Brizzi story was misleading

As a longstanding member of the Indianapolis Bar and reader of IBJ, I was surprised and very disappointed to see
an article appearing in this week’s issue [about Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi] suggesting that a sentence
reduction provided to Guilford Forney was based not solely on the merits.

The assertion is baseless and the article contains false statements and insinuations that could easily have been avoided
had reporter Cory Schouten properly researched the story by calling me or other knowledgeable people to check the facts.  

Specifically, IBJ falsely reported:

“Defense attorney Bruce D. Donaldson, of locally based Barnes & Thornburg LLP, last year persuaded Wyser to support
a modification of the murder conviction justified by good behavior and an impressive educational track record while in prison.
Forney was released on April 4, 2009, and is slated to serve two years on work release, followed by one year on probation.”

In fact, I did nothing to persuade Wyser or anyone else at the Prosecutor’s Office to support this sentence modification.
To the contrary, this was solely the result of the family’s own efforts.

Specifically, Forney’s mother, Carlene Heeter, had a chance encounter with Carl Brizzi at a local restaurant and asked
Brizzi if he would look into her son’s case. This led to a series of meetings and discussions within the prosecutor’s
office that I was not invited to and took no part in, including at least one face-to-face meeting with Forney that I am aware
of. Some time later Heeter called me with the good news that the Prosecutor’s Office had decided to support a sentence-modification
request.

I had no involvement whatsoever in this entire process leading up to the prosecutor’s decision. I played no role in
“persuading” the Prosecutor’s Office to support a sentence modification, and the story is false in stating
otherwise. Rather, I have been friends of Forney’s family for nearly 10 years, and after the Prosecutor’s
Office decided to support a sentence modification, Heeter asked for my help documenting the agreement that had already been
reached. I did so on a pro bono basis as a favor to the family, filing an appearance for Forney and appearing at the hearing
before the judge to request approval of the sentence modification.

The insinuation that Prosecutor Brizzi was influenced by political contributions or his relationship with Barnes & Thornburg
is simply nonsense. Had this charge been made to me I could have disproven it easily. Specifically, nearly three years ago,
as a friend of Forney’s family, I shared with Brizzi my personal views that Forney’s sentence was unduly harsh.
My request went nowhere, and I was finally informed about a year later that the Prosecutor’s Office would not support
a sentence modification.

I had no further involvement with the Prosecutor’s Office on the matter until Heeter contacted me with the good news
that her own initiative with Prosecutor Brizzi had led to a favorable decision. Thus, it is beyond doubt that not only was
my attempt at persuasion ineffective, but that Barnes & Thornburg’s supposed “relationship” with Brizzi
was irrelevant to such decisions.

Thus, not only did IBJ get the facts wrong and mislead its readers, it made an unfounded and harmful insinuation
about me and my law firm. Of course, in so doing, IBJ has also injured its own reputation and credibility as a fair
and reliable source of business information. In short, inaccurate and unfair reporting harms everyone.
____________

Bruce Donaldson