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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT