ILNews

Man accuses public defenders of malpractice

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An accused child molester who sat in jail for 2 1/2 years until his case was dismissed is suing his former public defenders for legal malpractice.

Donald Woods filed the suit Thursday in federal court against attorneys Bradley B. Jacobs and Leslie D. Merkley alleging legal malpractice because the two didn't question or investigate the allegation that Woods had inserted 4 feet of weed-eater wire into his estranged son's penis eight years earlier.

The suit Donald Woods v. New Albany Police Dept., et al., No. 4:10-cv-0002, was filed in the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, New Albany Division. Woods is seeking $5 million under the Indiana Tort Claims Act.

Woods was charged with Class A felonies child molesting and criminal deviate conduct in July 2006 following allegations from his estranged wife that Woods inserted the wire into their son's body when he was only five years old in 1998, the last time he had any contact with his wife or son.

The wire was discovered when his son had a CT scan of his pelvis following a fall in 2006.

Jacobs and Merkley were assigned back-to-back as public defenders for Woods; in his suit, Woods claims neither attorney visited him in jail and never questioned how his son could live eight years with the wire inside of him without any physical problems. Woods' third public defender, Jennifer Culotta, obtained medical records in November 2008 and discovered the son had a CT scan on the same area in 2005 and there was no wire inside of him then.

The case was dismissed against Woods in March 2009 but he wasn't released from jail until December 2009.

In addition to his legal malpractice claims, Woods is suing the New Albany Police Department, Detective Sherri Knight, Clark County Sheriff's Department, Clark County Prosecutor Steven D. Stewart, and deputy prosecutor Shelley Marble for violations of his Fourth Amendment rights, malicious prosecution, false arrest, and false imprisonment.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT