I suspect personally it's option B and they can simply make these arguments at the hearing.
Ausbook is an academic as I understand it. It's common enough for these professors to get involved in cases where it is their specialist area. Way back he appeared to be fascinated about the case and a potential habeas application down the track - as many here know, he gave an extended murdersheet interview on this topic.
My guess is this is why he is involved - because he is interested in the constitutional impacts on RA and a potential habeas (maybe). I suspect he is less interested in whether <modsnip - namecalling> get sanctioned per se.
Thanks for pointing out that Ausbrook, being a law academic (and appellate specialist), is a respected contributor to and interpreter of IN law.
And you're right - he's sharply criticized the RA proceedings and the Court's decisions/choices. (Noting also that Ausbrook is not the only highly skilled lawyer to do so.)
When he entered the RA docket, Ausbrook's purpose was to focus on the technical management of a significant brief (the State's Contempt Motion) filed incorrectly in Gull's court for RA's case. The brief has structural errors that would once again sideline RA's trial if not corrected. Ausbrook's motion was technical and instructive.
The tone of Ausbrook's motion expressed exasperation and was consistent with his public commenting. Prior to appearing in Gull's court, Ausbrook has publicly taken exception to this Court's case management, this Court's Indiana records statute violations, and this Court's failure to cite it's decisions. Once this Court was successfully corrected by SCOIN as to records, and reversed as to blowing up RA's rights to counsel, Ausbrook entered the docket because the Court was headed sideways into structural error once again. (Heck, aren't we all exasperated?)
Ausbrook's brief rips apart the State's motion. Ausbrook is precise, cites plenty of supporting law, and is very transparent: Fix this error or we'll see you at the Appellate, AGAIN.
When translating sharp tone in legal briefs, I find it useful to consider context. Briefs are argument; when tone in a legal brief is firm - these are not personal attacks. These are attacks on the merit of arguments made by courtroom adversaries. (Lawyers attacking arguments i.e. debate - is fair game.)
So, I find Ausbrook both candid and refreshing in calling yet another foul play in this Court. I also find it refreshing that he's doing it IN ADVANCE. That's more than fair notice to the Court. Gull can change direction and avoid more Appellate delays. Which RA and his 6th A rights would really really appreciate.
...
You could be right (about option B). But just the idea that at the March 18th hearing, Gull will stand over the State and have them rewrite their Contempt Motion to comply with the law ... and then hold a hearing on the revised motion ... seems so absurd. Yet, here we are, thinking it's plausible ... because we now realize Gull is allergic to making a record. This shouldn't even be plausible, IMO. Especially not after Gull's SCOIN First Writ scramble to get that think mooted.
Is it too optimistic to hope the State's motion re-write to proper form (or clarification) appears on the docket in the next few days? Probably.
BTW, we have both Ausbrook AND Hennessey visiting Murder Sheet well before appearing in Gull's court. Which came first? Murder Sheet's "journalism" requests for expert interviews and analysis ... or these professional's academic interest in the highest profile case in Indiana for the past 7 years? (We don't know.) Motta reached out to Wieneke after she'd submitted her papers, and before the SCOIN decided on the 1st Writ and to hear the 2nd Writ. The Appellate case is not subject to a gag order, and (IMO) Cara's interview w/ Motta was a gift to fans of public transparency.
JMHO