“They probably will be able to seat a jury, but whether it’s a fair jury is an open question,” said Shawn Boyne, a law professor at the Indiana University School of Law in Indianapolis.
Another challenge for prosecutors is making a legal argument that resonates with jurors after the two previous failures.
Camm, who had left the state police four months before his family was killed, was arrested a few days after telling investigators he had discovered his wife and their two children shot to death in the garage of their Georgetown home in September 2000. The weapon was never found.
Defense attorneys argued at Camm’s first trial in 2002 that prosecutors ignored evidence that another man had been in the garage where killings occurred. After DNA linked a violent ex-convict to the scene, they thought Camm would be freed. Instead, prosecutors said Camm had conspired with the second man to kill his family, and he was convicted again in 2006.
The second man, Charles Boney, is serving a 225-year prison sentence for murder and conspiracy to commit murder. Boney’s palm print was found on Kimberly Camm’s sport-utility vehicle, and a sweatshirt found in the garage had been issued to Boney in prison while he was serving time for armed robbery and criminal confinement.
Both times, appellate courts ruled that prosecutors had deliberately inflamed the jury, in the first trial by calling a dozen women who testified they had extramarital affairs with Camm, and in the second by suggesting he had molested his daughter without any evidence to back up those statements.
“I think people just think moral judgments about the defendant,” Boyne said.