ILNews

Lawyer attacks state representative

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The lawyer accused of attacking attorney and state representative Edward DeLaney faces five counts, including attempted murder.

Augustus J. Mendenhall, 38, of Indianapolis, faces charges of attempted murder, a Class A felony; armed robbery, aggravated battery, and criminal confinement, all Class B felonies; and resisting law enforcement, a Class A misdemeanor.

The charges stem from the attack on DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, in Carmel Saturday morning. According to the Carmel Police Department, a witness called police after seeing DeLaney and Mendenhall in a car. The witness, who knew DeLaney, believed he may be in trouble based on his behavior.

The meeting was arranged by Mendenhall, who contacted DeLaney about meeting at Catherine Drive in Carmel to discuss the possible purchase of property near that location. At the time, DeLaney was unsure about who he was meeting, according to police.

When police arrived, they found Mendenhall on top of DeLaney, punching him in the head. When he saw police, Mendenhall ran and was stunned before being taken into custody. DeLaney had injuries to his head and face and was transported to a hospital. Police found a .25-caliber semi-automatic handgun while taking Mendenhall into custody.

Mendenhall, who was admitted to the Indiana Bar in October 2008, is being held without bond in the Hamilton County Jail.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT