Disbarment recommended for ex-Johnson County prosecutor

Editor’s note: This article has been revised to reflect the hearing officer’s report that was amended after formal notice of a false statement by a disciplinary commission attorney.

The former three-term elected prosecutor of Johnson County should be disbarred from the practice of law for a domestic violence assault in which the hearing officer in his attorney discipline case said he “severely beat and injured his girlfriend” then misled the public about the events surrounding the attack.

Bradley Cooper stepped down as the prosecutor working out of Franklin in July 2019, at the same time he formally entered a guilty plea in a felony domestic violence case. The Indiana Supreme Court suspended Cooper from the practice of law a few days later pending further investigation.

Cooper served no jail time for charges that included Level 6 felony counts of criminal confinement, identity deception and official misconduct, as well as a misdemeanor count of domestic battery stemming from a domestic violence incident in March 2019. The hearing officer in Cooper’s discipline case, Jackson Superior Judge AmyMarie Travis, cited in her report the lack of jail time for the prosecutor as one of many aggravating factors, if not a clear double-standard for a powerful local law enforcement official.

Cooper “never spent a day in jail for his crimes, notwithstanding the one day of credit time he may have received when he was ‘booked,’” Travis wrote, noting elsewhere in her report that Cooper was immediately released after booking when charges were formally filed against him weeks after he attacked his girlfriend.

“The fact that respondent has spent no time in jail for his crimes is ironic in light of respondent running an election ad saying that he was ‘proudly over-crowding our prisons.’ … Had respondent been an ‘average’ citizen, he would likely have been arrested for the crime of domestic battery pursuant to I.C. 35-33-1-1 and would have been subject to I.C. 35-33-1-1.7 (which) … requires that ‘… a facility having custody of a person arrested for a crime of domestic violence … shall keep the person in custody for eight (8) hours from the time of the arrest.’

“Likely because of his status as the elected prosecutor, he was not arrested. He was treated differently/better than average citizens, thus further eroding trust in the criminal justice system,” Travis wrote in recommending the severest attorney discipline sanction.

The hearing officer’s report recommending disbarment is not binding on the Indiana Supreme Court, which will order Cooper’s sanction. The report does, however, represent the formal recommendation of the officer the court appointed to weigh the evidence presented in Cooper’s ethics case by the disciplinary commission and Cooper’s attorneys, James Bell and Stephanie Grass of Paganelli Law.

Neither Cooper nor his attorneys immediately replied to emails seeking comment Thursday.

‘Severe nature’ of attack

Travis made findings about Cooper’s act of domestic violence based on the parties’ stipulations. His girlfriend, E.C., came to his Trafalgar home for dinner and for the two to spend time together on March 4, 2019, but at some point she decided to leave and go home.

“As E.C. was preparing to drive away from respondent’s residence, respondent came up to E.C.’s car, forcefully removed E.C. from her car, forced her back into the respondent’s house and would not allow her to leave. … While removing E.C. from her car, respondent, in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, battered E.C., resulting in injury to her,” Travis wrote. Cooper then “confined E.C. without E.C.’s consent when he refused to allow E.C. to leave his residence,” took her cell phone from her coat pocket and sent messages to various people pretending to be E.C.

“Later, as respondent continued to use E.C.’s cell phone, E.C. was able to unlock the front door and flee to a neighbor’s home,” Travis wrote. “After respondent’s neighbor placed a 911 call and law enforcement officers arrived on the scene, respondent locked E.C.’s cell phone and refused to unlock it at the officers’ request.”

Much of that narrative has been reported in the highly publicized case, but the severity of Cooper’s attack on his girlfriend emerges in Travis’ report, based in part on evidence the disciplinary commission submitted under seal.

“Photographs of E.C. … appear to show a significantly bruised and swollen (black) eye, a swollen cheek, and swollen mouth/lips,” the report says.

The commission also filed as exhibits letters exchanged between Cooper and his girlfriend, with Travis noting, “The letters appear to be manipulative in the context of a domestic violence relationship.”

E.C. waived making a victim impact statement, according to evidence in the case.

Mitigating factors ‘qualified’

Among other factors, Cooper in his defense cited personal and emotional problems, alcohol abuse and anger-control issues for which he had been diagnosed and was receiving treatment, as well as his cooperation with the commission in his discipline case. While Travis noted these in her report, she found aggravating factors “outweigh the mitigating factors, with most of the mitigating factors being qualified in some regard.”

Cooper also had turned to former colleagues to provide character references, including fellow Republican Johnson Superior Judge Peter Nugent, who had served as a deputy prosecutor prior to his appointment to the bench in 2017. Travis noted that Nugent said of Cooper, “He is honest. He will disclose anything and everything because he has to do it under the Rules. He’s reasonable. He cares about people. He’s just one of the most honorable attorneys I know.”

But Travis also noted in her report that attorney discipline precedent makes it “not clear” whether character or reputation “carries much weight as a mitigating factor in this case.” Additionally, “one of (Cooper’s) witnesses testified that but for the subpoena she received, she would not have testified” at his hearing.

An aggravating factor that appears to weigh heavily in Travis’ report is deceitful conduct in Cooper’s prior attorney discipline case that also was a factor in the domestic violence case. In the prior case, Cooper was reprimanded in 2017 for criticizing a judge’s handling of a post-conviction case for a man convicted of murder.

“(H)is prior discipline involved concerns regarding his honesty and statements to media,” Travis wrote, noting that in the 2017 case, Cooper provided to the Indianapolis Star “commentary that was false, misleading, and inflammatory in nature” and “made the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth or falsity,” in violation of Professional Conduct Rule 8.2(a).

“Less than two years later, respondent has again made false statement to the media. In this respect, respondent’s misconduct in the immediate case, though more serious for its violence, is similar to his earlier misconduct,” the hearing officer found. Specifically, Travis noted, after reports of the domestic violence incident surfaced, Cooper “told a member of the media that he was the victim in the case, that E.C. had attacked him, and that he was only defending himself.

“… As the elected prosecutor and a member of law enforcement, the additional act of dishonesty and fraud in his statement to the media also caused additional damage (beyond the damage to the reputation of the victim) to the integrity of the justice system, the public’s perception of the justice system, as well as potentially perpetuating the myth that domestic violence only happens when an alleged victim/survivor caused or exacerbated the circumstances surrounding the attack,” Travis wrote. “… Any sanction imposed must reassure both the public and the Bar that the integrity of the profession is intact.”

‘Special treatment’

Among Cooper’s offered mitigators that Travis found to be qualified was that he “resigned” after he was convicted. She noted in her report that Cooper continued to serve as prosecutor for months from the time he agreed to plead guilty until his plea was formally accepted in court. Further, the law required Cooper to leave office upon conviction of a felony.

“This mitigating factor does not exist in this case,” Travis wrote.

“Throughout the entirety of these events and even up to the day he had judgment of conviction entered against him, respondent was Johnson County’s elected prosecutor. As such, respondent occupied an official position that demanded that he abide by the very laws he was responsible for enforcing. When he committed the acts that form the basis for his misconduct, respondent violated the trust that had been placed in him by the citizens of Johnson County and by all of Indiana’s citizens.

“Respondent also undermined public confidence in the criminal justice system, not only by the crimes that he committed, but by remaining in office as the elected prosecutor and receiving special treatment. Respondent is now a convicted felon, and he will remain a convicted felon until at least mid-July 2022. Although respondent was suffering from substance use disorder when he committed the crimes for which he is being disciplined, respondent has reportedly had substance use disorder and has struggled with anger-control issues for years,” even citing them in his prior discipline case, Travis noted.

“Yet it wasn’t until after the events of March 4, 20l9, that respondent sought treatment for his alcohol use disorder and for the anger that caused him to physically assault another person.

“In light of the nature of respondent’s misconduct, the duties he violated, the actual harm he committed to both E.C. and to the public, the potential for harm and the risk to the public should he be allowed to continue practicing law, the duty to preserve the integrity of the legal profession, the factors found in aggravation, and the fact that this entire incident was the subject of significant media attention, the Hearing Officer respectfully recommends that the Court disbar respondent from the practice of law in the State of Indiana,” Travis concluded.

The case is In the Matter of: Bradley D. Cooper, 19S-DI-418.