ILNews

Hamilton County attorney drunken-driving charges include a felony

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Barnes & Thornburg LLP attorney arrested July 7 on suspicion of drunken driving in Hamilton County faces two charges from the incident, including a Class D felony because of a prior conviction.

Marietto “Mario” V. Massillamany, 36, was pulled over on 96th Street in Hamilton County at around 7:30 a.m. by a Hamilton County sheriff’s deputy, who conducted an operating while intoxicated investigation. Massillamany was arrested on suspicion of drunk driving.

 The Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office filed charges Thursday against Massillamany for OWI with a previous conviction, a Class D felony, and operating while intoxicated endangering a person, a Class A misdemeanor.

Massillamany, of Fishers, pleaded guilty to Class A misdemeanor OWI endangering a person in March 2010 while he was spokesman for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. A second charge of Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent to 0.15 or more was dismissed.

Massillamany’s driver’s license was suspended and he was ordered to complete probation and community service as part of his sentence.

He resigned from the prosecutor’s office after the arrest and was publicly reprimanded by the Indiana Supreme Court in May 2011. As part of his discipline, Massillamany executed a monitoring agreement with the Indiana Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program.

If convicted on the felony charge, Massillamany faces possible suspension by the Indiana Supreme Court.

Massillamany’s practice at Barnes & Thornburg focuses on legislative and procurement issues, as well as government regulation matters and public finance.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT