ILNews

AG seeks to reinstate misconduct charges against former IURC chief

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The former head of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission could again face criminal charges in connection with his alleged actions surrounding Duke Energy’s Edwardsport power plant in 2010.

Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller announced Monday, Sept. 9, that his office has filed an appeal to the dismissal of official misconduct charges against David Lott Hardy. The Attorney General is asking the Indiana Court of Appeals to reverse the trial court’s dismissal of the official misconduct charges against Hardy and reinstate them.

Zoeller’s office argued that the Marion County Superior Court was wrong in ruling that the 2012 amendment to Indiana’s misconduct statute was retroactive.  

“We respect the trial court but contend its ruling is incorrect, the 2012 change is not retroactive and the defendant can and should face charges under the law in effect in 2010,” Zoeller stated in a press release. “We ask the Court of Appeals to reinstate the charges so that the trial can proceed and a verdict can be rendered.”

Hardy’s attorney David Hensel, of Pence Hensel LLC, could not be reached for comment.

Hardy was indicted by a Marion County grand jury in 2011 on four counts of Class D felony official misconduct. He was accused of lobbying Duke Energy to hire then IURC administrative law judge Scott Storms, and of having ex parte communications with the power company about the Edwardsport plant in 2010.

On Aug. 12, Marion County Superior Court Judge William Nelson granted the Hardy’s motion to dismiss all charges. It held the Indiana General Assembly’s changes to the criminal official misconduct statute which became effective July 1, 2012, were meant to be retroactive.

Following recommendations of the Indiana Inspector General, the Indiana General Assembly tightened the criminal official misconduct statute. The changes clarified the law applied to specific criminal offenses by public officials and not to violations of ethical or administrative rules or infractions.

Nelson held that because the Legislature acted quickly to the Inspector General’s request, it intended for the change to apply retroactively.

Zoeller asserted if the General Assembly intended to make a 2012 change in the law retroactive, it would have written that language into the statute which it did not do.

“Beyond the issue of law involved in this case is one that addresses important claims of public misconduct, and in order for the public to have trust in our system of laws, there must be accountability, which makes this appeal all the more important,” Zoeller stated.
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT