Opinion ID: 852075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The Hearing Officer's Report.

Text: Count 1. The hearing officer concluded for several reasons that the Commission had not met its clear and convincing burden of proof that Respondent had violated the rules charged in Count 1. The following reasons are based on the hearing officer's perception of weakness in the evidence that Respondent actually made some of the statements at issue:  The statements that the victims were shot after their heads were wrapped in plastic wrap and duct tape, that Respondent was confident that he had enough evidence to convict Mendenhall, and that a .22 caliber handgun used by Mendenhall in the killings was found in his truck do not appear as a quotation and Respondent does not recall making these statements.  Respondent's public comments, while serving as prosecutor, have been misquoted in the media on a number of occasions. Hearing Officer's Report at 4, 6. The hearing officer also posited the following bases for his conclusion that Respondent had not violated the rules charged with respect to some of the statements:  The statements concerning DNA analysis, plastic wrap, a .22 caliber handgun, and the large amount of blood discovered were previously documented in the media and/or the probable cause affidavit. Thus, these statements were based on publicly available information and are protected by the safe harbor provision in Rule 3.6(b).  Although the statements about punishing Mendenhall with the ultimate punishment may not have been necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of Respondent's actions as prosecutor, and although Respondent knew or should have known the statements would be disseminated by means of public communication, the evidence does not meet the clear and convincing standard required to conclude that these comments had a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of Mendenhall or would materially prejudice an adjudicative proceeding. Hearing Officer's Report at 13. Count 2. The Turner and Stewart cases involved Hispanic victims and African-American suspects, resulting in some racial tension in the community. Media coverage of the cases was constant and extensive, and news cameras were present for nearly all court proceedings. Eventually, the presiding judge, Judge Robert R. Altice of the Marion Superior Court, told both sides to stop commenting about the cases to the media, and the parties agreed. Judge Altice remained concerned about the potential publicity issue and maintained statistics concerning potential jurors who were questioned about pre-trial publicity and their knowledge of the cases. While Turner's murder case was pending, additional charges of assault and battery on corrections officers were brought against Turner, which resulted in three jury trials occurring prior to Turner's murder trial. Judge Altice presided over each case, and Turner was convicted in each case. Turner ultimately waived his right to a trial by jury in the murder case in exchange for dismissal of the death penalty charge. Turner was convicted of the murder charges during a bench trial in October 2009. Stewart was convicted of murder at a jury trial in December 2009. The hearing officer concluded that the Commission had not met its burden of proof concerning the charges in Count 2, reasoning:  Although certain statements in the press release were not necessary to inform the public about the nature and extent of the Respondent's actions as prosecutor, the evidence was not clear and convincing to prove a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of Turner and Stewart or of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceedings in the matter.  The delay between the June 6, 2006, statements and the trial dates for Turner and Stewart (mid to late 2009) indicated an extremely low likelihood, if any, that substantial prejudice occurred.  Judge Altice had no knowledge of any statements alleged in Count 2 of the verified complaint until requested to testify in this matter.  Pre-trial publicity in the Stewart and Turner jury trials did not affect the court's ability to select unbiased jurors in Turner's three jury trials for battery or in Stewart's jury trial for murder.  Turner ultimately waived his right to a trial by jury in his murder case in exchange for dismissal of the death penalty charge. Hearing Officer's Report at 10, 14.