DAVID CAMM BLOG: Closing Arguments - WDRB 41 Louisville News

DAVID CAMM BLOG: Closing Arguments

Posted: Updated:


Oct. 22, 2013

LEBANON, Ind. (WDRB) -- On Tuesday, Oct. 22, 2013, closing arguments were delivered in the third David Camm trial -- and the jury began deliberating.

The courtroom was packed. So packed, in fact, that every seat was filled, and there was a line of people standing in the back. Boone County Sheriff's deputies were kind enough to bring in metal folding chairs for the overflow to sit in, rather than have them leave the courtroom.

The event felt like a reunion of sorts for people who have been covering the trial. Among the crowd were a number of familiar faces, including Katharine Liell, David Camm's lead defense attorney in the second trial. Barie Goetz, an independent forensic consultant and a witness for the defense, was also seen near the back. Goetz said he was there voluntarily, and just wanted to see how the trial panned out.

There were also media representatives from a number of local and national media outlets. All of the Louisville television stations were present, as were journalists from The Courier-Journal, 48 Hours, Dateline NBC and others.

A podium was placed in the center of the room, directly in front of the jury box, from which the speaker who was delivering the closing arguments would address the jury. There was one slightly comical moment in the morning, as people were still filing in, when Special Prosecutor Stan Levco approached the podium to try it out. When he reached the podium, the Star Spangled Banner began playing on the loudspeakers -- which seemed to surprise Levco -- and several people in the seats questioned whether or not they should stand. But the music quickly ceased, and at 9:09, court was called into session.

Before the jury was brought in, Judge Jonathan Dartt addressed the people in the audience, warning them sternly to shut off their cell phones and telling them that "I do not take kindly" to cell phones interrupting closing arguments.

If a cell phone went off in the courtroom, he warned, "I can guarantee you there will be consequences. You will be immediately removed from the courtroom. There will not be a warning."

The jury was brought in at 9:20. A short time later, Boone County Prosecutor Todd Meyer rose to deliver closing arguments for the prosecution.


Speaker: Todd Meyer
Boone County Prosecutor
Closing Arguments

"May it please the judge, the defense counsel, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, good morning," Boone County Prosecutor Todd Meyer began.

He immediately thanked the jury.

"All told, I am sure it has been a real inconvenience to you all," he said of this trial.

"As I prepared for this moment when I would stand before you and attempt to summarize a 10-week trial...it caused me a lot of concern," he said, his voice faltering.

"If the opening statements were a roadmap to where we were trying to get to, I submit that we arrived at our destination," he said.

He then went on to remind the jury of the victims in this case -- the woman and two children who were found shot to death inside the Camm family garage on the night of Sept. 28, 2000.

"Kim Camm...was a busy working mother," he said. "She was raising two kids and holding down a full time job."

"You have to wonder where she would be today," he said, theorizing that Kim Camm would likely be an officer or CEO at a major accounting firm today, had she lived.

"Brad would be 20 -- getting ready to celebrate his 21st birthday," he said.

And then there was Jill, whose picture appeared on monitors behind Meyer.

"A portrayal of innocence," Meyer said, describing the picture. "What a big smile. Those big dimples...she would be 18 this year."

Kim, Brad and Jill, were what this case was about, Meyer said. It was about someone else too, he added: David Camm -- the man the prosecution believes murdered his family.

"As much as I have tried to find an explanation for what the defendant did, it's simply incomprehensible," he said.

This case was not -- he said -- about Charles Boney.

"This case is not the State of Indiana vs. Charles Boney," Meyer explained. "He's already in jail. Thank goodness for that."

But Boney was a part of this case, Meyer admitted, and Meyer went on to recount the testimony of Diane Tolliver, a forensic document examiner who reviewed a note Charles Boney had written to investigators a short time after he was questioned about the case in 2005. Tolliver said Boney tried to scribble part of the letter out, but she was able to decipher the following message:

"David Camm asked me to follow him to a secluded area. He wanted to talk to me about something that could help me Financially, he said. I followed him from Betterway Foodmart to the parking lot of Target. David Camm and I _________ _________ discussing…"

After re-reading the statement to the jury, Meyer theorized.

"David Camm and I...blank...what?" Meyer asked. "David Camm and I were discussing? David Camm and I started discussing? What was he going to write there?"

Meyer said he thought Charles Boney wanted to "minimize" his involvement in the Camm murders and scribbled over the statement because it was "way too close to the truth -- it implicates me way too much."

"We're certain Chares Boney is a complicated witness," Meyer said, arguing that there are "bits and pieces of the truth" intermingled with every lie.

"It's up to you, ladies and gentlemen, to assess the credibility of every witness," Meyer said, adding that, "I submit to you...that there are several shady witnesses in this case."

"For certain there are witnesses in this case who are biased," Meyer said. "They have relationships with the defendant."

But, he said, he was confident in the jury to be able to determine what was true and what was false.

"People of Boone County have a strong sense of common sense," he said.

Meyer then said he was going to address the jury about the concept of "aiding and abetting," which -- according to the jury instructions -- meant that if the jury believed David Camm was not present at the murders and simply hired Boney to commit them for him, they could still find him guilty of murder.

"Excuse me, your honor," defense attorney Richard Kammen interrupted. "May we approach the bench?"

"You may," Judge Dartt replied.

At this time, there was a brief sidebar of all the attorneys in front of Judge Dartt. We could not hear what they were saying. [NOTE: Yesterday, Camm's defense team objected multiple times over the judge's decision to allow prosecutors to include "aiding and abetting" jury instructions.]

The sidebar concluded without incident and Meyer again addressed the jury.

Meyer explained that a person who knowingly and willfully aids another person in committing an offense himself commits that offense.

Meyer said that, "you may consider any factor you deem appropriate," but that the aiding and abetting only applies, "if you don't think the defendant was the shooter."

But if David Camm was the shooter, what, according to Meyer, was his motive?

"The defendant wanted out," Meyer said, alluding to David Camm's marriage. "And he planned on using his training... as a police officer and take advantage and get away with murder."

Meyer said he realized that it was the prosecution's responsibility to prove these claims "beyond a reasonable doubt."

"Ladies and gentlemen, this is a strict and heavy burden, and the state gladly assumes that burden without reservation," he said, adding that "beyond a reasonable doubt" is not the same thing as "beyond any doubt."

"There are very few things in this world that we know with absolute certainty," he said. "I think the longer this case went on, the clearer it became."

"This case is like a case of connect-the-dots," he said, establishing a theme that would continue throughout the rest of his closing argument.

Meyer continued, describing Georgetown, Ind., roughly 150 miles away, and the setting of the murders.

"I've been to Georgetown, Ind. several times," Meyer said, describing Georgetown to the Boone County residents as "a small town in southern Indiana a lot like our Jamestown... Georgetown is to Louisville as Jamestown is to Indianapolis."

He described the Camm home as a "happy place" for Brad and Jill -- that is, he said, until Sept. 28, 2000, when David Camm made it "a hell on earth" through "senseless... incomprehensible violence."

Meyer described that fateful night, including David Camm's actions after discovering his family dead.

"His actions say a lot," Meyer said. "No 911 call. Why not? He calls the post and gets put on hold!"

"But this is his plan," Meyer continues. "His plan is not to call 911. His plan is to call the post... he wants his friends to give him the benefit of a doubt."

"He chooses to go inside the house," Meyer said. "What's inside that house? His family is lying dead on the floor of the garage."

"He wasn't afraid of going into that house," Meyer added. "There wasn't anybody in that house." He said the reason there wasn't any intruder in the house was that David Camm was actually the one who killed his family -- not an intruder.

"He had executed his family in the garage," Meyer said. "He didn't need an ambulance."

Even his own friends, Meyer said, agreed that Camm was acting "strange" and soon realized that Camm was the murderer.

"That night they made that conclusion, based on what they were seeing and observing," he said.

Meyer noted that Camm said he performed CPR on the body of his son Bradley, "not once but twice."

"He stops and he makes this call to the post -- and he's a first responder!" Meyer said. "He doesn't even touch Jill or Kim, he says. He doesn't even check to see if there's a pulse?"

"His calls to the police: fishing for information," Meyer continued. "That's what the detectives in this case said."

Meyer recounted the testimony of Lisa Sowders, the former owner of a crime scene cleanup business, who said Camm asked her, days after the murders, if she would be willing to clean the Bronco. He brought up the testimony of Shelley Romero, whom he described as a "female friend of his," who told the jury Camm asked her if he was "still datable" shortly after the murders.

"This is what's going through this man's mind after he lost his whole family?" Meyer asked.

Meyer brought up a phone call Camm placed to Aegon, Kim Camm's employer the day after the murders, in which he informed them that Kim had been murdered and ended up in a conversation about benefits.

"If he really didn't want to talk about benefits, he could have told the head man, 'I don't want to talk about this,'" Meyer said, adding that David Camm didn't call his wife's family until the following day.

Meyer addressed a lewd comment Camm allegedly made when he was asked to strip and provide DNA samples -- including pubic hair -- the weekend after the murders. Meyer said that Camm told a female nurse, "if I had known this was going to happen, I would have used conditioner."

"Well, that's cute," Meyer said.

Meyer's narrative zeroed in on a period of time -- specifically 9:23 p.m. - 9:29 p.m. -- on Sept. 28, 2000, the night of the murders.

"According to the defendant's own statements, he's unaccounted for during that time," Meyer said.

He said this was the time after Camm returned home and found his family murdered.

"That's six minutes. I mean, what is he doing for six minutes?" Meyer asked, wondering why Camm didn't call 911 during that time and adding that six minutes is a "long time."

Moments later, Meyer displayed a graphic image of Kim Camm's body lying next to the Bronco. As we've described in the past, she is lying on the garage floor next to the open, passenger side door of the Bronco. There is a blood trail coming from her head, and her pants have been removed.

"Folks, say what you will, but that is an unnatural position for Kim to be in," Meyer said.

If Kim Camm was shot and simply crumpled, he said, "her legs would not be so neat and tidy like that -- straight out."

He displayed another photo: this one a close up of her fingers, which had blood on them. But, Meyer said, there was no blood source near her finger. That meant that the body was moved, according to Meyer.

"It was moved when the defendant took her pants off and staged the scene to make it look like a sexual assault," Meyer said. "The blood source was a part of the blood that was draining out of her brain."

Another graphic photo: a closeup of Kim Camm's face, her eyes closed, her hair disheveled and her pants lying on the ground hear her head. Meyer theorized that her hair was caught on the button of her pants: further evidence, he said, that the scene was staged.

"It happened when the defendant moved things around to make it look like his wife had been assaulted," he said.

As for 7-year-old Bradley Camm, Meyer said he was shot in the left shoulder as he was trying to climb over the back seat of the Bronco to get away from his father.

"It was intended to be a headshot like that of the other two, but Bradley was on the move," Meyer said.

That shot, he said, severed Bradley's spinal cord. And there were marks on Bradley's face made by the gunpowder fired in the shot.

"It means Brad was looking at the shooter when he was shot," Meyer said. "Would he be looking at a complete stranger, or would he be looking at his dad, who he trusted and loved?"

Meyer pointed out the grey sweatshirt that was found near Bradley's body -- the sweatshirt that would eventually be traced to Charles Boney.

"That sweatshirt wasn't laid out for his comfort," Meyer said, adding that it must have been placed there during the missing six minutes he pointed out earlier. "That sweatshirt was tucked under Brad so it would be found."

Meyer went on to point out that gunshot resident particles were found on Camm's clothing -- and that 1,950 brass shavings particles were found on Camm's shorts. Meyer reminded the jury that Wayne Niemeyer, a senior research scientist for McCrone Associates and a gunshot residue expert, called that number remarkable.

"We learned that bullet casings are made of brass," Meyer said. "So we connect the next dot: the gunshot residue and brass on his clothes."

"Now on to the most hotly contested evidence in this case -- the blood evidence," Meyer said.

"The state believes it's high-velocity impact spatter on his shirt," Meyer said. "The defense wants you to believe it's transfer."

He discussed various blood stain pattern analysts who examined stains on Camm's shirt, before moving to stains on Camm's shoes.

"The defendant's shoe had projected blood on it," Meyer said. "It was Kim Camm's blood that caused that stain... so we connect another dot."

He zeroed in on the microscopic dots of blood -- perhaps the most controversial evidence in this case -- that were found in "Area 30" on the front hem of David Camm's t-shirt. Jill's blood.

"During opening statements, Mr. Levco said that the defendant's guilt would be proven by her [Jill's] last living act," Meyer said, theorizing that Jill's blood sprayed Camm's shirt after a gunshot. "The physical evidence speaks for her now."

"The defendant was within four feet of Jill when she was shot, to get this blood," Meyer said.

"What happens inside that Bronco?" Meyer asked. "Jill is shot, and there is backspatter. There is a little bit of forward spatter."

Meyer said there was high-velocity impact spatter from Jill in her lap. On the armrest of the car. The back seat. The headliner. The rollbar. The console.

"...and in Area 30," Meyer said. "All of this is consistent with backspatter from a gunshot."

"Now the defense wants you to believe that is transfer," he said, pulling up a picture of Jill's lifeless body slumped over the seatbelt. "But I ask you, where is the source of the transfer?"

"The defense wants you to believe that a hair swipe caused these microscopic dots on David's shirt," Meyer added a short time later.

"So we connect another dot: the blood spatter on David's shirt."

But what about motive?

"We know things were not perfect in the Camm family," Meyer said.

"And of course, there's the classic motive: the insurance money...all told, close to three quarters of a million dollars."

"Ladies and gentlemen, the evidence in this case points to the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt," Meyer said a short time later. "We have connected the dots together."

"The defendant, David Camm, murdered his family on Sept. 28, 2000," Meyer pronounced. "I stand before you now on behalf of the State of Indiana and I ask for you to return a verdict of guilty."


Speaker: Stacy Uliana
Defense Attorney for David Camm
Closing Arguments

Moments later, it was defense attorney Stacy Uliana's turn to address the jury.

She began by telling the jury that on Sept. 28, 2000, Charles Boney murdered David Camm's family. This was evident, she said, from 18 scratches and bruises Kim Camm suffered on her body.

"She fought hard," Uliana said.

She noted that the jurors had seen Charles Boney for themselves, and that his "cold and calculating demeanor show us that he's the one who shot Kim, Brad and Jill."

She said the State of Indiana's decision to arrest David Camm was based on the findings of Rob Stites, a photographer who visited the crime scene, whom she said was posing as a blood stain expert and was "nothing short of a fraud."

She decried "the lengths the State of Indiana will go to" to keep David Camm behind bars -- including, she said, feeding Boney information about the case so he could concoct the story that he was just a witness of the crime and not a participant of it. She said David Camm was powerless to fight against the State of Indiana.

"But you all are not powerless," she told the jurors. "Thirteen years later, you have the power to end this prosecution and do what is right."

"I want to start with the basketball players," Uliana said, referring to the 10 men who testified that they were playing basketball at the time of the murders, and that David Camm never left the Georgetown Community Church gym.

"Common sense tells us one of these guys would have seen something...and no one did," she said.

"When you dig a little deeper and listen to what these guys are actually saying, it's all so clear," she continued. "You can't be talking to Tom Jolly and killing your family at the same time."

She listed the names of several basketball players who say they saw Camm on the sidelines of the basketball court talking to a church elder during the time he sat out of a basketball game.

"They all saw David talking to Jolly for 10 to 15 minutes," she said. "He was there, and common sense tells you that."

Uliana then addressed what she said was the State of Indiana's shifting theory on the timeline of the murders -- specifically before the first trial.

"They thought the murders happened around 9:30, so the basketball players didn't matter much," she said, noting that the men initially weren't interviewed face-to-face by investigators.

"These men have always been treated as obstacles to the state's case, rather than witnesses," she said, adding that they had been "tricked" and "lied to."

"That frustrated them," she said. "That made them angry. And that's what's been going on with these guys for the last 13 years."

She said it was ridiculous for prosecutors to claim that Camm intentionally made sure he was playing basketball that night so he could have an "alibi" for the murders.

"In reality, it's the dumbest alibi ever because so many things could have gone wrong."

Uliana pointed out that Camm had no idea how many people would be playing that night.

"If it's an even number of people, when is he gonna sit out?" she asked. "When is he gonna kill his family?"

She pointed out that one of the basketball players planned to let his kids play outside the gym.

"How did Dave know that those kids wouldn't be skateboarding in the parking lot?" she asked, noting that any one of them could have seen him leave and spoil the "alibi."

"There are 100 ways that this planned alibi could have gone wrong," she said. "It is the dumbest alibi ever."

She recalled the testimony of John Galloway, a neighbor of the Camm family who was watching television the night of the murders and saw several vehicles go down his street.

"If David is sneaking out of the basketball game, why didn't John Galloway see his car?" Uliana asked.

Uliana also wanted to know why -- if Camm shot his family then drove back to the basketball game -- there wasn't blood in his truck.

She reminded the jury of testimony by Debbie Ter Vree, David Camm's aunt, that children frequently roamed the yards of the homes around the Camm residence.

"David couldn't control if Hannah walked in during the murders," Uliana said. "David couldn't control if the Schwan's man walked in during the murders."

"Five years later, they find Boney," Uliana said of the prosecution. "So now they have to work Charles Boney into the basketball story."

She said Boney claimed Camm's plan was to have him show up right before Kim Camm drove home, so he could blame the murders on Boney.

"What if Boney is late?" Uliana asked. "How is that gonna work?"

"Too many factors beyond David's control," she added. "It just doesn't add up."

She said "common sense" dictated that Camm was with the basketball players that night and never left the gym.

Charles Boney, on the other hand, was clearly the real killer, according to Uliana.

"His cold, calculating demeanor is evidence of David's innocence," she said. "You all saw him take the stand. His expressions never change."

She recalled the testimony of Karen Ancil, who said she spoke with Charles Boney on the phone just hours after the murders and hosted him at her home two days later on Sept. 30.

"He was creating memories," Uliana said. "He was creating a diversion."

"He plays games with the police," she said.

She pointed out that Boney's handwritten autobiography has a picture of a devil on the front of it.

"You can't make this stuff up!" Uliana said. "He's mocking them and he's mocking the police!"

Additionally, she noted that Boney has a chapter in his book -- called "Doing Time" -- with a drawing of three stars next to a clock with the time -- 8:00 -- clearly shown.

"Whatever it is, he's having fun with a triple murder," she said.

"He plays games with the public," Uliana said, noting that Boney, "gives interview after interview after interview."

She said he played games with former Floyd County Prosecutor Stan Faith. For example, she said, when he got in trouble with the law and needed an attorney, he called Faith -- the man who prosecuted David Camm years earlier -- and asked him to be his defense attorney.

"So Boney gets to sit in the car with the man who convicted Dave, knowing that he committed these murders, and talk about the Camm trial," Uliana said. "Now that's control."

"And finally," Uliana said, "we know that he's playing games with everyone in this room." She pointed out Boney's testimony.

"Why is he doing all this?" Uliana asked. "Because he knows he's going home."

She then played a recording of Charles Boney, during a deposition with the defense team, in which he told the attorneys that he was eventually going to get out of jail, via the legal system. After the recording was over, Uliana explained to the jurors her theory that Wayne Kessinger, an investigator for Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson, had an off-the-record conversation with Charles Boney shortly after the conviction in Camm's second trial was reversed.

"Boney knows he has hope to go home because Wayne Kessinger told him he has hope to go home," Uliana said.

She said Special Prosecutor Stan Levco might assure the jurors that he forged no special deal to secure Boney's testimony, but reminded the jurors that Levco is not Boney's prosecutor.

"Mr. Henderson is," she said, referring to Floyd County Prosecutor Keith Henderson.

Uliana said Boney should be the jurors' prime suspect, because, she said, he was casing the Camm household the day of the murders.

She said Boney can't describe what kind of vehicle David Camm drove (despite his claim that he followed Camm's car to his home), but "he can describe the back of Kim's car to a 't.'"

"We know that Kim came home around 7:35," Uliana said. "And we know that sometimes burglars take trophies... it doesn't make sense. It's weird and it's odd, but it happens."

She theorized that Boney got underwear from the Camm laundry room and forced Kim to put other underwear on.

"She put those underwear on in a panic," Uliana said, referring to the panties Kim Camm was found in.

Uliana noted that Kim Camm's shoes were left on top of the Bronco.

"All of these police officers will tell you, 'Yeah, that was weird.'"

She tried to paint a picture of the desperation of Kim Camm in the last moments of her life.

"As a mom, there is only one reason you fight with a guy with a gun with kids around," Uliana said. "And that's because you've lost all hope that everything is going to be okay."

"She fought long and she fought hard," Uliana said. "She fought for her children."

She later went on to attack Charles Boney's story of David Camm's involvement in the murders as "a bunch of crap," but added later that, "that's what you get when you treat the killer like a witness."

Uliana warned the jury against following the prosecutors' "aiding and abetting" logic beyond what the evidence proved, arguing that their theory throughout the trial has been that David Camm was the shooter, and that they offered little to no evidence that he was simply a collaborator.

"This is completely inconsistent with what they've been saying for 13 years," she said.

"If that's their argument, you make them show you evidence," she added.

Near the end of her closing arguments, Uliana played a recording of the phone call David Camm made to Indiana State Police post command, reporting the murders.

"Get everybody out here now!" he could be heard screaming on the recording.

By the time the phone call was over, several Lockhart family members were in tears.

"You can't fake that," Uliana said of Camm's emotion. "You can't fake that...he told them to send everybody out there. And they did."

She again warned the jury about speculation, urging them to review the notes in their notebooks.

"You can't fight speculation," Uliana said. "Speculation always wins... if we start speculating about things, sometimes we're wrong. And we don't want to speculate a man into prison."

"I have been on this case for 11 years," Uliana concluded. "We have worked for this moment."

"These may be the last words I ever say on [David Camm's] behalf," she added.

"Charles Boney can take away his family," Uliana continued. "The State of Indiana can take away his freedom."

But David Camm still had his "truth and his knowledge" Uliana said.

She asked the jury to find him not guilty.

 

Speaker: Special Prosecutor Stan Levco
Closing Arguments: Prosecution Rebuttal

Toward the end of the day, Special Prosecutor Stan Levco took the floor for a brief rebuttal.

He first turned toward the seven alternates who have served alongside the jurors.

"I want to thank you for your service in this case," Levco said, expressing his view that alternates have the most thankless job in the courtroom since they don't get to deliberate in the case.

He added that "I can't believe" we haven't had one alternate serve.

Levco also recalled a prediction he made during opening statements in August -- one that was woefully inaccurate -- that the prosecution team would rest its case on Sept. 3.

"I was a little bit off on that one," he said.

In a very conversational tone, Levco addressed the defense's argument that David Camm's demeanor tells the jurors nothing about his innocence or guilt.

"I agree that Mr. Camm's demeanor isn't proof of guilt in and of itself," he said.

He added that "if only one or two people" noticed strange behavior from Camm, "I think you could have easily dismissed that."

"You'd expect his friends and relatives to think he's innocent," Levco said.

The problem, he explained, was that so many of his co-workers noticed oddities.

Citing the phone call to post command in which Camm first reported the murders -- played by Uliana earlier -- Levco pointed to the testimony of Patrice Brown, the woman who answered that call. When asked if she thought Camm seemed upset in the call, Brown replied by saying "I suppose so."

Levco said Detectives Mickey Neal and Darrell Gibson "who start out not even imagining that he was a suspect" soon came around to believing he is guilty.

As for Robert Stites, the "fraud" the defense team said was posing as a blood stain pattern analyst, Levco said the jury should disregard his findings, as the prosecution's case wasn't dependent on them.

"You shouldn't be relying on Robert Stites, and I said that in my opening," Levco said.

He went on to blast the defense team for their forensic experts.

"In this case, the amount of money they've spent on experts has been obscene," Levco said, pointing out that Dr. Richard Eikelenboom, the consultant from IFS who allegedly found Charles Boney's DNA on clothing belonging to Kim and Jill Camm, cost $350,000.

Near the end of his presentation, Levco displayed a picture of Bradley Camm's body on the floor of the Camm family garage, with Charles Boney's grey sweatshirt visible next to it.

"I've been waiting for over a year to make this argument before a jury," Levco said.

He wondered aloud how sensible it was that Charles Boney -- a black man -- would commit a sex crime in a white neighborhood in front of the victim's children, and take off his sweatshirt...

"...and not only take it off, but leave it at a crime scene with his name on it?" Levco said.

He added that, "you can tell that sweatshirt is not laid underneath of Bradley."

Instead, he said it was "tucked."

"If that sweatshirt is there after he is down, then David Camm put it there," Levco said. "There is no other reasonable explanation for that sweatshirt being there."

"During jury selection, we discussed the difference between proof beyond a reasonable doubt, and proof beyond any doubt," he added.

"And now I ask you to return the only verdict that's justified in this case."

He asked them to find David Camm guilty.

The time was 4:08 p.m.

SEQUESTERED!

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury," Judge Dartt began, "that does conclude the closing arguments."

A short time later, Judge Dartt read jurors their instructions. Most trials of this type have 10 instructions. This one has 33. It took roughly 25 minutes for the judge to read them. I wrote in my notes that it was eerie listening to the judge rattle them off one by one. Gone was the judge who humorously spoke of desserts and thermostats. Today, Dartt had a certain urgency in his voice.

Starting now, this jury is sequestered. They will not return home until a verdict has been reached -- instead they will deliberate from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily (including weekends), retiring to a hotel at the end of the day. Their laptops and cell phones will be confiscated until the end of deliberations. The only calls they will be allowed to make are calls to loved ones -- monitored by bailiffs -- to bring clothing.

Sequestration began at 4:36.

Stay tuned to WDRB News. We will cut into programming when news of a verdict is reached.

Travis K. Kircher is a Web Producer for WDRB News. He can be reached at tkircher@wdrb.com.

Powered by WorldNow
All content © Copyright 2000 - 2014 WorldNow and WDRB. All Rights Reserved. For more information on this site, please read our Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.