Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #188

[twall]

Isn’t the bridge itself closed now to pedestrian traffic? Just wondering. Enjoy the ride and be safe!

Only part of it and thank you!

 

[photographer4]

No one here, but I have seen people lamenting about how corrupt the system is because of this ruling.

JMO

I can understand why people feel this way. But since no one here has said it, it’s no wonder I was confused by your post. Thanks for clarifying.

 

[photographer4]

If the Defense filed things correctly or timely they would have better results. She could have ruled quicker but the answer to Franks and the follow ups is a blanket DENIED. Search warrant is in.

She has had literal months to rule on some issues and seems she could not be bothered. She must have a very difficult caseload. I don’t envy her. I wonder if her presiding over this massive case has precluded her from commencing her new role within the court system?

Judge Gull to Serve As Next Superior Court Chief Judge | Allen Superior Court

allensuperiorcourt.us

If not, maybe this role comes with added responsibilities that have kept her busier than she had been previously?

 

[m00c0w]

But wouldn't the Supreme Court have to follow the rule of the law had they filed at a different point? They did say what she did was wrong (paraphrasing). So, you're saying that even though they said she was wrong they still wouldn't have been obligated to grant the motion?

IMO MOO

That's the thing - they did not say she was wrong. There was no affirmation or holding of any wrongdoing. There were just statements of fact regarding the timeline, and that the entire thing was moot because the defense apparently kept waiving their rights as per some case law that was cited.

All the CAO did was look at the claims in the praecipe, and showed how the defense erred in the timing of it. At no point does the CAO state that the motion would have been otherwise granted, that the trial court was wrong, or that there was any actual evaluation of the merits of the defense's claims. The deadlines were "missed", and there is no challenging that. However, there are exceptions to the rule which make missing the deadline a non-issue - one such exception is in the case of repetitive motions.

It appears to me that the CAO never got far enough to actually evaluate the motions to determine if the trial judge erred in not ruling on them. They only pointed out she missed the deadlines, which is perfectly acceptable in some instances. Unfortunately for the defense, we'll never know.

https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/files/pubs-trial-court-failure-to-rule-on-motion-and-delay-of-judgments.pdf

Trial rule is above. Most of this is JMO.

 

[photographer4]

Yes, she has been before the Indiana Supreme Court before.
Here's the case that started it all: 02D05-1910-F4-000103
35-42-4-3(b)/F4: Child Molesting Fondling or touching with child under 14.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 21S-CR-373 | April 27, 2022
Juventino V Ramirez v. State of Indiana
OR see it here:

Ramirez v. State

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of one count of felony child molestation, holding that the trial court denied Defendant's requests for a continuance.

law.justia.com

Conclusion
Though the trial court ultimately erred in its pretrial decisions that prohibited Ramirez from receiving a copy of A.P.’s forensic interview, those errors do not require reversal. However, because the court abused its discretion when it denied Ramirez’s continuance request, we reverse and remand for a new trial.
David, Massa, Slaughter, and Goff, JJ., concur.

Oh wow! Thanks for taking the time to find and post this! I had no idea!

 

[TTF14]

They only pointed out she missed the deadlines, which is perfectly acceptable in some instances.

OK. I took this as she was wrong. She erred. She didn't follow the rules of the court.

I guess we're gonna go with assuming she had a good reason.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

That's the thing - they did not say she was wrong. There was no affirmation or holding of any wrongdoing. There were just statements of fact regarding the timeline, and that the entire thing was moot because the defense apparently kept waiving their rights as per some case law that was cited.

All the CAO did was look at the claims in the praecipe, and showed how the defense erred in the timing of it. At no point does the CAO state that the motion would have been otherwise granted, that the trial court was wrong, or that there was any actual evaluation of the merits of the defense's claims. The deadlines were "missed", and there is no challenging that. However, there are exceptions to the rule which make missing the deadline a non-issue - one such exception is in the case of repetitive motions.

It appears to me that the CAO never got far enough to actually evaluate the motions to determine if the trial judge erred in not ruling on them. They only pointed out she missed the deadlines, which is perfectly acceptable in some instances. Unfortunately for the defense, we'll never know.

https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/files/pubs-trial-court-failure-to-rule-on-motion-and-delay-of-judgments.pdf

Trial rule is above. Most of this is JMO.

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your viewpoint. However, she literally failed to issue a ruling which is well, a failing on her part. Regardless of why she failed; she failed.

