In the Matter of Carl J. Brizzi

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that Carl J. Brizzi violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) by making prosecutorial statements that had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing criminal proceedings and heightening public condemnation of the accused. The Court imposed a public reprimand, while finding insufficient proof that he made the statements alleged in Count 1.

Holdings

1. The Commission failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Brizzi actually made the statements alleged in Count 1; therefore, Brizzi prevailed on Count 1.
2. Violations of Professional Conduct Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) do not require proof that the statements actually prejudiced a defendant or proceeding; the relevant inquiry is whether, when made, the statements had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the adjudicative proceeding or heightening public condemnation of the accused.
3. Statements expressing an opinion concerning a defendant's guilt or innocence, describing a suspect's character or criminal record, describing examination results or physical evidence, or announcing criminal charges without explaining the presumption of innocence are rebuttably presumed to have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding.
4. Under Rule 3.6(b)(2), the public-record safe harbor covers information contained in public government records to which an ordinary citizen has lawful access, but does not generally encompass unfiltered media accounts; a lawyer may not go beyond quotations from or references to the public record and must make clear that the information comes from the identified public document rather than expressing the lawyer's own assessment.
5. Brizzi violated Professional Conduct Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) by making statements that the defendants deserved the ultimate penalty, that the evidence was overwhelming, that failing to seek the death penalty would be a travesty, and that he would not trade all the money and drugs in the world for the victims' lives.
6. A public reprimand was appropriate for Brizzi's violations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the Commission proved by clear and convincing evidence that Brizzi violated Professional Conduct Rules 3.6(a) and 3.8(f) through public statements concerning pending criminal proceedings.
2. Whether the rules require proof of actual prejudice or instead prohibit statements that, when made, had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding or heightening public condemnation of the accused.
3. Whether information contained in media accounts or a probable cause affidavit falls within Rule 3.6(b)(2)'s public-record safe harbor, and what limitations govern use of that safe harbor.
4. What discipline was appropriate for Brizzi's violations.

Disposition

other