Utah Supreme Court hears appeal over prosecutor’s press‑conference remarks and public reprimand

At oral argument, the Utah Supreme Court heard David Leavitt’s appeal of a disciplinary finding that he violated Rule 3.6(a) of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct by commenting on a high‑profile criminal matter during a July 2019 press conference. Leavitt is challenging both the committee’s determination that his remarks had a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceedings and the vice chair’s decision to impose a public reprimand rather than a confidential admonition.

Why it matters: The case tests how courts should apply Rule 3.6 and its Comment 5 — which singles out topics such as witness credibility and opinions on guilt — to prosecutorial remarks made to the media, and whether the mental‑state standard used to prove a violation should control the presumptive sanction. That balance affects prosecutors’ public communications and the range of disciplinary penalties that may follow.

In argument, counsel for Leavitt, Brea Johnson, framed the key legal issue as the factual mental state at the moment the comments were made. Johnson said the rule requires that ‘‘he knew or reasonably should have known there was a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing the proceedings’’ at the time he spoke, and she relied on this court’s Bates precedent to argue that an attorney’s after‑the‑fact…