ILNews

Lawyer-legislator's attacker on trial

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

The man accused of attacking a lawyer-legislator last year because of a 23-year-old legal dispute is on trial in Hamilton Superior Court, facing multiple felony charges and potentially 100 years or more in prison.

The trial began Sept. 7 for Augustus J. Mendenhall, who was charged following the October 2009 attack on Rep. Edward DeLaney, D-Indianapolis, who is also an attorney. The man used a fake name to meet with DeLaney about a possible real estate deal in Carmel, but when the two met, Mendenhall beat DeLaney and tried to shoot him, according to news reports. A witness called police after seeing DeLaney and Mendenhall acting suspiciously, and believing DeLaney was in danger. When police arrived, they found Mendenhall on top of DeLaney, punching him in the head. DeLaney suffered injuries to his head and face in the attack. Police later learned that the man held a grudge about a legal dispute from the 1980s involving Mendenhall’s father, and that appeared to have led to this attack.

Also an attorney, Mendenhall was admitted to the bar in October 2008 and the Indiana Supreme Court suspended him in July 2010 because of this incident.

Mendenhall was charged with attempted murder, felony robbery resulting in serious bodily injury, felony criminal confinement, and misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. Setting aside 10 days for the trial, Hamilton Superior Judge William J. Hughes heard testimony that included DeLaney.

Mendenhall’s attorney Jack Crawford is presenting an insanity defense, and the court docket shows physicians listed as expert witnesses to testify in the case.
 

Rehearing "It's a dangerous legal world" IL Nov. 25-Dec. 8, 2009

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. 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

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT