ILNews

Venue move rarity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


A southern Indiana judge's decision to survey residents about their knowledge of a high-profile murder case is raising questions within the legal community. It may signal a first for this type of court-conducted questioning aimed at determining whether a third trial should be moved elsewhere in the state.

Warrick Superior Judge Robert Aylsworth wants to determine whether a fair jury can be empanelled in that county, which has jurisdiction over the case involving former Indiana State Trooper David R. Camm. Camm has been twice tried and convicted for the September 2000 slayings of his wife and two young children. He was sentenced to life in prison after first being convicted in 2002, and that sentence has been twice overturned on appeal.

The Indiana Court of Appeals in 2004 overturned his first conviction that came from a Johnson County jury brought into Floyd County. On retrial, the case was transferred to Warrick Superior Court and he was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to life in prison without parole. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed that conviction in June 2009 finding two reversible errors, but justices found sufficient evidence to support the three murder convictions and ordered a new trial.

In early December, Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson decided to try Camm a third time, and defense attorneys later filed a change-of-venue petition to have the case moved to northern Indiana because of media exposure throughout the southern half of the state. Henderson opposes the move, and now Judge Aylsworth is trying to determine whether to move the case.

The murders have been the subject of national coverage - both print and televised, including CBS' "48 Hours" program.

Judge Aylsworth declined to speak with Indiana Lawyer about the case specifics or in general about the venue-change issue, citing both the judicial code of conduct and pre-trial publicity concerns relating to the Camm case. But attorneys on both sides said Judge Aylsworth is mailing surveys this month to 200 randomly selected Warrick County residents, who've been included on the general jury pool list but would be excluded from possibly being called on this case.

After parties weren't able to agree on a venue, the defense and prosecution were asked to give Judge Aylsworth proposed questions for residents about their knowledge of and thoughts about the Camm case relevant to the venue issue. The court reviewed those questions and put together a final list for counsel to review; attorneys expect the court will mail those surveys this month once finally approved.

Henderson indicated he assumed this procedure has been used elsewhere, but he didn't know of any specific situations. The goal is to have the questionnaires sent to the bottom of the panel - the ones who wouldn't be called for this case - to avoid prejudice, he said.

"I think it's a very good decision, and what the judge is doing is a more accurate representation than a poll because he's taking the questions directly to those who could theoretically be called to sit as jurors."

This high-profile case is unique because it's a third trial that's already been tried with an outside jury and moved 100 miles away from Floyd County to Warrick County, Henderson said. He believes it's important to keep the case inside Warrick County, despite arguments from the defense that pre-trial publicity has invaded the process and made it impossible for anyone in the southern part of the state to be objective about the case.

"If the goal is to find someone who hasn't heard about the case, that's just not possible," Henderson said. "Even if you move to a different media market in Indianapolis, Fort Wayne, or South Bend, the AP and online coverage means that everyone has access to it ... if venue's changed, that new market will immediately cover it and do the same thing. This is about jurors being able to look past that knowledge and render a fair verdict."

Indianapolis defense lawyer Richard Kammen is one of Camm's court-appointed attorneys, along with Indianapolis-based Stacy Uliana who was a part of the defense team during the second trial. Kammen replaced Bloomington attorney Katharine Liell, who took the case soon after the first convictions and successfully appealed twice before withdrawing in January.

"It's not unusual for courts to try and determine what the level of penetration is in a community and what impact it could have on having a fair trial there," Kammen said. "How that's done varies from place to place, but it's not unusual for a court to want something in one way to ferret out the exposure from media coverage."

Though Kammen said he's observed and been involved in cases where this court-conducted questionnaire method is used both inside and outside Indiana, he wasn't able to pinpoint those situations. Often, jurors are called in from different counties, or the case itself is moved specifically for the trial so that pre-trial hearings can remain local. Kammen said Judge Aylsworth's method is a reliable way to determine whether a venue change is needed, and that it will save all parties from having to use more elaborate public opinion polling and survey research methods. Those methods are typically expensive and take longer to compile.

"This may be a less reliable way of getting the same information, but it does the job and we'll see what the response is," he said. "Anecdotally, there's a fairly high degree of notice of this case (in southern Indiana) and the county's pretty polarized on the issues of David's guilt, the reversals, and the really extraordinary costs the county will be asked to bear for a third trial."

Under Indiana law, the county where the charges were filed is required to cover change-of-venue costs - in this case Floyd County. That includes transportation and boarding of the witnesses and defendant, the cost of prosecution and legal proceedings, and the cost of increased security. Generally, broad questionnaires go to potential jurors as part of the pre-voir dire process, according to David Remondini, who was the longtime counsel for the chief justice before starting in 2007 as chief deputy executive director for the Indiana Supreme Court's Division of State Court Administration. Those questionnaires typically aren't focused on venue exposure and cover more than mere knowledge about a case, such as information about a person's health, work history, or possible conflicts that may be relevant. He hadn't heard of judges or courts specifically mailing questions to county residents who wouldn't be potential jurors on a case, but said many judges have used the general questionnaires for high-profile cases during the past two decades.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis political science professor Brian Vargus, who conducts public opinion polling and research for high-profile cases and has been published on this topic, said he wasn't aware of any Indiana cases where court-conducted surveying has been performed. Federal evidence rules allow for only credited and accepted research like this to be admitted as evidence, but he didn't know about venue changes or how this might apply in state courts. Vargus said a "good survey" means typically spending at least $8,000 to $12,000, and he speculated that cost could be a factor in having the court do this.

"You might consider this a strange extension of voir dire, the judge sending out something like this," he said, noting that he isn't familiar with the survey or case venue issues. "You have to look at response rate, wording, how it's mailed, experience the judge has in doing something like this, even the letterhead it comes on could affect how people respond. ... I understand why they're trying to do it, and I'm not an attorney, but I'm not entirely sure if this is on solid ground and it could be opening up issues on appeal. If they all agree, maybe it's fine. But you never know."

Throughout Indiana, trial judges and attorneys involved in these types of cases say they too have used the more generalized approach and found it unusual to hear about Judge Aylsworth's court-conducted venue questionnaire. In the neighboring Evansville area, Vanderburgh Circuit Judge Carl Heldt said he hasn't done this, but attorneys have presented information that in the past has led him to both bring in outside jurors and also move cases to other venues. Other judges and prosecutors statewide say the same.

Marion Superior Judge Mark Stoner pointed out that high-profile case exposure often doesn't disqualify people from being selected as jurors because massive media coverage often doesn't stick in the minds of residents enough to impact their jury obligations. He noted how last year's police-shooting case moved to Valparaiso was the first venue change from Marion County since the 1992 case involving a police brawl, and even the recent case had consent from all parties. Also, the recent Hamilton Avenue slayings trial wasn't moved away, the judge said. However, this method might be necessary because of the unique nature of the Camm case.

"Faced with unusual situations, sometimes it means unusual circumstances are appropriate," Judge Stoner said. "A major case where you're trying it two or three times might call for that. In a smaller county, maybe with a bigger sensational case makes it more difficult and this could make a difference."

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT