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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT