ILNews

Rehearing denied in Camm case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A split Indiana Supreme Court has decided not to reconsider its decision to order a third trial for a former state trooper accused of killing his wife and two children nearly 10 years ago.

In an order released today, Justices Brent Dickson, Frank Sullivan, and Theodore Boehm denied the state's petition for rehearing in David R. Camm v. State of Indiana, No. 87S00-0612-CR-499. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Robert Rucker dissented and voted to grant rehearing and affirm the trial court.

In a 4-1 decision in June 2009, the high court found David Camm's murder convictions were based on two reversible errors by a Warrick Superior judge. The justices found sufficient evidence to support the three murder convictions and ordered a new trial.

Camm was first convicted of the murders in 2002, but his convictions were overturned by the Indiana Court of Appeals in 2004. On a retrial in 2006, Camm was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT