Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #186

[sunshineray]

So why would they draft anything with the general public in mind?
This case is supposed to be tried in a court of law and argued by professionals with keen minds, top notch reading and writing skills and the highest of ethical standards.
The arguments are supposed to be between legal professionals.

Exactly, and who winds up being front and center, social media spin-doctors looking for clicks and subscribers. This was the plan, let's put all this in a public accessible document and let the spin begin...don't look at us, it's them. Freedom of Speech and sensationalism just got married, congrats to us. Despicable. They get a sea of Alex Jones enlisted with a gag order in place.
But they didn't stop there either, it got much much worse...IMO.

 

[sunshineray]

I'm not acknowledging any showboating by the defense.
What I wrote was my opinion as to why they write in a style.

Motions that are available to the public are probably read by the public.
We do it here all the time. Others do the same.
Shrug...

I don't see what the big deal is over the way they word their filings. It doesn't interfere with how the judge or the appeal courts read it; if it makes it more understandable for the public, there's no problem. IMO

It's written in the style of sensationalistic tabloid, not a legal document. MO

 

[sunshineray]

I thought that all things RA were going well in Westville, according to officials.

What changed?

He started going bonkers eating and drinking human waste, breaking things, not eating (food), not sleeping...all right after a confession phone call with his wife and mother. He obviously needed better mental health help. Wabash must have seemed a better place, to those in charge, for him to get it?

 

[sunshineray]

In either playful jest or irritated admonishment, neither is acceptable nor professional imo.

But yet the Defense wanted equal treatment? Even judges are human. This judge has shown great restraint in this case. Maybe she should has sanctioned BR, right then and there, for disrespectfully yelling at her in court, (paraphrasing, in case I miss a word) "You know nothing about this trial!"?

Would the defense have felt better then? Not a chance. IMO he did that to get her on record losing her cool with him. It didn't work so I guess "ding dong" and apparently mean faces were all they had, as far as that stuff goes.
AJMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

He started going bonkers eating and drinking human waste, breaking things, not eating (food), not sleeping...all right after a confession phone call with his wife and mother. He obviously needed better mental health help. Wabash must have seemed a better place, to those in charge, for him to get it?

The transfer happened late in December, months after the episodes you refer to.

 

[sunshineray]

It doesn’t need to reach any particular level to be of concern. But I daresay, there does appear to be some disdain by the judge towards b & a.

Looks to me more like the disdain is by AB&BR
towards the judge.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I'm not acknowledging any showboating by the defense.
What I wrote was my opinion as to why they write in a style.

Motions that are available to the public are probably read by the public.
We do it here all the time. Others do the same.
Shrug...

I don't see what the big deal is over the way they word their filings. It doesn't interfere with how the judge or the appeal courts read it; if it makes it more understandable for the public, there's no problem. IMO

The point is legal documents don’t need to be understandable to the public because the arguments are between legal professionals.
So folks can applaud the defense’s dumbing down their motions for public consumption but these documents are meant for their peers in the legal profession and that’s embarrassing.
So either the defense is incapable of writing at a professional level or they are actively attempting to influence the jury pool instead of trying this case in court.
The first is sad for them, the second, in my opinion is unethical.

 

[grannygates]

The court is supposed to be open to the public and the court process should be accessible to the common person.

 

[FrostedGlass]

The point is legal documents don’t need to be understandable to the public because the arguments are between legal professionals.
So folks can applaud the defense’s dumbing down their motions for public consumption but these documents are meant for their peers in the legal profession and that’s embarrassing.
So either the defense is incapable of writing at a professional level or they are actively attempting to influence the jury pool instead of trying this case in court.
The first is sad for them, the second, in my opinion is unethical.

Are you actually saying that we, the public, don't need to know what they're saying?

Maybe the solution would be: If a person doesn't like what's being said in the docs or how it's being said, then just don't read them.

I suppose JG could have added unethical document writing to her complaint to the ethics committee.

 

[Jade]

The court is supposed to be open to the public and the court process should be accessible to the common person.

No, its not supposed to be open to the public. Its open and accessible for those that initiate or are drawn into litigation not for the general public.

[..]
Courts are obligated to be open and accessible to anyone who initiates or is drawn into federal litigation, including litigants, lawyers, jurors, and witnesses. The federal courts must consider carefully whether they are continuing to meet the litigation needs of court users. In the criminal context, where the vast majority of federal criminal defendants are eligible for the appointment of counsel, the judiciary must ensure that the needs of appointed counsel and the clients they represent are met. This plan includes three strategies that focus on identifying unnecessary barriers to justice and court access, and taking steps to eliminate them.

Ensure that court rules, processes, and procedures meet the needs of lawyers and litigants in the judicial process. (Strategy 6.1)

Ensure that the federal judiciary is open and accessible, on a non-discriminatory basis, to all those who participate in the judicial process. (Strategy 6.2)

Promote effective administration of the criminal defense function in the federal courts.

[...]
Issue 6: Enhancing Access to Justice and the Judicial Process.

 

[grannygates]

No, its not supposed to be open to the public. Its open and accessible for those that initiate or are drawn into litigation not for the general public.

[..]
Courts are obligated to be open and accessible to anyone who initiates or is drawn into federal litigation, including litigants, lawyers, jurors, and witnesses. The federal courts must consider carefully whether they are continuing to meet the litigation needs of court users. In the criminal context, where the vast majority of federal criminal defendants are eligible for the appointment of counsel, the judiciary must ensure that the needs of appointed counsel and the clients they represent are met. This plan includes three strategies that focus on identifying unnecessary barriers to justice and court access, and taking steps to eliminate them.

Ensure that court rules, processes, and procedures meet the needs of lawyers and litigants in the judicial process. (Strategy 6.1)

Ensure that the federal judiciary is open and accessible, on a non-discriminatory basis, to all those who participate in the judicial process. (Strategy 6.2)

Promote effective administration of the criminal defense function in the federal courts.

[...]
Issue 6: Enhancing Access to Justice and the Judicial Process.

The Indiana constitution states specifically:

Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

Indiana General Assembly

Website for Indiana's General Assembly

iga.in.gov

 

[WildHuncher]

The point is legal documents don’t need to be understandable to the public because the arguments are between legal professionals.
So folks can applaud the defense’s dumbing down their motions for public consumption but these documents are meant for their peers in the legal profession and that’s embarrassing.
So either the defense is incapable of writing at a professional level or they are actively attempting to influence the jury pool instead of trying this case in court.
The first is sad for them, the second, in my opinion is unethical.

The defense filings are absolutely untrustworthy. From the Franks:


The quoted passage is at best a hyperbolic snit rant. At worst a flat out lie.

A slightly more professional statement of point 3 would be;

“Richard owns a particular gun which the state claims is uniquely able to produce the impacts and scratches found on a cartridge of the same caliber found between the victims at the crime scene. We will dispute ‘uniquely able.’”

 

[Jade]

The Indiana constitution states specifically:

Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

Indiana General Assembly

Website for Indiana's General Assembly

iga.in.gov

BBM for focus

That’s what my post says: for those who are involved in litigation.

The debate is that filings are not written for the middle school level for the general public to understand as some sort of right.

The Federal Court system includes the District Courts [Trial Court]

So yeah that what my links says too it for those involved in the cases not the reading public.


all imo

 

[FrostedGlass]

The Indiana constitution states specifically:

Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

Indiana General Assembly

Website for Indiana's General Assembly

iga.in.gov

I'll add a couple more links

https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2022/02/18/mycase-search-how-look-up-court-cases-indiana/

https://www.hecweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Open-Door-Citizen-Guide.pdf

https://www.in.gov/sboa/files/Public_Access_Laws_in_IN_Presentation_LBritt.pdf

Public Records

www.in.gov

Appeals are available to the public = opinions and oral arguments
Even the federal cases are available to the public for a price.

 

[girlhasnoname]

So why would they draft anything with the general public in mind?
This case is supposed to be tried in a court of law and argued by professionals with keen minds, top notch reading and writing skills and the highest of ethical standards.
The arguments are supposed to be between legal professionals.

The Defense has been writing their Responses and Motions for public/media consumption verses the Court since they released their first PR on blank copy paper the day before the gag order goes into effect after they insisted they weren't going to try the case in the Media. Hah.

Real professional guys, but at least they're making sure they write for the average person who reads at an 8th grade level. It shows, I guess they've succeeded in that at least.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

In either playful jest or irritated admonishment, neither is acceptable nor professional imo.

Neither is the conduct of the Defense team and their lack of respect for the Court.

 

[grannygates]

BBM for focus

That’s what my post says: for those who are involved in litigation.

The debate is that filings are not written for the middle school level for the general public to understand as some sort of right.

The Federal Court system includes the District Courts [Trial Court]

So yeah that what my links says too it for those involved in the cases not the reading public.


all imo

We are obviously reading the constitution differently and will never agree on this fact. I have genuinely never encountered a single person who was opposed to transparency and public accountability within the court system.

 

[sunshineray]

Are you actually saying that we, the public, don't need to know what they're saying?

Maybe the solution would be: If a person doesn't like what's being said in the docs or how it's being said, then just don't read them.

I suppose JG could have added unethical document writing to her complaint to the ethics committee.

It doesn't need to be dumbed down and embarrassing for people to understand what's being said. If there is a spot that needs interpretation Google is our friend in finding answers...or a trusted someone to help explain.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Are you actually saying that we, the public, don't need to know what they're saying?

Maybe the solution would be: If a person doesn't like what's being said in the docs or how it's being said, then just don't read them.

I suppose JG could have added unethical document writing to her complaint to the ethics committee.

No.
That is not at all what I was saying.
What I was saying was

—that the defense writes at this low level is proof that they are attempting to incite and poison the jury pool, which, in my opinion, is unethical.
—this is the equivalent of pre-school story time at the library. The defense should be writing instead at a level equivalent to their education and profession. To not do that implies they are not serious about this case. It is a slap in the face to the Germans and Anna Williams. THEY certainly think this is serious!
—lawyers should write professional documents in a professional way. The public are free to read them. If they need to consult a dictionary, so be it.

The defense seemed to say in their last motion that they wanted to be called ding dongs. So I’ll oblige them. They are ding dongs. The absolute worst example of what lawyers should be.

All my opinion.

 

[sunshineray]

The Indiana constitution states specifically:

Section 12. All courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in his person, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. Justice shall be administered freely, and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.
(History: As Amended November 6, 1984).

Indiana General Assembly

Website for Indiana's General Assembly

iga.in.gov

That's actually the same as the federal one, same meaning, open to any person to bring litigation for a multitude of reasons.