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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

    2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

    3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

    4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

    5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

    ADVERTISEMENT