Monday, February 13, 2012

Brizzi Suffers Mild Heart Attack

Former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi suffered a mild heart attack over the weekend according to WRTV. Jack Rinehart is reporting that Brizzi was taken to St. Vincent Hospital on Saturday after suffering shortness of breath.

Former Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi is hospitalized after suffering what he called a mild heart attack.
Brizzi, who represented former Secretary of State Charlie White in his voter fraud trial, is at St. Vincent Hospital.
Brizzi told RTV6's Jack Rinehart that he felt shortness of breath on Saturday.
The former prosecutor said the heart attack was stress-related and that doctors found no blockages.
Brizzi said he had also been short of breath while carrying boxes during the White trial.
Brizzi was being kept for observation on Monday and said he expects to be released from the hospital on Tuesday.
Here's wishing a speedy recovery for Brizzi. A sentencing hearing for his client, Charlie White, is scheduled for February 23. Brizzi has indicated that his client intends to appeal his six felony convictions as he most certainly should do because the trial court judge permitted charges to a go to a jury that he should have been dismissed as a matter of law. White's prosecution in Hamilton County is a black eye on the criminal justice system in Indiana. In North Carolina, prosecutors who conduct cases like the prosecutors in White's case lose their jobs and their license to practice law. In Hamilton County, they get patted on the back for a job well done. 


RhondaLeeBaby69 said...

So prosecutors who bring cases to court, compile evidence, actually call witnesses, and win judgments should "lose their jobs and their license to practice law"? If that were true, I would have even less respect for the legal profession than I do (if that's even possible).

Gary R. Welsh said...

The grand jurors who were asked to bring the indictments against White were not properly instructed on the law. If I tell grand jurors the law says one thing when it says something quite different, I'm engaging in prosecutorial misconduct. When I fail to explain to grand jurors that they are double-charging the defendant with charges based on the same set of facts, I am engaged in prosecutorial misconduct. When I fail to instruct grand jurors that an address on a marriage application is not material to the issuance of the marriage license application, I am engaging in prosecutorial misconduct when I ask the grand jurors to indict the defendant for perjury. When I fail to properly instruct the grand jurors on the requirements for establishing fraud on a financial institution, I am engaging in prosecutorial misconduct. When I ignore exculpatory evidence that negates the commission of the crimes, I'm committing prosecutorial misconduct by pressing the charges any way. I can't answer for why White's attorney did not believe he needed to put on a defense. I can only surmise that his knowledge of the law led him to mistakingly believe that jurors sitting in judgment of his client would be capable of discerning the fact that his client had not committed the crimes with which he had been charged. As I've pointed out, a prosecutor could prosecute Charlie White's prosecutor for some of the same felonies with which he charged him based on his on actions. Would I charge him for those crimes? No, nor do I believe any other reasonable elected prosecutor in this state would have charged either of them. These two special prosecutors were not elected by anybody and, therefore, don't have to answer to the voters for their actions.