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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT