ILNews

Justices suspend David Wyser, former Brizzi deputy prosecutor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Marion County Deputy Prosecutor David Wyser, who pleaded guilty last year to bribery in a federal public-corruption probe, has been suspended from the practice of law.

Wyser was suspended in an Indiana Supreme Court order issued Wednesday.  The suspension came three months after the Indiana Disciplinary Commission transmitted orders and requested Wyser’s suspension following his guilty plea in July to a bribery charge. Wyser in November avoided a possible prison sentence of up to 10 years and was sentenced to three years of probation.

The former deputy prosecutor now resides in Reno, Nevada, according to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys. Contacted by phone Thursday, Wyser said he had not seen the suspension and declined to comment or answer questions.

Wyser, the chief trial deputy under former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, pleaded guilty to accepting a $2,500 bribe in exchange for facilitating the early release of a woman sentenced in the murder-for-hire of her husband.

Paula Willoughby had been sentenced in 1991 to 110 years in prison in the slaying of her husband Darrell outside Indianapolis Motor Speedway. Willoughby’s sentence was reduced on appeal to 70 years, then modified in July 2009 to time served after Willoughby’s father, businessman Harrison Epperly, made political contributions through his company of at least $28,500 to Brizzi and Wyser in 2006 and 2007.

Wyser had agreed to testify in federal corruption investigations that targeted Brizzi, but the case against Brizzi unraveled last year after a jury cleared three others who the government alleged had improperly funneled money to Brizzi, including his friend and former business partner, John Bales.

Wyser was admitted to practice in Indiana in 1997.  He also is licensed in California, where he was admitted to the bar in 1991. He has been on inactive status there since 1999, according to the State Bar of California’s website.

The Supreme Court’s order was unanimous except for Justice Mark Massa, who did not participate. Spokeswoman Kathryn Dolan said Massa explained that he recused himself because he publicly expressed an opinion about the case in April 2010.

Prior to his appointment to the court, Massa unsuccessfully ran to succeed Brizzi as Marion County prosecutor, calling on his fellow Republican to step down.  “I believe the prosecuting attorney should inspire public confidence, not public cynicism,” Massa said at the time.






 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT