Prosecutor files answer to disciplinary charges

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Delaware County Prosecutor Mark McKinney has responded to the disciplinary charges he faces in connection to his role as a private attorney on civil forfeiture matters related to the criminal defendants he handled as a deputy prosecutor and prosecutor on behalf of the state, saying his representation of the state wasn't limited by his financial interest in forfeiture actions.

The verified complaint filed by the Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission in May 2009 claims McKinney violated four of Indiana's Rules of Professional Conduct - 1.7(b), 1.7(a)(2), 1.8(I), and 8.4(d). The allegations state that his profiting in drug forfeiture cases - he was paid 25 percent of the money forfeited by or seized from drug defendants per fee agreements - impeded the state's criminal cases that he was involved in prosecuting.

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. 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.

In his response filed Feb. 4, McKinney denied that his representation of the state as prosecutor or deputy prosecutor was materially limited by a personal financial interest in confidential settlement agreements with defendants or the outcome of forfeiture actions.

The Disciplinary Commission previously had initiated a grievance in 1999 against then-deputy prosecutors McKinney and Lou Denney, and then-prosecutor Rick Reed alleging that McKinney and Denney were paid 25 percent of the value of property seized. McKinney and Reed filed a joint response that year, but no action was taken on those allegations until Muncie Mayor Sharon McShurley filed a grievance in 2008 raising the same issues as the 1999 allegations. McKinney believes this 9-year delay is prejudicial.

McKinney's response says the asset forfeiture program was created by Reed before McKinney joined the office and McKinney acted in good faith in relying on office policy, his supervisors' approval and knowledge, and statutory and legal authority. According to his response, the Indiana Attorney General's Office in 1998 issued an opinion that said local officials and the courts are the legal entities to determine the method of distribution of funds to pay attorneys. The State Board of Accounts, Delaware Circuit Judge Richard Dailey, and the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney's Council also found nothing to suggest there was an ethical problem, according to McKinney's response.

McKinney also asserts the defense that he was allowed by the civil forfeiture statute to be retained to bring an action and the statute infers he would be paid to prosecute those actions on behalf the prosecutor. He also claims the disciplinary charges violate the separation of powers doctrine of the federal and state constitutions.

McKinney was cleared by a special prosecutor of any criminal wrongdoing in his handling of the drug forfeiture cases just a day before the Disciplinary Commission filed its charges in May. An evidentiary hearing is set for July 6 before the hearing officer in this case, Boone Circuit Judge Steve David. McKinney's attorney is Kevin McGoff of Bingham McHale in Indianapolis.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?