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. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) End of Year Report 2014. (page 13) Under the current system many local registering agencies are challenged just keeping up with registration paperwork. It takes an hour or more to process each registrant, the majority of whom are low risk offenders. As a result law enforcement cannot monitor higher risk offenders more intensively in the community due to the sheer numbers on the registry. Some of the consequences of lengthy and unnecessary registration requirements actually destabilize the life’s of registrants and those -such as families- whose lives are often substantially impacted. Such consequences are thought to raise levels of known risk factors while providing no discernible benefit in terms of community safety. The full report is available online at. http://www.casomb.org/index.cfm?pid=231 National Institute of Justice (NIJ) US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs United States of America. The overall conclusion is that Megan’s law has had no demonstrated effect on sexual offenses in New Jersey, calling into question the justification for start-up and operational costs. Megan’s Law has had no effect on time to first rearrest for known sex offenders and has not reduced sexual reoffending. Neither has it had an impact on the type of sexual reoffense or first-time sexual offense. The study also found that the law had not reduced the number of victims of sexual offenses. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/app/publications/abstract.aspx? ID=247350 The University of Chicago Press for The Booth School of Business of the University of Chicago and The University of Chicago Law School Article DOI: 10.1086/658483 Conclusion. The data in these three data sets do not strongly support the effectiveness of sex offender registries. The national panel data do not show a significant decrease in the rate of rape or the arrest rate for sexual abuse after implementation of a registry via the Internet. The BJS data that tracked individual sex offenders after their release in 1994 did not show that registration had a significantly negative effect on recidivism. And the D.C. crime data do not show that knowing the location of sex offenders by census block can help protect the locations of sexual abuse. This pattern of noneffectiveness across the data sets does not support the conclusion that sex offender registries are successful in meeting their objectives of increasing public safety and lowering recidivism rates. The full report is available online at. http://www.jstor.org/stable/full/10.1086/658483 These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of conclusions and reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. People, including the media and other organizations should not rely on and reiterate the statements and opinions of the legislators or other people as to the need for these laws because of the high recidivism rates and the high risk offenders pose to the public which simply is not true and is pure hyperbole and fiction. They should rely on facts and data collected and submitted in reports from the leading authorities and credible experts in the fields such as the following. California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 0.8% (page 30) The full report is available online at http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Adult_Research_Branch/Research_Documents/2014_Outcome_Evaluation_Report_7-6-2015.pdf California Sex Offender Management Board (CASOMB) (page 38) Sex offender recidivism rate for a new sex offense is 1.8% The full report is available online at. http://www.google.com/url?sa= t&source=web&cd=1&ved= 0CCEQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F% 2Fwww.cdcr.ca.gov%2FAdult_ Research_Branch%2FResearch_ documents%2FOutcome_ evaluation_Report_2013.pdf&ei= C9dSVePNF8HfoATX-IBo&usg=AFQjCNE9I6ueHz-o2mZUnuxLPTyiRdjDsQ Bureau of Justice Statistics 5 PERCENT OF SEX OFFENDERS REARRESTED FOR ANOTHER SEX CRIME WITHIN 3 YEARS OF PRISON RELEASE WASHINGTON, D.C. Within 3 years following their 1994 state prison release, 5.3 percent of sex offenders (men who had committed rape or sexual assault) were rearrested for another sex crime, the Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) announced today. The full report is available online at. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/rsorp94pr.cfm Document title; A Model of Static and Dynamic Sex Offender Risk Assessment Author: Robert J. McGrath, Michael P. Lasher, Georgia F. Cumming Document No.: 236217 Date Received: October 2011 Award Number: 2008-DD-BX-0013 Findings: Study of 759 adult male offenders under community supervision Re-arrest rate: 4.6% after 3-year follow-up The sexual re-offense rates for the 746 released in 2005 are much lower than what many in the public have been led to expect or believe. These low re-offense rates appear to contradict a conventional wisdom that sex offenders have very high sexual re-offense rates. The full report is available online at. https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/236217.pdf Document Title: SEX OFFENDER SENTENCING IN WASHINGTON STATE: RECIDIVISM RATES BY: Washington State Institute For Public Policy. A study of 4,091 sex offenders either released from prison or community supervision form 1994 to 1998 and examined for 5 years Findings: Sex Crime Recidivism Rate: 2.7% Link to Report: http://www.oncefallen.com/files/Washington_SO_Recid_2005.pdf Document Title: Indiana’s Recidivism Rates Decline for Third Consecutive Year BY: Indiana Department of Correction 2009. The recidivism rate for sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05%, one of the lowest in the nation. In a time when sex offenders continue to face additional post-release requirements that often result in their return to prison for violating technical rules such as registration and residency restrictions, the instances of sex offenders returning to prison due to the commitment of a new sex crime is extremely low. Findings: sex offenders returning on a new sex offense was 1.05% Link to Report: http://www.in.gov/idoc/files/RecidivismRelease.pdf Once again, These are not isolated conclusions but are the same outcomes in the majority of reports on this subject from multiple government agencies and throughout the academic community. No one can doubt that child sexual abuse is traumatic and devastating. The question is not whether the state has an interest in preventing such harm, but whether current laws are effective in doing so. Megan’s law is a failure and is destroying families and their children’s lives and is costing tax payers millions upon millions of dollars. The following is just one example of the estimated cost just to implement SORNA which many states refused to do. From Justice Policy Institute. Estimated cost to implement SORNA Here are some of the estimates made in 2009 expressed in 2014 current dollars: California, $66M; Florida, $34M; Illinois, $24M; New York, $35M; Pennsylvania, $22M; Texas, $44M. In 2014 dollars, Virginia’s estimate for implementation was $14M, and the annual operating cost after that would be $10M. For the US, the total is $547M. That’s over half a billion dollars – every year – for something that doesn’t work. http://www.justicepolicy.org/images/upload/08-08_FAC_SORNACosts_JJ.pdf. Attempting to use under-reporting to justify the existence of the registry is another myth, or a lie. This is another form of misinformation perpetrated by those who either have a fiduciary interest in continuing the unconstitutional treatment of a disfavored group or are seeking to justify their need for punishment for people who have already paid for their crime by loss of their freedom through incarceration and are now attempting to reenter society as honest citizens. When this information is placed into the public’s attention by naive media then you have to wonder if the media also falls into one of these two groups that are not truly interested in reporting the truth. Both of these groups of people that have that type of mentality can be classified as vigilantes, bullies, or sociopaths, and are responsible for the destruction of our constitutional values and the erosion of personal freedoms in this country. I think the media or other organizations need to do a in depth investigation into the false assumptions and false data that has been used to further these laws and to research all the collateral damages being caused by these laws and the unconstitutional injustices that are occurring across the country. They should include these injustices in their report so the public can be better informed on what is truly happening in this country on this subject. Thank you for your time.

    2. Freedom as granted in the Constitution cannot be summarily disallowed without Due Process. Unable to to to the gym, church, bowling alley? What is this 1984 level nonsense? Congrats to Brian for having the courage to say that this was enough! and Congrats to the ACLU on the win!

    3. America's hyper-phobia about convicted sex offenders must end! Politicians must stop pandering to knee-jerk public hysteria. And the public needs to learn the facts. Research by the California Sex Offender Management Board as shown a recidivism rate for convicted sex offenders of less than 1%. Less than 1%! Furthermore, research shows that by year 17 after their conviction, a convicted sex offender is no more likely to commit a new sex offense than any other member of the public. Put away your torches and pitchforks. Get the facts. Stop hysteria.

    4. He was convicted 23 years ago. How old was he then? He probably was a juvenile. People do stupid things, especially before their brain is fully developed. Why are we continuing to punish him in 2016? If he hasn't re-offended by now, it's very, very unlikely he ever will. He paid for his mistake sufficiently. Let him live his life in peace.

    5. This year, Notre Dame actually enrolled an equal amount of male and female students.

    ADVERTISEMENT