By LISA HURT KOZAROVICH
newsroom@newsandtribune.com
December 08, 2006 09:57 pm
—
After six years, two trials and nearly $2 million of taxpayer money, the last thing Floyd County wants to consider is the idea of twice-convicted murderer David Camm getting a third chance.
Still, some legal experts think that’s exactly what could happen when the Indiana Supreme Court reviews Camm’s recent conviction. The state’s highest court will be reviewing the case in 2007.
Although Camm lost his lower-court appeal last month, any case where the defendant is sentenced to life without parole, as Camm was, is automatically heard by the state Supreme Court.
The 41-year-old former state trooper was first convicted of killing his wife and children in 2002. The Court of Appeals reversed that conviction in 2004, saying evidence of numerous extramarital affairs prejudiced the jury and couldn’t be used in a second trial.
The appeals court also warned prosecutors in the next trial to tread lightly when it came to accusing Camm of molesting his 5-year-old daughter, Jill.
Camm was never charged with molestation and there was no evidence directly linking him to the injuries found on the girl’s genital area, his defense team has argued.
So when Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson told the jury in the most recent trial that Camm killed his family because his wife discovered he had molested their daughter, he opened the door for a third trial, according to defense attorney Katharine “Kitty” Liell.
Joel Schumm, professor of law at Indiana University School of Law, agrees that could very well be the case.
“Accusations of molestation are incredibly prejudicial,” he said. “I suspect the Supreme Court would take a hard look at that issue.”
Henderson maintains his opinion that he was allowed to argue that Camm molested his daughter because medical experts testified that they believed she had been molested within 24 hours of her death and no one else had access to the girl except Camm.
“You can argue whatever you want to as long as there is some evidence of that presented during the trial,” he said.
Schumm tends to agree with the defense’s argument, saying, “You can draw reasonable inference from the evidence, but there is a fine line between what is reasonable. Was there enough evidence to make the molestation a reasonable accusation? If not, the state could be in trouble.”
He added, “One thing that helps the prosecution is that the defense had a chance to question the witnesses and examine the evidence. Still, the probative value (of the evidence) must outweigh the prejudicial nature of the evidence. The argument will hinge on that.”
That’s exactly what the Court of Appeals wrote in its 2004 opinion.
“ ... In order for ‘other misconduct’ evidence to be admissible, there must be sufficient evidence from which the jury could reasonably find the defendant’s misconduct proven by a preponderance of the evidence,” the Court of Appeals wrote in its decision to grant Camm a second trial.
The decision went on to say, “We anticipate in the event of a retrial that Camm will object to the introduction of this evidence. If that is the case, the trial court will need to carefully consider whether the highly inflammatory nature of this evidence substantially outweighs the probative value of any evidence that Camm molested Jill.”
With that ruling in mind, attorney Michelle Suskauer said she was certain the molestation evidence would lead to a reversal even before Camm’s second trial concluded.
“This case was overturned the first time is because it was just plain bad character evidence. The state went too far in that case, and I think they’re going too far in this case,” Suskauer said during a CNN “Nancy Grace” interview that took place in the final weeks of the second trial. “If you remember, the appellate judge in the last case — at Camm’s first trial — warned whoever is going to be the trier of fact in the new case be very careful with that molestation evidence. And I think the state in this case has bought David Camm a new trial.”
After all, a third, or even fourth trial, isn’t unheard of in Indiana. Earlier this summer, Indiana resident Christopher Allen was released after his third murder trial ended in a mistrial for him.
Liell, who said previously she had always felt an “eerie connection” between the Camm and Allen case, believes that Camm will also receive a third trial.
The defense plans to base its appeal on another main issue as well — that evidence pointing to another suspect, Charles Boney, as the murderer, including his criminal history of robbing and assaulting women at gunpoint, was not allowed.
Boney was charged in the murders in 2005 after DNA on a sweatshirt found at the murder scene was matched to him. Sentenced to 225 years in prison after his own trial, Boney told police he gave Camm the gun and was there when Camm shot his family, but didn’t know about the plan.
“For reasons we were forbidden to discuss at trial, the jury never heard about Charles Boney’s real role in these murders, or his violent foot fetish that I’ve always believed was the motive in this case,” Liell said. “I think the third jury will.”
In 1990, Allen was a disgruntled drugstore manager in South Bend, fired for embezzling. He later returned to the store, robbed it and shot three employees to death. His 2002 conviction was overturned by the state Court of Appeals, partly because evidence of others’ involvement was not allowed.
Liell believes that a similar argument can be made for the Boney evidence that was excluded.
“It’s never going to happen,” Henderson said of a third trial. “It was a very, very clean trial. Judge (Robert) Aylsworth was very aware and he took every measure to be cautious.”
The Indiana Attorney General’s office declined to comment on the appeal, saying the case is ongoing.
If the state Supreme Court upholds the conviction, Liell could appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, it’s unlikely the country’s highest court would hear a case that doesn’t deal with issues of national importance or Constitutional issues.
Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.