Thursday, May 29, 2014
Public Defender Board Re-Appointee Withdraws Name From Further Consideration
After this blog raised questions about the re-appointment of Jennifer Lukemeyer to the Marion Co. Public Defender Board because of her role in facilitating the payment of campaign contributions to former chief deputy prosecutor David Wyser by her client's father in exchange for a sentence modification that allowed her client, a woman convicted of hiring a hit man to murder her husband, after serving only a fraction of her sentence, Democratic council members moved to recommit the proposal re-appointing her to the board to the Public Safety Committee where it had earlier been voted out unanimously for further consideration.
Federal prosecutors charged Wyser with bribery, a charge to which he later voluntarily pleaded guilty. Wyser later received probation only for his offense and was suspended from the practice of law. Wyser's boss, former Marion Co. Prosecutor Carl Brizzi, faced no charges despite accepting more than $30,000 in campaign contributions from Harrison Epperly, the father of Lukemeyer's client. Neither Brizzi nor Lukemeyer faced a complaint against their law licenses by the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission despite the stain the ordeal left on the public's confidence in the judicial system.
When the committee met on May 22, Councilor Mary Moriarty-Adams announced that Lukemeyer had asked that her name be withdrawn from further consideration rather than face questions about her role in the Wyser bribery affair. With that, committee members voted to recommend striking her re-appointment from the proposal and sending it to the full council for approval. Council Democrats should be applauded for their action. The same can't be said for Republican council members, who condemned Democratic members for not approving Lukemeyer's re-appointment when it was before the full council and voted against sending her re-appointment back to committee.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
You can count me as one citizen that continues to believe the Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission should strip Carl Brizzi of his law license. Period. This campaign contribution from tainted sources, and the association with Tim Durham, and the completely ineffective defense of White. The public needs to be protected from such incompetence. Instead, they impugn the integrity of whistleblowers; what a shocking protection of their own ranks. Why does everything within the upper echelon of the State’s judiciary have such a fishy smell? I for one applaud any attorney with the cahones to speak the truth when a local judge steps out of line. This business of Disciplinary Commission retribution is ugly and cheapens the profession far more than open, honest criticism of bad Judges. I am not a member of the Indiana bar. But I am a fifth generation Hoosier. And I think we need to get the scum off the pond. I celebrate the whistleblower. Its these slick guys like Brizzi. These are the guys that cheapen the profession and embarrass the State.
Like local landlord said, The public needs to be protected from such incompetence. Instead, they impugn the integrity of whistleblowers; what a shocking protection of their own ranks. Why does everything within the upper echelon of the State’s judiciary have such a fishy smell? I for one applaud any attorney with the cahones to speak the truth when a local judge steps out of line. I celebrate the whistleblower.
Post a Comment