The more I think about this, the more I think the D may have known it would be denied because the kept filing things, but they wanted this failing pointed out and on the record. Can’t blame them for that.

 

[m00c0w]

I’m confused. Did they not agree she failed to issue a ruling by whatever date she should have done so by? Because this article says they did agree with the motion:

“The supreme court agreed with the defense that Judge Gull missed a deadline that could lead to her removal from the case…”

Supreme Court denies motion to dismiss Judge Gull from Delphi Murders trial

In a recent filing, the supreme court has denied a motion to dismiss Judge Fran Gull from the Delphi Murders trial.

www.wrtv.com

By failing in her duty to issue a ruling according to the law, does this not make her a lazy judge since the motion filed by the D is also known as a “lazy judge motion”?? Here is a post by one of members that explains this type of motion in better detail:

Post in thread 'Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176'
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #176

Supreme Court denies motion to dismiss Judge Gull from Delphi Murders trial

In a recent filing, the supreme court has denied a motion to dismiss Judge Fran Gull from the Delphi Murders trial.

www.wrtv.com

I think the part of the article you quoted doesn't say what you think it says. The CAO agreed that she had missed deadlines that could lead to her removal from the case. I also agree. What was not ruled on was whether or not the judge actually erred in missing the deadlines. The CAO didn't even get past the first step, looking at the the timeframes in the chronological case summary, before having to deny the motion.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

Thanks for taking the time to clarify your viewpoint. However, she literally failed to issue a ruling which is well, a failing on her part. Regardless of why she failed; she failed.

The more I think about this, the more I think the D may have known it would be denied because the kept filing things, but they wanted this failing pointed out and on the record. Can’t blame them for that.

There is literally a mechanism in the IN trial rules that allows the judge to never issue formal rulings on repeat motions (rule 53.4). This would be why repeat motions are excepted from the 30 day deadline under 53.1. The CAO never got far enough into this to determine if she "failed" or not. The motion was rejected on its face because the defense was incorrect in its claims (which is an actual ruling of the CAO).

Rule 53.1 - Failure to rule on motion, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.1 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 53.1 - Failure to rule on motion, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.1, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Rule 53.4 - Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.4 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 53.4 - Repetitive motions and motions to reconsider; time for holding under advisement; automatic denial, Ind. R. Trial. P. 53.4, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[photographer4]

I think the part of the article you quoted doesn't say what you think it says. The CAO agreed that she had missed deadlines that could lead to her removal from the case. I also agree. What was not ruled on was whether or not the judge actually erred in missing the deadlines. The CAO didn't even get past the first step, looking at the the timeframes in the chronological case summary, before having to deny the motion.

JMO

I’m not arguing that they could have won it or that the scoin did anything more than agree that she failed to meet the deadline for issuing a ruling.

Since the motion filed seeking her removal (to Scoin by the D) also gets called a “lazy judge motion” (see my prior post for the link to a post made by another member that explains why it’s call this), then by agreeing she failed to meet her deadline to issue a ruling, she was in fact, lazy.

I am not saying the SCOIN or the D used the term lazy judge in the literal sense but that’s what the motion they filed is known as, and the SCOIN agreed that she had missed the deadline.

I hope this helps clarify.

 

[m00c0w]

OK. I took this as she was wrong. She erred. She didn't follow the rules of the court.

I guess we're gonna go with assuming she had a good reason.

IMO MOO

I frankly (pun not intended) have no idea if she goofed or not. I can see the presumed argument from her side that the defense was just filing repetitive motions, so she did not have to really acknowledge them. I can see the defense’s side that they believe their motions were not repetitive. I have zero idea how the CAO would have ruled. All I know is the CAO didn’t actually rule on anything except for the defense apparently having waived their ability to file in this instance.

JMO

 

[TTF14]

I frankly (pun not intended) have no idea if she goofed or not. I can see the presumed argument from her side that the defense was just filing repetitive motions, so she did not have to really acknowledge them. I can see the defense’s side that they believe their motions were not repetitive. I have zero idea how the CAO would have ruled. All I know is the CAO didn’t actually rule on anything except for the defense apparently having waived their ability to file in this instance.

JMO

BBM

Why is the part I bolded presumed?

 

[m00c0w]

I’m not arguing that they could have won it or that the scoin did anything more than agree that she failed to meet the deadline for issuing a ruling.

