<b>STATEHOUSE: </b>Cochran introduces bill would have state pay for re-trials

Discussion

January 26, 2007

<b>STATEHOUSE: </b>Cochran introduces bill would have state pay for re-trials

By DAVID MANN The News and Tribune Fri Jan 26, 2007, 03:09 PM EST

Rep. Bill Cochran wants the state to pay for criminal retrials ordered by a higher court.

Cochran introduced House Bill 1692 on Friday; a piece of legislation that would require the state of Indiana to foot the bill when local courts are ordered to re-try criminal cases. The legislator evoked the name of David Camm in justifying the bill.

"A Floyd County jury found Camm guilty in March 2002, only to see the appeals court grant him a new trial," Cochran said. Camm, a former Indiana State Trooper was found guilty for a second time earlier this year of murdering his wife and children. "A second trial took place in 2006 and jurors reached the same conclusion as four years before: guilty," he said.

Cochran pointed out that the price tag for both of the trials ended up being close to $2.9 million. Most of that cost, he said, came as a result of the re-trial.

"Many people, myself included, have a hard time understanding why we have to pay that kind of money to reach the conclusion in two separate trials." Cochran called the burden on small counties such as Floyd "financially devastating" to hold a costly criminal trial. "Where is the justice for the local people who had to live through this nightmare a second time, then find out that they're paying for it through the nose?"

Cochran's bill would require the state to reimburse a trial court, prosecutor and public defender for expenses that would be incurred by a county in conducting a new trial that has been ordered by either the Indiana Supreme Court or the Indiana Court of Appeals. The money would come out of the state's general fund. Clark and Floyd County prosecutors were unavailable for comment on the legislation Friday afternoon.

"I know that it drives local officials crazy when property taxpayers are asked to pick up the tab whenever judges issue mandates from the bench." It often seems as though judges do not recognize the costs and impact they has on families and businesses who are confronted with larger tax bills, he added.

The bill was read for the first time Friday. As of press time it had yet to be assigned to committee.