The Utah Supreme Court has sanctioned David Leavitt, former Utah County Attorney, for violating professional conduct rules during his prosecution of a high-profile double murder case. The court's disciplinary order, filed Oct. 30, 2025, addresses Leavitt's conduct during the prosecution of Jerrod Baum for the murder of two teenagers.
The disciplinary action centers on a press conference Leavitt held while serving as Utah County Attorney to announce that his office intended to seek the death penalty against Baum. During the press conference, Leavitt went beyond merely announcing the prosecutorial decision and made statements that the court found violated Rule 3.6 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct.
According to the court's opinion, authored by Justice Petersen, Leavitt "commented on Baum's character, vouched for the credibility of the State's witness 'based on a lot of evidence that the jury will never hear,' suggested that Baum was guilty, and made other potentially inflammatory statements." These comments occurred while the case was actively proceeding in district court, raising concerns about potential prejudice to the ongoing proceedings.
Rule 3.6 of the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct exists specifically to prevent attorneys who are investigating or litigating a case from making extrajudicial statements that could prejudice the proceedings. The rule serves as a safeguard to protect the integrity of the judicial process and ensure fair trials.
The case against Baum involved what the court described as the "brutal murder of two teenagers," making it a high-profile matter that naturally attracted significant public attention. However, the Supreme Court emphasized that even in cases of intense public interest, prosecutors must adhere to professional conduct standards when communicating with the media and public.
The disciplinary proceedings began after the district court presiding over Baum's case concluded that some of Leavitt's statements violated professional conduct rules. This finding during pretrial litigation led to the formal disciplinary action that ultimately reached the Utah Supreme Court.
Leavitt challenged the disciplinary order through a petition for review, represented by attorneys Freyja Johnson, Emily Adams, and Mikayla Irvin of Bountiful. The Office of Professional Conduct was represented by Christine T. Greenwood and Michelle R. Daniels of Salt Lake City.
The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the matter on Feb. 28, 2025, before issuing its decision. The opinion was joined by Chief Justice Durrant, Associate Chief Justice Pearce, Justice Hagen, and Justice Pohlman, indicating unanimous agreement on the disciplinary action.
The case highlights the delicate balance prosecutors must maintain when communicating with the public about ongoing cases. While prosecutors have legitimate interests in keeping the community informed about significant criminal cases, they must do so within the bounds of professional conduct rules designed to protect defendants' rights to fair proceedings.
Prosecutorial statements to the media become particularly sensitive in death penalty cases, where potential jurors' exposure to prejudicial information could impact their ability to fairly consider evidence presented at trial. The Supreme Court's action reinforces that prosecutors cannot use press conferences as vehicles to present evidence or arguments that would be inadmissible in court or to characterize defendants in ways that could prejudice potential jurors.
The disciplinary order against Leavitt serves as a reminder to prosecutors throughout Utah about the importance of adhering to professional conduct standards, even under intense public scrutiny. Legal experts note that high-profile cases often generate pressure for public officials to provide detailed explanations of their decisions, but this case demonstrates that such communications must remain within ethical boundaries.
The specific nature and extent of the discipline imposed on Leavitt was not detailed in the available portions of the court's opinion. However, the fact that the matter reached the state's highest court underscores the seriousness with which the legal profession treats violations of rules governing extrajudicial statements by attorneys.
This case also illustrates the multi-layered oversight system for attorney conduct in Utah, involving both trial courts and the Supreme Court's Ethics and Discipline Committee. The system provides checks and balances to ensure that attorneys, particularly those in positions of public trust like elected prosecutors, maintain the highest standards of professional conduct.
The disciplinary action against Leavitt may influence how prosecutors throughout Utah approach media relations in high-profile cases going forward, potentially leading to more cautious and measured public statements that focus strictly on procedural announcements rather than substantive commentary on evidence or defendant character.