ILNews

Camm's attorneys seek special judge

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Defense attorneys for the former state trooper facing a third triple-murder trial want the Indiana Supreme Court to name a special judge because of what they say are delays from the current presiding judge.

The June 8 request comes in David R. Camm v. State of Indiana, No. 87S00-1006-SJ-00301, which asks the state justices to appoint a special judge because Warrick Superior Judge Robert Aylsworth has failed to rule on a venue change motion within 30 days, as required. Attorneys filed the change of venue motion earlier this year, asking that the case be moved outside Warrick County where the second murder trial occurred to a location in northern Indiana – specifically to avoid media exposure they say prevents their client from obtaining a fair trial.

Camm has twice been convicted of murdering his wife and their two young children in September 2000 at their Georgetown home. But those convictions have been overturned, most recently by the Indiana Supreme Court in June 2009, and Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson – prosecuting based on where the murders happened – decided last year that he’d try Camm a third time.

Judge Aylsworth has been considering whether to allow the trial to move, after sending 200 questionnaires to potential jurors to determine how much they might be influenced by media coverage. Both sides disagree about what the surveys show, and Camm’s attorneys filed a motion to grant the venue change April 21; the state objected April 30 and Camm filed a response May 6. But after 33 days, the judge hadn’t ruled or set a hearing as required by Trial Rule 53.1 and attorneys filed a “lazy judge” motion. Attorneys had previously asked that Henderson be removed as prosecutor, but that didn’t happen. If a special judge is appointed, that jurist would likely decide on the defense motions and then also handle the trial if it’s moved outside the county.

The Indiana Supreme Court had not issued a decision on the special judge request by IL deadline, according to the online appellate docket for this case.•

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. 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

  5. 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

ADVERTISEMENT