Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #183

[AugustWest]

I don't understand why the family can't bring a lawsuit for "infliction of emotional distress" or even "negligent infliction of emotional distress". Both of these are recognized in Indiana.

Again, due to the rules which insulate attorneys from liability for actions they take while defending another.

See: https://www.hofstralawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/DD.5.Hill_.final1_.pdf

 

[vinayd]

Again, due to the rules which insulate attorneys from liability for actions they take while defending another.

I understand the judge has it in writing that she "now finds that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defense counsel was sloppy, negligent, and incompetent in their handling of discovery materials. Counsel failed to properly secure evidence and discovery material in this matter. Counsel negligently allowed their discovery outline to be sent to an individual unrelated to this matter (Brandon Woodhouse) who then disseminated that information to the public. Counsel further allowed their discovery materials to be compromised by Westerman (who, in turn, provided the information to Fortson and Cohen). Counsel has described Westerman both as a criminal and a valued consultant and confidante. Despite this Court's findings of sloppiness, negligence, and incompetence, the State is required to prove that Counsels' conduct was willful and intentional beyond a reasonable doubt for the Court to find Counsel in contempt. As the State has not met that burden, the Court declines to find them in contempt of Court for violating the Protective Order issued February 17, 2023, regarding discovery"

To me that opens a door for the family to file. Rather they file against the lawyers themselves, the state or the county doesn't matter. I think they have a valid claim. Since she is turning this over to the bar. If they uphold her ruling and have the same findings, sounds like a stronger claim for the family to me. Maybe they should just go after MW. Either way they aren't insulated because they didn't take the correct actions in defending their client.

 

[FrostedGlass]

@AugustWest
Your professional input is very much appreciated.
Thanks for taking your time to answer our questions.

 

[sunshineray]

This isn’t directed at you in general just jumping off your post. The photos being available online made me think of things like the photos / sketches of Jack the Ripper’s victims and crime scenes. It’s not new that these things end up in public view. Maybe some people just don’t think about how living loved ones may feel as it’s been a thing for so long. People have a morbid fascination and curiosity about things such as this. Doesn’t make it right. But it’s not new.

I think there's a whole world of difference when these pictures are of children. In my neck of the woods the Sandy Hill parents lobbied and got a bill to keep the photos of their murdered children sealed. Some think it's their right to see such things and in this day and age that means copying and widespread distribution. The public needing to know and see should not include graphic death photos, IMO, especially not of children. Children are abused and exploited enough in this world, let them rest in peace and not be exploited in death. It's just not decent. AJMO

"According to the bill, a new exemption is created under the state's Freedom of Information Act. It prevents the release of photographs, film, video, digital or other visual images depicting a homicide victim if such records ``could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the victim or the victim's surviving family members.''

Conn. Lawmakers Pass Bill To Keep Sandy Hook Photos Private

The negotiated bipartisan legislation came after days of closed-door talks and speculation about whether an agreement could be reached before the Wednesday's midnight adjournment.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[steeltowngirl]

I can’t recall. Has anyone related to the crime scene photo leak issued an apology to the court or to the families of the victims?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Vanessa Bryant sued Los Angeles County in that case. L.A. County is a government entity. The persons who took the pictures and shared them were government actors. The defense in this case are not government actors.

Further, there are several rules which shield attorneys from lawsuits such as those mentioned. They exist so that there will not be a chilling effect on attorneys putting forth rigorous defenses for their clients. In other words, why would an attorney rigorously defend his or her client if they were at risk of losing 8 figures as suggested?

Suit for distribution of crime scene photos again r court orders.
The same reason the suit held for Ms.Bryant. The state actors there did something that they did not have a professional right to do.
Here the state appointed attorneys disregarded the court order and caused the leak of crime scene photos of the young victims in this case.
Surely attorneys just aren’t given a free pass to whatever they want without any professional, legal or financial penalties.
There has to be penalties for those that decide to not honor rules. The rules were made for a reason and appointed officers of the court should be capable of following them. JMO

Leaking crime scene photos of assaulted and undressed teens to unauthorized third parties is not part of a vigorous defense IMO.

 

[TTF14]

I think there's a whole world of difference when these pictures are of children. In my neck of the woods the Sandy Hill parents lobbied and got a bill to keep the photos of their murdered children sealed. Some think it's their right to see such things and in this day and age that means copying and widespread distribution. The public needing to know and see should not include graphic death photos, IMO, especially not of children. Children are abused and exploited enough in this world, let them rest in peace and not be exploited in death. It's just not decent. AJMO

"According to the bill, a new exemption is created under the state's Freedom of Information Act. It prevents the release of photographs, film, video, digital or other visual images depicting a homicide victim if such records ``could reasonably be expected to constitute an unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the victim or the victim's surviving family members.''

Conn. Lawmakers Pass Bill To Keep Sandy Hook Photos Private

The negotiated bipartisan legislation came after days of closed-door talks and speculation about whether an agreement could be reached before the Wednesday's midnight adjournment.

www.cbsnews.com

This reminded me of KK's search for Sandy Hook photos. Gross.

I think there's a market for these things out there and firmly believe the photos of A & L have been out there on the dark web for years, making money. IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Which funny enough the defense still have not addressed in multiple Franks. It’s almost like they simply can not explain those confessions away.

Moo

I mean they did address the issues of his past history of depression and his need for medication for same. They also outlined concerns regarding the isolation and seem to think it’s driven him mad
ETA to add link to the info: Richard Allen reportedly made ‘confessions’ to inmates, guards; attorneys say he was in ‘state of psychosis’

 

[AugustWest]

Suit for distribution of crime scene photos again r court orders.
The same reason the suit held for Ms.Bryant. The state actors there did something that they did not have a professional right to do.
Here the state appointed attorneys disregarded the court order and caused the leak of crime scene photos of the young victims in this case.
Surely attorneys just aren’t given a free pass to whatever they want without any professional, legal or financial penalties.
There has to be penalties for those that decide to not honor rules. The rules were made for a reason and appointed officers of the court should be capable of following them. JMO

Leaking crime scene photos of assaulted and undressed teens to unauthorized third parties is not part of a vigorous defense IMO.

Court appointed attorneys aren't state actors, for one. For two, see all the common law doctrine I have referenced for the last two pages.

Professional rules of conduct are used by bar associations to discipline their attorneys when they break them. Not by the general public to bring causes of action against attorneys.

There are also rules for judges to address breaches of gag orders. Sanctions, fines, public reprimand, and the like are the remedy.

 

[TTF14]

Which funny enough the defense still have not addressed in multiple Franks. It’s almost like they simply can not explain those confessions away.

Moo

That doesn't strike me as strange. Common lawyering before a trial.

 

[photographer4]

The phone didn’t ping back for 11 hours hence the conclusion it wasn’t in a working condition.

Where’s the issue?

How did the phone ping back at all later if if wasn’t working? If the battery was dead then it would have had to have been recharged in order to ping back. If it was not in working order for 11 hours then suddenly worked again, how did it get restored back to working order?

 

[Betty P]

So why then was Mw charged with misdemeanour theft and not possession or distrib of CSAM?? This has never made sense to me.

Because its Indiana. They may view these things differently. JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Court appointed attorneys aren't state actors, for one. For two, see all the common law doctrine I have referenced for the last two pages.

Professional rules of conduct are used by bar associations to discipline their attorneys when they break them. Not by the general public to bring causes of action against attorneys.

There are also rules for judges to address breaches of gag orders. Sanctions, fines, public reprimand, and the like are the remedy.

This will be my last response on this
I think AB& BR cannot use vigorous defense as a shield for liability for their actions while also stating it was not willful and with intent.
It can’t be both IMO
Time will tell.
Maybe laws will need to be changed to protect the innocent and their families from these grave assaults.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

I mean they did address the issues of his past history of depression and his need for medication for same. They also outlined concerns regarding the isolation and seem to think it’s driven him mad (see most recent Franks #4).

And that was just recently said by the D, that RA had problems before his incarceration?

 

[photographer4]

And that was just recently said by the D, that RA had problems before his incarceration?

Richard Allen reportedly made ‘confessions’ to inmates, guards; attorneys say he was in ‘state of psychosis’

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — Richard Allen reportedly made “incriminating statements to both inmates and guards” during his time in prison awaiting his double-murder trial. His attorneys want…

fox59.com

I may have been incorrect in stating it was found on the most recent franks. Can’t search easily atm but hopefully this link that outlines the point I made will work.

 

[AugustWest]

This will be my last response on this
I think AB& BR cannot use vigorous defense as a shield for liability for their actions while also stating it was not willful and with intent.
It can’t be both IMO
Time will tell.
Maybe laws will need to be changed to protect the innocent and their families from these grave assaults.

JMO

The rationale behind the rule is that it will discourage rigorous defense. That isn't the rule itself. The rule is simply "attorneys should not be subject to liability for defending their client." It's a common law rule that goes back to the 1300's. If there should be exceptions to the rule, then I agree they should be made by statute (laws). Which still doesn't change my statements that the attorneys in this case will likely not be held liable for breach of the gag order.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Court appointed attorneys aren't state actors, for one. For two, see all the common law doctrine I have referenced for the last two pages.

Professional rules of conduct are used by bar associations to discipline their attorneys when they break them. Not by the general public to bring causes of action against attorneys.

There are also rules for judges to address breaches of gag orders. Sanctions, fines, public reprimand, and the like are the remedy.

All this talk about any possible lawsuits brought this back to mind; I'm very curious to know what's going on here:

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

3. The Department of Correction seeks both to comply with the request and to protect itself from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense as described in Indiana Trial Rule 26(0).
6. The materials provided by the Department may be used solely for the preparation, trial, and any appeal of this action, as well as related settlement negotiations, and for no other purpose, without the written consent of the Department.

 

[Justice101]

This trial cannot get here fast enough.. for justice and for the families.

 

[sunshineray]

MOO still he needed to be evaluated. His attorneys could easily have had him evaluated.
Maybe they did and we dont know about it.

I think the warden probably ordered an evaluation? And didn't he have a cursory one upon entering the facility?

 

[AugustWest]

All this talk about any possible lawsuits brought this back to mind; I'm very curious to know what's going on here:

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

3. The Department of Correction seeks both to comply with the request and to protect itself from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense as described in Indiana Trial Rule 26(0).
6. The materials provided by the Department may be used solely for the preparation, trial, and any appeal of this action, as well as related settlement negotiations, and for no other purpose, without the written consent of the Department.

In (3), the IDOC is quoting directly from Rule 26 at (C); they put (0) but the language is exact to that found in 26(C):

Spoiler: Rule 26(C)

Rule 26 - General provisions governing discovery, Ind. R. Trial. P. 26 (“(C) Protective orders. Upon motion by any party or by the person from whom discovery is sought, and for good cause shown, the court in which the action is pending or alternatively, on matters relating to a deposition, the court in the county where the deposition is being taken may make any order which justice requires to protect a party or person from annoyance, embarrassment, oppression, or undue burden or expense, including one or more of the following:(1) that the discovery not be had;(2) that the discovery may be had only on specified terms and conditions, including a designation of the time or place;(3) that the discovery may be had only by a method of discovery other than that selected by the party seeking discovery;(4) that certain matters not be inquired into, or that the scope of the discovery be limited to certain matters;(5) that discovery be conducted with no one present except the parties and their attorneys and persons designated by the court;(6) that a deposition after being sealed be opened only by order of the court;(7) that a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information not be disclosed or be disclosed only in a designated way;(8) that the parties simultaneously file specified documents or information enclosed in sealed envelopes to be opened as directed by the court. If the motion for a protective order is denied in whole or in part, the court may, on such terms and conditions as are just, order that any party or person provide or permit discovery. The provisions of Trial Rule 37(A)(4) apply to the award of expenses incurred in relation to the motion.(9) that a party need not provide discovery of electronically stored information from sources that the party identifies as not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. On motion to compel discovery or for a protective order, the party from whom discovery is sought must show that the information is not reasonably accessible because of undue burden or cost. If that showing is made, the court may nonetheless order discovery from such sources if the requesting party shows good cause. The court may specify conditions for the discovery.”)

They are saying they want a protective order that insures the information they provide will not be used in matters outside of the instant case.

Gotta run for a while, I'll answer any other questions a bit later