ILNews

Volokh to argue in Brewington before justices, partake in McKinney moot court

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

One of the National Law Journal’s 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America will be before the Indiana Supreme Court this week to argue on behalf of a blogger convicted and sentenced for intimidating a Dearborn County judge who revoked the man’s joint custody of his children.

First Amendment scholar and UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh will take 10 minutes of 30 allocated for each side in Daniel Brewington v. State of Indiana, 15A01-1110-CR-550, Brewington’s attorney Michael K. Sutherlin confirmed Monday. The case is set for oral argument at 9 a.m. Thursday.

Volokh, who operates the widely read legal blog The Volokh Conspiracy, wrote an amicus brief joined by a range of free-speech, press, academic and activist organizations across the political spectrum. Volokh “is going to address simply the constitutional claims,” said Sutherlin, who will argue about mistakes Brewington contends were made.

“There are irregularities we would call prosecutorial misconduct,” along with problems in the conduct of the trial, Sutherlin said in describing the outlines of his arguments before the court.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a jury’s conviction of Brewington on a counts of intimidation against Dearborn Superior Judge James Humphrey, but reversed intimidation convictions against a custody evaluator and the judge’s wife.

After Humphrey granted sole custody of two daughters to Brewington’s ex-wife in 2009, Brewington made Internet posts calling Humphrey a child abuser, corrupt and unethical. He unleashed a torrent of angry blog posts aimed at Humphrey and the custody evaluator whose reports the judge relied upon to determine Brewington “to be irrational, dangerous and in need of significant counseling.”

The appeals court rejected Brewington’s argument that civil defamation law principles must be incorporated into Indiana Code 35-42-2-1(c)(6). The judges found the state was not required to provide evidence that Brewington’s public statements about Humphrey were knowingly false.

The COA opinion rallied First Amendment activists. Volokh wrote an amicus brief on behalf of a dozen parties that argues, “If the Court of Appeals opinion is allowed to stand, then much criticism of legislators, executive officials, judges, businesspeople, and others – whether by newspapers, advocacy groups, politicians or other citizens – would be punishable.”

While the case has taken on First Amendment implications, the state argues justices should affirm Brewington’s conviction.

“Brewington’s communications to and about the judge were truly threatening communications, conveying the threat that he would injure the judge or commit a crime against him,” the state’s brief in response to the petition to transfer states.

Brewington’s speech is unprotected, the state claims. “Brewington communicated ‘true threats’ to Judge Humphrey, although he cleverly attempted to disguise them.

“It is a disappointing irony that Brewington, who is no friend of free speech when it is spoken by his victims, now takes refuge in the First Amendment,” the brief says, noting the judge and custody evaluator have a right to perform their duties without fear of violent reprisal. “Brewington does not have the First Amendment right to place them in fear of such violent reprisals for their speech.”

Volokh is expected to dine with amici after he arrives in Indianapolis on Tuesday, Sutherlin said, and will take part in a moot court argument at 3:30 p.m. Tuesday at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Sutherlin said.  
 
Meanwhile, Sutherlin said Brewington, who also was convicted of perjury and attempted obstruction of justice, was released Sept. 5 after serving just shy of two years in the Indiana Department of Correction.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT