ILNews

Court reporter finishes transcript, avoids contempt-of-court possibility

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A Warrick County court reporter won't be held in contempt for not finishing the trial transcript in a two-month, triple-murder trial early last year.

Warrick Superior 2 employee Mary Kennedy finished typing the transcript by the end of the business day Monday - the last-minute of her three extensions from the Indiana Supreme Court.

The eight-week, high-profile trial of David Camm, a former state trooper, concluded in March 2006 with a guilty verdict in the 2000 murders of his wife and their two young children. The three victims were found shot to death in their garage. Camm was sentenced to life in prison.

That was Camm's second murder trial; his first ended with guilty verdict in Floyd Superior Court in March 2002, but he won a new trial on appeal.

A notice of appeal of the second conviction was filed in November and Kennedy and staff have been working on the transcript since then.

The court had issued an order Friday instructing her to file the estimated 6,000-page transcript by then or to show cause why she shouldn't be held in contempt.

The Supreme Court had previously ordered her to submit it by May 1 but granted her more time. That was her second request following the initial one in late January.

Delays in the finished transcript have meant Camm has also had to wait to file an appeal. Defense attorneys now have 30 days to file an official brief, though attorneys could ask for an extension.
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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  4. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  5. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

ADVERTISEMENT