FRANKFORT, Ind. – A long-running public dispute between Clinton County Sheriff Richard Kelly and County Prosecutor Anthony Sommer is progressing in court, with the parties recently ordered to establish case management deadlines following an appeals court decision to reverse an earlier dismissal. The Boone County Circuit Court has directed both sides to submit an Agreed Case Management Order within 30 days of August 26, 2025, after a scheduled telephonic pre-trial conference was not attended by either party.
Case Background:
The legal battle stems from a deterioration of the relationship between Sheriff Kelly and Prosecutor Sommer, which began shortly after Kelly took office in January 2019. Initially friendly, their relationship soured over disputes regarding law enforcement authority in Clinton County. Prosecutor Sommer later campaigned against Sheriff Kelly in the 2022 election and contributed to his opponent.
A key point of contention arose when Sheriff Kelly appointed his wife, Ashley Kelly, as both Jail Matron and Jail Commissary Manager. Under this arrangement, Mrs. Kelly received $1,500 per week for each role, totaling $3,000 weekly. Sommer raised concerns about this arrangement and requested an investigation by the Indiana State Board of Accounts (SBOA) into the jail commissary setup and operation.
In October 2021, local journalist Brett Todd published an article on RadioMom-fm regarding the SBOA investigation, quoting County Commissioner Josh Uitts, who stated that Mrs. Kelly was paid $1,500 per week to manage the commissary, an amount he considered inappropriate. “So we don’t feel that is appropriate amount of money for that type of work. You do the math – that is $1,500 a week for 52 weeks. That’s more money than any county employee makes. This is a contractor – an appointed person by the sheriff, so we don’t feel it’s appropriate.”
Todd’s article, however, also noted that six other Clinton County employees earned in excess of $1,500 per week in 2020.
Prosecutor Sommer, believing the reported salary information for Mrs. Kelly was incomplete because it did not include her matron salary from the county, contacted the journalist to “correct the record and provide additional information in order to keep things balanced.” During an October 8, 2021 meeting, Sommer clarified that Mrs. Kelly’s total compensation was $3,000 per week, accounting for both roles. Sommer provided Todd with a “Commissary Transaction Summary for the first half of 2021,” which he stated was a Council document prepared from numbers reported by the Sheriff’s Office. The Kellys claim this document was “fake” and appeared to show “transfers and disappearances of millions of dollars.” Sommer denies the report was fake or showed such disappearances, acknowledging only one error (an extra digit) he was unaware of at the time.
Sommer also informed Todd that he did not want to be recorded or quoted in any story and that he was not providing information or comment on the ongoing audit and criminal investigation because they were confidential and ongoing. He further stated that if criminal wrongdoing were found, the Clinton County Prosecutor’s office would refer the case to a Special Prosecutor, and it would not be him weighing in on the matter.
The Lawsuit and Appeal:
Richard and Ashley Kelly subsequently filed a lawsuit against Anthony Sommer, alleging defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They claimed Sommer engaged in a political scheme, coordinated with Attorney Thomas Little, to defame them by sharing a fabricated report. Sommer denies these allegations, denying any coordination with Attorney Little and stating he was not attempting to control the media narrative. He also asserts that all statements he made were accurate, honest, and truthful.
Sommer moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting common law prosecutorial immunity and immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA). The trial court granted the dismissal, finding Sommer’s actions were protected by common law immunity.
However, on March 5, 2025, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the trial court’s dismissal. The appellate court determined that the application of immunity hinged on disputed factual questions about the nature and scope of Sommer’s conduct as it related to his prosecutorial function, which remain unresolved. The court noted that, viewing the pleaded facts in the light most favorable to the Kellys, Sommer used his official position to share allegedly fabricated documents about an investigation his office was not handling, while disclaiming official involvement and requesting an off-the-record meeting. Such actions, the court found, “appear more aligned with personal interests than any legitimate prosecutorial duty.” The court also concluded that whether Sommer’s conduct fell within the scope of his employment for ITCA immunity purposes remains a question of fact for a jury.
Current Status:
Following the Court of Appeals’ certification of its opinion on May 2, 2025, Sommer filed a motion on June 4, 2025, to set a deadline for his answer to the complaint, which the court granted, setting the deadline for July 3, 2025. Sommer filed his comprehensive answer, affirmative defenses, and demand for a jury trial on that date, denying the plaintiffs’ allegations of defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress and asserting various defenses, including prosecutorial immunity.
On August 11, 2025, Sommer’s counsel filed a motion to set an initial telephonic pretrial conference to establish case management deadlines. While a conference was scheduled for August 26, 2025, neither party participated. Consequently, the Boone County Circuit Court issued an order on August 26, 2025, directing the parties to submit an Agreed Case Management Order within 30 days. This order requires the parties to address the jury trial timeframe and anticipated length, discovery cut-off dates, witness and exhibit list exchange, motions in limine, proposed jury instructions, written stipulations, and whether mediation is requested.
The case is now proceeding towards the establishment of a trial schedule and discovery, with the factual disputes surrounding Sommer’s conduct to be further explored.
Note: The journalist mentioned in the article is the author of this article.
