ILNews

Prosecutor faces misconduct charges

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission has filed a complaint against Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi alleging he played to the media and violated professional conduct rules when commenting about two murder cases.

Filing a six-page complaint Oct. 1, the Disciplinary Commission is charging the 15-year prosecutor with making statements that went beyond the public informational purpose and prejudiced the pair of cases. He is charged with violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.8(f) and Rule 3.6.

The complaint says Brizzi's statements "... 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 ...."

Some of the comments were made at an April 2008 news conference during which Brizzi speculated about accused multi-state serial killer Bruce Mendenhall's mindset at the time of the Indianapolis killing of Carma Purpura, and also detailed evidence against the man. Comments included details of the victim's death and Brizzi said: "It's almost as if he (Mendenhall) wanted to get caught and then play a game of I'm smarter than the police."

The commission's second allegation involves a 2006 news release about seven family members who were brutally killed at a Hamilton Avenue house in Indianapolis, a case in which 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."

Defendant Desmond Turner is set to begin a bench trial early next week; the prosecutor now is seeking a penalty of life without parole. The Marion County Prosecutor's Office couldn't be reached today for comment about what, if any, impact this disciplinary action could have on that trial next week.

Neither Brizzi nor his spokesman returned messages from the newspaper seeking comment on the commission's action.

Brizzi has until the end of October to file a response to the charges, though that is not required. The Indiana Supreme Court has final say over attorney disciplinary issues, and if it finds misconduct the penalties could range from a private reprimand to suspension or disbarment.

ADVERTISEMENT

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