ILNews

Justices reprimand former Marion County prosecutor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has publicly reprimanded former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi for statements he made about a high-profile murder case, and in doing so the state’s justices have set a new standard and issued a warning for prosecutors statewide: Be careful what you say.

In a 13-page per curiam opinion released late Monday afternoon, the state Supreme Court issued the public reprimand to Brizzi, whose term in office ended in 2010 as this disciplinary action was pending.

“We conclude that in performing his important responsibility of apprising the public of the activities of his office, Respondent stepped beyond the bounds permitted by Rules 3.6 and 3.8,” the court wrote. “We conclude that when these statements were made, Respondent knew or reasonably should have known that they would have a substantial likelihood of (a) materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter and (b) heightening public condemnation of the accused.”

The Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission filed a complaint against Brizzi Oct. 1, 2009, accusing him of making statements that went beyond the public information purpose and prejudiced the cases. One of the allegations stems from an April 2008 news conference, when Brizzi made statements about accused multi-state serial killer Bruce Mendenhall. The second allegation involves a 2006 news release about the Indianapolis Hamilton Avenue slayings, where seven people were killed and Brizzi initially sought the death penalty. That case resulted in both defendants receiving life sentences.

Shelby Circuit Judge Charles O’Connor held a disciplinary hearing in January 2011 to hear testimony, and last summer he found in the former prosecutor’s favor. O’Connor recommended that disciplinary charges be dismissed on the grounds that the comments Brizzi made years ago fell under the safe harbor provision of the professional conduct rules and that pre-trial publicity didn’t actually prejudice the defendants. But the disciplinary commission disagreed and asked the justices to reconsider those findings.

The Disciplinary Commission argued the statements Brizzi made in press releases and at news conferences were prejudicial to the administration of justice as soon as they were spoken because actual prejudice of jurors shouldn’t be required as proof. That line has never been explored in Indiana caselaw before, but the Supreme Court has now offered guidance.

Referring to provisions of Rule 3.6, the court wrote that the rules don't require a finding of actual prejudice but rather a substantial likelihood of heightened public condemnation of the accused. Even if time, trial court preventative measures and other factors prevent actual prejudice from occurring, a prosecutor's statements can still rise to the level of meeting the "substantial likelihood" standard, the court wrote.

The justices agreed with O'Connor on dismissing the Mendenhall charge, but they pointed out that the press release relating to the Hamilton Avenue murders didn't include the required explanation that a charge is merely an accusation and the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty. That led to a substantial likelihood of prejudice, the court found.

For future statements by Indiana prosecutors, the Brizzi decision lays out a strict interpretation of a current rule that allows their public comments to cite any information contained in a public record. The justices relied on a 2003 ruling from Maryland's appellate bench in Attorney Grievance Committee v. Gansler, 835 A.2d 548, 571 (Md. 2003), which defined a public record as referring only to public government records on file.

"We agree with the definition of 'public record' set forth in Gansler, with the proviso that 'on file' does not mandate such formalities as file stamping or entry on a case docket. A more expansive concept of a public record that includes the unfiltered and untested contents of all publicly accessible media would permit the public record safe harbor to swallow the general rule of restricting prejudicial speech," the court wrote.

The justices wrote that there's no evidence that any of the prosecutor's statements were meant "to serve such law enforcement purposes as protecting potential victims or apprehending suspected perpetrators still at large." They found that some of the information Brizzi provided could have been properly communicated if he'd framed it within any of the safe harbor provisions in Rule 3.6(b).

Noting that Brizzi was repeating information in media accounts and the probable cause affidavit in the Hamilton Avenue murders, the justices gave him the benefit of a broad interpretation of the public record safe harbor. But they warned that the narrower interpretation will be applied to future statements.

With Brizzi having no disciplinary history and the court finding little precedent in Indiana or elsewhere at the time these statements were made, the justices concluded that a public reprimand is appropriate. The costs of proceedings are assessed against Brizzi.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  2. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  3. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  4. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

  5. Here's my two cents. While in Texas in 2007 I was not registered because I only had to do it for ten years. So imagine my surprise as I find myself forced to register in Texas because indiana can't get their head out of their butt long enough to realize they passed an ex post facto law in 2006. So because Indiana had me listed as a failure to register Texas said I had to do it there. Now if Indiana had done right by me all along I wouldn't need the aclu to defend my rights. But such is life.

ADVERTISEMENT