Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
girlhasnoname said:
This D has never been ready. They lied in Oct 18th in chamber meeting with Judge G, they lied when they said they were ready to go to trial on the original Jan date to the SCOIN, and again when they filed the Motion for Speedy Trial. It's always been a ruse.

They have constantly and consistently lied about being ready and I've said that more times than I can count. Now the rubber has met the road and they have no recourse except to blame it on the State for late discovery and things not presented to them all labeled neatly and nicely showing them exactly where to find each and every piece of information they might need. Sorry fellas, it doesn't work that way.

This flood of Motions is not unexpected, nor am I worried about them. What I do find ironic is that Todd Click has turned into a stink bomb problem instead of star witness. Rut roh. :eek:

ALL JMO
Click to expand...
Agree. I made a comment a few weeks ago saying that I think the D will as for a continuance and will blame the P because huge discovery, blabla.

I don't blame them for not being ready. It is a huge investigation, there are 2 differents attorneys law firms, their client isn't that close to them, etc. I just don't like how they seem to lie/deceive the public and how sometimes their filings seems to be more for the public to than the judge.
 
Last edited:
susane7 said:
Agree. I made a comment a few weeks ago saying that I think the D will as for a continuance and will blame the P because huge discovery, blabla.

I don't blame them for are not ready. It is a huge investigation, there are 2 differents attorneys law firms, their client isn't that close to them, etc. I just don't like how they seem to lie/deceive the public and how sometimes their filings seems to be more for the public to than the judge.
Click to expand...

Then they should have walked when they had the chance to. They are kings of trying to deflect from their own incompetence and failures.

MOO
 
Last edited:
vinayd said:
Also the mention of someone who "appeared" to be dead could have been them simply waking a sleeping suspect or performing a search warrant. Their language is most dramatic and colorful.
Click to expand...
Their dramatic and colorful language is which seems, to me, that sometimes their filings are more for the public than the judge.

In their last filing they say "video purportedly taken on the 13th". Seems a wave to that small nich of people who think the video is a fake, planted video. Annoys me lol.
 
For the Axiom software. Doing a bit of research on it and I found Axiom Magnet is used by law enforcement. The lawyers said they need a license to interact with the program. Possible this is one of the expenses the court deemed unnecessary. This is a tool used by law enforcement. Sigh.

I'm still looking for an instance that a lawyer would use this software. Not to mention there is a free trial they can sign up for on the website :)

ETA: I did find something about a district attorneys office using the software.

1713963071527.png
 
Last edited:
zh0r4 said:
What is the typical time it takes for the state to turn evidence over to the defense? I have seen a former prosecutor say they handed over discovery ASAP to get the ball rolling, but what is a typical amount of time? What is the longest (but still reasonable) time you are personally aware of for discovery being turned over? Thank you for your input!
Click to expand...
It is defined by statute so it varies among jurisdictions. In my jurisdiction, discovery can continue from the time of filing to up to 10 days before trial. Discovery is normally finished much sooner than that, simply because both sides want to be prepared for trial by then.

Here are the discovery rules for criminal procedure for Indiana. Looks like the time period for the prosecution starts 30 days after an appearance by counsel (when one has a lawyer), then 30 days after that for a defense. See Rule 2.5:

 
susane7 said:
Agree. I made a comment a few weeks ago saying that I think the D will as for a continuance and will blame the P because huge discovery, blabla.

I don't blame them for not being ready. It is a huge investigation, there are 2 differents attorneys law firms, their client isn't that close to them, etc. I just don't like how they seem to lie/deceive the public and how sometimes their filings seems to be more for the public to than the judge.
Click to expand...

Or simply for the record to prepare for an appeal.
 
@AugustWest - Regarding the motion the defense filed yesterday, seeking sanctions, etc. What's the process in terms of the State responding to it versus the judge ruling on it. Meaning, does the State HAVE to respond? Are they allowed to? If so, is there a time limit? Can the judge rule on it without asking the State if they want to respond?

Hopefully this makes sense.
 
mrjitty said:
Here is an example of what I am talking about with discovery in fact not being late according to the Judge's timetable



The FBI drive was clearly on time. Is the date for ORION simply wrong? B&R were not 'off the case' on 12 July????

I can understand an appeal court looking at all this and saying it's unfair to the defense - which is mostly the fault of the judge for setting a 1 Nov deadline. But how can it be fair to the prosecution for the judge to sanction them for meeting her deadline?
Click to expand...
12/7 means December 7 to us Americans! I know, we are wierdos, with our feet and pounds measurements too!
 
To clarify, the defense is concerned about Libby’s phone data because the prosecution still hasn’t handed over all of the data extraction, which the defense obviously needs to examine to do their job. If I was the state, I would be more than happy to hand over damning evidence to the defense. The reports from 2017 & 2019 re: Libby’s phone data should be on hand and easily provided. JMO.

Why did the prosecution wait 9 months after December 14, 2022 discovery deadline to give the D the 2017 report? Why has the P still not given them the 2019 report by the ISP? When did the D find out about the 2019 extraction? Did they know about the 2019 extraction before the ISP depositions?

p. 4-5 copypasta, doc linked below,

bbm

LG's Cell Phone

16. On February 15, 2017, Lieutenant Brian Bunner of the Cyber Crimes Unit of the Indiana State Police conducted an extraction of data from LG's cell phone using a program called Cellebrite. Said information was downloaded via Cellebrite and several reports were generated therefrom.

17. When the defense was unable to locate in discovery the data from LG's phone, it sent an email to prosecutor McLeland on June 17, 2023 requesting a copy of that data from LG's phone as it had not yet been provided to the defense.

18. Clearly, the State of Indiana possessed the 2017 Cellebrite extraction and data on the date they filed charges against Mr. Allen (October 28, 2022) as well as when the defense requested the data from LG's phone in its June 17, 2023 email.

19. Despite being in the state of Indiana's possession for over 5 years when charges were filed against Mr. Allen on October 28, 2022, the extraction and data from LG's phone was not provided to Mr. Allen's attorneys until September 8, 2023, nine months after it was due to the defense.

20. However, even upon receiving the extraction and data from LG's phone, the defense was unable to immediately focus on that important piece of evidence as that evidence was just one small part of a much larger series of evidence dumps that the State of Indiana chose to turn over to the defense in a roughly 4 week period between September 8, 2023 and October 6, 2023 - more than 9 month later than required under the Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure.

21. Included in the 2017 Cellebrite extraction of L.G.'s phone was a video purportedly taken on February 13, 2017, at 2:13 p.m. containing images of A.W. and a purported suspect. The State of Indiana failed to produce this extraction to the defense until September 8, 2023, nine months later than discovery rules mandated.

22. Additionally, in 2019, Indiana State Police (perhaps with outside assistance) conducted additional extractions of LG's phone utilizing different software programs. These newer extractions have been discussed by Indiana State Police officers in depositions but has not been located in any discovery provided by the prosecutor in any usable fashion. The defense has requested the State of Indiana to provide the locations of these newer extractions. Additionally, a certain extraction software program called Axiom has been provided to the defense. The defense has been unable to open said extraction but apparently needs some type of special licensed program in order to open the extraction. The defense believes that the State of Indiana has not provided the special program.

23. As part of a reasonable investigation, the defense would have wanted the opportunity to compare the 2017 extraction to the 2019 extraction to see what differences might exist and the reasons for those differences and would have further wanted to exercise that opportunity on or before December 14, 2022, when the State of Indiana was required to turn over all extractions of L.G.'s phone so that the defense had has much time as possible to analyze L.G.'s phone extractions.

24. There is no justification for submitting the 2017 cell phone extraction or any other of the extractions and data nine months after they was due to the defense, especially when the State of Indiana had the evidence in its possession for almost 6 years prior to charging Mr. Allen.

Source:
p. 4-5
Motion to Compel & Request for Sanctions
 
TTF14 said:
@AugustWest - Regarding the motion the defense filed yesterday, seeking sanctions, etc. What's the process in terms of the State responding to it versus the judge ruling on it. Meaning, does the State HAVE to respond? Are they allowed to? If so, is there a time limit? Can the judge rule on it without asking the State if they want to respond?

Hopefully this makes sense.
Click to expand...
Time to respond by motions is also a statutory thing; I think I read somewhere not long ago it is 15 days. The State can respond but does not have to do so.
 
mrjitty said:
I agree they would not include the content, but don't you think they need to at least particularise the various categories of confessions, with timings, in their motion in order that it can be argued in Court?

Having seen both filings it seems there are actually 4 categories of confession whereas the defence only referred to two.
  1. Inmate
  2. Prison Guards
  3. Wife/Family
  4. Misc: Warden, Health Professionals, Police Officers
The defence appears to argue that RA suffered a psychosis due to an 'extended interrogation' and confessed to agents of the state. But their pleading does not explain how cat 3 applies? Ditto what is the context for cat 4? To my mind it is hard to see how the medical people are the same category the other 'agents of the state' but presumably there are arguments to be made here. They just didn't even mention this! Or what about police officers? Presumably this was not even in the prison then? When did these happen? etc

I am interested how you think such a motion should actually be plead so the judge has all the legal arguments
Click to expand...
Well, I would love to know also, and that is the million dollar question, isn't it? I really have no idea why they didn't address those "incriminating statements" but I really can't speak to that issue without knowing the content and circumstances of the statements. The other 3 categories you have listed they want classified as actually 1 category; state actors. If they work for the state, then there is a problem with right against incriminating oneself.

I think otherwise the defense did an adequate job with the motion. They are looking for at minimum a hearing to discuss the matter, and likely detailed enough facts they felt necessary to achieve this.

ETA: there is a lot left out in motions as far as law goes. Another reason I have stressed in the past that the judge is the intended target of motions is that the authors know and understand the judge knows the law very well, so there is no need to make a huge treatise of background for the judge. They know she is aware of the issues they are discussing, so there is no need to discuss all issues and the history of the law on them, only what is particularly needed in any given circumstance.
 
Last edited:
vinayd said:
I woke up refreshed with a new annoyance about how the D is handling this case. They have all the discovery they need that was due by the court's deadline. Just because they haven't seen it doesn't mean it's not there.

Also the mention of someone who "appeared" to be dead could have been them simply waking a sleeping suspect or performing a search warrant. Their language is most dramatic and colorful. The Judge made a discovery deadline of 11/1/2023. I'm going to start calling this the extended discovery because it has nothing to do with their client and his case. Their theme has been to mention how it's way too much discovery to discover their client innocent. They want to be hand held and I guess for the State to give them an organized thumb drive of files. But wait they have it because Andy sent it to BW "on accident" who sent it to other youtubers.

View attachment 499193
Click to expand...
As @FrostedGlass pointed out above, discovery deadline was December 14, 2022 per Indiana law cited in the post

This reiterates the same discovery deadline the D kept referencing in their motion yesterday. (Linked below).

The ss of mycase you posted where Gull is still telling the state to hand over discovery 9 months after the deadline, is from 10/10/2023 - the same date Mcleland requested the Defense be thrown off the case - and two days before Gull ordered them to cease work on the case (Oct 12). They were not reinstated until January 19 2024. (p. 2 below)

Interestingly, the P also handed over discovery they never handed over to Rozzi and Baldwin at this point, (Oct 12 2023) to the “new D” within 3 weeks. (From p. 2 & 3 below):

12. Additionally, it appears to the defense that the State of Indiana has belatedly disclosed tens of thousands of documents spread through many hard drives. For example, the State of Indiana first turned over the hard drive labeled "FBI case: 7C-IP-2134732" to the defense on 10/31/23 (after Rozzi and Baldwin were off the case); and the State of Indiana turned over the hard drive labeled "ORION" to the defense on 12/7/2023 (after Rozzi and Baldwin were off the case). After Rozzi and Baldwin were reinstated, the State of Indiana turned over those two hard drives to Rozzi and Baldwin on January 30, 2024.

Anyways, according to the D motion yesterday, they still haven’t received all they have asked for, and what should have easily been provided per Indiana law.
AJMO.

Source:
p. 2 & 3
Motion to Compel & Request for Sanctions

Rule 2.5 - Discovery, Ind. R. Crim. P. 2.5 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 2.5 - Discovery, Ind. R. Crim. P. 2.5, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database
casetext.com
(referenced in this post)
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #182
 
vinayd said:
For the Axiom software. Doing a bit of research on it and I found Axiom Magnet is used by law enforcement. The lawyers said they need a license to interact with the program. Possible this is one of the expenses the court deemed unnecessary. This is a tool used by law enforcement. Sigh.

I'm still looking for an instance that a lawyer would use this software. Not to mention there is a free trial they can sign up for on the website :)

ETA: I did find something about a district attorneys office using the software.

View attachment 499226
Click to expand...
I’m a bit confused what you mean?

From my understanding, all data extraction reports should have been provided to the defense (and prosecution) by law enforcement. Law enforcement provides evidence against a suspect and the burden of proof is on the state. It is not the defense’s job to do LE’s job (collecting, organizing, maintaining investigative evidence in a homicide case).
 
susane7 said:
Agree. I made a comment a few weeks ago saying that I think the D will as for a continuance and will blame the P because huge discovery, blabla.

I don't blame them for not being ready. It is a huge investigation, there are 2 differents attorneys law firms, their client isn't that close to them, etc. I just don't like how they seem to lie/deceive the public and how sometimes their filings seems to be more for the public to than the judge.
Click to expand...
It's not blaming the Defense for not being ready, what I do blame them for is lying and stating they were ready to go straight to trial, even on the Jan date. Then filing a MST when they knew, by their own admission of having not reviewed all the Discovery, they still weren't ready.

Some could argue strategy, I say deceitfulness that has come back to bite them hard. They referenced in this latest Motion coming across a document they found after they had to go through 'every page of the file'. Ummm, yes, that is what you do. You review every scrap of paper from Discovery front to back. With a combined 70 years of legal experience that shouldn't be news to R&B.

JMO
 
mrjitty said:
The defence appears to argue that RA suffered a psychosis due to an 'extended interrogation' and confessed to agents of the state.
Click to expand...
I mentioned before about the unpredictability of jurors getting crazy ideas. I actually thought this is where the defense was headed:
1. Demonstrate that LE in general (much like recording devices and precise dates) just doesn't work the same way in Indiana as everywhere else.
2. Give the impression that incarceration and maltreatment of suspects in order to break them down, extract confessions, and implicate other people is a normal investigative tool around there.
3. Undermine confidence in the very people bringing the evidence needed to convict.
Like I said, crazy
 
AugustWest said:
Well, I would love to know also, and that is the million dollar question, isn't it? I really have no idea why they didn't address those "incriminating statements" but I really can't speak to that issue without knowing the content and circumstances of the statements. The other 3 categories you have listed they want classified as actually 1 category; state actors. If they work for the state, then there is a problem with right against incriminating oneself.

I think otherwise the defense did an adequate job with the motion. They are looking for at minimum a hearing to discuss the matter, and likely detailed enough facts they felt necessary to achieve this.

ETA: there is a lot left out in motions as far as law goes. Another reason I have stressed in the past that the judge is the intended target of motions is that the authors know and understand the judge knows the law very well, so there is no need to make a huge treatise of background for the judge. They know she is aware of the issues they are discussing, so there is no need to discuss all issues and the history of the law on them, only what is particularly needed in any given circumstance.
Click to expand...
Or the State wants the Defense to list specifics instead of waving a magic wand over 'all the statements' made by RA. I think that is good lawyering for NMcL even though a lot here think he is incompetent.

I believe the State has the solid goods on RA, and the D know's their time is running out. They're throwing every possible Motion against the wall to see what sticks. I'm not suggesting Judge Gull will deny all of these Motions, but I'd bet at least more than half, and rightly so.

ALL JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 199 more.
Total: 4,417 (members: 200, guests: 4,217)

Online statistics

Members online
200
Guests online
4,217
Total visitors
4,417
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,151
Messages
17,981,679
Members
229,035
Latest member
Searching4Answers2
Back
Top