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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT