Opinion ID: 852075
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Safe Harbor for Information Contained in a Public Record.

Text: Professional Conduct Rule 3.6(b)(2) provides: Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may state. . . . information contained in a public record. The hearing officer concluded that the several of Respondent's alleged statements concerning the Mendenhall case would fall within this safe harbor, reasoning:  Media reports from other states about the Mendenhall case were accessible on the Internet. Respondent searched the Internet for news stories about Mendenhall because Respondent himself had little information about the multi-state investigation into the suspected slayings.  Mendenhall's alleged use of a .22 caliber handgun in his murders was publicly documented and available as early as October 2007, six months prior to Respondent's press conference. The probable cause affidavit filed in the Marion County case discusses Mendenhall's suspected killings in other jurisdictions, and states that `the evidence found in his truck including a.22 caliber weapon, all point to Mendenhall as the killer.'  The statements . . . concerning DNA analysis, plastic wrap and a .22 caliber handgun refer to information previously documented in the media. The Probable Cause Affidavit . . . discusses the .22 caliber gun, the DNA testing and the law enforcement officials' discovery of such a large amount of blood that they were able to determine that Ms. Purpura was no longer alive. Thus, these statements were based on publicly available information and protected by the safe harbor provision in Rule 3.6(b). Hearing Officer's Report at 5-7, 13 (emphasis added, record citations omitted). Media accounts. In Gansler, a prosecutor charged with making a number of improper public statements about several murder defendants argued that some of the statements fell within the public record safe harbor. Because there was no settled definition of public record, the high court of Maryland construed the phrase as broadly as possible to statements made prior to its opinion. Thus, it found the prosecutor's statements of information in media reports and in police charges to be within the Rule 3.6(b)(2) safe harbor. However, the court determined that in the future, the phrase public record would refer only to public government records, i.e., the records and papers on file with a government entity to which an ordinary citizen would have lawful access. See 835 A.2d at 567-69. We agree with the definition of public record set forth in Gansler, with the proviso that on file does not mandate such formalities as file stamping or entry on a case docket. A more expansive concept of a public record that includes the unfiltered and untested contents of all publicly accessible media would permit the public record safe harbor to swallow the general rule of restricting prejudicial speech. Probable cause affidavit. A probable cause affidavit falls under the Gansler definition of public record so long as it is on file with a government entity to which an ordinary citizen has lawful access. Cf. Muex v. State, 800 N.E.2d 249 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (no cogent argument supported assertion that prosecutor violated Prof. Cond. R. 3.6 and 3.8. by public disclosure of DNA test results contained in probable cause affidavit). However, Gansler held, and we concur, that to receive the protection of the public record safe harbor, a lawyer may not provide information beyond quotations from or references to the contents of the public record. See 835 A.2d at 569. Moreover, we hold that a prosecutor must make clear that what is being disclosed is, in fact, the contents of the probable cause affidavit or other identified public document so the statements cannot be misunderstood to be the prosecutor's own opinion about the evidence or the suspect's guilt. With regard to the Mendenhall case, some of the alleged statements corresponded to the contents of the probable cause affidavit, but the alleged statements did not make clear that this information was from the probable cause affidavit as opposed to a personal assessment of the matters. With regard to the press release about the Turner and Stewart cases, Respondent began by referencing the probable cause affidavit, but it is unclear where the content of the affidavit ended and Respondent's own assessment of the matters began. The transition certainly occurred by the time Respondent stated: I would not trade all the money and drugs in the world for the life of one person, let alone seven.