Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[photographer4]

My opinion is that they do not have the evidence that can prove without a reasonable doubt that Richard Allen is solely responsible for this heinous crime. If they did, this case would have been solved a long time ago.
I do hope I’m wrong for the sake of Abbie and Libby, their family and friends. Let’s hope and pray that the right person, or persons are held accountable.

Do they have to prove he was the only one responsible to get the conviction? Not a lawyer so it’s a genuine question.

 

[TTF14]

I’m not calling her lazy - the Supreme Court and the defense did. What probably would have been wiser for her would have been to rule on things within the timeline she is supposed to. Preferably with the benefit of a written decision that show how she arrived at her decision vs just a granted or denied. Or ya know… no response whatsoever.

It just gives the impression that she thinks the rules don't apply to her. IMO MOO

 

[m00c0w]

Did I miss something? I must have? Has someone here accused SCOIN of this? Or is this your non sarcastic feeling on their ruling?

No one here, but I have seen people lamenting about how corrupt the system is because of this ruling.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

IOW, stating the defense should have filed at a different point to make the motion valid is not the same as saying the defense would have won the motion. It wasn’t even considered.

JMO

But wouldn't the Supreme Court have to follow the rule of the law had they filed at a different point? They did say what she did was wrong (paraphrasing). So, you're saying that even though they said she was wrong they still wouldn't have been obligated to grant the motion?

IMO MOO

 

[vinayd]

If the Defense filed things correctly or timely they would have better results. She could have ruled quicker but the answer to Franks and the follow ups is a blanket DENIED. Search warrant is in.

 

[FrostedGlass]

This is twice now the Supreme Court has found her lacking on this case alone. I haven’t looked but I wonder if she’s been before the SC in other matters? I may try to google this later. I also wonder, as a judge, does she have a supervisor of some sort to oversee her or is that just the SC?

The first was for removing b & r as counsel of record and now this.

Yes, she has been before the Indiana Supreme Court before.
Here's the case that started it all: 02D05-1910-F4-000103
35-42-4-3(b)/F4: Child Molesting Fondling or touching with child under 14.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CR-373 | April 27, 2022
Juventino V Ramirez v. State of Indiana
OR see it here:

Ramirez v. State

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of one count of felony child molestation, holding that the trial court denied Defendant's requests for a continuance.

law.justia.com

Conclusion
Though the trial court ultimately erred in its pretrial decisions that prohibited Ramirez from receiving a copy of A.P.’s forensic interview, those errors do not require reversal. However, because the court abused its discretion when it denied Ramirez’s continuance request, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.

 

[photographer4]

They did not… they never ruled on the merits of any of it because it was irrelevant. The motion wasn’t valid to begin with. The verbiage of the rule is that the judge “may” be removed, and there are many exceptions to the rule. All the court did was point out that instead of continuing to file motions, they should have filed for relief the first time a deadline was missed. Or the second. Or the third. Then the court would have actually ruled if there was a violation of trial rules and/or RA’s rights.

IOW, stating the defense should have filed at a different point to make the motion valid is not the same as saying the defense would have won the motion. It wasn’t even considered.

JMO

I’m confused. Did they not agree she failed to issue a ruling by whatever date she should have done so by? Because this article says they did agree with the motion:

“The supreme court agreed with the defense that Judge Gull missed a deadline that could lead to her removal from the case…”

Supreme Court denies motion to dismiss Judge Gull from Delphi Murders trial

In a recent filing, the supreme court has denied a motion to dismiss Judge Fran Gull from the Delphi Murders trial.

www.wrtv.com

By failing in her duty to issue a ruling according to the law, does this not make her a lazy judge since the motion filed by the D is also known as a “lazy judge motion”?? Here is a post by one of members that explains this type of motion in better detail:

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176'
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

Supreme Court denies motion to dismiss Judge Gull from Delphi Murders trial

In a recent filing, the supreme court has denied a motion to dismiss Judge Fran Gull from the Delphi Murders trial.

www.wrtv.com

 

[twall]

Isn’t the bridge itself closed now to pedestrian traffic? Just wondering. Enjoy the ride and be safe!

Only part of it and thank you!

 

[photographer4]

No one here, but I have seen people lamenting about how corrupt the system is because of this ruling.

JMO

I can understand why people feel this way. But since no one here has said it, it’s no wonder I was confused by your post. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[photographer4]

If the Defense filed things correctly or timely they would have better results. She could have ruled quicker but the answer to Franks and the follow ups is a blanket DENIED. Search warrant is in.

She has had literal months to rule on some issues and seems she could not be bothered. She must have a very difficult caseload. I don’t envy her. I wonder if her presiding over this massive case has precluded her from commencing her new role within the court system?

Judge Gull to Serve As Next Superior Court Chief Judge | Allen Superior Court

allensuperiorcourt.us

If not, maybe this role comes with added responsibilities that have kept her busier than she had been previously?

 

[m00c0w]

But wouldn't the Supreme Court have to follow the rule of the law had they filed at a different point? They did say what she did was wrong (paraphrasing). So, you're saying that even though they said she was wrong they still wouldn't have been obligated to grant the motion?

IMO MOO

That's the thing - they did not say she was wrong. There was no affirmation or holding of any wrongdoing. There were just statements of fact regarding the timeline, and that the entire thing was moot because the defense apparently kept waiving their rights as per some case law that was cited.

All the CAO did was look at the claims in the praecipe, and showed how the defense erred in the timing of it. At no point does the CAO state that the motion would have been otherwise granted, that the trial court was wrong, or that there was any actual evaluation of the merits of the defense's claims. The deadlines were "missed", and there is no challenging that. However, there are exceptions to the rule which make missing the deadline a non-issue - one such exception is in the case of repetitive motions.

It appears to me that the CAO never got far enough to actually evaluate the motions to determine if the trial judge erred in not ruling on them. They only pointed out she missed the deadlines, which is perfectly acceptable in some instances. Unfortunately for the defense, we'll never know.

https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/files/pubs-trial-court-failure-to-rule-on-motion-and-delay-of-judgments.pdf

Trial rule is above. Most of this is JMO.

 

[photographer4]

Yes, she has been before the Indiana Supreme Court before.
Here's the case that started it all: 02D05-1910-F4-000103
35-42-4-3(b)/F4: Child Molesting Fondling or touching with child under 14.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CR-373 | April 27, 2022
Juventino V Ramirez v. State of Indiana
OR see it here:

Ramirez v. State

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of one count of felony child molestation, holding that the trial court denied Defendant's requests for a continuance.

law.justia.com

Conclusion
Though the trial court ultimately erred in its pretrial decisions that prohibited Ramirez from receiving a copy of A.P.’s forensic interview, those errors do not require reversal. However, because the court abused its discretion when it denied Ramirez’s continuance request, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.

Oh wow! Thanks for taking the time to find and post this! I had no idea!

 

[TTF14]

They only pointed out she missed the deadlines, which is perfectly acceptable in some instances.

OK. I took this as she was wrong. She erred. She didn't follow the rules of the court.

I guess we're gonna go with assuming she had a good reason.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

That's the thing - they did not say she was wrong. There was no affirmation or holding of any wrongdoing. There were just statements of fact regarding the timeline, and that the entire thing was moot because the defense apparently kept waiving their rights as per some case law that was cited.

All the CAO did was look at the claims in the praecipe, and showed how the defense erred in the timing of it. At no point does the CAO state that the motion would have been otherwise granted, that the trial court was wrong, or that there was any actual evaluation of the merits of the defense's claims. The deadlines were "missed", and there is no challenging that. However, there are exceptions to the rule which make missing the deadline a non-issue - one such exception is in the case of repetitive motions.

It appears to me that the CAO never got far enough to actually evaluate the motions to determine if the trial judge erred in not ruling on them. They only pointed out she missed the deadlines, which is perfectly acceptable in some instances. Unfortunately for the defense, we'll never know.

https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/files/pubs-trial-court-failure-to-rule-on-motion-and-delay-of-judgments.pdf

Trial rule is above. Most of this is JMO.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your viewpoint. However, she literally failed to issue a ruling which is well, a failing on her part. Regardless of why she failed; she failed.

The more I think about this, the more I think the D may have known it would be denied because the kept filing things, but they wanted this failing pointed out and on the record. Can’t blame them for that.

 

[m00c0w]

I’m confused. Did they not agree she failed to issue a ruling by whatever date she should have done so by? Because this article says they did agree with the motion:

“The supreme court agreed with the defense that Judge Gull missed a deadline that could lead to her removal from the case…”

Supreme Court denies motion to dismiss Judge Gull from Delphi Murders trial

In a recent filing, the supreme court has denied a motion to dismiss Judge Fran Gull from the Delphi Murders trial.

www.wrtv.com

By failing in her duty to issue a ruling according to the law, does this not make her a lazy judge since the motion filed by the D is also known as a “lazy judge motion”?? Here is a post by one of members that explains this type of motion in better detail:

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176'
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

Supreme Court denies motion to dismiss Judge Gull from Delphi Murders trial

In a recent filing, the supreme court has denied a motion to dismiss Judge Fran Gull from the Delphi Murders trial.

www.wrtv.com

I think the part of the article you quoted doesn't say what you think it says. The CAO agreed that she had missed deadlines that could lead to her removal from the case. I also agree. What was not ruled on was whether or not the judge actually erred in missing the deadlines. The CAO didn't even get past the first step, looking at the the timeframes in the chronological case summary, before having to deny the motion.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your viewpoint. However, she literally failed to issue a ruling which is well, a failing on her part. Regardless of why she failed; she failed.

The more I think about this, the more I think the D may have known it would be denied because the kept filing things, but they wanted this failing pointed out and on the record. Can’t blame them for that.

There is literally a mechanism in the IN trial rules that allows the judge to never issue formal rulings on repeat motions (rule 53.4). This would be why repeat motions are excepted from the 30 day deadline under 53.1. The CAO never got far enough into this to determine if she "failed" or not. The motion was rejected on its face because the defense was incorrect in its claims (which is an actual ruling of the CAO).

Rule 53.1 - Failure to rule on motion, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 53.1 - Failure to rule on motion, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Rule 53.4 - Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.4 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 53.4 - Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.4, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[m00c0w]

OK. I took this as she was wrong. She erred. She didn't follow the rules of the court.

I guess we're gonna go with assuming she had a good reason.

IMO MOO

I frankly (pun not intended) have no idea if she goofed or not. I can see the presumed argument from her side that the defense was just filing repetitive motions, so she did not have to really acknowledge them. I can see the defense’s side that they believe their motions were not repetitive. I have zero idea how the CAO would have ruled. All I know is the CAO didn’t actually rule on anything except for the defense apparently having waived their ability to file in this instance.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

I frankly (pun not intended) have no idea if she goofed or not. I can see the presumed argument from her side that the defense was just filing repetitive motions, so she did not have to really acknowledge them. I can see the defense’s side that they believe their motions were not repetitive. I have zero idea how the CAO would have ruled. All I know is the CAO didn’t actually rule on anything except for the defense apparently having waived their ability to file in this instance.

JMO

BBM

Why is the part I bolded presumed?

 

[m00c0w]

<modsnip: Quoted post was removed>

I understand the concept of the lazy judge law. They never affirmed she had a duty to meet the deadline in the first place. That’s my whole point. She’s not a “lazy judge” if she didn’t have to respond to the motions to begin with, and we ultimately don’t know if the CAO would have said she did or did not have to respond. Saying they did is totally mischaracterizing what the ruling/denial says.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

BBM

Why is the part I bolded presumed?

Because I’m not in her head to know exactly what she’s thinking or why she does anything she does. However, it makes sense that she would believe these to be repetitive motions since they were pretty… repetitive.