ILNews

Ball State shooting trial starts Tuesday

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
An excessive force and wrongful death trial starts in federal court Tuesday involving a Ball State police officer's shooting of a college student about four years ago.

Jury selection begins Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Indianapolis in McKinney v. Duplain. The 21-year-old Michael McKinney was shot four times by campus officer Robert Duplain, who was responding to a report of a stranger pounding on the door of a house early on Nov. 8, 2003. Tests later showed that McKinney had a blood alcohol content of 0.34 percent.

A grand jury and internal police investigation later cleared Duplain of any wrongdoing in the shooting, but McKinney's parents filed suit in early 2004 on grounds of unreasonable excessive force and wrongful death. The suit asks for $750,000 in compensatory and punitive damages, along with more that could be secured from "the loss of love and companionship" not subject to any damages cap.

U.S. District Judge Richard Young has ruled that the key issues in the trial will center on what happened, specifically whether McKinney charged Duplain, whether Duplain sufficiently alerted McKinney to his presence, and whether Duplain acted reasonably in shooting McKinney four times.

Trial briefs submitted Friday by both sides' attorneys show differing accounts of what happened. While the plaintiffs' brief recaps a history of what happened, the defense brief states that as being "unnecessary" and focuses instead on evidentiary and jury issues likely to come up.

Defense attorneys have asked Judge Young to order McKinney's attorneys to refrain from stating during the trial that McKinney was "shot in the back" because they contend that isn't the case. Defense attorneys also assert that no reference should be made during the trial to McKinney being "unarmed" because Duplain did not know at the time whether McKinney was armed.

One of the lawyers involved in this case is Michigan attorney Geoffrey N. Fieger, who is representing McKinney's parents and is known for his representation of assisted-suicide advocate Jack Kevorkian in the 1990s. Two other attorneys from his firm, Fieger Fieger Kenney & Johnson, are listed in court records.

Litigation is expected to start Tuesday, and the court has set aside 10 days for the trial.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  2. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  3. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  4. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

  5. No, Ron Drake is not running against incumbent Larry Bucshon. That’s totally wrong; and destructively misleading to say anything like that. All political candidates, including me in the 8th district, are facing voters, not incumbents. You should not firewall away any of voters’ options. We need them all now more than ever. Right? Y’all have for decades given the Ds and Rs free 24/7/365 coverage of taxpayer-supported promotion at the expense of all alternatives. That’s plenty of head-start, money-in-the-pocket advantage for parties and people that don’t need any more free immunities, powers, privileges and money denied all others. Now it’s time to play fair and let voters know that there are, in fact, options. Much, much better, and not-corrupt options. Liberty or Bust! Andy Horning Libertarian for IN08 USA House of Representatives Freedom, Indiana

ADVERTISEMENT