I will cut and paste and break it down---my mind absorbs it better that way:
PART ONE:
The Court has reviewed the Defense Second Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge And Request For Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law Upon Denial Of This Request If This Court Denies This Request, filed May 17, 2024. As Trial Rule 52 is not applicable in criminal cases, the defendant's request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is denied. Neely v. State, 297 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. App. 1973); Davis v. State, 642 N.E.2d 987 (Ind. App. 1994).
The Court, however, will address each of defendant's allegations in this Order.
Defendant claims the Court directed the Carroll County Sheriff to ignore a subpoena. The Court directed an e-mail to counsel on June 14, 2023, regarding the witness refusing to cooperate with the service of the subpoena and demonstrating a willingness to fight the Deputy attempting service. The Court requested a report of the witness' refusal to cooperate and be transported for the scheduled hearing and forwarded that report to counsel when it was received.
The decision by the Deputy to leave without the witness was his and was not directed by the Court.
Defendant claims the Court engaged in ex parte communication with the Carroll County Sheriff regarding defendant's housing, transportation, and safety during jury selection and trial May 13-31, 2024. These communications were administrative in nature and did not address any substantive issues. The communications were directed to where the defendant would be housed during the trial and who would be conducting transportation. The Court did notify counsel where defendant would be housed during the trial (as he is still under the safekeeping order) in an e-mail, but did not inform counsel of the communication, as nothing substantively was discussed.
The Court has set the defendant's Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order for hearing, but was required to cancel the hearing upon the filing of this pending Second Verified Motion to Disqualify.
Counsel claim the Court invited the State to limit defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. The Court has always required counsel in all criminal cases to follow the law relating to third-party perpetrators. The Court reminded counsel of their obligation to follow the law in the Court's e-mail of April 28, 2024.
Counsel claim the Court has disparaged them and ruled on defense pleadings without hearings. The Court's comments about counsels' performance were documented in the Court's Order of April 30, 2024, regarding their handling of discovery materials.
If pleadings on their face are not supported by the law or admissible evidence, judicial economy does not require a hearing.
Allegations the Court has treated the Prosecution more favorably than the defense are unsupported by any admissible evidence provided by the defense at the March 18, 2024, hearing.
The Court was notified on May 20, 2024, of an inquiry by the Indiana State Police to the Court Reporter via e-mail on May 9, 2024, regarding ex parte communication received by the Court from Gary Beaudette (which was previously provided to all counsel). The Court is unaware of the extent of any Indiana State Police investigation.
Defendant blames the Court for ex parte pleadings which were inadvertently directed to the Prosecutor. The defense staff filed pleadings and marked them as "confidential", apparently unaware that the "confidential" marking makes them available to the State, but not the public. Counsels' staff contacted this Court's staff and were advised that the Statewide Odyssey Case Management System (not DoxPop as alleged in the pleading) has a distinct process for filing pleadings "ex parte" as opposed to "confidential". The Court did e-mail defense counsel a tutorial paper authored by JTAC explaining the process. Since that communication, defense counsel have had no issues with their staff properly filing ex parte pleadings.
Accusations of violating Rules on Access to Court Records have been completely explained and dealt with, including by the Indiana Supreme Court in the first Writ of Mandamus filed by defendant.
Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access
public.courts.in.gov