ILNews

Rehearing denied in Camm case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A split Indiana Supreme Court has decided not to reconsider its decision to order a third trial for a former state trooper accused of killing his wife and two children nearly 10 years ago.

In an order released today, Justices Brent Dickson, Frank Sullivan, and Theodore Boehm denied the state's petition for rehearing in David R. Camm v. State of Indiana, No. 87S00-0612-CR-499. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard and Robert Rucker dissented and voted to grant rehearing and affirm the trial court.

In a 4-1 decision in June 2009, the high court found David Camm's murder convictions were based on two reversible errors by a Warrick Superior judge. The justices found sufficient evidence to support the three murder convictions and ordered a new trial.

Camm was first convicted of the murders in 2002, but his convictions were overturned by the Indiana Court of Appeals in 2004. On a retrial in 2006, Camm was convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. 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.

  5. 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."

ADVERTISEMENT