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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT