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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT