ILNews

Justices to hear 2 arguments

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrint
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear two arguments Thursday morning.

At 9 a.m., justices will hear a direct appeal in David Camm v. State, No. 87S00-0612-CR-499, which comes from Warrick Superior Court and involves a former state trooper convicted two years ago of murdering his family.

Camm is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole following his second conviction in the September 2000 murders of his wife and their two children, 7-year-old Bradley and 5-year-old Jill, in southern Indiana. The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned his first conviction in 2004 because of improper evidence used at trial, and jurors in January 2006 convicted him a second time on three counts of murder.

This appeal involves issues about how the defense was not allowed to introduce evidence about a co-defendant's criminal history, as well as how the prosecution argued at trial that Camm murdered his family to cover up an alleged molestation.

The second argument at 9:45 a.m. comes in Debra Barnett v. Camille Clark, No. 76S03-0803-CV-148, which hails from Steuben County and involves whether a township trustee should be liable for an employee's sex crimes committed in conjunction with his or her job. Barnett alleged the trustee, Clark, was liable for the sexual misconduct of her employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the trial court entered summary judgment for the trustee. But the Court of Appeals reversed last year and found the employee was acting within the scope of his employment.

Both arguments will be webcast live online at http://www.indianacourts.org/apps/webcasts/.
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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Frankly, it is tragic that you are even considering going to an expensive, unaccredited "law school." It is extremely difficult to get a job with a degree from a real school. If you are going to make the investment of time, money, and tears into law school, it should not be to a place that won't actually enable you to practice law when you graduate.

  2. As a lawyer who grew up in Fort Wayne (but went to a real law school), it is not that hard to find a mentor in the legal community without your school's assistance. One does not need to pay tens of thousands of dollars to go to an unaccredited legal diploma mill to get a mentor. Having a mentor means precisely nothing if you cannot get a job upon graduation, and considering that the legal job market is utterly terrible, these students from Indiana Tech are going to be adrift after graduation.

  3. 700,000 to 800,000 Americans are arrested for marijuana possession each year in the US. Do we need a new justice center if we decriminalize marijuana by having the City Council enact a $100 fine for marijuana possession and have the money go towards road repair?

  4. I am sorry to hear this.

  5. I tried a case in Judge Barker's court many years ago and I recall it vividly as a highlight of my career. I don't get in federal court very often but found myself back there again last Summer. We had both aged a bit but I must say she was just as I had remembered her. Authoritative, organized and yes, human ...with a good sense of humor. I also appreciated that even though we were dealing with difficult criminal cases, she treated my clients with dignity and understanding. My clients certainly respected her. Thanks for this nice article. Congratulations to Judge Barker for reaching another milestone in a remarkable career.

ADVERTISEMENT