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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. 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.

  3. 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!!!

  4. 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!

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT