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. I enrolled America's 1st tax-free Health Savings Account (HSA) so you can trust me. I bet 1/3 of my clients were lawyers because they love tax-free deposits, growth and withdrawals or total tax freedom. Most of the time (always) these clients are uninformed about insurance law. Employer-based health insurance is simple if you read the policy. It says, Employers (lawyers) and employees who are working 30-hours-per-week are ELIGIBLE for insurance. Then I show the lawyer the TERMINATION clause which states: When you are no longer ELIGIBLE! Then I ask a closing question (sales term) to the lawyer which is, "If you have a stroke or cancer and become too sick to work can you keep your health insurance?" If the lawyer had dependent children they needed a "Dependent Conversion Privilege" in case their child got sick or hurt which the lawyers never had. Lawyers are pretty easy sales. Save premium, eliminate taxes and build wealth!

  2. Ok, so cheap laughs made about the Christian Right. hardiharhar ... All kidding aside, it is Mohammad's followers who you should be seeking divine protection from. Allahu Akbar But progressives are in denial about that, even as Europe crumbles.

  3. Father's rights? What about a mothers rights? A child's rights? Taking a child from the custody of the mother for political reasons! A miscarriage of justice! What about the welfare of the child? Has anyone considered parent alienation, the father can't erase the mother from the child's life. This child loves the mother and the home in Wisconsin, friends, school and family. It is apparent the father hates his ex-wife more than he loves his child! I hope there will be a Guardian Ad Litem, who will spend time with and get to know the child, BEFORE being brainwashed by the father. This is not just a child! A little person with rights and real needs, a stable home and a parent that cares enough to let this child at least finish the school year, where she is happy and comfortable! Where is the justice?

  4. "The commission will review applications and interview qualified candidates in March and April." Riiiiiight. Would that be the same vaulted process that brought us this result done by "qualified candidates"? http://www.theindianalawyer.com/justices-deny-transfer-to-child-custody-case/PARAMS/article/42774 Perhaps a lottery system more like the draft would be better? And let us not limit it to Indiana attorneys so as to give the untainted a fighting chance?

  5. Steal a little, and they put you in jail. Steal a lot, and they make you king. Bob Dylan ala Samuel Johnson. I had a very similar experience trying to hold due process trampling bureaucrats responsible under the law. Consider this quote and commentary:"'When the president does it, that means it is not illegal,' [Richard] Nixon told his interviewer. Those words were largely seen by the American public -- which continued to hold the ex-president in low esteem -- as a symbol of his unbowed arrogance. Most citizens still wanted to believe that no American citizen, not even the president, is above the law." BWHaahaaahaaa!!!! http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/When-the-president-does-it-that-means-it-is-not-illegal.html

ADVERTISEMENT