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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT