ILNews

Attorney found guilty but mentally ill in attack

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Hamilton County jury found an attorney guilty but mentally ill on the five counts he faced following his attack on a state representative nearly a year ago.

Augustus Mendenhall was convicted of Class A felonies attempted murder and robbery resulting in serious bodily injury; Class B felonies aggravated battery and criminal confinement; and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.

Mendenhall attacked Rep. Edward Delaney, D-Indianapolis, who is also an attorney, in October 2009 in Carmel. Mendenhall arranged to meet with DeLaney, who believed Mendenhall wanted to meet to discuss a possible property purchase. A passerby saw the two in a car, knew DeLaney and thought he may be in trouble and called police.

When police arrived, they found Mendenhall on top of DeLaney hitting him. Mendenhall had a gun, but it didn’t fire when he pulled the trigger. DeLaney suffered numerous injuries in the attack, including broken ribs and a punctured lung.

Mendenhall had a long-standing grudge against the attorney, blaming DeLaney for his family’s legal issues. DeLaney worked on a 1983 case involving Mendenhall’s father, Burke, who owned a building that was going to be rented to an adult bookstore. DeLaney’s mall-developer client filed a suit to stop it. The Marion County Prosecutor filed a civil suit to seize the bookstore and the case made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Mendenhall ultimately won, but by then he had agreed to not rent to the bookstore.

Mendenhall, who was admitted to the bar in 2008, was suspended by the Indiana Supreme Court in June. He is scheduled to be sentenced Oct. 15.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT