ILNews

Ex-prosecutor's official charged in gambling ring

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A former chief investigator for a western Indiana prosecutor faces official misconduct and other charges stemming from allegations that he protected a gambling ring from arrest.

James J. Counterman, 71, of Terre Haute, faces three counts of inducing an individual to commit professional gambling and three counts of official misconduct. He appeared Wednesday for an initial hearing.

The charges stem from allegations Counterman told operators of illegal poker games in Terre Haute that for a "price" they would not be prosecuted for illegal gambling activities, the Tribune-Star reported.

Vigo County Prosecutor Terry Modisett fired Counterman as his chief investigator in December after learning of the gambling investigation.

Investigator Edward McHargue of the Indiana Gaming Commission said in a probable cause affidavit that the Counterman investigation began in October 2009 when someone reported his alleged actions to a commission agent at the riverboat casino in Evansville. That informant stated that he had previously operated an illegal poker game in Terre Haute and provided information about others who were operating illegal games at the time.

In February 2011, a confidential informant said Counterman "protected" gambling operators from prosecution. The case included occasions when conversations were recorded by investigators. In a June 2011 conversation, Counterman reportedly told the informant: "We got a list of everything that's going on in town. We know where every game is played. We've got license plate numbers of every person playing."

In another statement, Counterman said, "We are the ones who decide what, or if charges should be filed. So Billy wants to run a game, it's not legal. I told him he could. I don't care."

The probable cause affidavit also states Counterman sometimes accepted cash from people running gambling operations and checks as political contributions.

McHargue said "no evidence was developed that showed that the prosecutor (Modesitt) was aware of the representations that Counterman was making regarding Counterman's authority and/or ability to 'protect' individuals from criminal charges."

Vigo Superior Judge David Bolk said he would recuse himself from the case because of his past work with Counterman and that a special judge from another county likely would take over. Bolk scheduled a Sept. 9 hearing.

A message seeking comment was left for Counterman's attorney.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT