Okay - this is a long one since he has not been in court lately - will shorten it up a bit...
T
uesday, July 30th:
*Motions Hearing (Day 1 of 3) (@ 10am ET) – IN –
Abigail Joyce Williams (13) &
Liberty Rose Lynn German (14) (Missing Feb. 13, 2017, found killed Feb. 14, 2017, after walking on a local hiking trail & were discovered around noon about 50 feet from the north bank of Deer Creek which is about 0.5 miles from the Monon High Bridge Trail, Delphi) –
*Richard “Ricky/Rick” Matthew Allen (44 @ time of crime/50/now 51) arrested & booked (10/26/22) into the Carroll County Jail & charged & arraigned (10/28/22) with 2 counts of murder while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping of both victims. Plead not guilty. Held without bond.
Amended charges (1/18/24/granted 3/18/24): 2 counts of felony murder (knowingly & intentionally), 2 counts of murder (while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping of both victims). Transferred to White County jail from Carroll County for security reasons. And was transferred (11/2/22) to IN. DOC at Westfield Correctional Facility at a more secure facility. Was awaiting transfer to Westville Correctional Facility but Judge Gull
denied move (6/15/23). She plans to take the arguments under advisement & will make a ruling on whether or not he will be moved out of Westville at a later date. Judge Gull
denied move (7/5/23). On 12/6/23 Allen
was transferred from Westfield to Wabash Valley Correctional Facility (long term segregation). Allen was booked (5/6/24) into the Allen County Jail [for hearing on 5/7/24]. Allen back (5/7/24) to Wabash Valley Correctional Facility. Carroll County
Trial set to begin with jury selection on 10/14/24 (thru 10/17) & Trial reset to begin on 10/18/24. Mondays thru Saturdays from 9am to 5pm.
Allen County Judge Frances C. Gull presiding / Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland & Special Prosecutor James David Luttrull, Jr.
Andrew Baldwin & Bradley Rozzi are Allen’s public appointed attorneys & added Jennifer Auger [addressing the circumstances surrounding digital forensics].
Jury will be chosen from among 600 people. Special judge Frances Gull expects jury selection to take approximately three days. She said the jury would then be sworn in on the fourth day (10/17/24) with opening statements beginning by Day 5, 10/18/24. That means the jury could start hearing testimony on 10/18/24. After jury selection, the actual trial phase of the proceedings will take place at the Carroll County Courthouse in Delphi. Gull confirmed Allen’s trial will take place six days a week — Monday through Saturday — if there are no religious objections from any of the jurors. Jury will be sequestered.
Charges, case & court info from 4/19/21 thru 5/17/24 reference post #743 here:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/t...ers-richard-allen-arrested-184.712112/page-38
5/20/24 Docket update: Order from the Court - advising that the hearings May 21-23 are cancelled due to Defendant's 2nd Verified Motion for Disqualification of Judge. [see post 741, page 38, thread #184]. Defendant's 2nd Motion to Dismiss filed [based upon newly discovered destroyed and/or missing exculpatory or potentially useful evidence. Memorandum/Brief filed [Memorandum of aw in support of defendant's 2nd motion to dismiss filed. [see post #722, page 37 for links]. 5/20/24: Notice of mailing of transcript issued. 5/20/24: Defendant’s 2nd Motion to Dismiss.
5/21/24 Update: from 5/16/24 Docket update: Order or Judgment of the Court. Defendant's motion to vacate safekeeping Order set for hearing on 5/22/24 @ 10am signed by Judge Gull. 5/22/24 Docket update: CANCELLED hearing on 5/22/24 re: Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order.
5/22/24 Docket update: Order or Judgment of the Court. Ex parte communication from Hamilton Burger ordered copied & sent to counsel of record & Clerk of Carroll Circuit Court. Noticed to Baldwin, Rozzi, Auger, McLeland, Diener & Luttrull. Order or Judgment of the Court. Ex parte communication from Mike O'Leary ordered copied & sent to Counsel of record & clerk of Carroll Circuit Court. Noticed to Baldwin, Rozzi, Auger, McLeland, Diener & Luttrull.
6/3/24 Docket update: Order Issued. The Court has reviewed the Defense Second Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge & Request For Findings Of Fact & Conclusions Of Law Upon Denial Of This Request If This Court Denies This Request, filed 5/17/24. As Trial Rule 52 is not applicable in criminal cases, the defendant's request for Findings of Fact & 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 6/14/23, regarding the witness refusing to cooperate with the service of the subpoena & demonstrating a willingness to fight the Deputy attempting service. The Court requested a report of the witness' refusal to cooperate & be transported for the scheduled hearing & forwarded that report to counsel when it was received. The decision by the Deputy to leave without the witness was his & 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 & safety during jury selection & trial May 13-31, 2024. These communications were administrative in nature & did not address any substantive issues. The communications were directed to where the defendant would be housed during the trial & 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 4/28/24. Counsel claim the Court has disparaged them & ruled on defense pleadings without hearings. The Court's comments about counsels' performance were documented in the Court's Order of 4/20/24, 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 3/18/24 hearing. The Court was notified on 5/20/24, of an inquiry by the Indiana State Police to the Court Reporter via e-mail on 5/9/24, 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 & 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 & 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 & dealt with, including by the Indiana Supreme Court in the first Writ of Mandamus filed by defendant. Counsel claim their Motions are treated differently than those Motions filed by the State. The Court has set hearings on pending Motions which have now been continued due to the filing of this Motion to Disqualify. When defendant files pleadings, the State is entitled to file a response. The Court follows Trial Rule 6 regarding time & gives the State twenty (20) days to respond. Defendant is also given twenty (20) days to reply to the State's responses. Once the issues are closed, if a hearing is required, one will be set. Defendant asserts that the Court ignored his request to set aside two weeks for the defense case while refusing to set time limits on the Prosecution. On 3/6/24, defendant filed a Motion for Speedy Trial. The Court granted that Motion on 3/7/24 & set the case for speedy trial May 13-31, 2024. On 4/30/24, defendant filed a Motion for a Pre-Trial Hearing, which the Court set for hearing on 5/7/24. At no time prior to the 5/7/24 hearing did defendant advise the Court that three (3) weeks for trial was inadequate. At no time prior to 5/7/24 did defendant indicate a belief that three (3) additional weeks could be added to the trial without notice to the Court, witnesses & more importantly, without notice to the potential jurors. While the Court agrees a continuance of the trial is harmful to the defendant & the State, it could have been avoided had counsel communicated prior to 5/7/24. Counsel represent they notified the Court on or about 10/4/23, 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. Counsels' assertion that "Between all defense counsel with a combined seventy (70) years of experience not one time have they been told that a trial would absolutely end on a certain day & not go any longer" is irrational & unreasonable. The Court is aware its colleagues across the state routinely give trial dates that begin on a set date & end on a set date. The Court is not required to guarantee equal time for both the defendant & the State. The Court is required to guarantee sufficient time on the calendar & sufficient notice to jurors & the parties to present their case, however long it takes. Had Counsel notified the Court within days of receiving the 3/7/24, 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 & extended the trial to May 13 - June 14, 2024. Trial is now set for October 14 - November 15, 2024, as requested by the defendant. Counsel accuse the Court of engaging in extrajudicial activity. Counsel is correct that on 7/9/23 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 asserts the Court has denied reasonable requests for funding. This is incorrect. Counsel is well aware of the amount of funds the Court has authorized for the defendant. The Court has requested the defendant to submit proper invoices & bills for Carroll County taxpayer funding. Invoices which have been submitted without appropriate documentation have been returned. The bill counsel refers to for $26,000 for investigative services from 6/4/23 through 10/16/23 was, in fact, returned to counsel as no documentation was provided for services. No documentation was submitted until quite recently. With that proper support & documentation, the Court authorized that invoice for payment on 5/17/24. 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 & 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 & professionally, and threatening the Court with bodily harm & injury. The Court continues to provide these communications to the parties. The Court is not interested in "memes & 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 & ridiculous outside influences. Defendant further claims the Court has refused to order the State to comply with discovery rules. The Court has set defendant's Motion to Compel & Motion for Sanctions for hearing, which has been continued due to the filing of this Motion to Disqualify. The previous defense Motion to Compel was denied without hearing as it was unsupported by evidence. Defense counsel allege bias by the Court only allowing cameras in the Courtroom on one occasion. The Court has not allowed cameras in the Carroll Circuit Court due to its limited size & layout. The Court did allow cameras in the Allen Superior Court at the hearing conducted on 10/19/23. The hearing was not conducted & the media outlet providing pool coverage did not comply with the Court's directives regarding coverage & broadcasting of the proceedings. The Court lost confidence in the ability of the media to cover hearings appropriately. The Court has issued adverse rulings against the defendant, as well as against the State of Indiana. Adverse rulings do not support a reasonable basis for questioning the Court's impartiality, nor are they grounds for disqualification, they are just adverse rulings. Defendant's Second Verified Motion to Disqualify Judge & Request For Findings Of Fact & Conclusions Of Law Upon Denial Of This Request, If This Court Denies. This Request is denied. Judge Frances Gull. Noticed: McLeland, Baldwin, Rozzi, Luttrull, Diener & Auger. Signed on 5/31/24.
6/3/24 Docket update: Order Issued. The Court has reviewed defense counsels' counsel's Petition to Strike Gratuitous & Demeaning Commentary and/or "Findings" from Contempt Order, filed 5/8/24. As the Court granted counsel Hennessy's "Motion for Specific Findings of Fact & Conclusions Thereon" filed on 3/12/24, this Motion is denied. Signed by Frances Gull. Noticed: McLeland, Baldwin, Rozzi, Luttrull, Diener & Auger. Signed on 5/31/24.
6/10/24 Docket update: State's response to Defendant's 2nd Motion to Dismiss [based upon newly discovered destroyed and/or missing exculpatory or potentially useful evidence] filed on 6/9/24. Link: Adobe Acrobat
6/18/24 Docket update: Accused's Response to this Court's 5/31/24 "Order or Judgement of the Court" & Notice of Conflict [concerning Judge Gull's denial of the defense request for disqualification]. See link & Exhibits on post #131, page 7, thread #186:
drive.google.com
6/21/24 Docket update: Order Issued. Court orders Defendant's Motion to Suppress (filed 4/15/24), State's Motion for Admissibility (filed 5/6/24), defense Motion to Suppress Second Statement (filed 4/15/24), State's Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (filed 4/15/24), defendant's Motion to Compel & Motion for Sanctions (filed 4/23/24), defendant's Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order (filed 5/13/24), State's Motion in Limine (filed 4/28/24) the defense Response to State's Motion in Limine, Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss (filed 5/20/24), and the State's Response to Defendant's Second Motion to Dismiss (filed 6/9/24) all set for hearing by agreement of counsel on 7/30/24 - 8/1/24, at 10am in the Carroll Circuit Court. Judge Frances Gull. Noticed: McLeland, Baldwin, Rozzi, Luttrull, Diener & Auger.
7/11/24 Docket update: Praecipe for [Determination] Withdrawal of Submission filed by Allen. Administrative Event. Praecipe & CCS e-mailed to Justin Forkner, Chief Administrative Officer, Indiana Supreme Court Office of Judicial Administration. 7/30/24: Miscellaneous Motions on 7/30/24, 7/31/24 & 8/1/24 all at 10am.
7/17/24 Update: Indiana Supreme Court DENIES Defense motion to remove Judge Gull in Delphi case. Court ruled Gull did miss the deadlines cited by Defense, but bc they filed other motions - Allen is not protected by the trial rule cited. State of Indiana v. Richard M. Allen [see post #511, page 26, thread #188]. Case #24S-SJ-00237; Supreme Court. Special Judges. Filed on 7/11/24. Status: Pending (active). Case cross references. Original County Cause #08C012210MR1. Related-Lower Trial Court Case 08C01-2210-MR-000001. Request for Special Judge. Praecipe for determination whether a Ruling has been delayed beyond the Time Limitations set for the under Trial Rule 53.1 filed in the trial court on 7/11/24. Notice of Determination - Withdrawal of Judge Denied. Notice denying withdrawal of submission pursuant to Trial Rule 53.1/53.2. Office of Judicial Admin, Chief Admin Officer Indiana Supreme Court Justin P. Forkner.
7/22/24 Docket update: Defendant's Motion for Leave to present mini opening statement to the jury panel prior to voir dire. Filed by Andrew Baldwin. 7/23/24 Docket update: Defendant's reply to "State's response to defense's 4th Motion for Franks Hearing" Request for hearing for reasons detailed herein filed by Andrew Baldwin. [for more info see post #891, page 45, thread #188].
7/25/24 Docket update: Order issued. Defendant's Motion for Leave to present mini opening statement to the jury panel prior to voir dire review & granted without hearing. Counsel may present a five (5) minute mini opening to the jury panel prior to each round of voir dire being conducted in Allen Superior Court commencing 10/15/24 filed by Judge Frances Gull. Noticed: McLeland, Baldwin, Rozzi, Luttrull, Diener & Auger.
7/26/24 Docket update: Order issued. Court received a "Request for Recording of Court Proceedings by News Media" from Cyndee Hebert, WTHR-TV & denies same without hearing. Signed by Judge Frances Gull. Noticed to: McLeland, Baldwin, Rozzi, Luttrell, Diener & Auger. Order issued. Court received a "Request for Recording of Court Proceedings by News Media" from Erika Facey, WISH-TV & denies same without hearing. Signed by Judge Frances Gull. Noticed to: McLeland, Baldwin, Rozzi, Luttrell, Diener & Auger.
