Camm v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1894, 957 N.E.2d 205, 2011 WL 5546909 (2011)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An actual conflict of interest requiring disqualification exists when a prosecutor enters into a literary contract concerning a pending prosecution, thereby creating a personal interest in the case. This conflict is not cured by the subsequent cancellation of the contract, as the prosecutor's impartiality has been permanently compromised.
Facts:
- David R. Camm was facing a third trial for the murder of his wife and two children after his first two convictions were overturned on appeal.
- Keith Henderson, the Floyd County Prosecutor, served as the prosecutor for Camm's second trial.
- Hours before the jury reached a verdict in the second trial, Henderson received a literary representation agreement to find a publisher for a book he intended to write about the Camm case.
- Two days after Camm was convicted in the second trial, Henderson signed the literary agreement.
- Henderson and a co-author later secured a publishing deal with Berkley Penguin Group, which included a monetary advance.
- After Camm's second conviction was reversed, Henderson discussed the book with his agent via email, stating, 'I am committed to writing the book' and noting that the reversal makes it a 'bigger story.'
- Henderson and Penguin mutually cancelled the contract in September 2009, and Henderson returned his advance payment.
- After refiling charges against Camm, Henderson issued press releases stating he was 'more convinced now than ever that when this matter is completed, the unedited version of events needs to be told.'
Procedural Posture:
- David R. Camm was convicted of murder in a state trial court, but the conviction was reversed by the Indiana Court of Appeals and remanded for retrial.
- Camm was again convicted of murder in a second trial.
- The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the second conviction due to evidentiary errors and remanded the case for a third trial.
- The State, represented by prosecutor Keith Henderson, refiled murder charges against Camm in the trial court.
- Camm filed a verified petition in the trial court seeking the appointment of a special prosecutor to remove Henderson from the case.
- The trial court denied Camm's petition, finding no clear and convincing evidence of an actual conflict of interest.
- The trial court certified its order for interlocutory appeal, and the Indiana Court of Appeals accepted jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a prosecutor create an actual conflict of interest requiring the appointment of a special prosecutor by negotiating and signing a literary contract about a pending case, even if that contract is later cancelled?
Opinions:
Majority - Baker, J.
Yes. A prosecutor creates an actual and irreversible conflict of interest by entering into a literary contract about a pending case. An actual conflict of interest arises when a prosecutor places himself in a situation that is inherently conducive to dividing his loyalties between his duties to the State and his personal interests. Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 1.8(d) prohibits a lawyer from acquiring literary rights to a case before its conclusion because decisions in the representation may be improperly influenced by the publication value of the story. By signing the contract, Henderson permanently compromised his ability to impartially advocate for the State, an action the court described as 'a bell that cannot be unrung.' Henderson's continued commitment to writing the book, even after the contract's cancellation, demonstrates an ongoing personal agenda separate from his professional role. This situation makes the prosecutor himself an issue at trial, undermining public confidence and requiring disqualification without any need for the defendant to show actual harm.
Analysis:
This decision establishes a strong precedent that certain prosecutorial conflicts of interest, particularly those involving a personal financial stake in the narrative of a case, are incurable. The court's 'bell that cannot be unrung' metaphor signifies that the mere creation of such a conflict permanently taints the prosecutor's role, regardless of subsequent attempts to remedy it. This ruling lowers the bar for defendants seeking disqualification, as it clarifies that they need not prove the prosecutor's judgment was actually affected, only that an inherent division of loyalties was created. The case serves as a stark ethical warning to prosecutors about the strict separation required between their public duties and private financial interests.
