Court asked to deny Hill’s request to stop investigation

The Marion County Prosecutor’s office pushed back today against Indiana Attorney General Curtis Hill’s attempt to squash the appointment of a special prosecutor, saying his motion had “fatal flaws” and he was making a “dubious proposition.”

Hill filed a motion July 12 challenging the special prosecutor and the authority of the inspector general to investigate allegations against him of inappropriate sexual behavior.

Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry filed the response, asking the Marion Superior Court to summarily deny Hill’s request. The prosecutor contended Hill’s motion has “fatal flaws.”

Curry’s response states, in part, “Hill’s pleading is ultimately grounded in the dubious proposition that a person who is merely suspected of a crime can (a) demand that the request for a special prosecutor include specific information about the nature of the investigation and (b) dictate what agency is allowed to conduct that investigation.”

The Attorney General has been accused by Rep. Mara Candelaria Reardon, D-Munster, and three legislative assistants of groping them during a party in March 2018 following the end of the General Assembly session. Gov. Eric Holcomb and both Republican and Democratic legislative leaders have called on Hill to resign.

Hill has denied any wrong doing. He has hired the law firm of Voyles Vaiana Lukemeyer Baldwin & Webb to represent him in this potential criminal matter. Also, yesterday, the law firm of Betz & Blevins announced they are representing Hill and threatened file a defamation lawsuit.

Marion Superior Court granted Prosecutor Terry Curry’s request for a special prosecutor July 10, 2018. Curry motion’s asked for the appointment to assist with the ongoing investigation into Hill and determine if criminal charges should be filed.

Hill argued the appointment of the special prosecutor is premature.

He also asserted the Indiana Inspector General does not have the statutory authority to investigate the claims against him. Pointing to Indiana Code 4-2-7-2(b) and 4-2-7-3, he stated the inspector general is responsible for addressing fraud and wrongdoing by agencies as well as ethics abuses, bribery and violations of lobbying rules by a state official.

Hill stated to his knowledge no complaints have been filed “alleging he has participated in any of the conduct outlined in Indiana Code 4-2-7-3 which would permit the Indiana Inspector General the authority to investigate him.”

In his response, Curry called Hill’s assertion “plainly wrong.”

The prosecutor noted I.C. 4-2-7-3 allows the Inspector General is investigate any misconduct and mandates the notification law enforcement if the office has reason to believe a crime has occurred.