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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT