This case is currently before the Indiana Court of Appeals.
The Appellant’s Brief, the Appellee’s Brief, and the Appellant’s Reply have
been filed with the Court.
1) Affidavit
of Sue Brewington: sworn statement that she was present at the June 17, 2011
hearing and the July 18, 2011 hearing and details of what transpired at each
hearing. link
2) Dan
Brewington’s civil rights attorneys filed a Request For Hearing Transcripts. Barbara Ruwe, Superior Court II Court Reporter, “found” the “missing”
transcripts after being informed that Michael Sutherlin had affidavits from 4
separate people who attended one or both of these hearings and he was going to
file them with the court. No explanation has been given for why Sue and Matthew
Brewington were told that no hearings took place on those dates.
3) Judge
Hill signed an order, filed February 2, 2012, stating that the July 18, 2011
hearing did not take place. link
4) Response
to request on February 14, 2012 from Sue Brewington (no office markings or signature of the person who prepared
the document).
a. Reiterated
there was “no audio of July 18, 2011 hearing as that hearing was continued as
indicated on the Amended Order… signed February 2, 2012.”
b. Reiterated
that the “Grand Jury audio recordings are not a record in these proceedings
as indicated on the Amended Order
signed on February 2, 2011. Also Grand Jury proceedings are confidential and
cannot be released to anyone.” (The Grand Jury transcripts in this action had
already been released by the Judge before trial and were no longer secret.)
c. Sue
Brewington’s public records request for the March 11, 2011 arraignment hearing
was “forwarded to counsel for the
Defendant”. (Sue Brewington made a public records request for the transcript
but Barbara Ruwe forwarded it to Dan Brewington’s counsel and failed to respond
to Sue Brewington as to why she did not comply with the public records request.
d. New
information. “Request for transcript from June 17, 2011 – This was a pre-trial
hearing held in the Judge’s Chambers that was not recorded and there is no
audiotape of that hearing. Therefore a transcript cannot be made.” (As we have
recently discovered, this is not true)
e. “Request
for transcript from July 18, 2011 – Hearing was continued and no hearing held.
Therefore a transcript cannot be made.” (As we have recently discovered, this
is not true)
When a defendant does not have access to all of the records
in his/her case they simply cannot get the best representation possible because
strategic facts can be missing.
This was definitely the case for Dan Brewington. John Watson, Dan
Brewington’s first public defender, gave his reasons for filing a Motion to
Withdraw:
a. Mr.
Watson claimed a conflict of interest because he appeared before Judge Humphrey
on a regular basis. (Mr. Watson was well aware from the beginning that Judge
Humphrey was an alleged victim in the case, yet it took Mr. Watson two months
to raise the issue regarding his potential conflict.)
b. Mr.
Watson said “that to properly defend his client (Dan Brewington) it would be
necessary to take Judge Humphrey’s deposition and that of his wife as well”
(Mr. Barrett never took one deposition)
c. Mr.
Watson told Judge Hill that Mr. Brewington had expressed some concern “about
those kinds of issues and inter-relationship among county officials in this
county, particularly related to the Judge’s office and other county officials.”
d. Mr.
Watson also told Judge Brian Hill that Dan Brewington had told him “prior to
the hearing that he’s got various concerns about conflicts so I don’t know how
your honor wants to handle it”
e. Dan
Brewington was sworn in. He told Judge Hill the following:
(a) “my concern
at this point is that there are going to be more conflicts in this case” – (so
far the case has lost 2 judges and 1 public defender due to conflict of
interest.)
(b) Dan said he
had been incarcerated for 3 months and he hadn’t had a pre-trial hearing.
(c) Judge
Blankenship recused herself
(d) Judge
Westhaver recused himself
(e) John Watson
wants to withdraw.
(f) Why can
Aaron Negangard who has a “political” and a “professional relationship” with
Judge Humphrey, prosecute and have no conflict of interest and since Aaron
Negangard is the administrative head of the Prosecutor’s Office, Deputy
Prosecutors would also have a conflict of interest.
(g) Dan
mentioned freedom of speech and being refused access to his Ohio attorney
(h) Judge Hill
addressed the issue of Dan not being allowed to meet with his Ohio attorney.
Dan said that Mr. Kelly had met with other clients in the DCLEC but was now
denied access to Dan for an attorney visit.
(i) Judge
Hill “would not tell the jail who you cannot see. I mean that’s their policy.”
(j) Dan
Brewington explained that he had been taking Ritalin for attention deficit
disorder and the jail would not allow him to take it as prescribed by his
doctor. Brewington explained that because of the sheer volume of documents that
he needed to review he needed his medicine to perform at his top level.
f. Judge
Hill – “Quite frankly, I’m not interested in dealing with medication at this
hearing.”
g. Mr.
Watson told Judge Hill that he was ready to go with the discovery and he would
turn them over to the new public defender. “And it’s ready to be handed over so
that he can hit the ground running.” (That was a false statement. )
h. Mr.
Watson had to explain to Judge Hill that the Motion to Reduce Bond had some
errors that needed to be corrected. Mr. Watson stumbled around a bit but
basically he had to tell Judge Hill that he filed the Motion with someone
else’s name on it, not Dan Brewington, and added a C felony, battery with a
deadly weapon. (Not one of Dan Brewington’s charges). "I would like to, offer to say for the record that that was a
typographical error that I made."
i. The
Judge set 2 hearings for the same date and time: the Bond Reduction Hearing and
the Final Pre-Trial Hearing set for July 18, 2011 at 1:30pm. He set the jury
trial to begin August 16, 2011 at 8:30am.
a) The
state didn’t have anything for the pre-trial hearing but Mr. Bryan Barrett,
Dan’s new public defender, did.
Mr. Barrett was appointed by Judge Brian Hill on June 20, 2011 and
didn’t contact Dan Brewington until the day of the July 18, 2011 hearing.
b) “I’m
still trying to get discovery” At last month’s hearing, June 17, 2011, Mr.
Watson said he was all ready to go with the discovery and would get them to the
new public defender quickly “so he could hit the ground running”. Mr. Barrett
said that he would contact Mr. Watson.
c) Discussed
setting the date for a new bond hearing.
d) Told
Judge Hill that “Mr. Brewington has a substantial amount here himself but I
don’t, he’s obviously in custody so I don’t actually have access to that on a
regular basis.” (Yet, Mr. Barrett
made no attempt to contact Dan’s family or his Ohio attorney for information.)
e) Mr.
Kisor (deputy prosecutor) said they could make a disc of the discovery for Mr.
Barrett.
f) Mr.
Barrett – “The inquiry that my client is making and obviously I’m at some
disadvantage Judge as what specific, the informations in the indictments, the
information and indictments are pretty general, I guess and they cover broad
periods of time and I’m just obviously wondering what the specific things the
government is saying that my client did that constitute intimidation and the
various other offenses but obviously that a discovery issue and probably for
another hearing.” (Mr. Barrett NEVER discovered the specifics of the
intimidation charge, even at trial.)
g) P21.
Mr. Kisor says “There is a, as far as I know, a complete transcript of the grand
jury proceedings.”
h) Mr.
Barrett – “I do have that”. (referring to the grand jury disc) “I have not had
an opportunity to go over that with Mr. Brewington, but that’s generally the
information that you’re relying upon?” (Mr. Barrett NEVER went over the grand
jury transcripts with Mr. Brewington. Mr. Barrett NEVER met with him again
except at hearings and at the trial. Dan Brewington did not get his copy of the
grand jury transcripts until September 23, 2011, 10 days before the trial
started. His questions about the specific charges were never answered by Mr.
Bryan Barrett.
7) The
last document is the Notice of Completion of Addendum Transcript. It was filed
July 18, 2012, exactly one year after the “hearing that didn’t take place”. We
are not sure why the clerk’s office used the word addendum because they are
part of the original record.
To
contact the Brewington family contactdanbrewington@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment