of law against him, stacking the deck.
  • where?
    Dan never got any oportunity in court to confront this "charge", which was never made. After the audio was submitted at the bond reduction hearing, Sue Brewington put in a public records request for the audio. Brewington's Ohio attorney found that Brewington and Keith L. Jones were never in the same location at the Hamilton County Justice Center for the 48 hours that Brewington was there. The jail keeps computerized movement logs. Family members drove to Franklin County Ohio (Columbus) to find copies of Keith L. Jones criminal record, He was 54 and had an extensive record, He had apparently turned into a professional snitch based on his own letter in his folder. Dan's Ohio attorney talked to the ATF officer and he said they didn't think this guy was credible and a Cincinnati officer who seemed to be involved, agreed. None of these people or reports were ever subpoenaed because Brewington was never charged with any offense yet after admitting there wasn't enough evidence to charge Brewington,(perhaps because a crime did not accure!!!???) Dearborn County Prosecutor, F. Aaron Negangard just raises the issue as if it were true. It's not.
  • Where?
    ATF agents also investigated the allegation, Adams said. where is there report?

    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