COA orders special prosecutor in Camm trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The county prosecutor who signed and later cancelled a book deal about his involvement in the murder trial of David Camm will not be allowed to serve as prosecutor at Camm’s third trial.

The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded Tuesday that because Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson signed a contract to co-author and publish a book about Camm’s case prior to his third retrial, Henderson permanently compromised his ability to advocate on behalf of the people of Indiana in the third trial.

The issue came before the appellate court on interlocutory appeal in David R. Camm v. State of Indiana, No. 87A01-1102-CR-25. Camm has twice been convicted of killing his wife and two young children, but both times his convictions were overturned on appeal. Henderson signed an agreement to publish a book about the Camm case before Camm was sentenced to life without parole at his second trial in 2006; that conviction was overturned and Henderson decided to end his contract with the publisher because there was going to be a third trial. He cancelled the contract in September 2009 and does not have a current agreement to write a book about the case, but he has made comments indicating that he is committed to writing the book when able.

Henderson refiled murder charges against Camm on Dec. 1, 2009; that same day, Camm’s attorney filed for appointment of a special prosecutor. The trial court denied the petition in January 2011, in part because Henderson no longer had an active book deal.

“As a result of having signed the literary contract, Henderson has provided Camm with a defense strategy that he would not otherwise have,” wrote Judge John Baker. “Camm may now contend that Henderson’s literary contract, albeit cancelled, and his commitment to write a book influenced his decision to prosecute Camm for a third time. Henderson has made himself an issue at trial, and thus cannot continue to serve as prosecutor in this case.”

Henderson can’t be both committed to writing a book about the Camm case and serve as prosecutor because it creates a conflict of interest between his personal and professional interests. This conflict will undercut Henderson’s ability to represent the people of Indiana’s interests in a just and fair way, wrote Baker.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.