ILNews

Prosecutor faces disciplinary charges

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Delaware County Prosecutor Mark R. McKinney faces disciplinary charges that he violated four professional conduct rules stemming from his role as a private attorney on civil forfeiture matters related to the criminal defendants he handled as a deputy prosecutor on behalf of the state.

The complaint verified May 8 by the Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission, says McKinney's conduct presented a conflict of interest and stood in the way of justice. The allegations say that his profiting in drug forfeiture cases - fee agreements show he was paid 25 percent of the money forfeited by or seized from drug defendants - impeded the state's criminal cases that he was involved in prosecuting.

He is accused of violating Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 1.7(b); 1.7(a)(2); 1.8(l); and 8.4(d).

Before becoming prosecutor in January 2007, McKinney was a deputy prosecutor beginning in 1995 and worked with the now-disassembled Muncie-Delaware Drug Task Force (DTF) with which he was personally involved in drug investigations of many of the resulting criminal cases. From 2000 to 2007, he also profited through compensation based on the value of contracts with defendants and attorney fees for his private practice work of suing for the forfeitures of criminal defendants' property, according to the complaint.

"Respondent criminally prosecuted defendants while at the same time (he) pursued civil forfeiture against those criminal defendants' cash and/or property knowing that Respondent would invoice and receive a 25 percent fee on the forfeited amount," the complaint states.

No evidence exists that McKinney ever agreed to offer a plea agreement to lesser charges or that he ever agreed to charge anyone for lesser crimes in exchange for money, the complaint notes.

"There is no evidence of any quid pro quo. Nonetheless, there was a significant risk that the Respondent's representation of the State as Prosecutor or DPA would have been materially limited by his personal financial interest in (confidential settlement agreements) or the outcomes of civil forfeiture actions," the complaint states.

In a news release, McKinney's attorney, Kevin McGoff with Bingham McHale in Indianapolis, said his client has cooperated with the commission on this matter from the start and he's accepted responsibility and agreed to a resolution of the charges. Details of that conditional agreement aren't public, and the Indiana Supreme Court can agree to those terms or issue another penalty as it sees fit, McGoff noted.

This disciplinary case came up after Mayor Sharon McShurley took office in 2008 and filed an initial grievance, following up on years of audits that found assets of civil drug forfeitures were diverted to funds for Muncie police and the former drug task force, instead of local government or state school funds - even as McKinney and other collected legal fees and a percentage of the seizure handling civil forfeiture cases.

A day before this disciplinary commission filing last week, Special Prosecutor Barry Brown from Monroe County cleared McKinney of any criminal wrongdoing in his handling of the drug forfeiture cases.

"There appears to have been a good faith effort by Mark McKinney to comply with the Indiana legislative statutory provisions as well as adhere to the practices and protocols of asset forfeiture as they existed in Delaware County at the time Mark McKinney served as deputy prosecuting attorney and prosecutor," Brown wrote in the order.

Although these were the same actions examined by the Disciplinary Commission, the two inquiries were independent of one another. An investigation of the same subject by Delaware Circuit 2 Judge Richard Dailey earlier this year ended after McKinney filed an appeal and the parties agreed the orders issued requiring him to repay money would be vacated and the matters dismissed.

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. 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."

  2. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  3. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  4. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

  5. It's a capital offense...one for you Latin scholars..

ADVERTISEMENT