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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT