Oral Arguments - May 22, 2008

At 9:00 AM on Thursday, May 22, 2008, in the courtroom of the Indiana Supreme Court, approximately 300 people jammed the massive historical enclave yet confined gallery area in order to hear the oral arguments of Stacy Uliana and Steve Creason.

Uliana has been, with Katherine Liell, one of two of the latest defense attorneys dedicated to seeking justice for David Camm and his family. She and Liell followed in the footsteps of Michael McDaniel and Pat Biggs, Camm's attorneys during the first trial. Also present was Professor Tom Schornhorst, retired from Indiana University School of Law, who presented an amicus brief (friend of the court) on behalf of Camm.

Uliana and Liell were the two trial attorneys during the second trial who argued, unsuccessfully, in front of Warrick County Judge Robert Aylsworth, for the inclusion of evidence related to Charles Boney. That evidence included his previous 11 violent attacks on women, his sexual obsession with feet, legs, and shoes, his theft of women's shoes, and other pertinent aspects of his criminal signature as well as his confessional video.

Uliana and Liell had also argued unsuccessfully before the trial judge that the jury shouldn't hear the highly inflammatory allegations that Camm had molested his daughter. They based their objection on the fact that there was absolutely no evidence that Camm had ever harmed his precious child in any way, much less had sexually violated her.

In summation, two of Uliana's and Liell's critical arguments were Camm should have been allowed to tell the jury of the overwhelming evidence that Charles Boney had murdered Kim, Brad, and Jill and that they shouldn't have heard speculation and innuendo, with no evidence, that Camm had molested his daughter.

Steve Creason is a career attorney with the Indiana Attorney General who has argued many cases on behalf of the 92 county prosecutors. In Indiana, the vast majority of criminal appeals before the Appellate and Supreme Courts are conducted on behalf of the prosecutors by a designated representative of the Indiana Attorney General. Creason has been such a point person and has been successful on many occasions in having the high courts uphold the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial courts. Although he was arguing for the State of Indiana, Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson was also present but mute during the hearing. That has been one of the few times Henderson has been silent in public.

Each side was given 20 minutes to buttress their previously provided written briefs. Many people would say 20 minutes wasn't a lot of time, yet that was five minutes more than most attorneys are allocated before the Supreme Court. Each side was given 20 minutes because David Camm had been sentenced to Life without Parole, or LWOP for short. Most other criminal cases are allocated but 15 minutes. Nonetheless, 20 minutes to argue that David Camm should, or shouldn't, spend the rest of his life in prison isn't a lot of time.

An LWOP sentence allows the appeal process to immediately pass the Appellate Court and be heard by the Supreme Court. The fact that Camm's case was heard not at the Appellate Court was probably good for the State of Indiana. Good because the Appellate Court had previously told the State in 2004 that if they were going to argue in the future David Camm had molested his daughter, then they needed to present proof that there was a nexus, or connection, between her injuries and her father. The State of Indiana, in the person of Keith Henderson, provided no additional evidence or nexus of any such molestation, but rather failed to abide by the Appellate Court's ruling. He was allowed to do so with the blessing and consent of Judge Aylsworth.

Included in the crowd of 300 were the families of Kimberly Camm and those of David Camm. Although they were separated by mere feet, the divide between the two families might as well been an ocean.

Kim's family, including her parents Frank and Janice Renn were present, as they had been at all previous hearings and both trials. In the weeks following the murders, they thought Dave couldn't have been responsible for the murders of their oldest daughter and precious grandchildren. They were soon convinced by former Floyd County Prosecutor Stanley Faith, however, that David was responsible for the murders because a supposed blood spatter expert recognized high velocity impact spray, or HVIS, on Camm's T-shirt, meaning Dave had to have been present when the back spatter occurred. Back spatter from a gunshot wound.

Unfortunately, the HVIS assertion came from a guy who wasn't an expert, who didn't have any training, any experience, and thought that the purported back spatter came from Kim and not Jill. He also thought oil on the interior of the garage door was back spatter blood. That "expert" later lied under oath about his training and qualifications in Camm's first trial. Only years later did he admit to his lies and lack of qualifications.

Much of Dave's family was also present, as they had been at past hearings and both trials. Uncle Sam and his wife Carol, brother Donnie, sister Julie, and a raft of other family members showed up to exhibit their support. Dave's parents, both in frail health, failed to make the four hour round trip from their home in New Albany.

Also in attendance were approximately two dozen media people. A few, very few, would actually report on the events of the day by analyzing the questions of the justices and the arguments of counsel. Most would simply try and get a sound bite from representatives of both sides, write or report their stories, and then move on to their next story.

According to a lot of people, the "investigative media" thirty years after Watergate simply equates to news readers who investigate the fax machine to see what is received and on what they can report; either that or to parrot a prosecutor's news conference. It is bad enough that actual investigative reporting has become nearly extinct, but reporters don't even ask the simple questions. An example: "Mr. Henderson, why did you charge David Camm and Charles Boney with conspiring to murder Kim and the kids, but you fought against using the only evidence you had about such a conspiracy…Mr. Boney's (six and constantly changing) statements?" That's a simple but pertinent question and one that has never been asked.

A strange thing happened the day of the Supreme Court arguments, however. A strange thing, at least in the minds of many people, including those who had no stake in the outcome. Instead of accepting the arguments of the State as factual, the justices asked questions. Pointed questions. Hard questions. Questions which were based on a solid knowledge of the case. Judges Dickson and Sullivan were at the forefront of asking those questions, which included asking Creason very direct questions.

During the questioning of Creason, he admitted that he didn't know the answers to a lot of their questions. He also made a startling admission about the "evidence" that Dave Camm molested his daughter. There was no such evidence. No evidence that Camm had ever harmed his daughter in any way. Incredibly enough, however, Creason argued it was still permissible that the prosecutor could argue that Camm did molest his child. The State of Indiana argued that even though there was no evidence David Camm had harmed his child, nonetheless the prosecutor could still "infer" (his words) that something happened.

And then, the Deputy Attorney General argued that it wasn't permissible for Camm's defense to argue, even though there was hard core evidence, that someone else, that being Charles Boney, had committed the crime. David Camm had no right to present a 6th Amendment defense that someone else and not he had committed the crime.

What does the 6th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution say? It, in part, is as follows:

"The accused shall…be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor..."

Again, what witnesses were there in regards to the molestation and Camm being responsible? There were no witnesses. No one claimed that David Camm molested his daughter. No one claimed that Jill Camm had actually been molested. The proof against Camm was simple. Since no one else inflicted the injuries, whatever they were, it had to be David Camm who was responsible. That's not evidence but rather an inflammatory accusation which probably gets the job done of convicting through proxy. Convince the jury that the defendant is a low-down molesting slug of a father and he'll get convicted. Mission accomplished in Camm's case.

The other aspect of the 6th Amendment pertinent to Camm was that the Amendment mandated "compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor…" That simply means a person has the right to a defense...a defense that someone else committed the crime. Indeed, there was a mountain of evidence that Charles Boney was responsible for the crimes and the defense tried to have that evidence admitted on several occasions only to have Judge Aylsworth prevent it.

Creason, taking up the mantle for Aylsworth and the State of Indiana, argued that Boney's prior violent sexual crimes against women weren't important; his obsession with the feet, legs, and shoes of women weren't important. Kim's pants being off weren't important. Her shoes which were placed neatly on top of the car weren't important. Boney's confessional video wasn't important.

Those things weren't important and the jury shouldn't hear those facts according to Creason. Creason, however, was stumped when asked if Kim was even sexually assaulted. He didn't know and even claimed Kim's pants were only pulled down and had not been removed. He offered no opinion as to what that possibly meant.

Associate Judge Dickson then asked this question: "Don't we have a jury here that was deprived of all the facts and you're asking us to defer to their judgment?"

Creason responded with an answer that would confuse many people and would cause many others to be chilled: "Juries are deprived of all the facts all the time. They're only allowed to know the facts that are admissible under the rules of evidence or under the Constitution of the United States."

The Indiana Deputy Attorney General argued that it was permissible for the prosecutor to infer that Camm had molested his daughter without any evidence, but when the defense wanted to present hard core evidence that Boney had been the perpetrator, that wasn't acceptable.

Inference is okay if you're the State. Evidence is bad if you're the defense. That argument in our system of justice would confound most but the State of Indiana thought it was an argument that would and should fly.

Watch and listen to the oral arguments. If you do nothing else when viewing this video, ask yourself these simple questions: If you were a juror on the David Camm case, would you want to know the evidence? Would you want the court to keep that evidence from you? Would you want to know as much as possible in order to formulate the best possible decision that you could render? And then ask yourself if the trial was fair by not admitting evidence but allowing inferences as being argued as fact.

No one knows what decision the Indiana Supreme Court will render or when such a decision will be made. If they decide that David Camm should receive a new trial, then that means, among other things, yet more turmoil and trauma for the families and the community. It also means Floyd County taxpayers will probably spend another $1 million in prosecuting an innocent person. The total cost to the Floyd County taxpayers will then exceed well over $3 million.

If the Supreme Court of Indiana upholds Camm's guilty verdict that simply means the defense will continue to pursue his case to the U.S. Supreme Court. There are that many legal issues.

Regardless of what the Supreme Court decides, David Camm, his family and his supporters will not stop in their pursuit of justice for him as well as their pursuit of justice for Kim, Brad and Jill.