ILNews

Discipline case poses questions on recusals, separation of powers

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Delaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney should be publicly reprimanded for violating four professional conduct rules in his handling of civil forfeiture matters as a private attorney while simultaneously prosecuting those same criminal defendants, according to a hearing officer the Indiana Supreme Court appointed to examine disciplinary charges against the prosecutor.

But the state’s highest court makes the final decision on whether misconduct occurred and if any sanctions should be imposed, and that now presents a novel situation in itself.

The hearing officer on this disciplinary action is Boone Circuit Judge Steven H. David, the state’s justice-designee who takes the bench Oct. 18. Reviewing and recommending sanctions in this matter on Sept. 29 culminates his role on a case that began in December 2009, long before he thought about applying for the high court. Now it’s one of his final actions on the trial bench before becoming a justice and it means he’ll likely not participate in the final disciplinary decision.

The Indiana Supreme Court last year rejected an agreement for a 90-day suspension on the grounds that some justices felt it was too lenient. Now, with only four justices considering the matter once it gets to the court, the final result on this longstanding dispute is anything but clear.

Before becoming prosecutor in January 2007, McKinney was a deputy prosecutor beginning in 1995 and worked with the now-disassembled Muncie-Delaware County Drug Task Force. He was personally involved as a deputy prosecutor in drug investigations on many of the resulting criminal cases, and from 2000 to 2007 he also received thousands of dollars in compensation from the private forfeiture settlements in his role as a private attorney from those criminal defendants being prosecuted. This Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission action came in 2009, following one in 1999 in which no action was taken.

After a new mayor launched an inquiry concerning that practice in 2008, McKinney ultimately stopped it. A special prosecutor in May 2009 cleared McKinney of any criminal wrongdoing in his handling of drug forfeiture cases. In his findings as hearing officer, Judge David said all money was accounted for and that there’s no evidence McKinney ever agreed to soften charges or reduce plea agreements for defendants in exchange for forfeiture money or action.

But Judge David found the disciplinary commission proved that the prosecutor violated four Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct – 1.7(b), 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(I), and 8.4(d). The allegations are that his profiting in drug forfeiture cases – his receiving 25 percent of the money forfeited by or seized from drug defendants per fee agreements – impeded the state’s criminal cases that he was involved in prosecuting.

“From any non-lawyers perspective, it is reasonable to conclude that the ethical propriety of the civil forfeiture methodology employed in Delaware County was clearly in question almost from its inception,” Judge David wrote in his report, which found both mitigating and aggravating factors.

Mitigators are the lack of any quid pro quo, McKinney has no prior disciplinary history, and he has held leadership roles in the Indiana State Bar Association and Indiana Continuing Legal Education Forum’s governing board, as well as in several other community organizations. He also determined the significant decade-long lapse in investigating and prosecuting this between 1999 and 2008 was a mitigating factor. But an aggravator factor is that McKinney never investigated this issue but essentially swept it under the rug for so long.

“He was either convinced he was right and was not worried about the concerns of others or he failed to understand and appreciate and/or acknowledge the Indiana Rules of Professional Responsibility,” Judge David wrote. “Had he acted more pro-actively, the practice complained of would have ended long before it did.”

In recommending a penalty for the Supreme Court to consider, Judge David wrote that a public reprimand is warranted. He also wrote, alluding to the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council, “In addition, it is also recommended that the practice that was common in Delaware County, as evidenced in this matter, be soundly denounced and that some entity (mostly likely IPAC) undertake efforts (to the extent IPAC has not already taken the lead on this matter) to insure that this practice is not occurring anywhere else.”

Judge David wrote that civil forfeiture proceedings vary between counties, though Indiana Code 34-24-1-3(a) permits prosecutors to handle those proceedings in-house with deputy prosecutors, while I.C. 34-24-1-8 also allows prosecutors to contract those cases to outside counsel. The latter is the most prevailing model used in these arrangements, Judge David pointed out, but McKinney didn’t use that method.

Making the case even more interesting for the legal community is one of the arguments raised in the prosecutor’s defense – that the judiciary doesn’t have the constitutional authority to discipline an elected prosecutor, who is a member of the executive branch and protected by the separations of powers doctrine.

McKinney’s attorney, Kevin McGoff with Bingham McHale in Indianapolis, argued that sanctioning the prosecutor would violate both the U.S. Constitution and Indiana Constitution Article 3, §1 on government powers. In his proposed findings to Judge David earlier this year, McGoff cited Ind. Alcohol Beverage Comm’n v. McShane, 354 N.E.2d 259, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 1976), that held a court can’t try to control an executive agency’s discretionary powers.

Judge David didn’t address that separation of powers argument in his report, and McGoff said he wasn’t sure how that might be used in the future before the Supreme Court. He declined to get into whether that argument might dictate contesting any recommended sanction, regardless of it being a reprimand or more severe suspension.

“At this point, we are just taking a step back and reflecting on the case and where it is now,” McGoff said. “We have until the end of October to make a decision on what we want to do, and there are many issues to think about. Whatever decision is made ultimately (on how to proceed), it’s up to my client.”

Some of that decision-making could come down to action the state justices took last year when rejecting the agreement that called for a 90-day suspension. A copy of a notice issued by the appellate clerk’s office to the parties June 18, 2009, is available online at the Indiana Law Blog and says, “Specifically, a majority of the Court concluded that the agreed discipline, that being suspension from the practice of law for 90 days with automatic reinstatement, is insufficient in light of the misconduct agreed to by the parties.”

Details on that proposed agreement or the majority vote for a more severe penalty are not public according to court rules, said Appellate Clerk and Supreme Court Administrator Kevin Smith. That leaves open questions about how the justices will respond once they get the recommendation for a public reprimand.

McGoff and discipline commission attorney Charles Kidd both told Indiana Lawyer in the week following the Sept. 29 recommendations that they hadn’t factored in the court’s makeup with a new justice and that hadn’t been a part of their decision-making at this point. They also declined to discuss the rejected agreement from last year, citing confidentiality rules.

“We don’t let that influence our decisions on that and (the lineup of justices) isn’t something that we are considering,” Kidd said.

Any review request on McKinney’s behalf is due Oct. 29, and the disciplinary commission has a month to file a response followed by McKinney having 15 days to file a response brief. The briefing puts the appeal into mid-December, and McGoff said the holidays will likely slow the review process even more so that a decision won’t come until sometime in 2011.

McKinney, who’s been practicing law since 1991, is nearing the end of his first term as prosecutor and he won’t be back after losing the primary election in May – meaning a disciplinary decision will likely come down after he leaves offices.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT