ILNews

Disagreements plague Camm case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

Attorneys in the high-profile David Camm case in southern Indiana disagree about where to pull jurors from for a third murder trial and whether the original prosecutor can continue on the case.

The legal teams are preparing for yet another trial for Camm, a former state trooper convicted twice for the September 2000 murders of his wife and two children. The Indiana appellate courts have overturned his murder convictions both times; the first trial was in Floyd County and the second trial was moved to Warrick County.

In July, Special Judge Jon Dartt from Spencer Circuit Court decided not to change venue from Warrick County. But he agreed to have jurors from outside the county, and asked both sides to present lists of places from where they’d like potential jurors to be called. There is no common county that appears on both lists.

He hadn’t made a decision on that by Indiana Lawyer deadline. Both sides have agreed to allow most of the hearings in Judge Dartt’s courtroom in Spencer County.

That will likely include a scheduled Sept. 24 hearing on a motion for a special prosecutor to replace Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson, who’s handled the case. The defense wants Henderson replaced because of an agreement he’d previously made about writing a book on the Camm murders, but he said the agreement was terminated when the Indiana Supreme Court overturned Camm’s second conviction last summer. The attorneys now disagree about whether a conflict of interest exists for him to prosecute the case.
 

Rehearing "Jurors from outside region to hear case" IL Aug. 18-31, 2010

ADVERTISEMENT

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