ILNews

Justices to hear 2 arguments

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court will hear two arguments Thursday morning.

At 9 a.m., justices will hear a direct appeal in David Camm v. State, No. 87S00-0612-CR-499, which comes from Warrick Superior Court and involves a former state trooper convicted two years ago of murdering his family.

Camm is serving a life sentence without possibility of parole following his second conviction in the September 2000 murders of his wife and their two children, 7-year-old Bradley and 5-year-old Jill, in southern Indiana. The Indiana Court of Appeals overturned his first conviction in 2004 because of improper evidence used at trial, and jurors in January 2006 convicted him a second time on three counts of murder.

This appeal involves issues about how the defense was not allowed to introduce evidence about a co-defendant's criminal history, as well as how the prosecution argued at trial that Camm murdered his family to cover up an alleged molestation.

The second argument at 9:45 a.m. comes in Debra Barnett v. Camille Clark, No. 76S03-0803-CV-148, which hails from Steuben County and involves whether a township trustee should be liable for an employee's sex crimes committed in conjunction with his or her job. Barnett alleged the trustee, Clark, was liable for the sexual misconduct of her employee under the doctrine of respondeat superior, and the trial court entered summary judgment for the trustee. But the Court of Appeals reversed last year and found the employee was acting within the scope of his employment.

Both arguments will be webcast live online at http://www.indianacourts.org/apps/webcasts/.
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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT