There is little doubt that Dan Brewington's public defender, Rush County Public Defender Bryan Barrett, had no intention of providing Dan with any kind of competent representation during his criminal trial in 2011. A fresh review of documents from Brewington's trial demonstrate that Mr. Barrett colluded with Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard during the proceedings that kept Brewington incarcerated in Indiana for 2.5 years. Judge Brian Hill, Special Judge from Rush County Circuit Court, was also aware of this information.
A closer review of the 531 pages of transcripts from the four day criminal trial of Dan Brewington reveals that Brewington's Public Defender, Bryan Barrett, agreed with Dearborn County Prosecutor F. Aaron Negangard that it would be in the best interest of an ongoing investigation against Brewington to rephrase a line of questioning because it "...would probably be a good idea that Mr. Brewington not be specifically advised about [ongoing investigation of Brewington]." (Quote from Prosecutor Negangard, page 419 lines 15-24 of trial transcripts.) This interchange transpired when Prosecutor Negangard interrupted Barrett's line of questioning during the cross-examination of Dearborn County Sheriff Michael Kreinhop, on October 5, 2011 and asked Judge Hill if counsel could approach the bench. It was at that point Negangard informed Judge Hill and Bryan Barrett that another inmate in Dearborn County alleged that Brewington had made additional threats against Judge James D. Humphrey and Negangard himself. Barrett never told Brewington about the new allegations and investigation against him. Brewington was not aware of the accusations until his sentencing hearing on October 24, 2011 when Prosecutor Negangard called Brewington's cell mate, Joseph McCaleb, to testify. (McCaleb was arrested in at least two states for stealing women's undergarments while working as a Direct TV installation technician. See news story on 700WLW. A copy of McCaleb's letter to Prosecutor Negangard, written September 25, 2011, can be found on the Dearborn County Blog) Despite not having the evidence to charge Brewington with another crime, Negangard used McCaleb's testimony against Brewington to seek a tougher sentence. The collusion between Bryan Barrett, Prosecutor Negangard, and even Judge Hill in denying Brewington access to evidence made it impossible for Brewington to defend himself.
It seems unthinkable that a lawyer would withhold information about an investigation against his client from his client in an effort to assist the prosecution's case against his client. Bryan Barrett did just this. There was no talk of an objection to Prosecutor Negangard's request to hinder Dan Brewington's case in the name of protecting another (unsubstantiated) investigation of Brewington. Judge Bryan Hill made no effort to protect Brewington's rights to competent representation. If the prosecution does not want to share information with a defendant, then the prosecution will not tell the defendant's counsel. Either Negangard and Bryan Barrett had an understanding that they would keep evidence away from Brewington or Negangard lied to Judge Hill about the information being sensitive and just used the opportunity to further obstruct Dan Brewington's ability to have a fair trial. Please review the link to the 3 pages of trial transcripts concerning the obstruction of Brewington's right to competent counsel and fair trial. Feel free to contact federal or state officials with any concerns or complaints.