ILNews

IBA: Attorneys Beware - Conflicts of Interest and Attempts to Make a Buck

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Alex E. Gude, Bingham Greenebaum Doll LLP
 

gude-alex-mug Gude

Attorneys looking to profit from their experiences at trial take note: the principles behind the so-called “Son of Sam” laws, which prohibit criminal defendants from profiting from the publicity of their crimes, may apply to you too, at least during the pendency of a criminal case. That is the conclusion reached by Indiana Court of Appeals in the recent decision of Camm v. State, 957 N.E.2d 205 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), which involved David Camm, who had twice been tried for the murder of his wife and two children.

The facts of the case are as follows. The elected prosecutor handled Camm’s second trial. At some point during the proceedings, the prosecutor decided to write a book about his experience in the case. Before the jury reached its verdict in the second trial, the prosecutor made contact, via his wife, with a literary agent who eventually helped him find a publisher for his proposed book. The prosecutor entered an agreement with the agent shortly after the verdict, and before sentencing. On March 28, 2006, the trial court sentenced Camm to life without parole.

In June of 2009, the prosecutor entered into an agreement with a publishing company and received an advance. Shortly thereafter, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed Camm’s second conviction. While a petition for rehearing of the decision was pending, the prosecutor sent an email to his publisher expressing concerns regarding the advance, while also noting that he was still “committed to writing the book.” The prosecutor cancelled the writing contract in September of 2009, and returned his advance. On November 30, 2009, the Supreme Court denied the state’s petition for rehearing, and the next day, the prosecutor re-filed the murder charges against Camm.

In response, Camm filed a petition requesting the appointment of a special prosecutor, arguing that the elected prosecutor had a conflict of interest. In reversing the trial court, which denied Camm’s petition, the Court of Appeals noted that the prosecutor’s cancellation of his literary contract prior to the third trial did not eliminate his conflict of interest. As the Court explained: “this is a bell that cannot be unrung. [The prosecutor] signed a contract to author and publish a book about the Camm case prior to Camm’s third retrial, and, in doing so, he permanently compromised his ability to advocate on behalf of the people of the state of Indiana in this trial.” According to the Court, the prosecutor’s decision precluded effective prosecution of Camm, because he provided Camm with an argument he would otherwise not have at trial –namely, that the prosecutor was influenced by his own personal interest when he decided to try the case for a third time.

The prosecutor’s decision to sign the literary contract was not the sole source of his conflict, however. His commitment to writing the book, as expressed in the email to his publisher, and comments made to the media, also created a conflict. As the Court explained: “[The prosecutor] should not have a personal interest in the case separate from his professional role as prosecutor. In other words [he] cannot be both committed to writing a book about the Camm case and serve as a prosecutor.”

The extent to which Camm’s holdings can be applied outside of its factual context are not clear, but they do raise interesting questions. How far does the Court’s prohibition on personal interests in cases extend? Does it preclude a prosecutor from taking on a case when he has a political or publicity interest in its outcome? Similarly, is there a conflict of interest when an attorney tries a case rather than settling it, in part, in order to gain publicity or notoriety? Only time will tell. In the meantime, attorneys should consider the ways in which they can temper their actual or perceived personal interests in the cases they handle for clients.•

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT