IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #164

[FrostedGlass]

By all accounts any need to move him has been proven to be grossly exaggerated, really no surprise given the sensationalized tone of that motion.

The underlying purpose of the motion may even have been a desperate response to get something/anything on record in order to mitigate RA‘s acknowledgement of his guilt, however at this time we don’t know which came first or later. All par for the course, the games that attorneys play….this is barely the beginning IMO.

If Galipeau had outright denied the defense allegations, I'd be ok with "grossly exaggerated." However the news reports didn't write that, which they likely would have if he denied the treatment.

Every thing G said was in present tense, as opposed to this: "Allen has been on watch since the day he arrived." So that makes me wonder if he was treated as his atty said but things changed after RA's atty started raising red flags.

 

[MistyWaters]

If Galipeau had outright denied the defense allegations, I'd be ok with "grossly exaggerated." However the news reports didn't write that, which they likely would have if he denied the treatment.

Every thing G said was in present tense, as opposed to this: "Allen has been on watch since the day he arrived." So that makes me wonder if he was treated as his atty said but things changed after RA's atty started raising red flags.

I notice nothing that suggests a recent change in treatment or indications of a coverup.


BBM

Delphi murders defendant Richard Allen living in 8x12 prison cell under suicide watch and 24-hour video surveillance

The Westville prison warden provided very specific details about the cell where Allen is living and the accommodations he is offered.

www.wthr.com

• Since arriving at the prison last fall, Allen has been living in a 12’ x 8-1/2’ cell that is equipped with a mattress on a secured bed frame, a toilet and a bible.
• Allen’s cell is equipped with a surveillance camera that records his activities 24 hours a day.
• The warden assigned Allen to a segregated (individual) cell because the high-profile nature of Allen’s crime involving children places him at a higher risk of retaliation and violence from other inmates. Galipeau said he would be concerned about Allen's safety if he were to place him in the general population of Westville Correctional Facility.
• Allen is permitted to shower three times per week, and he is allowed one hour of recreation time outside his cell five times per week.
• The defendant is provided three sets of clothing each week. He also has access to the prison commissary and has purchased socks, shoes and shirts, according to the warden.
• Each inmate, including Allen, is provided an electronic tablet that allows him to listen to music, watch movies and make phone calls. Those calls can be accessed and monitored by a prison investigator.
• Unlike other inmates in the maximum security unit, Allen is permitted to have face-to-face visits with his family.
• When Allen is being transported from his cell to other locations within the prison, he is placed in chains/cuffs around his hands, feet and torso, and is sometimes transported with a restraint chain, which his defense team described as a leash similar to those used to walk a dog.
• Allen has been on “suicide watch” since last fall. The warden testified that Allen’s mental health seemed to decline a few months after he arrived when the defendant “received his legal paperwork.”

 

[Justice101]

I notice nothing that suggests a recent change in treatment or indications of a coverup.


BBM

Delphi murders defendant Richard Allen living in 8x12 prison cell under suicide watch and 24-hour video surveillance

The Westville prison warden provided very specific details about the cell where Allen is living and the accommodations he is offered.

www.wthr.com

• Since arriving at the prison last fall, Allen has been living in a 12’ x 8-1/2’ cell that is equipped with a mattress on a secured bed frame, a toilet and a bible.
• Allen’s cell is equipped with a surveillance camera that records his activities 24 hours a day.
• The warden assigned Allen to a segregated (individual) cell because the high-profile nature of Allen’s crime involving children places him at a higher risk of retaliation and violence from other inmates. Galipeau said he would be concerned about Allen's safety if he were to place him in the general population of Westville Correctional Facility.
• Allen is permitted to shower three times per week, and he is allowed one hour of recreation time outside his cell five times per week.
• The defendant is provided three sets of clothing each week. He also has access to the prison commissary and has purchased socks, shoes and shirts, according to the warden.
• Each inmate, including Allen, is provided an electronic tablet that allows him to listen to music, watch movies and make phone calls. Those calls can be accessed and monitored by a prison investigator.
• Unlike other inmates in the maximum security unit, Allen is permitted to have face-to-face visits with his family.
• When Allen is being transported from his cell to other locations within the prison, he is placed in chains/cuffs around his hands, feet and torso, and is sometimes transported with a restraint chain, which his defense team described as a leash similar to those used to walk a dog.
• Allen has been on “suicide watch” since last fall. The warden testified that Allen’s mental health seemed to decline a few months after he arrived when the defendant “received his legal paperwork.”

Pretty decent living conditions.. especially compared to overseas or the gulag.

 

[MistyWaters]

Pretty decent living conditions.. especially compared to overseas or the gulag.

It may also be the reason the Judge authorized the release of RA’s medical records to the defense team.

Delphi double murder suspect confessed multiple times: Prosecutors

Prosecutors are alleging that Delphi, Indiana, double murder suspect Richard Allen, while in custody, confessed five or six times.

abcnews.go.com

Defense attorneys didn't dispute the allegation (5 or 6 confessions to the killings) in a Thursday hearing, but argued the confessions were unreliable because of Allen's deteriorating mental and physical health.

 

[CGBSpender]

snipped for focus

You bring up a good point about appeal. How do you think the Supreme Court would decide on his current incarceration versus a county jail that could house him? How about LE moving him twice without council?
Ineffective council: he's 6 months away from his trial date and his attys are still asking for him to be moved closer.

I recently saw the difference between the usual defense atty and a really good one. I think RS's defense is making a good basis for the appeal.

It's hard to say without all of the facts. Generally, I don't see an issue with him being moved prior to appointment of counsel. I think LE needs to do what they need to do in order to keep him safe, since his safety became their responsibility when they took him into custody. If he stays at Westville, whether or not it has an effect on his lawyer's ability to properly defend the case will not be something we can know until it goes to trial. The distance is going to likely make it more difficult to prepare the case if they need a lot of assistance from their client. It really depends on how the State intends to try to prove their case though...which at this point...we know the bare minimum...maybe.

The best defense lawyer for the job depends on the location and nature of the case. It seems like the Court appointed RA the best of both worlds from this perspective. You have a local guy that...if there is a deal to be had...has the connections and horse-trading skills to get it done. You also have a guy that, if there is not a deal to be done, has the complex trial skills and team of support staff needed to deal with a case of this size.

I don't see this case being ready for trial in 6 months on either side. I'm not putting much stock in the current trial date that is set.

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

Since what has happened to RA hasn't happened before in Indiana, I suspect it was his attys' plan from the beginning to get him moved. In all fairness, they walked into a ton of papers to wade through, unlike prosecution who has had a lot of discovery in their possession for months/years.

Since he seemed to be ok for a while, moving him may not have been a priority during that brief period of time. He was there for a couple of months before he started showing a decline, according to reports.

So, regarding the remedies, are they preferable to just moving him closer to his council?

I've been wondering about the timing. The decline seemed like it didn't happen right away, and seemed like it happened quite fast. I've been wondering if the timing matches up with when he and/or his defense team got a first look at the discovery documents that the State would have sent over disclosing details of the evidentiary basis for their case?

JMO

 

[O.Incandenza]

I'm a bit confused here -- is this a question of an unqualified examiner, or a examiner testifying, without qualification, that X?

In the first case, the examiner is herself lacking qualifications; in the second, examiner (qualified or not) is expressing an opinion in the absolute without quantifying that claim appropriately -- "In my opinion, and based on X examinations in similar cases, I believe with Y degree of certainty that this bullet came from Mr A's gun.

I can't make out from Hoosier's posts just what the issue is.

It's the latter.

The issue wasn't with the credentials of the examiner, the issue was whether the science supported them testifying that the markings on a fired bullet could be matched definitively to only one gun.

"We conclude, however, for reasons discussed above, that although the studies and other information in the record support the use of the AFTE Theory to reliably identify whether patterns and lines on bullets of unknown origin are consistent with those known to have been fired from a particular firearm, they do not support the use of that methodology to reliably opine without qualification that the bullets of unknown origin were fired from the particular firearm."

So basically, the Maryland Supreme Court thinks that the current science supports firearms examiners saying that the markings on a bullet are consistent with it having been fired with a particular gun, but the expert shouldn't be allowed to testify that it could only have been fired from that gun.

It's a pretty thorough examination of the current studies. I've only had time to skim it so far, but definitely an interesting opinion.

 

[Megnut]

I've been wondering about the timing. The decline seemed like it didn't happen right away, and seemed like it happened quite fast. I've been wondering if the timing matches up with when he and/or his defense team got a first look at the discovery documents that the State would have sent over disclosing details of the evidentiary basis for their case?

JMO

And also, being on 24/7 suicide watch, hard to offer that in county lock-up.

And if he is terminally suicidal, just about every avenue to make that happen has been carefully managed for his maximum safety and protection, from others but he may be his greatest threat. Not being able to do thing he might most want to do, seems like that could spiral someone mentally.

I'm not saying it is ir it isn't but 1. He hadn't been taken off suicide watch and 2. That may have been his exit plan all along -- and he could be angry or terrified that he won't have that chance.

Entirely JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

If RA’s current defense team know they will not be effective, they‘d be best to resign prior to the commencement to the trial. They knew where was RA was housed prior to their acceptance of the job and it wasn’t an issue then, is it still now and if so why wasn’t it brought to attention of the judge as a stand alone point instead of being tossed in along with the dog kennel and prisoner of war.

Why is RA “too far”? It’s not as if daily meetings are required for a defence to build a defence strategy. As he proclaimed he is not guilty (prior to his confessions) their job is to poke holes in the evidence the prosecution will be using to attempt to prove his guilt. Most often that’s through legal arguments, why defendants require the services of trained lawyers and in RA’s case, has been appointed to represent him.

However due to his alleged confessions is he still going to proceed with the not guilty plea? That has to be a primary issue to his defence team at this time because how can he plead Not Guilty at a trial after admitting his guilt? I think that’s a hugely significant factor still looming, making the location or nature of his current incarceration or any future appeals of a guilty verdict a moot point.

"Ineffective Assistance of Counsel" in California

In California, ineffective assistance of counsel is a claim by a criminal defendant that their attorney failed to perform in a reasonably competent manner.

www.shouselaw.com

There are three remedies if a court finds that a counsel was ineffective. Depending on when the ineffectiveness occurs in a case, a court may:

1. appoint a new defense counsel,
2. if a trial concluded, reverse any guilty verdict and order a new trial, or
3. vacate a sentence and resentence the defendant.

He has already entered a plea of not guilty. He can change his plea if he wants, and the Court can choose to accept that change in plea if they determine he is competent to do so. Absent a change of plea, the trial will still move forward. It will be up to the State to prove his guilt using admissible evidence (the alleged admission may or may not be admissible...we will have to wait and see) and up to a jury to ultimately decide guilt or innocence. I think the defense team is probably more focused on whether what RA has said should be considered admissible.

Hypothetically, if a client tells their lawyer they are guilty...and the client still wants to go to trial, the defense lawyer still needs to provide the best defense they can. The defense would however need to make sure the client does not commit perjury if they take the stand, and that the defense does not present evidence at trial that they know to be false.

Another way to look at it...is that defending someone is also about ensuring that the State proves their case lawfully. There may not be much a defense attorney can do from a factual standpoint if they have a guilty client, but they can make sure that if he is convicted...it is done by a fair trial...and not allow the State to violate the rules of evidence and procedure in the presentation of its case. If there is no deal to be made, or the client isn't interested in a deal...then perhaps the client rolls the dice that the State can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm a bit confused here -- is this a question of an unqualified examiner, or a examiner testifying, without qualification, that X?

In the first case, the examiner is herself lacking qualifications; in the second, examiner (qualified or not) is expressing an opinion in the absolute without quantifying that claim appropriately -- "In my opinion, and based on X examinations in similar cases, I believe with Y degree of certainty that this bullet came from Mr A's gun.

I can't make out from Hoosier's posts just what the issue is.

Examiner testifying lacking qualification is what I am interpreting here. MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I've been wondering about the timing. The decline seemed like it didn't happen right away, and seemed like it happened quite fast. I've been wondering if the timing matches up with when he and/or his defense team got a first look at the discovery documents that the State would have sent over disclosing details of the evidentiary basis for their case?

JMO

Or perhaps right around the time his 5 to 6 confessions came to light?

 

[girlhasnoname]

I'm a bit confused here -- is this a question of an unqualified examiner, or a examiner testifying, without qualification, that X?

In the first case, the examiner is herself lacking qualifications; in the second, examiner (qualified or not) is expressing an opinion in the absolute without quantifying that claim appropriately -- "In my opinion, and based on X examinations in similar cases, I believe with Y degree of certainty that this bullet came from Mr A's gun.

I can't make out from Hoosier's posts just what the issue is.

Another sniped & BBM from the opinion:

Applying the analysis required by Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), we

conclude that the examiner should not have been permitted to offer an unqualified opinion

that the crime scene bullets were fired from Mr. Abruquah’s gun. The reports, studies, and testimony presented to the circuit court demonstrate that the firearms identification methodology employed in this case can support reliable conclusions that patterns and markings on bullets are consistent or inconsistent with those on bullets fired from a

particular firearm. Those reports, studies, and testimony do not, however, demonstrate that that methodology can reliably support an unqualified conclusion that such bullets were fired from a particular firearm.

 

[Justice101]

He has already entered a plea of not guilty. He can change his plea if he wants, and the Court can choose to accept that change in plea if they determine he is competent to do so. Absent a change of plea, the trial will still move forward. It will be up to the State to prove his guilt using admissible evidence (the alleged admission may or may not be admissible...we will have to wait and see) and up to a jury to ultimately decide guilt or innocence. I think the defense team is probably more focused on whether what RA has said should be considered admissible.