Since the motion filed seeking her removal (to Scoin by the D) also gets called a “lazy judge motion” (see my prior post for the link to a post made by another member that explains why it’s call this), then by agreeing she failed to meet her deadline to issue a ruling, she was in fact, lazy.

I am not saying the SCOIN or the D used the term lazy judge in the literal sense but that’s what the motion they filed is known as, and the SCOIN agreed that she had missed the deadline.

I hope this helps clarify.

I understand the concept of the lazy judge law. They never affirmed she had a duty to meet the deadline in the first place. That’s my whole point. She’s not a “lazy judge” if she didn’t have to respond to the motions to begin with, and we ultimately don’t know if the CAO would have said she did or did not have to respond. Saying they did is totally mischaracterizing what the ruling/denial says.

JMO

 

[m00c0w]

BBM

Why is the part I bolded presumed?

Because I’m not in her head to know exactly what she’s thinking or why she does anything she does. However, it makes sense that she would believe these to be repetitive motions since they were pretty… repetitive.

 

[TTF14]

Because I’m not in her head to know exactly what she’s thinking or why she does anything she does. However, it makes sense that she would believe these to be repetitive motions since they were pretty… repetitive.

It also makes sense (to me, IMO) that she didn't rule on them because she can't stand the defense team. Or just didn't want to have to make a ruling.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

I understand the concept of the lazy judge law. They never affirmed she had a duty to meet the deadline in the first place. That’s my whole point. She’s not a “lazy judge” if she didn’t have to respond to the motions to begin with, and we ultimately don’t know if the CAO would have said she did or did not have to respond. Saying they did is totally mischaracterizing what the ruling/denial says.

JMO

They agreed she failed to meet her obligation. I don’t know about how anyone else feels but I see how this can be taken as “lazy” given the motion is filed when a judge fails to rule.

Anyhow, I have done what I can to explain my view on this matter. Thanks for the discussion.

 

[MollyDDD]

Do they have to prove he was the only one responsible to get the conviction? Not a lawyer so it’s a genuine question.

I would think so, but what do I know.

 

[m00c0w]

They agreed she failed to meet her obligation. I don’t know about how anyone else feels but I see how this can be taken as “lazy” given the motion is filed when a judge fails to rule.

Anyhow, I have done what I can to explain my view on this matter. Thanks for the discussion.

Let's say you have a "lazy journalist" rule at your job that says you have to post a tweet within 30 hours of an event, except if you get COVID.

Three events happen. You have COVID during those three events.

Your colleague that doesn't like you files a complaint with your boss saying that you violated the "lazy journalist" rule.

Your boss says that while initially investigating, he found you did (as a simple matter of fact) miss these deadlines. However, he also noticed that your colleague took too long to file the complaint. So the complaint is getting thrown out without further evaluation.

Your boss never actually determined whether or not you were at fault. They just determined the complaint was not valid based on the timing of the events in question. The substance of the claim was never actually evaluated. It would not be proper to say you violated the lazy journalist rule.

 

[photographer4]

Let's say you have a "lazy journalist" rule at your job that says you have to post a tweet within 30 hours of an event, except if you get COVID.

Three events happen. You have COVID during those three events.

Your colleague that doesn't like you files a complaint with your boss saying that you violated the "lazy journalist" rule.

Your boss says that while initially investigating, he found you did (as a simple matter of fact) miss these deadlines. However, he also noticed that your colleague took too long to file the complaint. So the complaint is getting thrown out without further evaluation.

Your boss never actually determined whether or not you were at fault. They just determined the complaint was not valid based on the timing of the events in question. The substance of the claim was never actually evaluated. It would not be proper to say you violated the lazy journalist rule.

With great respect, I think we may be talking about two diff things. I am NOT commenting on the overall lack of ruling / ruling against her removal. I am not even looking at why the motion was invalid.

I am ONLY pointing out the the SCOIN agreed with the D that JG failed to rule within the time she should have.

I can’t keep trying to explain my point. I’m sad. I feel I’m usually much better at expressing myself in writing and didn’t imagine I had failed so hard here. Again though, thanks for the discussion.

I am hopefully now off to enjoy the weekend. I hope you are too!

 

[m00c0w]

It also makes sense (to me, IMO) that she didn't rule on them because she can't stand the defense team. Or just didn't want to have to make a ruling.

IMO MOO

Could be. She could also be a secret Odinist covering for her friends. Lots of possibilities, but the defense can't seem to get it together to actually do something about it.

JMO