Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Not an attorney, but that seems absurd.
The prosecution requested and was granted access to all RA’s medical and mental health records from prison weeks ago. The defense said that was OK with them.
Plus priv
During the March 18th hearing:

Then I will grant the State's motion for leave
3 of Court to subpoena third party records to the Department of Correction, both
4 of the ones that have been filed
5 MR. ROZZI Judge - I'm sorry, may I, Judge?
6 THE COURT Yes
7
8
9

MR. ROZZI: Id like to speak on that issue, if that's okay
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. ROZZI: Actually, Im opposed to the Court granting that at
10 this point, We're still within the 15-day notice period, and what's going on here
Il is, is that I made a new request on the Department of Corrections after we were
2 reinstated in this case and they had just provided that to me, and there's nothing
13 untimely about any of this, but it just happened I want to say in the last - it was
14 last week.
Ms. Gallagher from the DOC has been working with me to try to get
15 that information, and so there - it - and when I received it, we were having a
16 difficulty - we were having difficulty, essentially, recovering that from their
17 software program, which has been one of the - frankly, one of the challenges that
18 we faced. You get discovery from one entity and it comes through Dropbox, and
19 you get it from another entity and it comes through a Google account, and you
20 get it from another entity and they've got their own software program, and so my
21 staff member, up until I think this past Friday, was working with the DOC rep,
22 Ms. Bedwell, to try and get that information converted into a format that we
23 could read. And I do believe Mr McLeland's correct, that I do think that there
24 was information available to me that the DOC had about Mr Allen, medical and
25 psychiatric, when I made the first request that I didn't get; because now that I

Volume 1, Page 79

have kind of a refreshed request, I'm seeing additional stuff. So this is a short -
2 along way of saying I would like a chance to review what I just received before
3,just agree to disclose it, 'cause I don't know what it is, and it's quite voluminous,
4 as you might imagine with medical records. I know one of the files I think that I
5 shared with Mr. McLeland was like 900 pages, so I mean, in fairness, there were
6 some blank pages mixed in there, but my request is, is the Court allow me the
7 15 days or whatever time period is left to file my motion to quash. I really do
8 believe that's probably not gonna happen, because I'm trying to be transparent
9 with Mr. McLeland, I already showed him the first two dumps I got, so I'd like
10 some time to look at that before my
11 THE COURT The 15 days is up March 29i, so it needs to be filed
12 on or before that date.
13 MR. ROZZI. Very good. Thank you.

Emphasis mine (underlined)


Thus my concern. Rozzi objected to the information being given to the prosecution. During a hearing that wasn't even about that issue. That doesn't say to me that the defense was ok with that. Just the opposite. Then Gull granted the motion without hearing. Regardless of what either prosecution or defense do right or wrong, she is ultimately the gatekeeper of evidence. If she is handing out privileged information, then that is a problem. It could be a problem down the road.

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
I feel like the voluntary Notice of Discovery filed by BR on 3/14/24 at 3:25pm providing the state with medical records from Westville and Wabash kind of makes the motion for leave of court for 3rd Party Records not necessary.
Maybe they got confused with the flurry of filings at the time. But they handed it over willingly.

MOO
 
Q: if someone either side wanted to call as a witness to give testimony on this case had been active on social media gossip groups about this case for years, could it cause problems for the side who called them to testify?

We are not allowed to discuss social media content etc so it’s a general question.
 
Q: if someone either side wanted to call as a witness to give testimony on this case had been active on social media gossip groups about this case for years, could it cause problems for the side who called them to testify?

We are not allowed to discuss social media content etc so it’s a general question.
Well defense did during their contempt trial didn’t they?
Or did they decide against that. I forgot.
 
Last edited:
Well defense did during their contempt trial didn’t they?
Or did they decide against that. I forgot.
The defense strategy of putting social media youtubers on the stand - IMO - was brilliant.

Hennessey exposed the pettiness of the contempt parade of main character syndrome online ...
AND proved that Holeman and the Prosecutor brought false, unsupportable allegations against the defendant. And Gull fell for it.

Does no one see the pattern here? ;)

JMHO
 
Q: if someone either side wanted to call as a witness to give testimony on this case had been active on social media gossip groups about this case for years, could it cause problems for the side who called them to testify?

We are not allowed to discuss social media content etc so it’s a general question.
The way you have described it is hearsay testimony (FRE 801), also not relevant (402), lacks personal knowledge (602), and that person's notes would violate the best evidence rule (1004). Pretty sure it's a 701 also. You have created the beginnings of a bar question ;)

Federal Rules of Evidence: Federal Rules of Evidence
 
The defense strategy of putting social media youtubers on the stand - IMO - was brilliant.

Hennessey exposed the pettiness of the contempt parade of main character syndrome online ...
AND proved that Holeman and the Prosecutor brought false, unsupportable allegations against the defendant. And Gull fell for it.

Does no one see the pattern here? ;)

JMHO
They were not false allegations, what the P said happened, happened . The reason the D lawyers were not held in contempt for their actions was the P couldn't prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the actions were willfully done, NOT that they didn't happen.
 
IMO, this motion is well done.
And I'm wondering how amusing it will be when - should Gull fail to recuse once again - RA bring yet another original action to the SCOIN re: removing Gull for bias.
JMHO
Already judged by the SCOIN. No bias found, unanimously, concerning Judge Gull. SCOIN has been there, done that. Nothing to revisit.
 
In JG's mycase opinion on 5/08, she wrote this. Does anyone have an idea of what exactly would necessitate a Franks hearing? Why does she fight a Franks hearing so hard?
Defendant's third and fourth Request for Franks Hearing will be ruled upon and not set for hearing unless necessary.
 
New filings
05/09/2024Order Issued
Order granting praecipe for transcript
Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn
Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones
Order Signed: 05/08/2024
05/09/2024Order Issued
The State of Indiana's Motion for Admissibility ordered set for hearing in the Carroll Circuit Court May 21-23, 2024, at 9:00 a.m.
Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed: Diener, Stacey Lynn
Noticed: Auger, Jennifer Jones
Order Signed: 05/08/2024
 
In JG's mycase opinion on 5/08, she wrote this. Does anyone have an idea of what exactly would necessitate a Franks hearing? Why does she fight a Franks hearing so hard?

Do you mean in JG's eyes? I don't think she would ever grant a Franks hearing. Maybe she's fine letting the appeal chips fall where they may after the trial so she doesn't have to deal with it. Since LE clearly lied about what BB and SC saw/witnessed in the PCA to obtain the search warrant, it would be quite the conundrum if she heard them out about it.

IMO MOO
 
In JG's mycase opinion on 5/08, she wrote this. Does anyone have an idea of what exactly would necessitate a Franks hearing? Why does she fight a Franks hearing so hard?

Maybe because there's been no relevance shown within the law to justify one?
 
Do you mean in JG's eyes? I don't think she would ever grant a Franks hearing. Maybe she's fine letting the appeal chips fall where they may after the trial so she doesn't have to deal with it. Since LE clearly lied about what BB and SC saw/witnessed in the PCA to obtain the search warrant, it would be quite the conundrum if she heard them out about it.

IMO MOO
It's been on my mind for quite a while that she doesn't want to have a hearing and rule on it for the very reason you laid out. I just don't see how she can avoid it forever.
 
Do you mean in JG's eyes? I don't think she would ever grant a Franks hearing. Maybe she's fine letting the appeal chips fall where they may after the trial so she doesn't have to deal with it. Since LE clearly lied about what BB and SC saw/witnessed in the PCA to obtain the search warrant, it would be quite the conundrum if she heard them out about it.

IMO MOO
There is no evidence that the PCA included lies. The only document that counters it is the Franks which is also a bias interpretation of the testimony. JG reviewed the 136 document and all the footnotes/dispositions/evidence and found your assertion to be untrue.
Perhaps she has decided to ignore trollish behavior by defense and not allow her courtroom to be a circus for their grandstanding and immature behaviors. They can submit their motions supported/unsupported by facts and she can review and make a ruling.
JMO
 
I think even if the PCA includes misinterpretations or blatant lies isn't enough to throw out the the search warrant because the remaining information, especially what RA said, would have provided probable cause for issuance of the search warrant.
 
Do you mean in JG's eyes? I don't think she would ever grant a Franks hearing. Maybe she's fine letting the appeal chips fall where they may after the trial so she doesn't have to deal with it. Since LE clearly lied about what BB and SC saw/witnessed in the PCA to obtain the search warrant, it would be quite the conundrum if she heard them out about it.

IMO MOO
Just wondering, does anyone happen to know, has JG *ever* heard a frank's motion in the courtroom on any case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
158
Guests online
605
Total visitors
763

Forum statistics

Threads
608,265
Messages
18,236,941
Members
234,327
Latest member
EmilyShaul2
Back
Top