Campaign Complications
Well less than 24 hours after an in-house debate at the Greater Indianapolis Chamber of Commerce Hobnob, Democrat Melina Kennedy and Republican Carl Brizzi are going after each other. In a news release put out this morning, Kennedy accused Brizzi of being soft on crime by giving a “free pass to a habitual offender.” She’s referring to the 2004 case of Bilal Abdullah (no relationship). Abdullah was convicted in Marion County Court in 2004-05 on weapons charges and resisting arrest. He was also sentenced as a habitual offender, so he got 10 years. His sentence was overturned because a document necessary to certify his status as a habitual offender had not been signed by a judge.
Kennedy uses that fact to say Brizzi has dropped the ball. However upon closer inspection of the facts, the document used to certify Abdullah’s (once again no relationship) was made in 1995, long before Brizzi was prosecutor. And the judge who did the sentencing was Stephen Rubik, a pro tem, which is fancy Latin for temporary judge. Judges are usually the gatekeepers of these types of things and the document was admitted into evidence as part of the trial record. But as you can see the explanation takes longer than the allegation, so Kennedy wins this round.
They did make a mistake in their news release referring to Indiana’s “three-strikes” law. The problem is that Indiana doesn’t have one; it has a habitual offender statute which is different. Lawyers get it, but the public doesn’t, so once again a victory on this one for Kennedy.
I will also give them some free advice and recommend they back off the theme of “are we safer than four years ago?” I can tell you it was the Peterson administration who denied crime was on the rise earlier this year and only got with the program when people in this town were being shot like fish in a barrel. So by raising that issue, Kennedy may inadvertently be doing Bart some damage. Just some advice from your friendly neighborhood pundit.
