Sometimes a person "pumps up" her or his resume in order to obtain employment. One way to pump up that resume, give it a little more juice, is to list jobs or achievements never held or won. An example of that was the resume of a person at DePauw who listed, amongst his prior jobs, "staff photographer for The Wall Street Journal." At the time, that publication had no photographs. At best, line drawings and graphs were placed on its pages. One representative of a potential employer caught what really was meant as a joke and got a good laugh. The applicant got the job. George O’Leary was hired by Notre Dame as its head football coach a few years ago, but held the position only for as long as it took to discover he been less than candid on his resume. One source estimates as any as 53% of resumes contain material inaccuracies. A person wants to look good to get a job. If that person does not feel her or his actual achievements are sufficient to qualify, the person begins to pump up what is there.

   An embellishment is "a fictitious addition." American College Dictionary, 1962 ed. In the context of resumes, it could consist of fictitious amplification of what one actually has done. Embellishments are not necessarily "lies." They consist of fudging on the truth.

   Thus I return to the subject of yesterday’s blog.

   Jack Lugar, candidate for Indiana’s 5^th Congressional District in the May 8 Republican primary, makes the following claim on his website, under the issues he titles "Crime and punishment":

"As a former attorney with the Appeals Division of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office, Jack made sure that violent criminals remained where they belonged – in jail."

Ballotpedia identifies, under the subtitle "Career," Jack Lugar as "Former attorney at Indiana Attorney General’s Office."  

   First, that might sound like a laudable quality in a deputy attorney general. A deputy AG stands at the ramparts of law, seeking to make "sure that violent criminals remain where they belong." A couple of points should be made here.

   1) The duty of those who serve in the office of Attorney General is not to "make sure that violent criminals remain where they belong." The office of the Attorney General and that of prosecutor in Indiana are held to the same standards as the office of prosecutor was carved out of the common law office of attorney general, who originally discharged all the duties now devolving on the two officers.  State ex rel. Williams v. Ellis, 184 Ind. 307, 312, 112 N.E. 98, 100 (1916). Thus, their duties are to represent the person charged with a crime with the same zeal and vigor that is used in trial of the cause: to see that the person has not been erroneously charged, tried, and convicted, and that all his rights and freedoms are protected.  Palmer v. State, 153 Ind.App. 648, 675, 288 N.E.2d 739, 755 (1972). Jack Lugar’s might indicate he understands these distinctions: "Our forefathers did a great job in spelling out specific protections for all of us - even convicted criminals. We don’t need any more. But, unfortunately, the federal government has continued to add more and more to what the Constitution requires." When read with his first statement, Jack Lugar’s vision of the job of AG seems to be clear: even convicted criminals have rights. But wait—if a person was wrongfully convicted, that person is not a criminal. 

   2) Violent criminals, once convicted, do not remain in jail. They are sent to prison. The difference is not one of mere semantics. Jack Lugar’s choice of words indicates he is unaware of the qualitative difference between the two institutional settings. There are tough jails, but prison is where people are sentenced for the long haul. There is a gravity to prisons one does not sense when entering a jail—even though the bars sliding closed behind one may have been manufactured at the same factory. And enough already with those people who parrot: "If you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime." That was from Baretta, the character portrayed by actor Robert Blake, was rich enough to afford good legal counsel and was acquitted of murder of his wife.

   As I pointed out yesterday, much of my law practice consists of representing individuals or businesses on appeals, many of which, in regard to individuals, are of criminal conviction and/or sentences. I was curious about Jack Lugar’s experience as an attorney in the Appellate Division of the Office of Attorney General. The Roll of Attorneys lists a John Ralph Lugar. The Clerk of Counts On-line docket also lists, by search of last name, the appellate cases in which a lawyer has served as counsel. A search for Lugar’s last name under "Search by Attorney’s Last Name" brought the result: "No records found for this search." 

   A WestLaw® search, however, brought up Jack Lugar’s name on three appeals. In Griffin v. State, 899 N.E.2d 755; Jackson v. State, 895 N.E.2d 742; and Johnson v. State, 910 N.E.d2d 272 he is identified as a "law clerk." If so, he worked on those appeals. His claim, however, is he was "a former attorney with the Appeals Division of the Indiana Attorney General’s Office."  Also, only the decision in Johnson was handed down after Jack Lugar was admitted to practice in May, 2009. The decision was issued in July of that year. Matters already had been briefed and were before the appellate court by the time Jack Lugar was a lawyer.

   If Jack Lugar has engaged in "puffery" to obtain a job, it is that a serious when the job he seeks is one that involves the public’s trust. If he can clarify this matter on this blog, his website, or at the debate of the Republican candidates for the 5^th District it is my understanding is to take place Wednesday night, that would be good. Perhaps I am incorrect about the conclusions I have drawn from the public records and other on-line sources I have cited in this blog.