ILNews

Special judge rules on venue change in Camm case

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Indiana Lawyer Rehearing

A southern Indiana judge has decided not to change the venue of a former state trooper’s third murder trial, and instead will bring in jurors from outside the region to consider charges in a case that has twice been overturned on appeal.

In a ruling Friday, Spencer Circuit Judge Jonathan Dartt – who the Indiana Supreme Court appointed earlier this year to serve as special judge on the David Camm case – denied a request to change venues and move the trial outside of southern Indiana. Judge Dartt asked the prosecution and defense to inform the court within 10 days whether they’ll agree for all future hearings and the trial to be held in adjacent Spencer County where he presides, or whether it should remain in Warrick County where the second trial had been moved and held.

Camm was first tried in Floyd County for the September 2000 murders of his wife and two children, ages 5 and 7. His first convictions were overturned and the second trial was moved to Warrick County, and last year the Indiana Supreme Court reversed those convictions. Late last year, Camm’s defense attorneys requested a venue change on the grounds that jurors were too exposed to prejudicial media coverage and couldn’t offer a fair and impartial verdict. Justices removed Judge Robert Aylsworth in July after determining that he’d taken too long to rule on the request, and Judge Dartt was brought on to hear the case.

Though he decided to keep the hearings and trial in the region, Judge Dartt ordered that jurors be chosen from another county. He’s instructed both sides to submit a list of at least five counties they would prefer to see the jury selected from.

“By this Order, it is the Court’s intention that due to the publicity and notoriety this case has received in Southern Indiana, the Court will convene in a county to the north outside of the Louisville and Evansville media markets and select a jury and after the jury is selected for the trial to be held in the county of the Court’s location,” the chronological case summary shows.

Aside from the venue issue on the Camm case, Judge Dartt is also tasked with deciding whether Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson – who’s handled the case from the start – should remain the prosecutor. The defense late last year requested a special prosecutor be appointed, specifically because of an agreement that Henderson had entered into to publish a book about the high-profile case. Henderson has said that no book would happen if the Supreme Court overturned Camm’s conviction, as happened last year, but that didn’t change the defense request. Judge Dartt has scheduled a hearing on the motion for a special prosecutor for Sept. 24.
 

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT