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

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