ILNews

Prosecutor can stay for new Camm trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

A special judge in Southern Indiana has ruled that the prosecutor who handled the first two triple murder trials of former state trooper David Camm can stay on to handle the third.

On Jan. 7, Special Judge Jon Dartt from Spencer Circuit Court ruled that Floyd County prosecutor Keith Henderson can continue on as the prosecuting attorney in the case against David Camm, a former Indiana state trooper who’s on trial for a third time in the murder of his wife and two young children.

The Indiana Supreme Court overturned his first two convictions, most recently in 2009. That was after Henderson discussed writing a book about the Camm trials, and the prosecutor later said that he pulled out of the book deal once the justices ordered a new trial. But defense attorneys argued it was an ethics violation for Henderson to continue in the case because of that one-time deal.

Special Judge Dartt disagreed and denied the motion for a special prosecutor, saying the book agreement was cancelled after the guilty verdict in the second trial was overturned. The judge also ruled that the defense can attempt to obtain the manuscript from any “non-party” to this case, referencing Henderson’s claims that he does not possess any copies but that the publisher does. The court said that any manuscript the defense might obtain must be kept sealed and confidential unless the court orders otherwise.

Camm’s attorneys said they plan to appeal the decision on the prosecutor change, but no appeal was docketed with the Indiana Court of Appeals at Indiana Lawyer deadline.

Once the case gets to trial, Special Judge Dartt will preside. He decided last summer not to change venue from Warrick County, but jurors will be brought in from outside the county. No date for trial has been set.

Rehearing "Disagreements plague Camm case" IL Sept. 1-14, 2010

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. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  2. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

  3. wow is this a bunch of bs! i know the facts!

  4. MCBA .... time for a new release about your entire membership (or is it just the alter ego) being "saddened and disappointed" in the failure to lynch a police officer protecting himself in the line of duty. But this time against Eric Holder and the Federal Bureau of Investigation: "WASHINGTON — Justice Department lawyers will recommend that no civil rights charges be brought against the police officer who fatally shot an unarmed teenager in Ferguson, Mo., after an F.B.I. investigation found no evidence to support charges, law enforcement officials said Wednesday." http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/22/us/justice-department-ferguson-civil-rights-darren-wilson.html?ref=us&_r=0

  5. Dr wail asfour lives 3 hours from the hospital,where if he gets an emergency at least he needs three hours,while even if he is on call he should be in a location where it gives him max 10 minutes to be beside the patient,they get paid double on their on call days ,where look how they handle it,so if the death of the patient occurs on weekend and these doctors still repeat same pattern such issue should be raised,they should be closer to the patient.on other hand if all the death occured on the absence of the Dr and the nurses handle it,the nurses should get trained how to function appearntly they not that good,if the Dr lives 3 hours far from the hospital on his call days he should sleep in the hospital

ADVERTISEMENT