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. Is it possible to amend an order for child support due to false paternity?

  2. He did not have an "unlicensed handgun" in his pocket. Firearms are not licensed in Indiana. He apparently possessed a handgun without a license to carry, but it's not the handgun that is licensed (or registered).

  3. Once again, Indiana's legislature proves how friendly it is to monopolies. This latest bill by Hershman demonstrates the lengths Indiana's representatives are willing to go to put big business's (especially utilities') interests above those of everyday working people. Maassal argues that if the technology (solar) is so good, it will be able to compete on its own. Too bad he doesn't feel the same way about the industries he represents. Instead, he wants to cut the small credit consumers get for using solar in order to "add a 'level of certainty'" to his industry. I haven't heard of or seen such a blatant money-grab by an industry since the days when our federal, state, and local governments were run by the railroad. Senator Hershman's constituents should remember this bill the next time he runs for office, and they should penalize him accordingly.

  4. From his recent appearance on WRTV to this story here, Frank is everywhere. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy, although he should stop using Eric Schnauffer for his 7th Circuit briefs. They're not THAT hard.

  5. They learn our language prior to coming here. My grandparents who came over on the boat, had to learn English and become familiarize with Americas customs and culture. They are in our land now, speak ENGLISH!!

ADVERTISEMENT