ILNews

Ex-prosecutor gets 4-month suspension

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Former Delaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney has been suspended for 120 days, the Indiana Supreme Court announced Thursday. The suspension begins July 28, with automatic reinstatement upon its conclusion, subject to the conditions of Admission and Discipline Rule 23(4)(c).

In issuing its opinion on In The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, the court held that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases.

McKinney was a Delaware County deputy prosecutor from 1995 until he became the county’s prosecutor in 2007. McKinney worked in conjunction with the now-defunct Muncie-Delaware County Drug Task Force to bring drug-related criminal cases to court. In 1995 and 2004, McKinney and former Delaware County Prosecutor Richard Reed entered into written fee agreements that guaranteed McKinney 25 percent of any civil forfeiture action that he brought, under a statute currently codified at Indiana Code 34-24-1-1, et seq.

The disciplinary action said Reed had contemplated the same deputy prosecutor should handle both the criminal case and the associated forfeiture case, and he concluded the criminal case would end before any resolution of the forfeiture case. Otherwise, the costs associated with the criminal case would not be known. But the justices stated that in many instances, criminal cases were open while related civil forfeiture actions were also open. McKinney also, at times, engaged in plea agreement negotiations knowing that he would receive compensation as the result of an action.

Beginning in 2002, McKinney used what he called Confidential Settlement Agreements to transfer seized property, including cash, from criminal defendants to the city of Muncie through private agreement by the parties without court supervision or public disclosure. He then invoiced the city of Muncie and collected 25 percent of the money transferred, which he based on his interpretation of the fee agreements he had created with Reed. In some instances, McKinney was engaged in CSA negotiations while the corresponding criminal cases were open.

 “Although there is no evidence in this case that Respondent made any explicit quid pro quo offer of favorable treatment to any criminal defendant in exchange for the forfeiture of property from which Respondent would be compensated, it would doubtless be evident to such a defendant, and to his or her attorney if represented, that prosecutorial discretion in how to proceed with the criminal case was held by one who stood to reap personal financial gain if the defendant agreed to the forfeiture of his or her assets. Respondent's misconduct created an environment in which, at the very least, the public trust in his ability to faithfully and independently represent the interests of the State was compromised,” the justices wrote.

Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David did not participate in the Supreme Court’s deliberations. Justice David was a Boone Circuit judge when he served as hearing officer in McKinney’s disciplinary case that began in December 2009. In 2010, he recommended a public reprimand as suitable punishment for McKinney.

The Supreme Court found McKinney in violation of Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.7(b), 1.7(b)(2), 1.8(1), and 8.4(d).

Justice Robert Rucker dissented with the sanction imposed by the court, preferring a public reprimand, but otherwise concurred with the majority’s findings.
 

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT