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. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT