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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT