STORY: "David Camm trial now in Jury's hands," by reporter David Berman, published by WIBC on October 22, 2013.
GIST: Law Professor Novella Nedeff says telling jurors those two convictions were thrown out on appeal has been part of the central defense argument that authorities jumped to a conclusion that Camm was guilty, then viewed all subsequent evidence through that lens. Both prior convictions were reversed because of prejudicial evidence that the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled should not have been admitted. Nedeff says it's unusual for a case to be reversed twice for the same error. She says the testimony in the second trial that prompted the reversal was not only prejudicial, but highly speculative. In the first trial, prosecutors called witnesses who suggested Camm had had affairs. Nedeff says the problem there isn't the strength of the evidence, but its relevance. It's well-established law that prosecutors can't use unrelated crimes or bad behavior to poison the jury's opinion of the defendant as a person. Nedeff explains the defense can sometimes open the door to that kind of testimony -- for instance, if a defendant accused of child abuse claims the child's injuries were an accident, prosecutors can call witnesses to testify to other incidents of abuse. Prosecutors could also claim a crime is part of a pattern of similar crimes, if they can show significant similarities. But Nedeff says it's too much of a leap to argue that showing a defendant is a bad husband, even if proven, is evidence that he's also a murderer."
The entire story can be found at:
http://www.wibc.com/news/story.aspx?ID=2063738
See also "Camm case goes to jury today."(WIBC): "The third trial includes one element the first two haven't: testimony
from Charles Boney, who prosecutors contend sold Camm the murder weapon.
Professor Novella Nedeff at IUPUI's McKinney School of Law says Boney's
testimony presents prosecutors with a challenge in closing arguments:
they can't accept his story at face value, because he claims to have
been an innocent bystander in a case in which prosecutors have already
convicted him of murder. At the same time, they need to persuade the
jury that the gist of his story of witnessing Camm commit the murders is
true. Camm's lawyers contend Boney acted alone. Nedeff notes a
convicted murderer's credibility as a witness is already suspect, but
says prosecutors will likely argue it's Camm who brought him into the
case, not they. While defense lawyers try to discredit Boney in their
closing arguments, Nedeff says prosecutors will work to punch holes in
the findings of defense experts who claim "touch DNA" from the crime
scene exonerates Camm and incriminates Boney. The last week of the trial
centered on rebuttal witnesses contending that interpretation is
unreliable. And Nedeff expects prosecutors will argue the stories of
witnesses who played basketball with Camm that night still leave a big
enough hole in the timeline for Camm to have slipped away to commit the
murders."
http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?ID=2063228
PUBLISHER'S NOTE:
Dear Reader. Keep your eye on the Charles Smith Blog. We are following this case.
I have added a search box for content in this blog which now encompasses several thousand posts. The search box is located near the bottom of the screen just above the list of links. I am confident that this powerful search tool provided by "Blogger" will help our readers and myself get more out of the site.
The Toronto Star, my previous employer for more than twenty incredible years, has put considerable effort into exposing the harm caused by Dr. Charles Smith and his protectors - and into pushing for reform of Ontario's forensic pediatric pathology system. The Star has a "topic" section which focuses on recent stories related to Dr. Charles Smith. It can be found at:
http://www.thestar.com/topic/
Information on "The Charles Smith Blog Award"- and its nomination process - can be found at:
http://smithforensic.blogspot.
I look forward to hearing from readers at:
hlevy15@gmail.com
