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

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. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT