Opinion ID: 852075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Commission's Allegations.

Text: Respondent was the prosecuting attorney of Marion County, having been elected in 2002 and re-elected in 2006. During Respondent's two terms, the Prosecutor's Office filed close to 100 murder cases, including five death penalty cases. The Commission charged Respondent with the following two counts of misconduct relating to public statements concerning murder cases. Count 1. Respondent conducted a press conference on April 10, 2008, announcing the filing of a murder charge against Bruce Mendenhall for the murder of Carmen Purpura, who was last seen at an Indianapolis truck stop. Mendenhall had murder charges pending in Alabama and Tennessee, and he had been previously convicted of murder in Tennessee. According to media reports, Respondent's statements included the following:  DNA testing of blood taken from Purpura's parents matched blood inside the cab of Mendenhall's truck.  When the officer opened up the cab of the truck, you can imagine his surprise, because the cab of the truck was literally awash with blood. Purpura's blood soaked the seats of Mendenhall's truck.  Enough blood matching the DNA of Purpura's parents was found inside the cab of Mendenhall's truck to determine that she could not possibly be alive.  The DNA analysis of [the blood] shows that it's not just the blood of one victim, but the blood of several victims.  The victims were shot after their heads were wrapped in plastic wrap and duct tape.  A .22 caliber handgun used by Mendenhall in the killings was found in his truck.  Mendenhall had admitted to the police when arrested that Purpura had been shot in the back of the head at the Indianapolis truck stop, then left inside a vehicle parked at a nearby restaurant, but that he denied being the murderer.  Respondent was confident that he had enough evidence to convict Mendenhall.  Respondent was working with the other jurisdictions to see the quickest way and the best way to punish [Mendenhall] with the ultimate punishmenta capital sentence. Purpura's body has never been discovered. Nothing further has occurred in the Indiana prosecution because Indiana is deferring to the other states' prosecutions. Count 2. On or about June 1, 2006, seven family members, including three children, were discovered murdered in their east side Indianapolis home. The County Prosecutor's Office issued a press release on June 6, 2006, after Desmond Turner and James Stewart were charged with the murders. The press release included the following: Brizzi said, According to the probable cause affidavit, Desmond Turner and James Stewart thought there was a large amount of money and drugs at 560 North Hamilton Street. They weren't going to let anyone or anything get in the way of what they believed to be an easy score. There was no money in that house. There were no drugs. Seven bodies were carried out, including those of three children. I would not trade all the money and drugs in the world for the life of one person, let alone seven. Turner deserves the ultimate penalty for this crime. Regarding the swiftness with which the death penalty was filed, Brizzi said The evidence is overwhelming. There are several aggravators present, any one of which would merit the death penalty. To do otherwise would be a travesty. The Charges. The Commission charged Respondent with violating the following Indiana Professional Conduct Rules: Rule 3.6(a): A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter. Rule 3.8(f): The prosecutor in a criminal case shall . . . except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused. . . .