Prosecutor Takes Heat From Judge

Appearing somewhat angry, Kosciusko Superior Court I Judge Duane Huffer rebuked the prosecution after granting a defense motion for a directed verdict, freeing two brothers accused of home improvement fraud, a Class C felony.

Rodney and Randy Piper, both 48, and both of Warsaw, were on trial in Huffer's court Monday and Tuesday, with the state resting its case after lunch Tuesday. Testimony was to continue Tuesday and into Wednesday, but jurors were never brought back into the courtroom after returning to the Justice Building from lunch.

The directed verdict means a "not guilty" will be entered into the court record for both Pipers.

"This is a damn civil case and should have never been filed as a criminal case," Huffer commented off the court record in the courtroom before Deputy Prosecutor Byron Tinkey, Indiana State Police Detective Tom Perzanowski, defense attorney Jay Rigdon, the Pipers and people in the gallery.

"It bothers me greatly that the prosecuting attorney's office has delved into a civil matter," Huffer said.

Prior to granting Rigdon's request for a directed verdict - a request made because Rigdon felt the state did not prove its case in the matter - Huffer heard arguments from both Tinkey and Rigdon.

While Tinkey maintained that because the Pipers did not complete a room addition job at the Keith Collins residence in a timely fashion or in a workmanlike manner, Huffer agreed with Rigdon's assessment that the Pipers completed much of the work that they were accused of defrauding Collins by not doing.

The project was to be completed in December 1994 and, in March 1995, when the job still wasn't done, the Pipers were terminated. The matter was investigated by Perzanowski and warrants for the Piper brothers' arrests were filed in December 1997.

Huffer also noted that to not grant the directed verdict would mean going against Indiana law in regard to substantial performance, time of performance and performance prevented by party.

For the case to be considered fraud, Huffer said, the Pipers would have had to enter into the contract with the knowledge and intent not to do the work. No money exchanged hands until after work was begun and a good portion of the room addition was completed before the Pipers failed to return to work.

Tinkey declined to comment on the judge's ruling.