Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #185

[sunshineray]

As to why the defense didn't state objections earlier, well they could if (1) Gull was willing to communicate with them, which she wasn't; (2) prosecution was continually slow dripping discovery to the defense, so they really didn't know how much time it would take to rebut new potential evidence; and (3) they were given a very short amount of time to discuss and make the decision to ask for a continuance, without being afforded the courtesy to speak privately with their client. Another Hobson's choice; Gull likes to offer those.

I remember it this way

1. The defense published an in confidence email from the judge- not smart and not a way to endear themselves to anyone. I'm sure now communications needed to change to motions not emails because there's not trust left?

2.According to the defense it was exactly the opposite. They said the P dumped too much discovery on them and they couldn't go through it all. And it also wasn't indexed to their liking.

3.If they weren't ready why'd they ask for a speedy trial when they did? Also, all BR had to do was write a note, delivered via the bailiff and he would have had a private room made available to them. Instead he makes a huge deal, snaps and barks in the courtroom, withdraws the speedy trial and boom AB stands up immediately with the motion to recuse. To my eye all just a big show...because they weren't ready. I bet when October rolls around they still won't be ready.

AJMO and perspective on things.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

“Counsel represent they notified the Court on or about October 4, 2023, that they would need two (2) weeks to present a defense, but the Court has no record of that communication, nor any recall of such communication.”

The defense states they advised the court well within the time period and court claims they have no record of that.

No proof of this communication was found by the court. I personally find it highly improbable they were scheduling their trial the 1st week of October when crime scene photos were being leaked. The Murder Sheet dropped the bomb on October 5th. JMO

Even if they could find communication from 8 months before the potential trial date it wouldn’t discard the fact that defense didn’t bring it up at any other time as the trial date advanced. Not during the March hearings not before the jury questionnaire went out. Not a peep.
They never intended to go to trial in May. IMO the speedy trial was filed to try to stay the contempt charges. Once those were out of the way they had to find a way to delay the trial and the pre-trial hearings. If she would have initially scheduled a 5 week trial or a 3 month trial, they would have cried it wasn’t enough. I wish she had called their bluff and granted them the 30
Day trial.
All my opinion.

 

[legalmomma]

PDF of the Order today:

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[steeltowngirl]

I gave up working on the timeline because I can't make it work on either end of the trail.

The P used the KG departure time as also being the arrival time. If the girls did arrive earlier than that, the whole timeline on that end of the bridge does not work for me.

There's a questionable time gap, IMO, between the timings of the group of 4 and when BB sighted them on the bridge.

I don’t need to work on the timeline because RA says he was gone from the trails by 12:30 on 2/13. He must believe he can prove that in court. What happened after 12:30 won’t be a concern to him, as it could not be him seen on the bridge with the girls, right?

 

[sunshineray]

Every court case I’ve witnessed the judge asks each party how long they need to present their case and they go from there to schedule the dates that work for everyone.

IMO It’s odd and bizarre this judge arbitrarily schedules court dates with no idea if those dates will satisfy either sides needs to adequately present their case ? Don’t we want both sides to have enough time to present their case?

Problem is the D didn't speak up and ask...until the 11th hour, then had a fit via BR and then motioned the judge to recuse...again. It's now scheduled for a month and day and according to the judge that's what the D asked for.

 

[sunshineray]

“Counsel represent they notified the Court on or about October 4, 2023, that they would need two (2) weeks to present a defense, but the Court has no record of that communication, nor any recall of such communication.”

The defense states they advised the court well within the time period and court claims they have no record of that.

So where's the D's documentation that they did?

 

[steeltowngirl]

PDF of the Order today:

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Good response from the judge.
How petty of the defense to make a deal about her granddaughter’s tournament.
I commend FG for not recusing, despite threats of bodily harm.

Counsel accuse the Court of engaging in extrajudicial activity. Counsel is correct that on July 9, 2023, the Court commented on a Facebook post about a softball tournament her granddaughter participated in in Delphi. The Court did not attend the tournament, but did say "Congratulations" to her former daughter-in law's post about their team winning the tournament. If Counsels' allegations in this part of their Motion are well-founded (regarding a potential witness' alleged social media activities) and are presented to the Court for ruling, the Court will rule accordingly. Concerns about anticipatory rulings are not reasonable.
[…]
Defendant complains that public confidence in this case has eroded. As counsel should know, criminal cases are tried in a Court of law, not in the court of public opinion. An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts without regard to public clamor or fear of criticism. The Court continues to receive ex parte communications from the public criticizing the Court both personally and professionally, and threatening the Court with bodily harm and injury. The Court continues to provide these communications to the parties. The Court is not interested in "memes and other social media content that can be easily located on the internet" (Paragraph 129 of defendant’s Second Verified Motion to Disqualify). The Court cannot be swayed by inappropriate and ridiculous outside influences.

 

[AugustWest]

I remember it this way

1. The defense published an in confidence email from the judge- not smart and not a way to endear themselves to anyone. I'm sure now communications needed to change to motions not emails because there's not trust left?

2.According to the defense it was exactly the opposite. They said the P dumped too much discovery on them and they couldn't go through it all. And it also wasn't indexed to their liking.

3.If they were ready why'd they ask for a speedy trial when they did? Also, all BR had to do was write a note, delivered via the bailiff and he would have had a private room made available to them. Instead he makes a huge deal, snaps and barks in the courtroom, withdraws the speedy trial and boom AB stands up immediately with the motion to recuse. To my eye all just a big show...because they weren't ready. I bet when October rolls around they still won't be ready.

AJMO and perspective on things.

@sunshineray

Emails from state employees are public record, so an "in confidence" email sent out by a judge isn't a possibility. Had she made a proper record in the first place, there would be no need for those communications to be scrutinized.

As far as your second point, it can be both simultaneously. There can be a continual slow drip of discovery information while still being overly burdensome. The discovery was undeniably voluminous; the large number of terabytes clearly illustrates this.

I'm not understanding your third point regarding the timing of the defense asking for a speedy trial. It was filed March 6, 2024, clearly during the pretrial period when such motions are made. As far as making a big deal of the issue, well it is a big issue. In fact, it was a big enough issue that our founding fathers felt it necessary to include a provision for such in the Sixth Amendment. Speedy trial is a big issue, and to not stand up for your client when you feel he/she is being treated unjustly isn't exactly good lawyering.

We likely will never agree regarding these issues, and that's okay!

ETA: I have no idea how they are communicating now. Maybe by carrier pigeon?

 

[WildHuncher]

Good response from the judge.
How petty of the defense to make a deal about her granddaughter’s tournament.
I commend FG for not recusing, despite threats of bodily harm.

Counsel accuse the Court of engaging in extrajudicial activity. Counsel is correct that on July 9, 2023, the Court commented on a Facebook post about a softball tournament her granddaughter participated in in Delphi. The Court did not attend the tournament, but did say "Congratulations" to her former daughter-in law's post about their team winning the tournament. If Counsels' allegations in this part of their Motion are well-founded (regarding a potential witness' alleged social media activities) and are presented to the Court for ruling, the Court will rule accordingly. Concerns about anticipatory rulings are not reasonable.
[…]
Defendant complains that public confidence in this case has eroded. As counsel should know, criminal cases are tried in a Court of law, not in the court of public opinion. An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts without regard to public clamor or fear of criticism. The Court continues to receive ex parte communications from the public criticizing the Court both personally and professionally, and threatening the Court with bodily harm and injury. The Court continues to provide these communications to the parties. The Court is not interested in "memes and other social media content that can be easily located on the internet" (Paragraph 129 of defendant’s Second Verified Motion to Disqualify). The Court cannot be swayed by inappropriate and ridiculous outside influences.

Well, THIS is a real shitshow.

 

[Spartygirl]

“Counsel represent they notified the Court on or about October 4, 2023, that they would need two (2) weeks to present a defense, but the Court has no record of that communication, nor any recall of such communication.”

The defense states they advised the court well within the time period and court claims they have no record of that.

Right-- so the Defense should have proven that they sent that notification.
JMO and not trying to be argumentive towards you at all.

Did they send by certified mail ?-- they should have shown proof it was received by the judge. She then should have replied differently with her decision.

Did they email it ? they could go back to their "sent" messages and proved they sent it, which then, by all rights, the judge should have responded differently with her reply to the motion.

If they proved they actually sent it, they would have proof and should have exploited that. To which then, I would have my doubts about JG's responses.

But if she says she did not receive it and knowing the BS & lies and circus this D team is capable of, I have to accept her words.

Maybe they wrote it out, but did not actually send it, maybe they had the "rookie" in charge of sending it and it didn't get done, IDK.

Again, not being argumentive towards you, just trying to figure this all out as we all are with this crazy case.

 

[sunshineray]

@sunshineray

Emails from state employees are public record, so an "in confidence" email sent out by a judge isn't a possibility. Had she made a proper record in the first place, there would be no need for those communications to be scrutinized.

As far as your second point, it can be both simultaneously. There can be a continual slow drip of discovery information while still being overly burdensome. The discovery was undeniably voluminous; the large number of terabytes clearly illustrates this.

I'm not understanding your third point regarding the timing of the defense asking for a speedy trial. It was filed March 6, 2024, clearly during the pretrial period when such motions are made. As far as making a big deal of the issue, well it is a big issue. In fact, it was a big enough issue that our founding fathers felt it necessary to include a provision for such in the Sixth Amendment. Speedy trial is a big issue, and to not stand up for your client when you feel he/she is being treated unjustly isn't exactly good lawyering.

We likely will never agree regarding these issues, and that's okay!

ETA: I have no idea how they are communicating now. Maybe by carrier pigeon?

I agree, we do disagree, no worries

 

[Tealgrove]

Well, THIS is a real shitshow.

Sigh….,

 

[Megnut]

Right-- so the Defense should have proven that they sent that notification.
JMO and not trying to be argumentive towards you at all.

Did they send by certified mail ?-- they should have shown proof it was received by the judge. She then should have replied differently with her decision.

Did they email it ? they could go back to their "sent" messages and proved they sent it, which then, by all rights, the judge should have responded differently with her reply to the motion.

If they proved they actually sent it, they would have proof and should have exploited that. To which then, I would have my doubts about JG's responses.

But if she says she did not receive it and knowing the BS & lies and circus this D team is capable of, I have to accept her words.

Maybe they wrote it out, but did not actually send it, maybe they had the "rookie" in charge of sending it and it didn't get done, IDK.

Again, not being argumentive towards you, just trying to figure this all out as we all are with this crazy case.

If they knew they needed weekS to present as far back as last fall, as soon as the Judge set the schedule, why didn't they alert her straightaway? That would have been the appropriate time to do so.

JMO

 

[susiQ]

I don’t need to work on the timeline because RA says he was gone from the trails by 12:30 on 2/13. He must believe he can prove that in court. What happened after 12:30 won’t be a concern to him, as it could not be him seen on the bridge with the girls, right?

I thought RA reported he was on the trails from 12 noon to around 1:30 pm. Iirc?

 

[grannygates]

Right-- so the Defense should have proven that they sent that notification.
JMO and not trying to be argumentive towards you at all.

Did they send by certified mail ?-- they should have shown proof it was received by the judge. She then should have replied differently with her decision.

Did they email it ? they could go back to their "sent" messages and proved they sent it, which then, by all rights, the judge should have responded differently with her reply to the motion.

If they proved they actually sent it, they would have proof and should have exploited that. To which then, I would have my doubts about JG's responses.

But if she says she did not receive it and knowing the BS & lies and circus this D team is capable of, I have to accept her words.

Maybe they wrote it out, but did not actually send it, maybe they had the "rookie" in charge of sending it and it didn't get done, IDK.

Again, not being argumentive towards you, just trying to figure this all out as we all are with this crazy case.

Oh who knows. There’s so many options: in-person; phone call, left message with admin, email, mail, courier. In any event, there’s no way to go back in time and fix it. Mistakes happen, we’re all humans. Best they can do is try to fix the issue now for the sake of the case.

Where I don’t love the response from the judge is the response about it not being her responsibility to ensure defense gets equal time to present their case and enforcing definitive end dates of trials.

IMO judge won’t cap Prosecutions time, so what if P takes up 14 days and then defense gets 1? That’s not a fair trial. I can see why a lawyer wouldn’t want this judge. There’s no guarantee you can even present your case and no flexibility if you need more time. What if a witness goes longer than expected, you just don’t get to present all your witnesses? Is this how she does all her cases? isnt that concerning? How many defense cases are cut off prematurely because of “end dates”.

Have I completely misread this ? None of that seems equal or fair to me and I can see where someone would think this way heavily favours the prosecution, who is given unlimited uncapped time where defense is allowed whatever is left over.

 

[katydid23]

I will cut and paste and break it down---my mind absorbs it better that way:

PART ONE:
The Court has reviewed the Defense Second Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge And Request For Findings Of Fact And Conclusions Of Law Upon Denial Of This Request If This Court Denies This Request, filed May 17, 2024. As Trial Rule 52 is not applicable in criminal cases, the defendant's request for Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law is denied. Neely v. State, 297 N.E.2d 847 (Ind. App. 1973); Davis v. State, 642 N.E.2d 987 (Ind. App. 1994).

The Court, however, will address each of defendant's allegations in this Order.

Defendant claims the Court directed the Carroll County Sheriff to ignore a subpoena. The Court directed an e-mail to counsel on June 14, 2023, regarding the witness refusing to cooperate with the service of the subpoena and demonstrating a willingness to fight the Deputy attempting service. The Court requested a report of the witness' refusal to cooperate and be transported for the scheduled hearing and forwarded that report to counsel when it was received.

The decision by the Deputy to leave without the witness was his and was not directed by the Court.


Defendant claims the Court engaged in ex parte communication with the Carroll County Sheriff regarding defendant's housing, transportation, and safety during jury selection and trial May 13-31, 2024. These communications were administrative in nature and did not address any substantive issues. The communications were directed to where the defendant would be housed during the trial and who would be conducting transportation. The Court did notify counsel where defendant would be housed during the trial (as he is still under the safekeeping order) in an e-mail, but did not inform counsel of the communication, as nothing substantively was discussed.

The Court has set the defendant's Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order for hearing, but was required to cancel the hearing upon the filing of this pending Second Verified Motion to Disqualify.

Counsel claim the Court invited the State to limit defendant's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. The Court has always required counsel in all criminal cases to follow the law relating to third-party perpetrators. The Court reminded counsel of their obligation to follow the law in the Court's e-mail of April 28, 2024.

Counsel claim the Court has disparaged them and ruled on defense pleadings without hearings. The Court's comments about counsels' performance were documented in the Court's Order of April 30, 2024, regarding their handling of discovery materials.

If pleadings on their face are not supported by the law or admissible evidence, judicial economy does not require a hearing. Allegations the Court has treated the Prosecution more favorably than the defense are unsupported by any admissible evidence provided by the defense at the March 18, 2024, hearing.

The Court was notified on May 20, 2024, of an inquiry by the Indiana State Police to the Court Reporter via e-mail on May 9, 2024, regarding ex parte communication received by the Court from Gary Beaudette (which was previously provided to all counsel). The Court is unaware of the extent of any Indiana State Police investigation.

Defendant blames the Court for ex parte pleadings which were inadvertently directed to the Prosecutor. The defense staff filed pleadings and marked them as "confidential", apparently unaware that the "confidential" marking makes them available to the State, but not the public. Counsels' staff contacted this Court's staff and were advised that the Statewide Odyssey Case Management System (not DoxPop as alleged in the pleading) has a distinct process for filing pleadings "ex parte" as opposed to "confidential". The Court did e-mail defense counsel a tutorial paper authored by JTAC explaining the process. Since that communication, defense counsel have had no issues with their staff properly filing ex parte pleadings. Accusations of violating Rules on Access to Court Records have been completely explained and dealt with, including by the Indiana Supreme Court in the first Writ of Mandamus filed by defendant.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[katydid23]

The defense team did not notify court that they would need more time in record time.
They knew the original time allotted and did not let the court know they would need more time.
They waited until the last moment to say they needed more time.
PER the document above, had the Defense team let the court know ahead of time, the court would have accommodated them.
It was their own fault they did not communicate that to the court.


"The Court is required to guarantee sufficient time on the calendar and sufficient notice to jurors and the parties to present their case, however long it takes. Had Counsel notified the Court within days of receiving the March 7, 2024, Court Order setting the case for speedy trial May 13-31, 2024, that the time allotted on the calendar was insufficient, the Court would have immediately rectified the situation and extended the trial to May 13 - June 14, 2024. "

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

EXACTLY!

 

[katydid23]

Oh who knows. There’s so many options: in-person; phone call, left message with admin, email, mail, courier. In any event, there’s no way to go back in time and fix it. Mistakes happen, we’re all humans. Best they can do is try to fix the issue now for the sake of the case.

Where I don’t love the response from the judge is the response about it not being her responsibility to ensure defense gets equal time to present their case

Legally, the judge is correct. The defense is not expected nor required to get equal time because the State has the burden to lay out and prove it's case. The defense does not have nearly as much information to deliver. Essentially they are replying to the most salient points, but are not laying out an entire case like the prosecution must do.

Most of the defends case comes with their cross examinations, which are included in the state's time allotment. So the judge was not being flippant---she is being realistic.

and enforcing definitive end dates of trials.

I don't think she said it was not her responsibility to work out the trial dates. I think she was holding the defense accountable for their misdirection and miscommunications. They asked for a speedy trial and THEY AGREED TO a certain time schedule. [see below]



The Court is not required to guarantee equal time for both the defendant and the State. The Court is required to guarantee sufficient time on the calendar and sufficient notice to jurors and the parties to present their case, however long it takes.

Had Counsel notified the Court within days of receiving the March 7, 2024, Court Order setting the case for speedy trial May 13-31, 2024, that the time allotted on the calendar was insufficient, the Court would have immediately rectified the situation and extended the trial to May 13 - June 14, 2024. Trial is now set for October 14 - November 15, 2024, as requested by the defendant.

IMO judge won’t cap Prosecutions time, so what if P takes up 14 days and then defense gets 1?

That is not at all what she was saying.

When you watch a trial you can see how the judge works out the timing throughout each day. They negotiate the remaining time and make sure it is allotted efficiently and fairly. There is no way it would happen as you describe above.

That’s not a fair trial. I can see why a lawyer wouldn’t want this judge. There’s no guarantee you can even present your case and no flexibility if you need more time.

The judge makes pivots and changes if there is a need to do so. They are very experienced and educated. If they have allowed a witness to be admitted into evidence then there will be time allotted for that witness testimony.

What if a witness goes longer than expected, you just don’t get to present all your witnesses?

It's up to each attorney to manage their time. They should have a good idea of how many questions they will be asking so a witness should not go too much over allotted time.

Is this how she does all her cases? isnt that concerning? How many defense cases are cut off prematurely because of “end dates”.

She is a very experienced and well respected judge. One of the best, which is why she was given this high profile case.

Have I completely misread this ?

Yes, I think so. I think you are taking what the defense is complaining about without looking at the reality of the situation.

None of that seems equal or fair to me and I can see where someone would think this way heavily favours the prosecution, who is given unlimited uncapped time where defense is allowed whatever is left over.

No one is giving the prosecution unlimited, uncapped time.

 

[sunshineray]

I thought RA reported he was on the trails from 12 noon to around 1:30 pm. Iirc?

Not the first time to the CO

 

[katydid23]

“Counsel represent they notified the Court on or about October 4, 2023, that they would need two (2) weeks to present a defense, but the Court has no record of that communication, nor any recall of such communication.”

The defense states they advised the court well within the time period and court claims they have no record of that.

If the defense did notify the court, there HAS TO BE a record of that notification. It would have to be formally submitted in some way because it is a major request. You can't just call the judge and leave a random voicemail.

There'd be a motion or a formal letter sent with the request and the explanation. If the defense made the request then they need to send over a copy of that request.