vinayd
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2013
- Messages
- 532
- Reaction score
- 3,854
I was gonna correct it but nope that's what they submitted“Demeaning” misspelled. 10 points off up front.
I was gonna correct it but nope that's what they submitted“Demeaning” misspelled. 10 points off up front.
I am laughing so hard at this five-alarm dumpster fire. She should have made an in-camera review of the records before just handing them over to the prosecution. Sigh.
He literally *did* ask for more time before asking cancel the speedy trial. She declined. Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longerMaybe there was an issue with the hotel?
Do you think that the Defense possibly would have asked for more time if she had been able to secure the housing for 2 or 3 more weeks? I kinda do.
The trial had been scheduled for October previously, and that seems to be the best fit for timing, for preparation, etc.
JMO
When the Court has to weigh the cost (to the jurors) of sequestration against other considerations, it begins to feel like jury considerations become paramount.When a jury is brought in from another county, besides making them drive back and forth every day, what other choice is there besides sequestration?
I really dislike how JG manages (or fails to manage!) her courtroom but was wondering if you have a moment, do judges normally review medical records such as these before just handing them over to the State? Just curious. Ty in advance.I am laughing so hard at this five-alarm dumpster fire. She should have made an in-camera review of the records before just handing them over to the prosecution. Sigh.
The very next colloquy in that selection is the prosecutor stating he doesn't have the full record. Then, on pg. 79, Rozzi explicitly objects to full disclosure of all DOC records on the issue.I could be mixing up what records it is exactly but my understanding was the defence had consented to this .... see also Rozzis comments on p 79. It seems to deal with both the medical and mental health records that had already been handed over by the defence to the state. Then for some reason the state wanted to get them direct.
YMMV
View attachment 502287
March 18, 2024 Motion to Dismiss Hearing.pdf
IMO
She granted him access to RA's records without a hearing. (I think)
From mycase:
03/14/2024 Motion Filed
3rd Request for Medical Health Records.pdf
Filed By:State of Indiana
File Stamp:03/14/2024
03/14/2024 Motion Filed
4th Request for Mental Health Records.pdf
Filed By:State of Indiana
File Stamp:03/14/2024
04/03/2024 Order Issued
State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (mental health records) filed March 14, 2024 granted without hearing. State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (medical records) filed March 14, 2024, granted without hearing.
Judicial Officer:Gull, Frances -SJ
Order Signed:04/02/2024
He literally *did* ask for more time before asking cancel the speedy trial. She declined. Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longer
But the real issue here is that the Defense waited until the 10th hour to insist they need more time to present, even though they have been aware of the schedule and the fixed nature of it from the outset. That was the time to object.
Moreover, when the judge asked the defense why they needed more time, defense counsel snarked at the judge with a quip about her knowing nothing of their defense.
Yes. Judges review privilege before allowing a subpoena of confidential information. That was one of the reasons I included Jorgensen v. State above:I really dislike how JG manages (or fails to manage!) her courtroom but was wondering if you have a moment, do judges normally review medical records such as these before just handing them over to the State? Just curious. Ty in advance.
RSBM
The State continues to hand over evidence. How could the defense have known they'd need more time when the State hadn't even handed over everything? (Hello phone ping/geofence stuff)
As far as bussing vs. sequestration....giving them an option sounds like a good idea to me. I'd rather escape my life and be sequestered for a few weeks, but I realize some would hate that and would probably choose a long daily commute.
RA should really just outright *refuse* to speak to literally *anyone* I guess.Not at all supported by law. The prosecution is allowed the statements if they relate to homicide. However, they shouldn't already know the content of the reports.
If the prosecution already knows the contents of the reports, then the psychologist-patient privilege has already been breached. Which is not how these matters should go down.
If they don't know, then they should ask for an in-camera review by the judge. Only then should they be granted the information.
Isn't sequestering the jury a way to keep jurors safe from the general public while also keeping them apart from hearing news reports and public opinion?
Ty!Yes. Judges review privilege before allowing a subpoena of confidential information. That was one of the reasons I included Jorgensen v. State above:
Jorgensen v. State, 574 NE 2d 915 - Ind: Supreme Court 1991 - Google Scholar
scholar.google.com
"Therefore, we remand this matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether the information sought from Dr. Greenburg, information which might ordinarily be privileged, was made discoverable by IND. CODE § 25-33-1-17(1). Similarly, the trial court should determine whether information possessed by Ball was privileged. The trial court must then determine whether nonprivileged information possessed by Ball and Dr. Greenburg is material to Jorgensen's defense. If the trial court determines that neither Ball nor Dr. Greenburg have material information, then the convictions shall stand. If their testimony reveals that they do have nonprivileged information which would have been material to Jorgensen's defense, then the trial court must determine whether to grant a new trial by viewing such information as newly-discovered evidence and applying the law as it relates to newly discovered evidence."
It was well within the Defense's right to object to the length of trial when it was being decided!"Rozzi asked for either a 15-day defense presentation of evidence after the prosecution would rest or a dismissal of the Speedy Trial order."
I understand that. It still doesn't answer whether or not there may have been an issue with securing accommodations for the jury.
I don't think that it was right for the judge to try to limit the amount of time that the defense had to present their case. That doesn't feel right.
JMO
EBM to add link
Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longer
I guess the long daily commute means possible issues though: traffic, jurors maybe hearing the radio news / podcasts about the case... possibly encountering protesters as they attempt to exit / enter daily.....RSBM
The State continues to hand over evidence. How could the defense have known they'd need more time when the State hadn't even handed over everything? (Hello phone ping/geofence stuff)
As far as bussing vs. sequestration....giving them an option sounds like a good idea to me. I'd rather escape my life and be sequestered for a few weeks, but I realize some would hate that and would probably choose a long daily commute.
The D using a round-about way of forcing her to make records of things?Weineke, RA's appellate counsel, explains the Court's proper (and improper) use of email and why.
Have been skimming through all the posts on the now closed thread (whoa, a lot) and I see P supposedly has damning evidence against RA under seal. This is what it's looked like for a long time. And this undoubtedly has to be true, that there are potential undisclosed bombshells because of the seals & gag order. If I wanted any proof that it were the case, it would be in the back-and-forth in the motions to suppress RA's statements. Obviously, we don't know everything he said. I'd love to know what else is at this point undisclosed. Might be wrong, but MOO, that's the reason behind a lot of the D's theatrics. And there's no way this trial could've happened on the projected date, I think that was part of D's show, too.
I can't quote @photographer4's post because thread's closed, but @photographer4 noted that RA's aggression during meetings/interviews at certain points showed he was caught and panicked. Totally agreed on this, when it took all those years for LE to come after him, he figured he was home free. I don't think he was just caught and panicked, he was furious. I've been back and forth on whether multiple parties involved, I started out way back when thinking single actor, moved to "group," have returned to single actor. Still think the dropbox is in some way a factor, but have returned to the original "no collusion" idea because if RA actually did stage that bizarre scene to mislead LE, RA is so wacked out that he'd be unable to find company for his deeds. This killer-- if he did that staging, for that reason-- is just too unique (in a bad, warped way) to find "like minds," which are already hard enough to find when you're talking about having other parties hop on board for something as ghastly as murder. My guess is that the damning evidence against RA does indeed exist, and his goose is probably cooked but good, but only time will tell, and I know we've got months more now of it, till October.