In re Keiffner, No. 49S00-1509-DI-522

Docket NºNo. 49S00-1509-DI-522
Citation79 N.E.3d 903
Case DateAugust 11, 2017
CourtSupreme Court of Indiana

79 N.E.3d 903

In the MATTER OF: Gillian Deprez KEIFFNER, Respondent.

No. 49S00-1509-DI-522

Supreme Court of Indiana.

August 11, 2017


79 N.E.3d 904

Attorneys for Respondent : Kevin P. McGoff, Margaret M. Christensen, Melissa Buckley Minix, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorneys for the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission : G. Michael Witte, Executive Director, Aaron Johnson, Staff Attorney, Indianapolis, Indiana

Attorney Discipline Action

Per Curiam.

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a "Verified Complaint for Disciplinary Action" against Respondent Gillian DePrez Keiffner, charging her with attorney misconduct based on actions taken while prosecuting two criminal trials. Respondent's 2007 admission to this state's bar subjects her to this Court's disciplinary jurisdiction. See IND. CONST. art. 7, § 4.

This matter is now before the Court on the report of the hearing officer appointed by this Court to hear evidence on the verified complaint and on the post-hearing briefing by the parties. Based on the record before us, a majority of the Court concludes that Respondent did not engage in attorney misconduct as charged. Accordingly, we enter judgment in Respondent's favor.

79 N.E.3d 905

Procedural Background and Facts

At relevant times, Respondent served as a deputy prosecuting attorney in Marion County.1 In 2012, Respondent represented the State during the trial of Bruce Ryan on charges of sexual misconduct with a minor. In 2013, Respondent represented the State during the trial of Brandon Brummett on charges of child molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor. Both trials resulted in convictions and, in the ensuing direct appeals, each defendant's convictions were challenged on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. Based on the appellate records that were before us, and applying the well-settled standards for reviewing such claims in a criminal setting, we concluded that prosecutorial misconduct indeed had occurred in each trial. We reversed Brummett's convictions, summarily affirming the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the cumulative effect of several of the challenged actions by Respondent and her co-counsel amounted to fundamental error. Brummett v. State , 10 N.E.3d 78 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), aff'd on reh'g , 21 N.E.3d 840, summarily aff'd in relevant part on transfer , 24 N.E.3d 965 (Ind. 2015). We affirmed Ryan's convictions after concluding the misconduct did not rise to the level of fundamental error. Ryan v. State , 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014).

The Commission thereafter charged Respondent with violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rule 3.4(e)2 during the Ryan and Brummett trials and Rule 8.4(d)3 during the Brummett trial. Following a hearing, the hearing officer filed his report to this Court on February 10, 2017, concluding the Commission had not met its burden of proving that Respondent violated the rules as charged.

Discussion

The Commission has petitioned this Court to review the hearing officer's findings and conclusions. The Commission carries the burden of proof to demonstrate attorney misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. See Ind. Admission and Discipline Rule 23(14)(i) (2016). While the review process in disciplinary cases involves a de novo examination of all matters presented to the Court, the hearing officer's findings nevertheless receive emphasis due to the unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses. See Matter of Brizzi , 962 N.E.2d 1240, 1244 (Ind. 2012).

The hearing officer relied heavily on our decision in Matter of Smith , 60 N.E.3d 1034 (Ind. 2016), which we issued after the instant case was charged and tried but before the hearing officer issued his report. Like the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • In re Blickman, Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-553
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 9, 2020
    ...hearing officer's findings receive emphasis due to the unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses. See Matter of Keiffner , 79 N.E.3d 903, 905 (Ind. 2017).1. Efforts to silence Student and her family. The hearing officer concluded that Respondent's efforts to prevent Student and......
  • In re Blickman, Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-553
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 9, 2020
    ...hearing officer's findings receive emphasis due to the unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses. See Matter of Keiffner , 79 N.E.3d 903, 905 (Ind. 2017).1. Efforts to silence Student and her family. The hearing officer concluded that Respondent's efforts to prevent Student and......
  • In re Neary, No. 46S00-1512-DI-705.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 6, 2017
    ...that the appellate holdings in Taylor, Larkin I, and Larkin II are not dispositive of this disciplinary action. See Matter of Keiffner, 79 N.E.3d 903, 906 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Matter of Smith, 60 N.E.3d 1034, 1036 (Ind. 2016) ). The relevant inquiries in a criminal appeal and disciplinary p......
3 cases
  • In re Blickman, Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-553
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 9, 2020
    ...hearing officer's findings receive emphasis due to the unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses. See Matter of Keiffner , 79 N.E.3d 903, 905 (Ind. 2017).1. Efforts to silence Student and her family. The hearing officer concluded that Respondent's efforts to prevent Student and......
  • In re Blickman, Supreme Court Case No. 18S-DI-553
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • December 9, 2020
    ...hearing officer's findings receive emphasis due to the unique opportunity for direct observation of witnesses. See Matter of Keiffner , 79 N.E.3d 903, 905 (Ind. 2017).1. Efforts to silence Student and her family. The hearing officer concluded that Respondent's efforts to prevent Student and......
  • In re Neary, No. 46S00-1512-DI-705.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • November 6, 2017
    ...that the appellate holdings in Taylor, Larkin I, and Larkin II are not dispositive of this disciplinary action. See Matter of Keiffner, 79 N.E.3d 903, 906 (Ind. 2017) (quoting Matter of Smith, 60 N.E.3d 1034, 1036 (Ind. 2016) ). The relevant inquiries in a criminal appeal and disciplinary p......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT