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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT