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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT