�
Clinton County – Clinton County Today
Category archive

Clinton County

Allegations of Editing State Board of Accounts Audit Report, New Trial Date Set

Published on

LEBANON, Ind. (April 23, 2025) – Attorneys for Clinton County Sheriff Richard Kelly and Jail Matron Ashley Kelly were in a Boone County courtroom to provide a status update on the large document drop just days prior to the start of the April 8 trial which resulted in the trial being delayed.

In the April 14 hearing, in answering questions from Boone County Judge Lori Schein, attorney for Mrs. Kelly, Mario Massillamany, shared that Clinton County Prosecutor Anthony Sommer and Clinton County attorney Tom Little were sending emails to the Attorney General office asking for the AG to join the civil case.

Attorney for Sheriff Kelly, Theodore Minch, added that in addition to those emails, new documents show they were actively editing the State Board of Accounts audit report on the Kellys and passing it back-and-forth.

A hearing on sanctions was not set – allowing the attorneys for Little and the Kellys to receive the promised privilege log of the newly received documents and to review the contents.

In an additional matter, Massillamany filed a motion to dismiss count #3 – criminal conversion – against Mrs. Kelly.

Criminal conversion is the act of knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over someone else’s property.

Massillamany’s argument was based on two documents he entered as exhibits A & B showing that Mrs. Kelly had authorized authority over the commissary funds.

Exhibit A was a 2021 written contract from an oral agreement between Sheriff Kelly and Mrs. Kelly to be the commissary manager at the same pay and duties as previous commissary managers.

Exhibit B was a written contract between Sheriff Jeff Ward and Nancy Ward, his wife, to perform the duties of commissary manager.

Massillamany noted the two agreements were identical but for paragraph 5 of Mrs. Kelly’s contract that made it retroactive to January 1, 2019.

Judge Schein asked special prosecutor Stanley Levco if Mrs. Kelly had a contract in place at the time she was put in place as commissary manager would he have filed conversion charges.

Levco was not the special prosecutor when charges were filed. Levco was appointed to the case in October 2024 after the previous special prosecutor – David Thomas – was elected judge in his home county.

Levco replied, had she had a contract at the time charges were filed – “maybe not. But she didn’t.”

The State filed its charges in 2022.

According to online case entries, the State filed a brief in response to defendant’s motion to drop count #3 on April 16.

Judge Schein took the matter under advisement.

A new trial date was set during the hearing.

Judge Schein informed the parties that the Clinton County courthouse will begin renovations soon and asked if there were objections to selecting a Clinton County jury and having the case in Boone County.

There were no objections and Tuesday, October 14 was selected after conferring with both sides on scheduling conflicts.

State Dismisses Count #4 in the Kellys Case, Judge Grants Continuance

Published on
State Dismisses Count #4 in the Kellys Case, Judge Grants Continuance
State Dismisses Count #4 in the Kellys Case, Judge Grants Continuance during a pretrial hearing Monday, April 7, 2025, at the Clinton County courthouse.

FRANKFORT, Ind. (April 7, 2025) – The Special Prosecutors handling the case against Sheriff Richard Kelly and his wife Ashley have dismissed count #4 – “signed under penalties of perjury statements related to their relationship with each other, in violation of the criminal offense of Perjury” – today during a pretrial hearing in the Clinton County courthouse.

The Kellys also filed with the Court to have the case continued after a large document drop – including audio files – were made available to them late last week.

The documents and audios were part of a discovery request that was two years old. And comes after assurances were made to Special Judge Lori Schein – during an in-chamber review, including attorneys representing County Attorney Tom Little – that all documents had been turned over during the August 2024 gathering.

This new data drop is described as a collection of 3,000 documents comprising some 10,000 pages plus audio files. Many of the documents contain redacted sections and a promised privilege log has yet to be turned over to the defense.

Judge Schein stated she was not pleased with granting the continuance noting the amount of time that has been spent to have the trial start this week. Judge Schein noted that balancing an ineffective council argument along with charges that are felonies that carry jail time outweigh continuing the case this week.

Attorney for Ashley Kelly – Mario Massillamany – asked the court to conduct a hearing on sanctions against attorney Tom Little, the Law Firm of Power, Little, Little, Little, and the attorneys that represent Tom Little as to why the delay in complying with the court’s order. Massillamany requested attorney’s fees paid by the Kellys among other items be considered as a remedy.

Judge Schein has set April 14 as a pretrial hearing to determine next steps as well setting a hearing on sanctions.

An additional item that will be discussed on April 14 is the defense motion to drop count #3 – “engaged in a violation of the Criminal Conversion statute (IC 35-43-4-3 (a) by Richard L. Kelly receiving commissary funds through his ownership in Leonne LLC.”

State, Kellys Trial to Start

Published on
Kellys criminal trail to being
The three-year-old criminal case involving Clinton County Sheriff Richard Kelly and his wife, Ashley, is set to begin on Tuesday, April 8, 2025, with selecting six jurors and three alternates. They are each facing four level 6 Felonies.

FRANKFORT, Ind. (April 6, 2025) – The three-year-old criminal case involving Sheriff Richard Kelly and his wife, Ashley, is set to begin on Tuesday with selecting six jurors and three alternates.

But first the State and the Kellys will face off in a hearing Monday morning to hear the State’s motion to limit the introduction of evidence in the case according to online court entries.

This is in response to the Kellys having notified the State of their intention to use an affirmative defense – mistake of fact – to the four charges. An affirmative defense places the burden of proof on the defense.

The Kellys each face one count each of the following (all are Felony 6):

1. as public servants knowingly or intentionally had a pecuniary interest in or derived a profit from a contract connected with their governmental entity served by the public servant;

2. engaged in a violation of the criminal Conflict of Interest statute;

3. engaged in a violation of the Criminal Conversion statute (IC 35-43-4-3 (a) by Richard L. Kelly receiving commissary funds through his ownership in Leonne LLC; and

4. signed under penalties of perjury statements related to their relationship with each other, in violation of the criminal offense of Perjury.

Although the court documents are not available, Clinton County Today was in the courtroom for the final pretrial hearing on March 12th when attorneys Theodore Minch and Mario Massillamany representing Sheriff Kelly and Ashley, respectively, were going back and forth with Special Judge Lori Schein.

The defense attorneys were asking for evidence to be allowed that the Kellys relied on attorney Little to perform the required work.

Attorney Massillamany to Judge Schein: “We filed a notice of affirmative defense – mistake of facts. And I think that would go into the arguments of affirmative defense – mistake of fact.”

Judge Schein: “Meaning what?”

Attorney Massillamany: “They relied on Mr. Little to fill-out the conflict waiver on their behalf.”

Later in the hearing, Judge Schein said to attorney Minch: “I’ve seen the emails. It looked like there was a conflict of interest form sent by Mr. Little on behalf of your clients before he took office.”

At the Monday hearing, the Kellys could argue that other county officials have not uploaded conflict of interest forms to the State Board of Accounts website.

Here are examples of missing conflict forms:

County Council President Alan Dunn was awarded a cash rent farming contract to farm the county farm in 2021. Dunn paid the county $325 per acre each for four years. He was able to collect any amounts above the $325 minus expenses. The 136-acres is located behind Parkview Home and the conflict form was presented at a commissioners meeting on February 1, 2021 – yet was never uploaded to the SBOA.

Not until June 26, 2024, was the conflict form uploaded to the SBOA disclosing his monetary interest from the contract.

Commissioners President Jordan Brewer presented not one, but two conflict forms acknowledging his father, Kent Brewer, is sole owner of KB Ditching and as a member of the Clinton County Drainage Board his father had been contracted previously prior to becoming a commissioner and could be selected to do work in the future through a competitive bid process.

The first was during a Commissioners meeting on February 17, 2021, where he stated, “Tom felt it best if we at least had a conflict of interest statement that we filed with the state.” County Attorney Tom Little was not at the meeting.

The second was during a Drainage Board meeting on March 1, 2021, where county attorney Tom Little was present. Attorney Little stated, “Just to be safe we will have it done twice. Once within the Board of Commissioners and again with the Drainage Board.”

Neither of those two forms were uploaded to the SBOA. A “full disclosure statement, contract disclosure requirement” for Commissioner Brewer was uploaded to the SBOA website on October 11, 2024.

With both the Dunn and Brewer conflict forms, it is unknown at this time who is responsible for uploading the document to the SBOA.

Audio Between Prosecutor and Journalist Released, Indiana Appeals Court Revives Defamation Suit Against Prosecutor Over Jail Fund Comments

Published on
Clinton County Prosecutor Anthony Sommer and Clinton County Sheriff Richard Kelly
Clinton County Indiana Prosecutor Anthony Sommer (L) and Clinton County Indiana Sheriff Richard Kelly pose for a photo after the December 2018 swearing-in of elected officials held inside the Clinton County Indiana courthouse. (Photo/Facebook)

FRANKFORT, Ind. (March 26, 2025) — A recent ruling by the Indiana Court of Appeals has revived a defamation lawsuit filed by Clinton County Sheriff Richard Kelly and his wife, Ashley Kelly, against County Prosecutor Anthony Sommer. The appellate court reversed a lower court’s decision to dismiss the case, finding that questions remain regarding whether Sommer’s statements to the media about an investigation into the Kellys’ management of jail funds were protected by prosecutorial immunity.

Today, we released the audio between the prosecutor and the journalist.

The audio is from an October 8, 2021, encounter where Prosecutor Sommer invited the journalist to view a “publicly available commissary report” for the first six months of 2021 in his office.

However, it was not the publicly available commissary report as promised – it was a fabricated report.

Over the next week of October 2021, the actual report submitted by Sheriff Richard Kelly during the July 13, 2021, County Council meeting was requested from both the county auditor and sheriff’s office revealing the report provided by the prosecutor was fabricated.

The fabricated report showed incorrect disbursements, incorrect deposits, a wrong check number, a missing check number and even a million dollar change in balance.

As a note, the fabricated report was uploaded as evidence in the county’s lawsuit against Sheriff Kelly and Matron Ashley Kelly on October 25, 2021, 79C01-2104-PL-000035. In the motion to dismiss its case, the county – through their attorney Tom Little – wrote: “Defendants submitted a detailed report of the Clinton County Sheriff’s Commissary Fund with listed activity for the first six months of 2021 to the Clinton County Council, attached here to as “Exhibit A”

An email dated December 27, 2021, between County Council President Alan Dunn and county attorney Little – in which the journalist was copied on – Dunn wrote to Little, “… I spent some time yesterday going over the spreadsheet and I did find several errors, which I have corrected in the version that is attached. … I was not aware at the time that my work would be submitted to the Court as an official County document, so now knowing that it has been I think we need to submit this corrected version as soon as possible. If you could do so, I would really appreciate it.”

The journalist is the author of this post.

Click here to be directed to Spotify or listen to the audio below:

FHS Names Justin Kenzie New Head Varsity Football Coach

Published on
Community Schools of Frankfort introduced Justin Kinzie (far left) during the school board meeting conducted February 11, 2025. Also standing are members of his family from left to right: his wife, Allision, and two sons Broderick and Mason.

FRANKFORT, Ind. (February 12, 2025) – Justin Kenzie was introduced as the 2025 Frankfort Varsity Head Coach during the Tuesday school board meeting.

Coming from Niles, Michigan where he coached the Brandywine Bobcats, Kenzie has experience in Indiana high school football.

He spent two years as interim head coach at South Bend Riley, prior to that was an assistant coach with Mishawaka Marian, South Bend Adams, and South Bend Washington. 

Kenzie has experience both on and off the field with 17 years of experience in the classroom and 22 years of experience in education based athletics. 

“I am excited to be here,” FHS Head Football coach Justin Kenzie said after he was introduced. “I know first-hand how important this position is. I know what it means to represent a community and have the title of head football coach. I want everyone in this community to know that won’t be lost on me. I am ready to come – two feet on the ground ready to work. I know there is a lot of work to be done but I have a strong back and coming with a shovel and ready to go to work.”

Kinzie will teach social studies at the high school. He and his wife, Allision, have two sons Broderick and Mason.

Kellys v Sommer: Appeals Court to Examine Boundaries of Prosecutorial Immunity

Published on
Clinton County Prosecutor Anthony Sommer and Clinton County Sheriff Richard Kelly
Clinton County Indiana Prosecutor Anthony Sommer (L) and Clinton County Indiana Sheriff Richard Kelly pose for a photo after the December 2018 swearing-in of elected officials held inside the Clinton County Indiana courthouse. (Photo/Facebook)

FRANKFORT, Ind. (January 15, 2025) – The Indiana Court of Appeals is set to hear oral arguments Thursday in a case that raises critical questions about the scope of prosecutorial immunity. The case, Richard Kelly and Ashley Kelly v. Anthony Sommer, stems from a dispute between the Clinton County Sheriff, Richard Kelly, his wife, Ashley Kelly, and Clinton County Prosecutor, Anthony Sommer.

At the heart of the dispute is a meeting between Sommer and a local journalist, Brett Todd, during which Sommer allegedly provided a fake jail commissary report. The Kellys contend that Sommer acted maliciously and outside the scope of his prosecutorial duties, while Sommer maintains that he is immune from liability for actions taken in his official capacity.

The lower court sided with Sommer, dismissing the Kellys’ claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Now, the Court of Appeals will determine whether the lower court erred in its application of the law.

The Allegations and Lower Court Findings

The Kellys’ Amended Complaint alleges that Sommer initiated a criminal investigation into their operation of the county jail commissary, driven by personal and political motivations. They further claim that Sommer, in a meeting with journalist Brett Todd, knowingly provided Todd with an alleged fake commissary report, falsely stating that the report originated from the Kellys. This report, they allege, was intended to damage their reputation.

Sommer, however, argued that his actions were within the scope of his prosecutorial authority and that he was immune from liability under both common law and the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA).

The lower court, while acknowledging the gravity of the allegations against Sommer, ultimately agreed with his immunity defense. The court granted Sommer’s motion to dismiss, finding that his actions were within the function of the Prosecutor’s Office and therefore protected, regardless of motive.

Significantly, the lower court found the Kellys’ allegations that Sommer provided a falsified document to journalist Brett Todd to be “very disturbing.”

“This is very disturbing to this Court and certainly could expose Defendant to possible criminal prosecution and/or severe disciplinary actions if proven,” wrote Boone County Judge Bruce Petit in April 2024. Nevertheless, the court concluded that, under Indiana law, prosecutorial immunity provides absolute protection even in cases of malicious or corrupt acts.

The Kellys Appeal

The Kellys appealed the lower court’s decision, focusing their arguments on two key points:

1. Sommer admitted to acting outside his prosecutorial function.

The Kellys highlight statements made by Sommer to Todd and WLFI News 18, asserting that these statements demonstrate he was not acting in his official capacity. Specifically, Sommer allegedly told Todd that he did not want to be recorded or quoted in any story, that he did not want to comment on the status of any investigation, and that no such investigation existed in his office.

2. The scope of Sommer’s employment under the ITCA is a question of fact.

The Kellys argue that Sommer’s admissions create a genuine dispute about whether his actions were within the scope of his employment as prosecutor. They contend that this question should be resolved by a jury, not dismissed as a matter of law.

The Kellys further argue that the lower court misapplied the “functional approach” to prosecutorial immunity by finding that Sommer could enjoy immunity while acting in his “personal capacity.” They contend that this conclusion contradicts established Indiana law and would effectively grant prosecutors limitless immunity.

Sommer’s Response

In his response brief, Sommer argues that the lower court correctly determined that he was acting within the scope of his employment as prosecutor. He emphasizes his duty to keep the public informed about investigations and his right to correct misrepresentations in the media. Sommer contends that his statements to Mr. Todd were made in furtherance of this duty.

Sommer also disputes the Kellys’ characterization of his statements to Todd, arguing that he never abandoned his role as prosecutor. He maintains that his statement about not prosecuting the Kellys simply acknowledged the likelihood of a special prosecutor being appointed in such a high-profile case.

Key Questions Before the Court of Appeals

The Court of Appeals will now grapple with several key questions:

Did Sommer’s statements to Todd, in which he disavowed any official investigation, place him outside the scope of his prosecutorial function?

The Kellys argue that these statements, combined with Sommer’s later admission that he was not providing an official statement about any investigation, demonstrate he was acting for personal reasons. Sommer, however, contends that his statements should be viewed in light of his overall duty to inform the public.

Did the lower court err in finding that Sommer could enjoy immunity even while acting in his “personal capacity?”

The Kellys argue that this conclusion contradicts Indiana law and would essentially eliminate any boundaries to prosecutorial immunity. Sommer counters that the lower court correctly applied the “functional approach,” which focuses on the nature of the action rather than the subjective intent of the actor.

Does the Kellys’ claim that Sommer knowingly provided a falsified document create a genuine issue of fact regarding the scope of his employment?

If so, should this question be resolved by a jury rather than through a motion to dismiss?

The outcome of this case could have a significant impact on the limits of prosecutorial immunity in Indiana. A ruling in favor of the Kellys would potentially narrow the scope of immunity, holding prosecutors more accountable for actions taken outside their official duties. A ruling in favor of Sommer, however, would reaffirm the broad protections afforded to prosecutors, even in cases where they are alleged to have acted maliciously or corruptly.

There is no timeline as to when the Court of Appeals will issue a decision after hearing oral arguments.

Note: the author of this article is the journalist referenced in the case.

Clinton County Decides: Election 2024

Published on

FRANKFORT, Ind. (November 6, 2024) – Only one local race was left undecided last night; Rossville School Board 19 with both candidates being write-ins, the Clinton County Clerks Office reported those results be available at some point today – 457 total write-in votes were cast.

With 62 of 62 election terminals tabulated, here is how Clinton County voters voted in the 2024 General Election.

Registered Voters: 20350
Voters: 12631
Voter Turnout: 62.07%

County Council Member At-Large (Pick 3)

Mark Newhart, Democratic – 3242
Jeff Chynoweth, Republican – 6551
James (Mike) Hensley, Republican – 6760
Mary King, Republican – 6245

Clinton Central School Board

Central District 11:
Jerry Lysko – 493
Amy Mennen – 1406

Rossville School Board

Rossville Clay Twp:
Joe Hufford – 927
Dillon Rothrock – 505

Rossville District 19 (Write-In Candidates):
Janet Blackburn – Unknown
Jentry Pendleton – Unknown

Rossville District 20:
Brent Michael – 931
Julia Mink – 406

Deputy Trump Discusses Merit Board Decision, Future Plans

Published on

FRANKFORT, Ind. (October 28, 2024) – Clinton County Sheriff’s Deputy Melissa Trump sat down for an interview on October 24th to discuss the recent Merit Board hearing decision, ongoing investigations, and the future of her career. During the hour plus long conversation, Deputy Trump expressed mixed emotions about the outcome of the hearing and raised concerns about procedural issues regarding the arrest of her son during the hearing, potential bias against her, and the impact on her future in law enforcement.

The Merit Board found Deputy Trump violated four Merit Board Rules and Regulations of the five charges filed by Sheriff Rich Kelly.

The four charges Deputy Trump violated according to the Merit Board Findings of Fact, Conclusions, and Decision document are: Conduct Unbecoming to An Officer; Conformance to Laws; Individual Obligation and Duties of All Personnel; and Truthfulness. The charge of Testimony was not substantiated.

The Merit Board voted 3-1 to impose a disciplinary penalty of 30 working days without pay based on its preceding findings. Sheriff Kelly had asked for termination.

While the Merit Board’s decision to impose a 30 working day suspension without pay could be viewed as a victory, Deputy Trump expressed reservations, acknowledging the possibility of continued investigations and the financial burden of legal representation. She stated, “although this was a win, it still doesn’t really feel like a win because I don’t think I’m actually ever going to get to be a police officer after this. I don’t think that after my 30 days I just come back to work. I think I’m going to be under another investigation.”

When asked about the financial impact of the suspension, Deputy Trump noted a 30 working day suspension would financially equate to “losing two months of pay.”

Deputy Trump believes that the Merit Board mischaracterized her statements regarding her knowledge of underage drinking at a restaurant with her son’s girlfriend, Tess. She explained that while she was present when Tess was served alcohol, she did not provide it.

She learned Tess was not 21 approximately a week before attending the birthday. She expressed frustration that her testimony, including statements made during a polygraph examination, were taken out of context.

Deputy Trump shared what she was attempting to convey to both the Merit Board and polygrapher, saying:

“That wasn’t me allowing her to drink. So I thought that was kind of unfair. We’re at that restaurant, just because I didn’t dive across the table and, you know, super man that shot away from her – wasn’t me allowing.

“I thought that was just kind of unfair to use that against me, that these are things that I admitted during a polygraph to be as truthful as they could. And then those things just get used against me, it just seems very unfair and it feels like it was taken out of context.”

Furthermore, Deputy Trump addressed the Board’s finding that she expressed the viewpoint that minor consumption is a “bulls*** charge.” She clarified her stance, stating that while she acknowledges the illegality of underage drinking, she believes law enforcement officers have discretion in handling such offenses, especially when more serious crimes require their attention. She drew comparisons to other minor offenses, such as speeding and marijuana possession, where officers often choose not to make arrests.

During the October 16th Merit Board hearing, Deputy Trump testified to being dispatched to an underage drinking party where no arrests were made. She elaborated during our call on the discretion she has used and her thoughts on why discretion is necessary.

“(The Sheriff) knows there’s no way … he thinks we arrest every single person in Clinton County that commits a crime,” said Deputy Trump. “Our jail (wouldn’t) be big enough. We would have the majority of the county possibly in there.

“I don’t know. There’s times, so for example, some of these things that I guess they’re against the law but they can seem sort of minor and something that we maybe don’t typically arrest for.

“We have discretion. [referencing the underage drinking party] We didn’t arrest anybody there. We still handled the situation in a manner that we felt like we could still have an impact and not have to take all of these kids to jail.

“It wasn’t, it just didn’t seem, although yes it’s illegal to drink. It just did not seem serious enough, I guess.

“And all the times where I can think about where we pull people over and we’ve caught them with marijuana on them and you know we throw it out and we don’t arrest them or times where we pull people over for driving while suspended which is a misdemeanor and we don’t arrest them. We don’t arrest every single person that we know to commit a crime.”

Deputy Trump’s interview also shed light on the complexities of “Giglio” disclosures, which involve potential credibility issues that must be disclosed to defense attorneys in criminal cases. The interview revealed confusion surrounding the process and whether a Giglio designation had been made in her case – there was no mention of Giglio in the final report.

Clinton County Prosecutor Anthony Sommer testified in Deputy Trump’s Merit Board hearing stating he would wait until the conclusion of the Merit Board hearing and receiving its findings before making a final determination on a Giglio designation.

Deputy Trump also discussed the circumstances surrounding her son’s arrest on a warrant for failure to appear in court. She emphasized that the warrant was issued out of Marion County and was non-extraditable, meaning that typically, arrests could only be made within that county. Despite this, her son was arrested in Clinton County, two counties away. Deputy Trump expressed concern that this arrest, which involved a deputy in plain clothes who ordered her son, Blake Trump, out of the car, was an abuse of power and an act of retaliation. She also questioned the legality of special deputies serving warrants off government property; her son was parked on Harrison St. across from the Sheriff’s Office.

During the phone interview, Deputy Trump discussed the case of a former Clinton County K9 officer, Joey Mitchell, and his dog, Rip. She alleged that Sheriff Kelly gave a misleading account of Rip’s fate to the Commissioners, claiming that the dog was given to a company specializing in re-training police dogs when, in fact, he was given to a former jail officer who is the owner of the above referenced company. Deputy Trump expressed concern for Rip’s well-being and questioned the decision-making process that led to his reassignment.

Clinton County Today has not yet been able to independently verify the allegations made by Deputy Trump regarding former K9 Rip as well as the statements surrounding the enforcement of an outstanding warrant on her son.

Looking ahead, Deputy Trump acknowledged the uncertainty of her future with the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office. She indicated that if no further charges are filed, she would anticipate staying until retirement, but also acknowledged that the outcome of her EEOC complaint could impact her ability to remain with the department. She also expressed reservations about seeking employment with another agency due to the potential difficulty of obtaining a favorable recommendation from her current employer.

Deputy Trump concluded the interview by emphasizing her commitment to transparency and accountability. She stated, “I like being transparent. I like people, I don’t have anything to hide. So I don’t mind getting my story out there. And thank you for covering it.”

The audio of the interview can be found on Spotify or wherever you enjoy listening to podcasts.

Sheriff’s Merit Board Hears Deputy Trump’s Case, Audio Available

Published on

CLINTON COUNTY, Ind. (October 23, 2024) – The Clinton County Sheriff’s Office Merit Board convened on October 16, 2024, at the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office to hear arguments in the case of Deputy Melissa Trump, who faces termination following allegations of underage drinking at her residence and dishonesty during the ensuing internal investigation. The hearing showcased sharply contrasting narratives presented by the Sheriff Richard Kelly’s attorney, Tonya Bond, and Deputy Trump’s attorney, Adam Brower, with both sides leveraging witness testimony, body camera footage, and the results of a polygraph examination to bolster their arguments.

The Merit Board Membership and Role in the Hearing

The five member Merit Board is an administrative board made of three appointments by Sheriff Kelly and two appointments by the Merit Deputies.

The Merit Board rules for admission of evidence differs from a criminal hearing – most notably the admission of polygraph results. And, when making a decision the Merit Board must consider whether the Sheriff provided substantial, reliable, and probative evidence sufficient to reasonably support his recommendation of termination of Deputy Trump.

Sheriff’s Case Hinges on “Evasive” Conduct and Failed Polygraph

Attorney Bond argued that Deputy Trump had been “evasive” during the internal investigation conducted by Detective Roudebush, initially focusing on the technicality of physically handing alcohol to minors while downplaying her broader responsibility in facilitating underage drinking. She emphasized that Deputy Trump had failed to disclose her personal drinking that evening and had omitted a previous incident where she had been drinking with Tess – Teresa Short, the girlfriend of Deputy Trump’s son, Blake Trump – one of the underage individuals present at her home.

Attorney Bond further contended that Deputy Trump’s failure of the polygraph examination, administered by Officer Aaron Thompson from the West Lafayette Police Department, provided compelling evidence of her dishonesty. She highlighted inconsistencies between Deputy Trump’s statements to Detective Roudebush and her subsequent admissions during the pre and post-polygraph interviews with Officer Thompson.

Defense Emphasizes Procedural Errors and Lack of Concrete Evidence

Attorney Brower countered by focusing on procedural errors within the investigation and the lack of concrete evidence to support the allegations of lying. He pointed to inaccuracies in the initial reports filed by Noblesville Police Department officers, which had triggered the internal investigation, arguing that Detective Roudebush had relied on flawed information when questioning Deputy Trump. Attorney Brower also emphasized that Detective Roudebush had admitted to making a false statement to Deputy Trump during the internal investigation interview, further undermining the credibility of the investigation.

Attorney Brower challenged the reliability of the polygraph results, noting that even Detective Roudebush had acknowledged that a failed polygraph alone cannot definitively prove dishonesty. He argued that Deputy Trump’s confusion about the meaning of “providing” alcohol, coupled with her emotional distress and the pressure of the investigation, could have contributed to her deceptive responses during the polygraph.

Hypocrisy Claims Dominate Defense Argument

A recurring theme in Attorney Brower’s argument was the perceived hypocrisy of seeking Deputy Trump’s termination while Sheriff Kelly himself faced multiple felony charges and a civil lawsuit alleging financial mismanagement. Brower repeatedly pointed to the sheriff’s ongoing legal troubles, arguing that it was unfair to hold Deputy Trump to a higher standard than her boss, especially when the evidence against her remained unproven.

Sheriff Maintains Right to Enforce Rules Despite Own Legal Challenges

Sheriff Kelly defended his decision to pursue Deputy Trump’s termination, arguing that his own legal issues did not absolve him of his duty to uphold the standards of the Sheriff’s office. He maintained that Deputy Trump’s actions had eroded public trust and compromised her ability to effectively perform her duties as a law enforcement officer.

The Sheriff stated that although he is not under the rules of the Merit Board, he will stand in front of a judge and a jury of his peers to answer the charges that have been brought against him.

Testimony from the Clinton County Prosecutor

Clinton County Prosecutor Anthony Sommer’s testimony highlighted the strained relationship between his office and the Sheriff’s office. He expressed concern about the Sheriff’s failure to disclose Giglio information regarding other officers and stated Sheriff Kelly had presented only one Giglio notice to his office during the sheriff’s term and other notices he had to seek out himself.

Emotional Moment

Individuals who were identified as potential witnesses were held away from the hearing room.

So, when Attorney Brower called for Mr. Donovan Denham, Deputy Trump’s boyfriend, Denham entered the room and walked over to Deputy Trump and informed her her son had been arrested by the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office on an outstanding warrant from Marion County.

Blake Trump was in attendance to testify on behalf of his mother if needed. Blake Trump was released as a witness prior to testifying and was subsequently arrested. Deputy Trump testified she knew Blake had an outstanding warrant prior to coming to the hearing.

Decision

The Merit Board is expected to meet on Wednesday, October 23, 2024, to take a public vote on Deputy Trump’s fate.

Merit Board Hearing Audio Files

Nearly six hours of audio was recorded by Clinton County Today.

Note: The audio has been edited to enhance the audio level. No statements were edited.

Each audio session ends when a break is called and the next audio session begins when called to order.

There were a total of four breaks, yielding five separate audio files.

The audio is hosted on Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts – by searching Clinton County Today.

Spotify Player

Spotify Show Page

You may listen to the recordings below as well.

Audio 1

Notes for Audio 1.

What you will hear on the first recording:

Opening statement from Merit Board president John Wright followed by opening statements from:

Attorney Tonya Bond, representing Sheriff Kelly; and,

Attorney Adam Brower, representing Deputy Trump.

The first witness called by Attorney Bond was Clinton County Prosecutor Anthony Sommer.

Cross examination of Prosecutor Sommer by Attorney Brower

Re-direct of Prosecutor Sommer by Attorney Bond

Re-cross of Prosecutor Sommer by Attorney Brower

The second witness called by Attorney Bond was Clinton County Sheriff Office Detective Lieutenant Dan Roudebush. Detective Roudebush conducted the internal investigation.

This recording captures the audio from evidence introduced by Attorney Bond when played for the Merit Board.

The evidence included body camera footage provided by the Noblesville Police Department, in addition to audio from Detective Roudebush’s internal investigation interview of Deputy Trump and Deputy Trump’s pre-polygraph and post-polygraph interview with West Lafayette Police Officer Aron Thompson.

Audio from body camera – NPD Officer Lane Snyder

Audio from body camera – NPD Officer Krystal Watters

Audio from body camera – NPD Officer Christopher Heselschwerdt

Audio from body camera – NPD Officer Matt Whiles

Audio from body camera – NPD Officer Matt Lohrey

Audio from Lt. Roudebush internal investigation interview with Deputy Trump

Audio from WLPD Officer Thompson pre-polygraph interview with Deputy Trump

Audio from WLPD Officer Thompson post-polygraph interview with Deputy Trump

Audio 2

Notes for Audio 2.

What you will hear on the second recording:

Clinton County Sheriff Office Detective Lieutenant Dan Roudebush continues to give testimony of his internal investigation to Attorney Tonya Bond, representing Sheriff Kelly.

Attorney Adam Brower, representing Deputy Trump, begins cross-examination.

Attorney Bond re-direct of Lt. Roudebush.

Attorney Brower re-cross of Lt. Roudebush.

Attorney Bond calls Sheriff Kelly to testify.

Attorney Brower begins cross-examination of Sheriff Kelly.

Audio 3

Notes for Audio 3.

What you will hear on the third recording:

Prior to Mr. Donovan Denham taking the stand, the recording captures the moment Deputy Trump learns her son – Blake Trump had been arrested by the Clinton County Sheriff’s Office on an outstanding warrant from Marion County Indiana. Blake Trump was in attendance to testify on behalf of his mother if needed. Blake Trump was released as a witness prior to testifying and was subsequently arrested.

Attorney Adam Brower, representing Deputy Trump, calls Mr. Donovan Denham, the boyfriend of Deputy Trump, as a witness.

Attorney Tonya Bond, representing Sheriff Kelly, begins cross-examination.

Attorney Brower re-direct of Mr. Denham.

Audio 4

Notes for Audio 4.

What you will hear on the fourth recording:

Attorney Adam Brower, representing Deputy Trump, calls Ms. Teresa Short, the girlfriend of Deputy Trump’s son, as a witness.

Attorney Tonya Bond, representing Sheriff Kelly, begins cross-examination of Ms. Short.

Attorney Brower re-direct of Ms. Short.

Attorney Brower calls Mrs. Heather Dison as a witness.

Attorney Brower calls Mr. Jeffery Dison as a witness.

Attorney Brower calls Deputy Trump as a witness.

Attorney Bond begins cross-examination of Deputy Trump.

Audio 5

Notes for Audio 5.

What you will hear on the fifth recording:

Administrative Hearing Officer – Attorney Michelle Cooper – provides instructions for closing arguments

Attorney Adam Brower, representing Deputy Trump, begins closing arguments.

Attorney Tonya Bond, representing Sheriff Kelly, begins closing arguments.

Attorney Cooper provides instructions for deadlines to Attorney Brower and Attorney Bond.

Meeting adjourned by Merit Board president John Wright

Megan Sheets to Resign from Board of Works and City Council

Published on
Megan Sheets will resign her seat on the Frankfort City Council and Board of Public Works and Safety. (Photo/City of Frankfort)

FRANKFORT, Ind. (May 22, 2024) – Megan Sheets will resign her seat as Frankfort City Council member at-large and her appointment to the Board of Public Works and Safety according to Mayor Judy Sheets. The resignation is timed to moving out-of-state.

This is a developing story and updates will be made when available.

1 2 3 … 21
Go to Top