ILNews

Deputy prosecutor fired for errors in handling protective order violation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The employment of an unnamed St. Joseph County deputy prosecutor has been terminated after deciding not to prosecute a man following his May arrest for violating a protective order. Several days later, that man allegedly stabbed and killed his young daughter.

According to a press release issued by the prosecutor’s office Wednesday, the deputy prosecutor didn’t prosecute Edward Mwaura because the deputy prosecutor’s review of the Protective Order Registry under “Mwaura” revealed an invalid protective order. Mwaura was arrested May 30.

On the morning of June 2, police responded to a 911 call at an apartment complex involving Mwaura and Lucy Munida. She was bleeding from several knife wounds and told police that Mwaura, her ex-husband, was inside the apartment with their 6-year-old daughter.

When police entered the apartment, they saw Mwaura stabbing the girl. Lt. Steven Noonan shot Mwaura and killed him. The girl later died from her injuries.

The deputy prosecutor’s decision to not prosecute the misdemeanor crime of violation of the protective order would have been correct if the protective order was invalid.

However, the deputy prosecutor didn’t examine the Protective Order Registry under the Munida’s last name, which would have shown a valid protective order existed. Mwaura’s last name was misspelled on the valid protective order as “Mwawra.”

The arresting officer indicated in his report that there was a valid protective order but didn’t note the cause number.

“It is the responsibility of prosecutors to seek justice and enforce the laws. This does not end with a cursory review of the evidence,” the release from Prosecutor Michael Dvorak says. “Clearly, Mwaura should have been charged with the misdemeanor crime of ‘Violation of a Protective Order.’ This DPA failed to exercise the thoroughness expected, particularly in crimes with women and children as victims of domestic abuse. Accordingly, this individual is no longer employed with the St. Joseph County Prosecutor’s Office.”

The prosecutor’s office found Noonan and the other officers were justified in using deadly force in shooting Mwaura.

 

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. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT