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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT