@susane7 It wasn't specifically the geofence data that was listed for exclusion; so I don't conclude that the geofence data was bad for RA. The Ds issue is: If I don't get funding for professionals on these items and you do, then they shouldn't be used in court. (I personally tend to agree.)
This is from the motion:
drive.google.com
13.
At the very least, there are three pieces of evidence critical to this case:
the bullet purportedly found at the crime scene; digital data pulled from cell phones
belonging to the victims and other individuals; and Allen’s purported post-arrest
“confession.” Allen’s request for funding related to obtaining expert assistance to
investigate each of the three critical pieces of evidence, and for general assistance
given the enormity of this case is reasonable.
14.
The first piece of critical evidence is the bullet purportedly found at the
crime scene. The State utilized the Indiana State Police Crime Lab’s Firearms Unit,
which employs 15 people, to examine the bullet found at the crime scene. Defense
counsel retained a firearm/toolmark expert to conduct an independent analysis and
to assist them in reviewing the Crime Lab’s analysis. The funds needed to retain
the firearm/toolmark expert and begin working on Allen’s case were advanced by
Attorney Rozzi in the amount of $2,550. Defense counsel requested reimbursement
for that amount, as well as authorization to pay the expert for additional services
needed to prepare Allen’s defense.
This Court authorized reimbursement for the amount Attorney Rozzi had
already paid but denied the request for defense counsel to continue receiving the
expert’s services, finding that the request was “unsupported.”
15.
The second piece of evidence is the digital data collected from various
sources, including cell phones, location data, and social media data. The State
utilized the Indiana State Police Crime Lab’s Digital Forensic Unit, which employs
14 people, to examine the large amount of digital data collected in this case. Defense
counsel retained a digital forensic expert to help them decipher, interpret, and
analyze the digital data. The funds needed to retain the expert and begin working
on Allen’s case were advanced by Attorney Baldwin in the amount of $3,712.50.
Defense counsel requested reimbursement for that amount, as well as authorization
to pay the expert for additional services necessary to prepare Allen’s defense.
This Court authorized reimbursement for the amount Attorney Baldwin had
already paid but denied the request for defense counsel to continue receiving the
expert’s services, finding that this request was also “unsupported.”
16.
The third piece of critical evidence is Allen’s alleged confession. The
State has utilized investigators, police officers, and experts from the Carroll County
Sheriff’s Department, the Indiana State Police, the Delphi City Police Department,
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the U.S. Marshals Service, the Indiana
Department of Natural Resources, and other law enforcement agencies around the
state, to assist in the investigation that led to Allen’s prosecution. Allen’s alleged
confession was obtained while Allen was held for safekeeping in solitary
confinement in the D.O.C. Since being reinstated in this case, the State of Indiana
has served up additional discovery to the Defense in the form of multiple interviews
conducted by law enforcement with Westville prisoners and correctional officers. In
these interviews, law enforcement investigators have inquired about the
interviewees’ opinions regarding Defendant Allen’s state of mental health,
practically seeking clinical diagnostic opinions from these lay witnesses. Defense
counsel retained a clinical psychologist to evaluate Allen and review health records
and video relevant to Allen’s confinement conditions. This Court previously
authorized funds for the defense to retain the expert. However, those funds are now
depleted, and additional services are still needed.