STATE OF INDIANA IN THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
CRIMINAL DIVISION, ROOM FOUR

COUNTY OF MARION, SS: Cause No. 49G04-1807-MC-022315

IN RE: THE APPOINTMENT OF A
SPECIAL PROSECUTOR

SPECIAL REPORT TO THE COURT
PER LC. 33-39-10-2(f)

I accepted this Court?s appointment as Special Prosecutor In the Matter of Curtis Hill on
July 24, 2018. The appointment was limited to the express purpose of investigating Mr. Hill?s
alleged conduct on March 15, 2018 at Bar on South Meridian Street in Indianapolis,
Marion County, Indiana.

1 am quali?ed to be a Special Prosecutor based upon my designation as a Senior
Prosecuting Attorney as provided in the Indiana Code. This designation is based upon my prior
service as an elected prosecuting attorney in Adams County, Indiana. I was informed that I was
included on a list of potential, quali?ed prosecutors submitted to Marion County Superior Court
Judge Borges by the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney?s Council.

My appointment was occasioned by the recusal of Marion County Prosecuting Attorney
Terry Curry. Mr. Curry removed himself based upon the extensive and ongoing contacts
between his of?ce and the of?ce of the Indiana Attorney General. Speci?cally, these contacts
included ongoing litigation in which Mr. Hill represented the Marion County Prosecutor?s Of?ce
in both civil and criminal matters. In my view, the recusal was both appropriate and necessary.

SCOPE PURPOSE

As a threshold matter, it must be clear that the subject matter of my appointment involves
nothing related to Mr. Hill?s responsibilities or duties as Indiana?s Attorney General. My
inquiry (as more fully explained below) was to determine whether there was probable cause to
believe that Curtis Hill, as a private citizen of the State of Indiana, engaged in conduct with the
intent to commit a crime.

My appointment and sole task has been to ?nd the facts related to the events which
occurred at Bar on March 15, 2018 and to then to apply the law to those speci?c facts.
The ultimate goal of this investigative process is to make an informed, considered and ethical
decision as to whether there has been a violation of the Indiana criminal law and whether or not
any person should be prosecuted.

It is signi?cant to note that charging a crime and convicting a person of a crime are two
separate but important considerations. A prosecutor is ethically bound to neither charge nor
pursue any criminal matter unless it is supported by probable cause. The probable cause
standard may sometimes be satis?ed upon preliminary facts or a cursory investigation. Other

1

times a more nuanced and deeper investigation is necessary in cases of public interest such as
this appointment.

Just as critical to the analysis, however, is whether the facts and evidence produced
during an investigation would later support a jury?s consideration as to whether a crime occurred
beyond a reasonable doubt. Both considerations are relevant as prosecutors weigh the ?ling of
charges and the prosecution of a criminal case.

The decision to prosecute a citizen any citizen is not entered into It is a
process that every county prosecutor in our state goes through each and every day he or she
serves in of?ce. No matter the level of skill a prosecutor possesses as a courtroom lawyer, the
most crucial prosecutorial function is the exercise of his or her discretion as to whether to charge
a person with a crime.

Accordingly, such decisions should never be made haphazardly or out of any
consideration other than what the facts present. These decisions must be made with a neutral 
- by looking to de?ned standards, relying on professional experience and having a sense of
whether convictions can reasonably be expected to result from the considered charge. These
decisions can be and often are ??exceptionally dif?cult.

The subject of this investigation is Curtis Hill, a man who happens to be the elected
Attomey General of Indiana. His status as an elected official should neither protect him from
prosecution nor enhance the likelihood that he is prosecuted. In short, I have examined this case
as if it did not involve the Attorney General, but in the same manner as if the allegations had
been made against any citizen ofour State. What is fair for Curtis Hill must also be fair for John
Q. Citizen, and vice versa.

Some have opined that public servants must be held to a higher standard. While this
opinion has resonance and importance, that accounting should and must be applied in the court
of public opinion. These considerations are not appropriate for my consideration and are not
included in my analysis. It is imperative that the rule of law be afforded to and apply equally to
all of our citizens.

INVESTIGATION

I liken this investigation to the two parallel rails of a railroad track. The rails of any
railroad track are connected by wooden ties. In this case, there were two separate, distinct rails:
the ?rst rail involved a potential employment harassment and civil misconduct claim. The
second rail was the criminal investigation I was asked to undertake.

Although these two rails are tied together by a particular set of facts, each rail remains
distinct and independent. The facts are the ties that bind these separate legal tracks together. The
issues presented by the ?rst rail, i.e. civil liability and the involvement of a public official do not
impact on the other rail, i.e. decision to prosecute.

I use this analogy because it helps describe and identify what is being decided by me
today and what is not. The same facts at issue what occurred in on March 15, 2018)

apply to both rails but involve an examination of the conduct of Curtis Hill in different contexts.
The ?rst rail involves Curtis Hill, the public ?gure and of?ce holder, while the second rail
examines Curtis Hill?s conduct as a private citizen for the purpose of determining whether he
violated the criminal law on March 15, 2018.

The ?rst rail thus deals with employee claims of potential inappropriate conduct and
sexual harassment against a state of?cial and raise questions as to the appropriateness of the
of?cial?s conduct in an Indianapolis bar on March 15, 2018. That investigation was a
criminal investigation but a private legal opinion regarding potential employer liability for sexual
harassment. The source of that leak and the conclusions that opinion reached are not the subject
of my appointment and will not be addressed in this report.

The second rail the one I was appointed to investigate deals only with the question of
whether a man named Curtis Hill may have violated a criminal statute in an Indianapolis bar on
March 15, 2018. The decision as to whether criminal laws were violated and require prosecution
are appropriately and solely within the scope my authority under the Order of the Marion County
Superior Court.

BACKGROUND

The alleged conduct covered by the Order of my appointment took place at Bar in
Indianapolis, Indiana in the early morning hours of March 15, 2018 at a gathering commonly
known as the Sine Die party celebrating the end of the 2018 Indiana Legislative Session. This
party primarily involved members of the Indiana legislature, their staffs, legislative services
agency employees and lobbyists.

The 2018 Sine Die party was not an exclusive get together or ?invitation only? event but
rather a loosely organized end of session party. Curtis Hill was invited to the event by a lobbyist
and did attend the event with that lobbyist. Ultimately, the investigation identi?ed four women
claiming to have been touched inappropriately by Curtis Hill. These four women, along with a
number of other witnesses, allege Hill?s alcohol consumption to have been a potential
contributing factor to his conduct on the night in question.

Speci?cally, three (3) staff members and one (1) legislator came forward to House and
Senate leaders with information concerning alleged inappropriate behavior by Curtis Hill at the
Sine Die party. The alleged behavior included a suggestive statement made by Hill and
uninvited and unwanted touching by Hill of the complainants. This alleged touching involved
Hill?s hands to the shoulders and backs of the four women and to the buttocks of two of the
women.

The women were interviewed by legislative personnel about their complaints and an
outside law ?rm was hired to provide a legal Opinion assessing the potential for workplace
harassment claims, including an analysis of whether the Sine Die event could be considered an
employment related event and whether the employer would have civil exposure for a harassment
claim in such a setting. The requested report was provided to legislative leaders who met with
Hill a week or two thereafter, in which they expressed zero tolerance for sexual harassment and

requested no contact between Hill and the women. Apparently, no further legal action was
taken. In early July, a copy of the legal opinion was leaked to a media outlet and media reports
began to issue about the matter and the allegations contained in the civil legal opinion.

Hill claims he was ?rst contacted on July 2, 2018 in a conference call with
Representative Brian Bosma and Senator David Long, the leaders of their respective chambers,
about the allegations contained in the leaked legal opinion. Once the allegations became public
knowledge, the stage was set for the appointment of a special prosecutor.

Because the allegations concerned an elected state of?cial and because they contained
potential ethical and criminal implications, the Inspector General opened a ?le and began an
investigation. The Inspector General in turn requested the assistance of the Indianapolis
Metropolitan Police to investigate and detectives were assigned to that investigation to work
along side inspector special agents.

My ?rst step was to contact Indiana State Police Superintendent Doug Carter to
assist in the investigation. While very cooperative and willing to assist in any way, the
Superintendent ultimately was forced to decline my request given the fact that similar con?icts
existed for the ISP as were encountered by Prosecutor Curry. Although the investigation
involved Hill individually rather than in his capacity as an of?ce holder, it would have presented
the State police with insurmountable dif?culties in both investigating him and then working with
him in his role as the Attorney General.

As a result, I made contact with the Indianapolis Municipal Police Department 
to seek assistance in my investigation. During that initial contact, I learned that the Inspector
General and detectives from the IMPD had previously opened an investigation and were
gathering evidence and interviewing witnesses. I contacted Inspector General Lori Torres and
she expressed her desire and willingness to cooperate with my efforts. Hence, the entirety of my
investigation was conducted by and with the cooperation of the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department and the of?ce of InSpector General.

POTENTIAL CHARGES

In reviewing the potential criminal charges that could reasonably apply to the allegations
made against Curtis Hill, it is my professional opinion that the most viable potential charge is
that of misdemeanor battery.

Misdemeanor battery requires proof that one person touched another person in a rude,
insolent or angry manner. Such proof is required to be beyond a reasonable doubt in order to
convict and also requires proof of a defendant?s intent to commit a crime. Such a charge could
potentially apply under certain circumstances. I have speci?cally referred to this statute and
have considered it carefully in my review of Hill?s conduct.

I am also aware that a violation of the sexual battery statute has been suggested, but proof
supporting the essential elements of sexual battery is not present. ?Sexual battery? in the State
of Indiana is generally misunderstood. In order to convict a person of sexual battery, there
must be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that a person was touched with a sexual intent and the

4

victim was compelled by force or the threat of force, the victim is unable to give consent because
of his or her mental state intoxication or disability) or they are unaware of the sexual
touching. There are no facts alleged in this case suf?cient to sustain a charge of sexual battery,
let alone a conviction.

Jurors in criminal cases are always instructed to reconcile the facts with the presumption
that every witness is being truthful. Further, they are instructed not to disregard any statement
without careful consideration and good reason. In examining the conduct of Hill at Bar in
the early morning hours of March 15, 2018, I have approached my duties in the same manner. I
have endeavored to reconcile all statements as being true and discounted none.

Not only were the statements of the complaining witnesses taken in the investigation but
a total of approximately ?fty?six (56) witnesses were interviewed by investigators altogether. In
addition, a statement was obtained from Curtis Hill as well as speaking to witnesses identi?ed by
Hill and his attorneys as persons having knowledge of this matter. Mr. Hill was cooperative with
my requests throughout the process as were all witnesses interviewed.

In reviewing the matter for potential criminal charges, I also felt obligated to consider the
context of the alleged conduct. The Sine Die party took place in a relatively small bar, patrons
were at close quarters, the time was after midnight, free alcoholic drinks were provided and most
people were consuming and feeling the effects of that consumption. These conditions can
impact a person?s ability to perceive and accurately recall events and circumstances. This fact,
in turn, makes it dif?cult for a prosecutor to accurately portray an alleged occurrence to a jury in
a compelling fashion with an accurate chronology of events. Adding to the challenges presented
were that interviews of important witnesses were conducted weeks after the event, making
accurate recall even more problematic.

I took the complaining witnesses claims as true and credible. Their motives appeared
sincere and I found all to be credible in their belief that Hill touched them in a way that was
inappropriate. Hill, in his statement, did not deny certain touching occurred but stated that the
touching was either incidental to conversation or movement in the crowded bar. He stated that
his touches were not intended to be disreSpectful, sexual in nature or rude.

Hill denied excessive alcohol consumption but acknowledged consumption that I viewed
to be ?signi?cant?. Other witnesses claimed Hill admitted to having too much to drink. Hill also
acknowledged making a statement suggesting to one witness that in order to get waited on at the
bar they ?needed to show some skin.? Hill described it as attempted humor and claimed it to be
directed at a legislator who was tending bar at the time. This statement, according to Hill, was
not made to offend the women present. The women present did claim offense to the statement.

For my purposes the reconciliation of Hill?s statements versus the statements made by
any witness was unnecessary despite there being some differences among statements and in their
detail, for the reason that I have accepted the victim statements as true. Rather than attempt to
resolve different version of events, I focused on whether the conduct described by the witnesses
would support a prosecution in any event.

CONCLUSION

Accepting all victim statements describing Hill?s conduct as true, I nonetheless will not
?le charges against Hill. In support of this decision, I provide the following:

1. The evidence is not suf?cient to establish that Hill?s intent in the touching was rude,
insolent or angry. A conviction for battery would require proof of Hill?s intent beyond a
reasonable doubt. While there is no doubt that the women involved viewed the touching as
uninvited and rude, that is not the sole standard for a successful criminal prosecution. At issue is
what was in Hill?s mind at the time of the touching. At best the evidence regarding the essential
element of Hill?s intent is that he was overly friendly and touchy with everyone in the
establishment as the apparent result of alcohol consumption. Inappropriate or intoxicated
behavior does not automatically equate to criminal behavior.

2. Given the totality of the circumstances, 1 do not think it likely that a jury would ?nd
beyond a reasonable doubt that Hill committed a battery or batteries as a result of his conduct on
March 15, 2018.

3. In my judgment, there is little public bene?t to be served by ?ling a misdemeanor
charge or charges which would likely result in a protracted, contentious and expensive legal
proceeding. Most importantly, it would not resolve the issue of main concern: Did Curtis Hill
behave inappropriately in the early morning hours of March 15, 2018?

Some will surely argue that there exists probable cause to ?le a battery charge. That
opinion notwithstanding, my standard for ?ling a criminal charge is based upon my belief that no
charge should be ?led unless a conviction would likely result. I do not hold such a belief in this
case and will not ?le a criminal charge on the mere hope of obtaining a conviction. Both the
victims and the accused deserve a more reasoned decision.

As stated above, litigation of this matter would be protracted, potentially lasting months
or longer. A conviction on a charge of misdemeanor battery would not dispossess Hill of his
of?ce or his ability to hold of?ce in the future. For those who believe the alleged behavior of
Hill should have a signi?cant public consequence, including forfeiture of of?ce, such result
could not be accomplished by a misdemeanor battery prosecution. Indeed, I believe it would be
inappropriate to use a criminal prosecution to advance such a goal.

I know full well that neither my decision nor this report will quell discussion or public
examination of this matter. I am a prosecutor acting under the scope of my appointment and
within my discretion under the law. Nothing more, nothing less. It would be a mistake or
inaccurate to take my decision or this report as meaning anything more than what it speci?cally
says.

The issues presented on rail one did an elected of?cial behave in a manner
inappropriate to his public of?ce? remain unresolved and will necessarily be debated in other
settings. Mr. Hill is a public of?cial and will have to answer to the public he serves for his
involvement and behavior in this matter. He is entitled to explain and defend his behavior. I
presume he is prepared to do that.

Those who ?nd his behavior reprehensible, I am just as sure, are prepared to advance
their concerns moving forward. I do not, should not and will not comment on the appropriateness
of their position as it is beyond the scope of my appointment.

My decision today is based upon the investigation conducted and my experience and
professional judgment. I believe it to be the correct decision but understand that there may be
disappointment or criticism of it from some quarters. Nonetheless, I am confident that this
process has produced the correct result.

I want to thank the Inspector General, her staff and the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police
Department detectives for their cooperation, professionalism, hard work and valuable input.

I thank the women affected who have cooperated with this investigation despite having
been placed in a position of having their privacy invaded and their credibility questioned. The
decision made today should not and does not re?ect on their credibility. They addressed their
concerns in an appropriate fashion and forum and should be subjected to no criticism.

Thank you for this opportunity to serve.

Datedthis 23rd day of October new 

J. Sigler 
Special Prosecu ng' ttorney for the 19?h
Judicial Circuit

127 W. Berry Street, Suite 1000
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Telephone: (260) 755-1583
Facsimile: (260) 420-1182
Attorney No. 133-01

CER TIFICA TE 0F SER VICE
I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the above and foregoing has been served
on all attorneys of record for the above cause of action, via either by using the Indiana E-?ling
System (IEFS), hand?delivery, email, facsimile, Courthouse mail and/or US. mail, ?rst class
postage paid and addressed to said attorneys at their respective addresses as shown on their

pleadings or papers ?led herein this 23rd day of Octobe 201M

Danil .Sigler