ILNews

Court says why it removed special prosecutor

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court released an original action Nov. 13 explaining why it ordered an appointed special prosecutor in Delaware County removed from a case.

The high court issued Oct. 16 its permanent writ of mandamus in which it granted the petition of relief of Adrian D. Kirtz. Kirtz claimed Delaware Circuit Court No. 5 and Judge Thomas A. Cannon Jr. exceeded their jurisdiction and failed when under a duty to act by appointing J.A. Cummins as the special prosecuting attorney in Kirtz's pending criminal case. A special prosecutor was appointed because Kirtz had been a cooperating witness in several cases - pending and closed - in state and federal court, and the Delaware County prosecutor wanted to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

In that writ, the justices said they may issue an order or opinion explaining their reasons for the grant. They did that Friday, detailing why it could be viewed as inappropriate to have Cummins serve as the special prosecutor.

Cummins is the brother-in-law of attorney Michael Alexander, the man against whom Kirtz recently testified in a different criminal case. Alexander was charged with bribery and Kirtz, as a former client of Alexander's, was one of the state's material witnesses against the attorney. Cummins attended some of the trial and was there when Kirtz testified. Alexander was found not guilty. Just a few weeks later, Cummins was appointed to prosecute Kirtz.

The trial court didn't believe the family relationship between Cummins and Alexander would create an appearance of impropriety, but the justices saw otherwise. Cummins had expressed an interest in the Alexander case and attended some of the trial to show his support for his family.

"The issue here is not whether Cummins has a grudge against Kirtz or some other motivation to prosecute him more harshly; nor is the issue whether Cummins can set aside any personal feelings or interests he may have, fairly prosecute Kirtz, and effectively represent the State," the per curiam opinion stated. "The issue is one of appearance: whether Cummins's appointment created the appearance of impropriety."

Cummins' appointment, given the totality of the circumstances, would allow an objective observer reasonably to question whether his relationship with Alexander and Kirtz's role in that case would affect the prosecution of Kirtz.

"Public trust in the integrity of the judicial process requires us to resolve serious doubt in favor of a prosecutor's disqualification," wrote the court.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT