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.


Sponsored by
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Mr Smith, while most reading these posts are too busy making money or cranking out what passes for justice in our legal-techocrat order,I have often attempted to resist your cynicism, well thought out cynicism I admit. Please know that I give up, I can resist your logic no more. From Locknarian Platonic Guardians, through the incorporation doctine, to substantive due process, to Roe, to the latest demands that all states redefine the foundational stone of all civilized social order, the history of America's fall from Grace is inscribed on the dockets of the judiciary. From the federal judges' apostasy of a kind that would have caused John Jay to recommend capital punishment, to the state judges' refusal to protect the sanctuary of the state constitutions, seeing in them merely a font from which to protect pornographers, those who scream "f*ck the police" and pemubras and emanations following the federal apostates, it has been the judiciary, by and large, that has brought the Experiment in Ordered Liberty to an end. The Founders had great and high hopes that they had designed the third branch to save the Republic from such a time as this ... rather the third branch has allowed itself to be used to drag the Republic into rat infested sewers from which no nation has ever returned. Save me from tomorrow:

  2. Especially I would like to see all the republican voting patriotic good ole boys to stop and understand that the wars they have been volunteering for all along (especially the past decade at least) have not been for God & Jesus etc no far from it unless you think George Washington's face on the US dollar is god (and we know many do). When I saw the movie about Chris Kyle, I thought wow how many Hoosiers are just like this guy, out there taking orders to do the nasty on the designated bad guys, sometimes bleeding and dying, sometimes just serving and coming home to defend a system that really just views them as reliable cannon fodder. Maybe if the Christians of the red states would stop volunteering for the imperial legions and begin collecting welfare instead of working their butts off, there would be a change in attitude from the haughty professorial overlords that tell us when democracy is allowed and when it isn't. To come home from guarding the borders of the sandbox just to hear if they want the government to protect this country's borders then they are racists and bigots. Well maybe the professorial overlords should gird their own loins for war and fight their own battles in the sandbox. We can see what kind of system this really is from lawsuits like this and we can understand who it really serves. NOT US.... I mean what are all you Hoosiers waving the flag for, the right of the president to start wars of aggression to benefit the Saudis, the right of gay marriage, the right for illegal immigrants to invade our country, and the right of the ACLU to sue over displays of Baby Jesus? The right of the 1 percenters to get richer, the right of zombie banks to use taxpayer money to stay out of bankruptcy? The right of Congress to start a pissing match that could end in WWIII in Ukraine? None of that crud benefits us. We should be like the Amish. You don't have to go far from this farcical lawsuit to find the wise ones, they're in the buggies in the streets not far away....

  3. Moreover, we all know that the well heeled ACLU has a litigation strategy of outspending their adversaries. And, with the help of the legal system well trained in secularism, on top of the genuinely and admittedly secular 1st amendment, they have the strategic high ground. Maybe Christians should begin like the Amish to withdraw their services from the state and the public and become themselves a "people who shall dwell alone" and foster their own kind and let the other individuals and money interests fight it out endlessly in court. I mean, if "the people" don't see how little the state serves their interests, putting Mammon first at nearly every turn, then maybe it is time they wake up and smell the coffee. Maybe all the displays of religiosity by American poohbahs on down the decades have been a mask of piety that concealed their own materialistic inclinations. I know a lot of patriotic Christians don't like that notion but I entertain it more and more all the time.

  4. If I were a judge (and I am not just a humble citizen) I would be inclined to make a finding that there was no real controversy and dismiss them. Do we allow a lawsuit every time someone's feelings are hurt now? It's preposterous. The 1st amendment has become a sword in the hands of those who actually want to suppress religious liberty according to their own backers' conception of how it will serve their own private interests. The state has a duty of impartiality to all citizens to spend its judicial resources wisely and flush these idiotic suits over Nativity Scenes down the toilet where they belong... however as Christians we should welcome them as they are the very sort of persecution that separates the sheep from the wolves.

  5. What about the single mothers trying to protect their children from mentally abusive grandparents who hide who they truly are behind mounds and years of medication and have mentally abused their own children to the point of one being in jail and the other was on drugs. What about trying to keep those children from being subjected to the same abuse they were as a child? I can understand in the instance about the parent losing their right and the grandparent having raised the child previously! But not all circumstances grant this being OKAY! some of us parents are trying to protect our children and yes it is our God given right to make those decisions for our children as adults!! This is not just black and white and I will fight every ounce of this to get denied