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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
AugustWest said:
Here is the language the prosecution uses in its Motion in Limine; this is what they want for relief:

"WHEREFORE, the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland,
respectfully requests this Court to grant the following relief:
A. Order the Defendant, through his counsel, and witnesses to refrain from mentioning,
commenting, or making any reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to any of
the above matters without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence
and hearing of the jury;
B. To further order said persons to make no reference to the fact that this motion has
been filed and granted, and all other relief just and proper in the premises."

They are asking for the defense to first gain permission from the court to present the "above matters" without the permission of the court. It is clear the prosecution wants it all excluded in its entirety, but they know that is a long shot.
Click to expand...

But didn't Nick McLeland say there are other "actors?"
 
FrostedGlass said:
I wonder if he wanted that motion sealed and filed it too fast?

I copied this for myself and excluded all the citations for easier reading. I'm kind of amazed how he spelled out all the things he's hoping to get excluded.
Number 7 piqued my interest.
Number 10 = so if any of the P's witnesses are lying liars, we dare not hear it?

Motion in Limine.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
1. Any comments about Counsel for the State that constitutes a personal attack on the
attorney for the State or comments on the role of the State’s attorney.
2. Any comment which constitutes the personal opinion of Defense Counsel about any
evidence, witness, outcome or penalty.
3. Any innuendo or inference that is not supported by admissible evidence.
4. Any attempt to indoctrinate the jury during voir dire by exposing the jury to
substantive issue in the case.
5. Any attempt during voir dire to have the jury pre-judge the credibility of a witness.
6. Any hypothetical questions that includes facts that are not in evidence or questions
that are not helpful in violation of Rule 705.
7. Any attempt to introduce evidence of 3rd party motive that is not relevant and/or the
probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
8. Any reference to an investigation conducted by Todd Click, along with any reports or
investigative materials from Todd Click that is not relevant or is used for the purpose
of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
9. Any reference to geofencing and/or any testimony from Kevin Horan about
geofencing or the findings from any geofence search that is not relevant or is for the
purpose of confusing the issues or has the potential to mislead the jury in violation of
Rule 401.
10. Any reference to any prior bad acts or acts of any witnesses that plan to testify at the
trial that is not relevant to what the Defendant is on trial for, that is not an act that is
an exception to IRE 404(b) and that is not both relevant under IRE 401 and tend to
negate the guilt of the Defendant.
11. Any reference to how the files were labeled that were handed over to the Defense as
part of the information and discovery provided to Defense Counsel by the State that
are not relevant or that would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the
potential to mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
12. Any reference to any PowerPoints provided by the State as Executive Briefs
involving any person or persons that were investigated by law enforcement as part of
the 6 year investigation into the murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German that
are not relevant or would tend to cause confusion of the issues or has the potential to
mislead the jury in violation of Rule 401.
A. Order the Defendant, through his counsel, and witnesses to refrain from mentioning,
commenting, or making any reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to any of
the above matters without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence
and hearing of the jury;
B. To further order said persons to make no reference to the fact that this motion has
been filed and granted, and all other relief just and proper in the premises.
Click to expand...
Easier to read but without the supporting law throughout it to clarify why these things are being requested.
 
girlhasnoname said:
I don't see Judge Gull as biased against RA or the D at all. JMO
Click to expand...
Agreed on this. D's made it clear they wanted the support & involvement of "the public." Their hearings packed with YouTubers are no accident. They've done everything they could to impugn other parties for the crime. They've gotten very feisty about attacks on their boy "Rick," but while doing so, they see no problem in circulating names to "the public" and implicating guilt, and the people being publicly named by D have not been charged for the crime. D doesn't seem to care about their rights, though. What D hasn't spent nearly as much time on is showing "the public" how RA is not BG. That's unfortunately what their trial's about. It's not about dismissing evidence that D doesn't like because it implicates "Rick." It's about showing "the public" that Ricky didn't do it. Raising a doubt that "Rick" didn't do it. I seriously feel the D spent all their energies trying to make sure this case never went to trial. They're not prepared for it. They'll probably lose it. And they've already been setting the stage for appeals, and that's probably where they now feel their best hope rests. They're likely right. D has shown a lot of disrespect towards the court and the process in their defense of "Rick." Listening to various YouTube shows, at one point, I saw someone frantically chatting in that Nick McLeland is in the same Masonic lodge as Brad Holder. Never mind if it's true, is that relevant? Does it even matter? But that's the fire the D stokes. The jurors don't care what Masonic lodge anyone joins. They just want to know if RA's BG. I don't think the D has done a very good job in terms of their "strategizing." You know, I came on here more open to this "Odinist cult" idea than many others at the time. But it's not just about an Odinist cult. The more immediate goal of the D should have been ruling out RA as BG, at least to the extent possible, not developing "potential Odinite suspects." Grasping at straws, and they look desperate, but they've been incredibly successful in harnessing the energies of "the public" to the extent possible. In a conspiracy culture, I guess it can play. In court, though, it shouldn't. And thankfully, it hasn't.
 
TTF14 said:
None. Judge Gull seems to want to:

1. Keep everything top secret/no transparency.
2. Create a traffic jam in the tiny town of Delphi with all of the people trying to get into the courtroom since she won't livestream the biggest case Indiana has ever seen.

IMO MOO
Click to expand...

bbm

“Starting May 1, 2023, Indiana judges will have the option to allow news media into courtrooms to record, photograph and broadcast court proceedings that are not confidential.

The announcement comes after an order amended Rule 2.17 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which had previously prohibited broadcasting or recording court proceedings without prior approval from the Indiana Supreme Court.

Authorities previously conducted a 4-month pilot program and a public comment period alongside “careful evaluation” in order to test the new rule.

<snip>

During the pilot program, five judges opened their courtrooms to test the new rule, including Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull.”

Source:
www.wane.com

New rule to give Indiana judges choice of having cameras in court

During the pilot program, five judges opened their courtrooms to test the new rule, including Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull.
www.wane.com
 
TTF14 said:
#7: Am I being too nitpicky about the word "evidence" here? Shouldn't "he" (Ms. Diener clearly wrote this, as she is way smarter than NM, IMO) have said "theory?" Because doesn't the word "evidence" imply that it's proof?

#10: This is typical in many cases, but particularly in this case it will prevent certain family members' criminal histories from being put on trial. There are a lot of felonies that (probably?) have nothing to do with Richard Allen.

IMO MOO
Click to expand...
I didn't even catch the "evidence" issue. I was just zoning in on a "motive." I thought it might be something other than a ritual.
#10 In this case, I'm considering others: Galipeau, Dulin, and the 2 companions for starters.

All JMO.
 
TTF14 said:
But didn't Nick McLeland say there are other "actors?"
Click to expand...
Prosecution's (7) in the Motion in Limine regards 3rd party motive (other actor's motive). The governing rules stated in (7) regarding admission of 3rd party motive:

"Before any such evidence may be permitted the Defense must show some connection between the 3rd party and
the crime. Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006). Further it must be a direct connection based on admissible evidence and not founded in hearsay, speculation, rumors, conjecture or theory. Mcintyre v. State, 717 N.E.2d 114 (1999); McGaha v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); Tibbs v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)."

State is saying: "before defense does this they have to show a reliable connection," essentially.
 
AugustWest said:
Prosecution's (7) in the Motion in Limine regards 3rd party motive (other actor's motive). The governing rules stated in (7) regarding admission of 3rd party motive:

Before any such evidence may be permitted the Defense must show some connection between the 3rd party and
the crime. Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319 (2006). Further it must be a direct connection based on admissible evidence and not founded in hearsay, speculation, rumors, conjecture or theory. Mcintyre v. State, 717 N.E.2d 114 (1999); McGaha v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1050 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010); Tibbs v. State, 59 N.E.3d 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
Click to expand...


Hi August!

This seems fair to the ordinary citizen, is it fair and " normal" ish in the legal world?
 
AugustWest said:
Are you making this as an affirmative statement, as fact, @steeltowngirl? Just curious, as this is what the prosecution is asking for, but we don't know that they will get this relief.
Click to expand...
I’m specifically interested in KAK/TK, and if the prosecution wants them to be off limits, AND the motion is granted - does that mean prosecution cannot themselves bring them up at trial?
 
FrostedGlass said:
Yes. That's why I said the legal definition is different from what we see. If you read all the things a judge can do without being prejudiced, you'll understand what I'm saying.
Click to expand...
I understand the SCOIN reinstated two attorneys and ruled the trial judge showed no bias. Are you saying the SCOIN doesn't understand the legal definitions of what they're ruling? That can't be right?
 
FrostedGlass said:
That's the interview where KA had to stay in the lobby. Even if he did go down and talk to her, how would they have heard him?
If that's true, for all we know, he could have been telling her to call and attorney.
Click to expand...
He may have been upset and speaking loudly. I wonder why he didn’t call an attorney and/or walk out the door?
 
steeltowngirl said:
I’m specifically interested in KAK/TK, and if the prosecution wants them to be off limits, AND the motion is granted - does that mean prosecution cannot themselves bring them up at trial?
Click to expand...
If the Motion in Limine is granted in favor of the prosecution, the prosecution will get this:

"A. Order the Defendant, through his counsel, and witnesses to refrain from mentioning, commenting, or making any reference whatsoever, either directly or indirectly, to any of the above matters without first obtaining permission of the Court outside the presence and hearing of the jury."

That is the prayer for relief. The prosecution is asking that the court require them to satisfy Holmes before introducing evidence of 3rd party motive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 117 more.
Total: 4,219 (members: 118, guests: 4,101)

Online statistics

Members online
118
Guests online
4,101
Total visitors
4,219
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,897
Messages
17,995,197
Members
229,276
Latest member
SeymourMann
Back
Top