ILNews

Arguments for pretrial release found to be 'unquestionably inappropriate'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has dismissed without prejudice a request by a defendant to be released from jail while awaiting his third murder trial.

The court rejected both arguments from twice-convicted David Camm, noting his petition seeks “an unquestionably inappropriate remedy under the rule and law governing writs of mandamus.”

Camm filed a writ of mandamus seeking relief for his motion for pretrial release. He argued he was entitled to release under Criminal Rule 4(A) and the Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

A former Indiana State Trooper, Camm has been tried and convicted twice of murdering his wife and two young children at their Floyd County home in September 2000. His original conviction in March 2002 was overturned in August 2004. A second trial in March 2006 yielded another conviction but that verdict was subsequently overturned in June 2009.

In rejecting Camm’s petition, the court states C.R. 4(A) does not mention retrials and Camm cites no precedent for applying the rule in the retrial context. Moreover, the delays following the appellate reversal of his convictions were attributable to his motion for a change of venue.

Also, the court pointed out that Camm identifies no precedent for interpreting the Sixth Amendment to require a pretrial release.



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT