ILNews

Supreme Court orders special judge for third high-profile trial

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has appointed a southern Indiana judge to preside over the third trial of a former state trooper charged with murdering his family a decade ago, and one of the initial decisions he’ll consider is whether to move the trial outside that region.

Granting what is sometimes known as a “lazy judge” motion under Indiana Trial Rule 53.1(F), the state’s highest court issued an order Friday that removes Warrick Superior Judge Robert Aylsworth from the case of David R. Camm, a former Indiana State Police trooper accused of killing his wife and two young children at their home in September 2000. Spencer Circuit Judge Jonathan A. Dartt will now hear the case.

Camm has been convicted twice for the murders, once in Floyd County and again in Warrick County after the trial was moved, but both times those convictions were reversed on appeal. Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson decided late last year after the latest remand that he’d pursue a third trial, and attorneys have been sparring back and forth since then about where to hold the case to ensure a fair trial.

Camm’s defense attorneys had asked the Supreme Court to appoint a special judge after Judge Aylsworth failed to rule on a venue change motion within 30 days, as required by the trial rules. The defense had filed a motion to move the case out of Warrick County to northern Indiana because of media exposure. Judge Aylsworth sent questionnaires to 200 potential jurors to determine how much they knew about the case and whether a fair trial could be held there. Camm had filed a motion in mid-April to seek a new venue. The state objected April 30, Camm filed a response May 6, and then Camm’s defense attorneys filed the special judge request 33 days after that.

Defense attorney Stacy Uliana in Indianapolis couldn’t be immediately reached for comment today, but Floyd County Chief Deputy Prosecutor Steve Owens said a decision had been put on hold for the past month since the special judge request had been filed.

Now, Judge Dartt will be responsible for all hearings in that case, including the venue change motion and likely the third trial no matter where it’s held.

Both sides have disputed what the surveys reveal about the venue location – Henderson said the prosecution could easily select an impartial jury in Warrick County because more than 50 of the 176 who responded had little or no knowledge of the case; while Uliana said at least half responded that they believed Camm is guilty and that means they’re tainted in that part of the state.

Owens doesn’t foresee any change in how the case is handled, but he does expect that the special judge will need to take some time to get up to speed and review Judge Aylsworth’s work before moving ahead. No new court dates had been scheduled as of this afternoon, he said.

“The case is prosecuted the same no matter what county you’re in, what prosecutor or judge you have,” Owens said. “This will have no impact on us, and Judge Dartt knows best about how it may proceed.”
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT