ILNews

Prosecutor story was misleading

April 14, 2010
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Letters to the Editor

To the editor:

As a longstanding member of the Indianapolis Bar and reader of the Indiana Lawyer, I was surprised and very disappointed to see an article appearing in Indiana Lawyer daily (Mon., April 5, 2010) – "Prosecutor ordered lenient deal for business partner’s client" – suggesting that a sentence reduction provided to Guilford Forney was based not solely on the merits. The assertion is completely baseless and the article contains false statements and insinuations that could easily have been avoided had reporter Cory Schouten properly researched the story by calling me or other knowledgeable people to check the facts.

Specifically, the Indiana Lawyer falsely reported:

“Defense attorney Bruce D. Donaldson, of Indianapolis-based Barnes & Thornburg LLP, last year persuaded Wyser to support a modification of the murder conviction justified by good behavior and an impressive educational track record while in prison. Forney was released on April 4, 2009, and is slated to serve two years on work release, followed by one year on probation.”

In fact, I did nothing to persuade Mr. Wyser or anyone else at the Prosecutor’s Office to support this sentence modification. To the contrary, this was solely the result of the family’s own efforts.

Specifically, Mr. Forney’s mother, Carlene Heeter, had a chance encounter with Carl Brizzi at a local restaurant and asked Mr. Brizzi if he would look into her son’s case. This led to a series of meetings and discussions within the prosecutor’s office that I was not invited to and took no part in, including at least one face-to-face meeting with Mr. Forney that I am aware of. Some time later Mrs. Heeter called me with the good news that the Prosecutor’s Office had decided to support a sentence modification request.

I had no involvement whatsoever in this entire process leading up to the prosecutor’s decision. I played no role in “persuading” the Prosecutor’s Office to support a sentence modification, and the story is false in stating otherwise. Rather, I have been friends of Mr. Forney’s family for nearly 10 years, and after the Prosecutor’s Office decided to support a sentence modification, Mrs. Heeter asked for my help documenting the agreement that had already been reached. I did so on a pro bono basis as a favor to the family, filing an appearance for Mr. Forney and appearing at the hearing before the judge to request approval of the sentence modification.

The insinuation that Prosecutor Brizzi was influenced by political contributions or his relationship with Barnes & Thornburg LLP is simply nonsense. Had this charge been made to me I could have disproven it easily. Specifically, nearly three years ago as a friend of Mr. Forney’s family I shared with Mr. Brizzi my personal views that Mr. Forney’s sentence was unduly harsh. My request went nowhere, and I was finally informed about a year later that the Prosecutor’s Office would not support a sentence modification. I had no further involvement with the Prosecutor’s Office on the matter until Mrs. Heeter contacted me with the good news that her own initiative with Prosecutor Brizzi had led to a favorable decision. Thus, it is beyond doubt that not only was my attempt at persuasion ineffective, but that Barnes & Thornburg’s supposed “relationship” with Mr. Brizzi was irrelevant to such decisions.

Thus, not only did the Indiana Lawyer get the facts wrong and mislead its readers, it made an unfounded and harmful insinuation about me and my law firm. Of course, in so doing, the Indiana Lawyer has also injured its own reputation and credibility as a fair and reliable source of information. In short, inaccurate and unfair reporting harms everyone.

Bruce D. Donaldson
Barnes & Thornburg
Indianapolis
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT