In Re Brizzi
2012 Ind. LEXIS 25
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Brizzi served as Marion County Prosecutor from 2002 to 2010 and faced disciplinary action over public statements in two murder cases.
- Count 1 concerns a 2008 press conference announcing a murder charge against Bruce Mendenhall, with various statements about evidence and punishment.
- Count 2 concerns a 2006 press release about the Turner and Stewart murders, including statements about punishment and trial concerns.
- The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission charged Brizzi with Rule 3.6(a) and Rule 3.8(f) violations based on extrajudicial statements.
- The hearing officer found no clear and convincing proof for Count 1 and disputed facts for Count 2, while the Court ultimately addressed safe harbors and discipline.
- Brizzi admitted to serving as prosecutor under whose communications his staff acted, and the Court imposed a public reprimand for Count 2 after analysis of rules 3.6 and 3.8.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Brizzi violated 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) | Brizzi's statements risked prejudicing proceedings and inflaming public condemnation | Respondent argues some statements fell within safe harbors or lacked clear proof | Count 2 violations established; public reprimand affirmed for 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) |
| Whether statements fell within 3.6(b)(2) safe harbor | Some statements were public-record material and allowed | Statements deviated from safe harbors and were prejudicial | Some statements within safe harbor; others outside; guidance provided for future cases |
| Whether actual prejudice was necessary to discipline | Proof of substantial likelihood of prejudice suffices | Actual prejudice required | Substantial likelihood standard applied; not limited to actual prejudice; Brizzi held liable on Count 2 |
Key Cases Cited
- Muex v. State, 800 N.E.2d 249 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (public disclosure of DNA results not actionable under 3.6/3.8)
- Matter of Siegel, 708 N.E.2d 869 (Ind.1999) (clear and convincing standard in disciplinary matters)
- Matter of Litz, 721 N.E.2d 258 (Ind.1999) (3.6 applies to all attorneys; emphasis on extrajudicial statements)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gansler, 835 A.2d 548 (Md.2003) (public-record safe harbor defined; statements must cite public record)
- Gansler, 835 A.2d 548 (Md.2003) (public-record safe harbor limits on statements)