The Indiana Law Blog

« Courts - "Three years after landmark court decision, Louisville still struggles with school desegregation" | Main | Courts - "An inmate shouldn't die because of his lawyers' error" »

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

Ind. Courts - " Camm judge delays decision on prosecutor: Defense wants to see copy of Henderson’s book manuscript"

Updating a lengthy list of earlier ILB entries, Matt Thacker has this story today in the Jeffersonville News & Tribune:

FLOYD COUNTY — A hearing on the defense’s motion to remove Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson from the David Camm triple-murder case will be postponed, Special Judge Jonathan Dartt ruled Monday.

The hearing had been scheduled for Friday in Spencer County, but Camm’s attorneys asked for more time for witness depositions.

The defense wants a new prosecutor appointed because of an agreement Henderson had with a publishing company to write a book about the Camm case. A series of motions filed with the court last week shed new light on the book deal.

According to a motion by Camm’s attorneys, a copy of the agreement provided during discovery indicates a contract was entered into by Henderson on March 10, 2006. That was seven days after the jury returned a guilty verdict in Camm’s second trial and prior to sentencing.

Camm attorney Stacy Uliana accused Henderson of misleading the public by saying he never entered into an agreement until after the case was out of his hands.

“I find it all very serious, but it’s also just inconsistent with his representation to the media and to the public,” she said.

Henderson admitted he had an agreement with a literary agent in March of 2006 but said he did not have a contract with a publisher until early in 2009. That contract was terminated after the Indiana Supreme Court overturned Camm’s second conviction.

“I never thought then, nor do I think now, that signing an agreement to write about a case once it was over, that it was a conflict of interest,” Henderson said. * * *

Dartt was appointed to hear the third trial, which will be in Spencer County. A jury will be brought in from another county. Each side presented a list of proposed counties, but no county appeared on both lists. The prosecution chose locations in southwestern Indiana, while the defense selected counties to the north with Marion as the county farthest to the south on their list.

Depositions are scheduled today in a New York City courtroom for Henderson’s former publisher and agent, and transcripts should be available in eight to 10 days. The defense has also secured at least one expert in prosecutorial ethics.

Henderson objected to delaying Friday’s hearing, arguing that the hearing should be “an argument of the law, not a litigation of the facts.” He accused Camm’s attorneys of wasting time and taxpayer money so a new prosecutor without as much knowledge of the case will be appointed.

“They don’t want me to prosecute this case. I take that as a compliment actually,” Henderson said. “This isn’t about any sort of conflict. What do they think? I’m going to prosecute him harder just to sell books?”

Uliana said defendants have the right to a conflict-free prosecutor who will seek justice and she believes each decision Henderson makes is “colored by his desire to sell books.”

“Any time wasted or expense ... lies only at the feet of Prosecutor Henderson,” Uliana said. “There would be no delay nor would there be any expense if he would not have entered into a contract while the trial was still going on.”

Henderson also filed an objection to releasing any manuscript of the book, edited or unedited. He claimed that the document is “irrelevant” to the motion for special prosecutor. Dartt granted Henderson’s request that any manuscript that may be provided to the defense by another party be placed under seal and not disseminated to the public until after a hearing on the matter.

The defense responded by requesting again that Henderson or his representatives be ordered to produce the draft of the book.

In making their argument, they quote from an e-mail reportedly sent by Henderson to his agent, Frank Weimann, and co-author, Damon Dimarco, on July 30, 2009, which states, “The book cannot come out prior to the completion of a potential third trial. It would jeopardize the case, potentially getting me removed from the case due to certain disclosures and opinions we are writing into the book. This cannot happen.”

Camm’s attorneys say they need to know what those disclosures are. They also claim that Henderson wrote in an e-mail the same day that a reversal of Camm’s conviction and a third trial would make the case an even “bigger story” and worthy of more money.

“So profound is the conflict that every action by the prosecutor must be considered in light of his desire to publish this book,” according to the motion.

Henderson said his only concern about the book coming out early was its effect on a potential jury.

“I did not want a book to be published with information that could prejudice a jury,” Henderson said.

Henderson further explained that his comment about a “bigger story” was directed at the writer who had put a lot of work into the book before the deal was canceled. He said there is little money to be made in the book, and he was encouraging the writer to possibly negotiate a better deal if there was an opportunity for a book at a later date.

“I looked at it from the bright side. There’s a possibility there will be more to tell,” Henderson said.

The judge gave parties until Oct. 18 to file briefs and replies on the issue of producing the manuscript. A hearing on all remaining motions will be set after that date.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on September 21, 2010 08:16 AM
Posted to Indiana Courts