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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT