ILNews

Prosecutor denies misconduct accusations

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi denies that he violated any professional conduct rules in his handling of two high-profile murder cases, specifically in his written or spoken statements made when describing the crimes to the public.

On Monday, just three days before the prosecutor announced he won't be seeking a third term, Brizzi filed an answer to disciplinary charges lodged against him late last year by the Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission.

In its formal complaint against Brizzi filed Oct. 1, the commission alleged that public comments the prosecutor made about two murder cases crossed the line and violated the attorney conduct rules. Brizzi's statements went beyond the public information purpose and prejudiced the pair of cases, according to the complaint, and amounted to violations of Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.8(f) and Rule 3.6(a).

Some of the comments came during an April 2008 news conference, where Brizzi made statements about the case against accused multi-state serial killer Bruce Mendenhall, alleged to have killed Carma Purpura in Indianapolis as well as other women in Tennessee and Alabama. A second allegation from the commission involves a 2006 news release about the city's Hamilton Avenue slayings, where seven people were brutally killed in Indianapolis and Brizzi initially sought the death penalty. A comment in that news release stated about the defendants, "They weren't going to let anyone or anything get in the way of what they believed to be an easy score."

"The above public statements of the Respondent ... were not necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and did not serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, and the same were extrajudicial comments that had a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation ..." the complaint says.

Responding to the complaint, Brizzi's answer came after two previous extensions that delayed the case for about three months. He admits the general information about the underlying cases the statements were made about, but declined to admit or deny the specific claims cited in the complaint because the documents they were reportedly taken from were not included as part of the verified complaint.

In the seven-page answer, Brizzi's attorney Kevin McGoff at Bingham McHale in Indianapolis offered one legal defense for his client: "A lawyer is permitted to make an extrajudicial statement, as contemplated by Ind. Prof. Cond.R. 3.6(b), including but not limited to: (2) information contained in a public record and; (3) an investigation is in progress."

Indianapolis attorney William Hodes, an expert in lawyer ethics, said he found the case interesting, highlighting the gray area and tension between parts (a) and (b) of Rule 3.6. While unfamiliar with details of the Brizzi case, he noted that both sides appear to be making reasonable points in relation to the rules.

The rule applies to the public record, such as an indictment or probable cause document, not any of a prosecutor's own documents such as a press release.

"The charges sound like they're in the ballpark of what's off limits by the rules, and the defense seems solid," he said. "This could be a fairly close case, with legitimate arguments on both sides if you really look at the exceptions and qualifiers in the rules."

Bloomington law professor Charles Geyh at Indiana University Maurer School of Law - Bloomington agreed, saying the rules being examined here are "a thicket, owing to the First Amendment rights of the lawyer to speak and the difficulty of determining when there is a 'substantial likelihood' of material prejudice."

The Disciplinary Commission is now able to file a response to Brizzi's answer, and once that happens the Indiana Supreme Court can appoint a hearing officer to examine the evidence. Justices have final say over attorney disciplinary issues, and if it finds any misconduct the penalties could range from a private reprimand to a suspension or disbarment.

Admitted to practice in 1994, Brizzi was first elected prosecutor in 2002 and was re-elected in 2006. This is the first time Brizzi has faced any professional misconduct charges, according to his office. But whatever happens with this disciplinary action, it won't impact whether he remains prosecutor of the state's largest county past 2010 - Brizzi announced Thursday he wouldn't seek a third term in November's election. He hasn't announced what his future plans are.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT