« Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit to hear oral arguments in Indiana 11th amendment case today | Main | Ind. Law - "It's a Crime: The law on harassment" »

Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Ind. Courts - "Camm’s attorneys granted initial request for funding"

Matt Thacker reports in the New Albany News & Tribune:

Warrick County Superior Court No. 2 Judge Robert Aylsworth granted a request by David Camm’s attorneys last week for $75,000 from the Floyd County Public Defender’s Office to begin preparation for a third murder trial.

A motion filed in support of the request stated the money would be used for, among other things, securing out-of-state witnesses in support of their motion for a special prosecutor, gathering additional evidence to support a change of venue, determining whether additional tests need to be performed and investigating Charles Boney, who is serving 225 years in prison for his role in the murders of David Camm’s family.

That is only a small portion of what most expect it will cost for Camm’s third trial. * * *

According to the Floyd County Auditor’s Office, the first two Camm trials cost about $2 million. Both sides say the third trial may cost another $1 million.

According to the auditor, the total expenditures for the public defender’s office in 2009 was $415,494. Chief Public Defender J. Patrick Biggs said that number is expected to increase although he does not know how much.

Biggs said he was not expecting to pay money upfront but that he would review the judge’s order, which he had not yet seen.

“Mr. Camm reasonably anticipates the authorizations of more funds in order to provide him with a fair and constitutional defense,” Camm’s attorneys wrote to the judge.

Camm’s public defenders, Richard Kammen and Stacy Uliana, are paid $90 per hour. Biggs said that is the minimum amount allowed by the state’s public defender office.

Money has been a major factor throughout the process, and both sides in the case have tried to paint the other as trying to waste taxpayer money.

Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson previously argued that Camm should be treated like any other indigent inmate and be appointed a local public defender rather than be allowed to hire one through the state public defender’s office.

Biggs said his office was unable to represent Camm due to conflicts with representing different people involved in the case.

“We have so many conflicts with people who have testified or may testify that we had to get off the case,” he said.

Uliana has said they expect new tests and analysis will need to be performed, such as “touch DNA” which can be used on surfaces even if there is no visible stain.

She wants the case moved to Northern Indiana due to media publicity in the southern half of the state, and she said the prosecutor should not try to fight it. The judge recently ruled that questionnaires will be sent to 200 randomly selected Warrick County residents to determine how much they know about the case.

“I do believe the questions will show a polluted jury pool in Warrick County,” Uliana said. “I also hope that the change of venue will not result in a contested hearing, which will only cost Floyd County more money and delay the third trial even further.”

A combination of fortunate timing and planning ahead means that the county does have money set aside to pay for the trial.

“We’re actually not as bad (financially) as we could have been,” Biggs said.

Biggs said his department has $100,000 in a supplemental fund used to pay outside attorneys. He said that about $10,000 has been paid each of the last two years to outside attorneys due to conflicts.

Floyd County Council President Ted Heavrin said $1 million was recently set aside for the Camm case after the county received a sizable reimbursement from the state’s takeover of child welfare services.

“When the state took over the department, they gave us $2 million. We put half in a rainy day fund to use for David Camm if needed,” Heavrin said.

Even before the refund, the county had set aside $50,000 for the Camm case. The county can also receive up to a $50,000 reimbursement from the state, under Indiana Code.

The case remains in Warrick County jurisdiction for now, and no hearings have been set.

The News & Tribune also has run a series of opinion pieces by guest columnist Sam Lockhart. This one from Feb. 15th is prefaced:
Camm’s family, which has publicly fought for his freedom for nine years, includes his uncle and family spokesman Sam Lockhart. The following is part seven of a series of opinion pieces Lockhart has written to explain why the family vehemently believes Camm is innocent and how they believe the investigation and trial went wrong.
Here is the eight and final installment, from Feb. 23, 2010.

Also, from Feb. 21st, a long column by Steve Kozarovich, the paper's editor, headed "Why we ran the Lockhart columns<". Here is a quote:

The case has become so well known and cost Floyd County taxpayers so much — roughly $2 million — that we felt that the defendant’s family has a right to state their “case” as the prosecution did so in two lengthy trials and numerous press conferences.

When Lockhart approached us about submitting a series of opinion pieces about the case, we agreed with the understanding that the pieces would not be a place to spew hate or provide misinformation. Instead, Lockhart presented a piece-by-piece look at his argument, frequently submitted to us with court and police documents defending his position.

In order to follow our own Opinions guidelines we had a responsibility to allow a community member to express his thoughts. Our goal is to spur constructive discussion (not anonymous Web chatter). Doing so, we believe, always moves society closer to ultimate truth.

Sam Lockhart has a right to try and dispel what he believes are myths circulating in the public. Additionally, he is offering up to those who will listen a logical proposal suggesting a special prosecutor and a fresh investigation by professionals from outside Indiana law enforcement in order to ensure truly fresh eyes on the evidence. What’s so wrong with that versus the alternative of another million-dollar trial?

The Tribune does not support — or condemn — Lockhart’s Opinions page submissions. On occasion, our editorial board does take a stand on an issue but we have not in this case because we believe it’s up to a court of law to decide. We also believe Lockhart — as well as Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson or the other side of the victims’ family — have a right to try to set the record straight in the court of public opinion if they elect to do so in this manner.

We never had any intent to cause additional pain to the victims’ families. It is obviously a horrific crime and we offer them all respect and condolences.

Since Lockhart’s first proposal to The Tribune months ago, there was always a plan for the columns to end. They were never planned as an indefinite proposal. The final installment is scheduled for Tuesday’s edition.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 24, 2010 08:57 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts