ILNews

Curry denies White's request for special prosecutor

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry said Thursday that his office will not grant Secretary of State Charlie White’s request to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate White’s allegations of voter fraud by former U.S. Senator Evan Bayh and his wife Susan.  

Last week, White filed documents with the prosecutor’s office claiming the Bayhs voted fraudulently in Indiana’s May 2011 primary. He also challenged the Bayhs’ Indiana homestead tax exemption, arguing they primarily lived in Washington, D.C. He asked for Curry to appoint a special prosecutor.

White himself faces felony voter fraud and other charges in Hamilton County based on his use of his ex-wife’s home address when he registered to vote in 2010. His trial is set to begin in January.

Curry said in a statement that White’s allegations against the Bayhs of improper voter registration don’t include anything that would show that the Bayhs intend to abandon their Marion County residency.

“The mere fact that a person maintains a residence in a state other than Indiana – even if the out-of-state property is more valuable than the Indiana property – is insufficient to conclude that the person has committed fraud by voting in Indiana,” he said.

White can still petition the court to appoint a special prosecutor.

Curry said he’s sending the complaint to the Marion County Election Board so it can determine whether there is a substantial reason to believe an election law violation occurred and investigate if one is found. He also said White must bring up his homestead tax issue with the Marion County Auditor’s Office.

“Finally, Mr. White alleges that a special prosecutor should be appointed to investigate the Bayhs because Mr. and Mrs. Bayh, according to Mr. White, have engaged in the similar conduct which has resulted in pending criminal charges against Mr. White in Hamilton County,” Curry said. “We would note that the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office has no involvement whatsoever in the pending Hamilton County matter. The mere suggestion that someone else has engaged in the same conduct alleged in the Hamilton County criminal charges is again insufficient to justify appointment of a special prosecutor.”
 

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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT