ILNews

Marion County prosecutor candidates face off

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The two candidates for Marion County prosecutor faced each other at their alma mater, Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, Sept. 29, in a debate sponsored by the Republican Law Coalition, the Democratic Law Society, and the Criminal Law Association of the law school.

The two answered questions from professor Andy Klein; students submitted the questions prior to the debate.

Other than their political parties, the two seemed more similar than different on their stances. Both candidates have also publicly denounced the current Marion County prosecutor, Carl Brizzi, and during the debate the men spoke about a loss of public confidence and trust in the office. Many question whether Brizzi’s personal business and even some professional dealings are at odds with his public responsibilities.
 

Mark Massa Massa

Mark Massa, the Republican candidate, was a part-time night student at the law school in the late 1980s and said he had wanted to be a prosecutor early on. He served as an intern in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office as a 3L, and has spent 13 of the last 20 years in a prosecutor’s office, including work as an assistant U.S. attorney. He also served as general counsel to Gov. Mitch Daniels, who has endorsed him for the office.


Terry Curry Curry

Terry Curry, the Democratic candidate, graduated from the law school in the late 1970s. Before law school, he served in the U.S. Army and worked for The Indianapolis News. Like Massa, Curry has worked in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. He also worked for the firm now known as Taft Stettinius & Hollister and as a sole practitioner.

Massa mentioned in his opening statement that because “we’re in the midst of a crisis in public confidence” in the prosecutor’s office, “like one we’ve never seen,” he said one of his priorities would be to address that.

He also mentioned the incident this summer that involved Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer David Bisard, whose blood alcohol test revealed him to be well above the legal limit when he hit and killed a motorcyclist, only to have those test results thrown out because the test was administered improperly. That has diminished the public’s confidence in the police department, which Massa said he would also address as prosecutor. This issue then leads to a less likely chance the public will cooperate with police or speak truthfully when they do interact with police; they may even refuse summons for jury duty because they don’t trust the police and/or the prosecutor’s office.

Curry echoed much of what Massa said about lower public confidence and that as prosecutor he also would address this issue. One thing that differentiated him from Massa, he said, is he was never elected to office nor has he received a political appointment.

“We need a clear break from political allegiances,” he said.

To restore public confidence, Curry said he would focus some of his energy on the deputy prosecutors who work with community organizations on what their needs are to have safer neighborhoods for residents.

He added this would allow for a greater exchange of information and more transparency between neighborhoods, police, and the prosecutor’s office. This would also be a way for the neighborhood organizations to learn about the successes they may not hear about in the news.

Massa said there are a series of steps he would take in the first 100 days after his election, which would include appointing experienced deputy prosecutors. He also mentioned he would work to implement an ethics plan that would allow no gifts to employees of the prosecutor’s office and would not allow employees to serve on boards of for-profit companies.

Beyond public confidence, both Massa and Curry said attacking violent crime in Marion County was a top priority.

Both mentioned there needs to be a greater use of grand jury investigations.

Massa also said there would be more efforts to go after recidivists, for the office to keep an eye on those who commit seemingly small crimes who could eventually commit violent crimes, and to keep an eye on gang activity.

Curry also said violent crime was one of his top priorities, including the issue of gangs in Marion County that came to light following the shooting at Black Expo this summer, which led to the arrest of a suspect who had claimed ties to a local gang.

He added the office should also pay attention to white-collar crime, because if not, there was a double standard.

Later in the debate, Curry also mentioned more attention could be paid to underreported crimes, such as domestic violence, relatively minor property crimes, and crimes against the Latino community, which has long distrusted the police.

When asked about the role of the office, both candidates said they saw the prosecutor as an administrator, but they would also try cases depending on their level of expertise on certain matters. Both men have had extensive trial experience on a variety of civil and criminal cases.

As far as who they’d like to have working in the office that has about 300 employees including 125 deputy prosecutors, Massa said he wanted to hire attorneys with a faithfulness to the mission of the office. “There needs to be camaraderie, and they need to feel inspired.”

Curry said he would actively recruit energetic young women and men who wanted to work in public service “with the knowledge they would not be making as much money” as their classmates who went into large firms or other legal jobs.

“When you’ve been doing this long enough, it’s easy to identify those who are excited about trying cases,” he said.

Because the audience was mostly made up of law students, both attorneys also encouraged them to consider careers in public service, whether in the prosecutor’s office or in the public defenders office.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT