No matter how one feels about Richard Allen, there's something that will come out that Prosecutor McLeland does not want the public to see. I'm stretching to imagine what that might be; G's stuff and the CO's things are already public knowledge and have been admitted to.
I really want to know what RA did to deserve to be tased twice.
I really want to know Item #5 in the list below.
MOO
drive.google.com
STATE’S MOTION TO ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER FOR EVIDENCE GATHERED
FROM THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTION
Now comes the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland, and
respectfully requests the Court to enter
a protective order over all evidence and testimony
subpoenaed from the Indiana Department of Correction (the “IDOC”). The State asks the Court
to consider limiting the questioning of all IDOC staff to their direct interaction with the
Defendant. The State has an articulable interest to ensure the safety and security of its prison
system and the policies and procedures that govern this outside agency.
The Indiana Department of Correction and its employees are not a party to this case. The
IDOC was court ordered to house Richard Allen as a safekeeper. The IDOC received the
safekeeping order and immediately assisted the State by placing the Defendant at Westville
Correctional Facility.
The time that Defendant spent at Westville Correctional Facility is not
relevant to this proceeding except in his own actions and statements while being housed in that
facility. Westville staff and the innerworkings of the Indiana Department of Correction are
outside the scope of this proceeding. The State would ask the Court to consider the following:
1. That the State of Indiana filed 2 Counts of Murder against the Defendant on
October 28th, 2023, under I.C. 35-42-1-1(2).
2. That the Defendant has been housed in the Indiana Department of Correction
during the pendency of this case for safekeeping.
3. That Trial Rule 26(C) permits the court to protect against oppression, undue
burden and expense by requiring that discovery be conducted “on specified terms
and conditions.”
4. That the Indiana Department of Correction has cooperated with this Court’s
Filed: 3/17/2024 10:59 AM
Carroll Circuit Court
Carroll County, Indiana
orders and has become an interested non-party in this proceeding.
5. That there are articulable concerns based on prior behavior that Defense counsel
will release
information to the media that could publicly embarrass the IDOC or
further place its employees in danger or subject to ridicule or harassment.
6. That there are permissible ways to conduct depositions that
allow the evidence to
be protected from the media, under Trial Rule 26(C).
7. That Trial Rule 26(B)(1) limits discovery to matters “relevant to the subject
matter involved in the pending action” including the claims and defenses of the
parties.
8. That Defense counsel has not made a record as to what evidence they plan to
elicit from the Indiana Department of Correction that would be admissible
evidence for the underlying charges.
9. That
there is potential that any probative value that may be gained by unrestrained
subject matter depositions is outweighed by the prejudicial effect on the witnesses
and the State.
Wherefore, now comes the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C
McLeland, and files their request for a protective order and would ask the Court to consider the
same and for all other just and proper relief in the premises.
Nicholas C. McLeland