Supreme Court orders special judge for third high-profile trial

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has appointed a southern Indiana judge to preside over the third trial of a former state trooper charged with murdering his family a decade ago, and one of the initial decisions he’ll consider is whether to move the trial outside that region.

Granting what is sometimes known as a “lazy judge” motion under Indiana Trial Rule 53.1(F), the state’s highest court issued an order Friday that removes Warrick Superior Judge Robert Aylsworth from the case of David R. Camm, a former Indiana State Police trooper accused of killing his wife and two young children at their home in September 2000. Spencer Circuit Judge Jonathan A. Dartt will now hear the case.

Camm has been convicted twice for the murders, once in Floyd County and again in Warrick County after the trial was moved, but both times those convictions were reversed on appeal. Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson decided late last year after the latest remand that he’d pursue a third trial, and attorneys have been sparring back and forth since then about where to hold the case to ensure a fair trial.

Camm’s defense attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to appoint a special judge after Judge Aylsworth failed to rule on a venue change motion within 30 days, as required by the trial rules. The defense had filed a motion to move the case out of Warrick County to northern Indiana because of media exposure. Judge Aylsworth sent questionnaires to 200 potential jurors to determine how much they knew about the case and whether a fair trial could be held there. Camm had filed a motion in mid-April to seek a new venue. The state objected April 30, Camm filed a response May 6, and then Camm’s defense attorneys filed the special judge request 33 days after that.

Defense attorney Stacy Uliana in Indianapolis couldn’t be immediately reached for comment today, but Floyd County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Steve Owens said a decision had been put on hold for the past month since the special judge request had been filed.

Now, Judge Dartt will be responsible for all hearings in that case, including the venue change motion and likely the third trial no matter where it’s held.

Both sides have disputed what the surveys reveal about the venue location – Henderson said the prosecution could easily select an impartial jury in Warrick County because more than 50 of the 176 who responded had little or no knowledge of the case; while Uliana said at least half responded that they believed Camm is guilty and that means they’re tainted in that part of the state.

Owens doesn’t foresee any change in how the case is handled, but he does expect that the special judge will need to take some time to get up to speed and review Judge Aylsworth’s work before moving ahead. No new court dates had been scheduled as of this afternoon, he said.

“The case is prosecuted the same no matter what county you’re in, what prosecutor or judge you have,” Owens said. “This will have no impact on us, and Judge Dartt knows best about how it may proceed.”


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  2. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  3. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  4. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied

  5. Mr Smith the theory of Christian persecution in Indiana has been run by the Indiana Supreme Court and soundly rejected there is no such thing according to those who rule over us. it is a thought crime to think otherwise.