ILNews

Attorneys ask justices to release Camm while awaiting retrial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Attorneys for David Camm, a former Indiana State Trooper twice convicted of killing his wife and two children, are asking the Indiana Supreme Court to order a special judge to release Camm from his pre-trial detention.

The attorneys, Stacy Uliana and Richard Kammen, filed the verified petition for writ of mandamus Tuesday with the high court. Camm’s family was found murdered in September 2000 and he has been tried twice with their murders. Both convictions have been reversed on appeal. He is facing a third trial scheduled to begin in August 2013.

Camm filed his petition for release from pre-trial incarceration in Warrick County before Special Judge Jon Dartt, who denied the petition July 31. Camm seeks his release based on the Sixth Amendment and Indiana Criminal Rule 4(A). He is asking to be released on his own recognizance or with “reasonable liberty restrictions.”

Except for about a month in January, Camm has been incarcerated since his arrest in October 2000, his attorneys say. They argue that in the 868 days since the Supreme Court reversed his murder convictions for the second time, only 133 days of delay are attributable to him. The remaining delay was related to the time spent litigating a verified petition for special prosecutor. Camm filed that petition, but argues the state created the need for it and caused the delay.

Prosecutor Keith Henderson entered into a book deal to write about the Camm case before the Supreme Court overturned the second conviction. Even though he cancelled the deal, the Court of Appeals ordered in November 2011 that a new prosecutor be appointed. Special prosecutors Stan Levco and Jonathon Parkurst were appointed by the trial court in March.

“This excessive pretrial incarceration has not only impaired Camm’s ability to prepare for trial, but also has affected his ability to live in a meaningful way,” the petition states.

There is no timeline indicating when the Supreme Court will rule on the petition.

 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT