The world was shocked when MNPD Officer Andrew Delke was suddenly offered a 3-year plea deal for the on-duty murder of Daniel Hambrick. Hambrick’s family wasn’t even consulted on the terms. What wasn’t known at the time was that Delke’s attorney, David Raybin, had testified on behalf of Glenn Funk in his own case previously, keeping him out of some serious ethical trouble – and making this sudden sweetheart deal seem even more unusual. Funk likely assumed no one would find out about the prior beneficial relationship because that case wasn’t available to the public – until now.
In 2016 the Tennessee Board of Professional Responsibility opened an investigation into District Attorney Glenn Funk, due to alleged ethics violations of Funk inappropriately linking the dismissal of a criminal case to an agreed dismissal of a civil lawsuit. Funk attorney James Kay to represent him on that matter, who then hired David Raybin to give expert testimony on his behalf, and in support of Funk (more on that below, as a pattern emerges).
Scoop: Nashville contacted the District Attorney earlier this week, and received a response back from a different lawyer – Bob Boston. Boston explained that he certainly had represented Funk in a matter in front of the Board of Professional Responsibility, and he had, also, hired David Raybin, to testify on Funk’s behalf in the matter. Except, the dates of that case did not mate the date of our inquiry – and he inadvertently revealed that this was an earlier case, and had no relation to the case we were inquiring about. This began the pattern of Funk hiring a lawyer, who would then hire Raybin, so there was not a direct line of payment between the two. Due to the sealed/confidential nature of these cases, it is unknown how many other this arrangement has happened since the first two, or how recently it could have been.
After informing the District Attorney we were aware we were referred to the incorrect attorney, and they had let us know about yet another case where Funk hired someone who then hired Raybin, no response was received at the time of publication.
In addition, records from the BPR are not generally available to the public unless discipline is issued, and these records were never made public, so the pattern would have likely never have been noticed had it not been for the slip-up of the (wrong) personal attorney that Funk referred us to for comment on this inquiry. Despite the BPR reporting ZERO complaints or discipline on their public website, we’ve discovered multiple in the course of this investigation. Exactly how many others are out there is currently unknown.
The family and attorney for Daniel Hambrick had not yet responded to a request for comment on the story before publication.