Hypothetically, if a client tells their lawyer they are guilty...and the client still wants to go to trial, the defense lawyer still needs to provide the best defense they can. The defense would however need to make sure the client does not commit perjury if they take the stand, and that the defense does not present evidence at trial that they know to be false.

Another way to look at it...is that defending someone is also about ensuring that the State proves their case lawfully. There may not be much a defense attorney can do from a factual standpoint if they have a guilty client, but they can make sure that if he is convicted...it is done by a fair trial...and not allow the State to violate the rules of evidence and procedure in the presentation of its case. If there is no deal to be made, or the client isn't interested in a deal...then perhaps the client rolls the dice that the State can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

JMO

Very well written! thank you for putting it to us this way. We appreciate it.

 

[O.Incandenza]

Another sniped & BBM from the opinion:

Applying the analysis required by Rochkind v. Stevenson, 471 Md. 1 (2020), we

conclude that the examiner should not have been permitted to offer an unqualified opinion

that the crime scene bullets were fired from Mr. Abruquah’s gun. The reports, studies, and testimony presented to the circuit court demonstrate that the firearms identification methodology employed in this case can support reliable conclusions that patterns and markings on bullets are consistent or inconsistent with those on bullets fired from a

particular firearm. Those reports, studies, and testimony do not, however, demonstrate that that methodology can reliably support an unqualified conclusion that such bullets were fired from a particular firearm.

They're not talking about the expert's qualifications, they're talking about the nature of his conclusions. Nothing in the opinion says that the expert himself was unqualified. He was a senior firearms examiner in the Firearms Examination Unit of Prince George's County. The opinion is all about whether the current state of the science would allow any expert to reliably testify that a bullet could only come from 1 gun based purely on the markings.

 

[Falling Down]

They're not talking about the expert's qualifications, they're talking about the nature of his conclusions. Nothing in the opinion says that the expert himself was unqualified. He was a senior firearms examiner in the Firearms Examination Unit of Prince George's County. The opinion is all about whether the current state of the science would allow any expert to reliably testify that a bullet could only come from 1 gun based purely on the markings.

The round at the CS on RL's property was merely ejected, someone racked the slide back and the round in the chamber came out.

Stands to reason why RA's attorneys want that thrown out, I've said since early on they probably have little physical evidence which could be traces back to a perp. Are the markings a P226 makes in .40 caliber when a round is not fired but ejected the same on every model RA owns, or would they be different on each one made? My understanding is fired round remnants have been admissable in court, not unfired.

JMO

 

[Falling Down]

He has already entered a plea of not guilty. He can change his plea if he wants, and the Court can choose to accept that change in plea if they determine he is competent to do so. Absent a change of plea, the trial will still move forward. It will be up to the State to prove his guilt using admissible evidence (the alleged admission may or may not be admissible...we will have to wait and see) and up to a jury to ultimately decide guilt or innocence. I think the defense team is probably more focused on whether what RA has said should be considered admissible.

Hypothetically, if a client tells their lawyer they are guilty...and the client still wants to go to trial, the defense lawyer still needs to provide the best defense they can. The defense would however need to make sure the client does not commit perjury if they take the stand, and that the defense does not present evidence at trial that they know to be false.

Another way to look at it...is that defending someone is also about ensuring that the State proves their case lawfully. There may not be much a defense attorney can do from a factual standpoint if they have a guilty client, but they can make sure that if he is convicted...it is done by a fair trial...and not allow the State to violate the rules of evidence and procedure in the presentation of its case. If there is no deal to be made, or the client isn't interested in a deal...then perhaps the client rolls the dice that the State can't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury.

JMO

I'm not aware of any way he could change a plea, absent conclusion of the case.

Contract law is involved, here. He pleads guilty if that is the conclusion of the court, at the conclusion of the case. Or he's found guilty by a jury. He then signs the Indiana contract pleading guilty to whatever statutes the court determines he's guilty of, and in that contract is his sentence(s).

 

[AC4RD]

I notice nothing that suggests a recent change in treatment or indications of RL]

• Since arriving at the prison last fall, Allen has been living in a 12’ x 8-1/2’ cell that is equipped with a mattress on a secured bed frame, a toilet and a bible.
• Allen’s cell is equipped with a surveillance camera that records his activities 24 hours a day.
• The warden assigned Allen to a segregated (individual) cell because the high-profile nature of Allen’s crime involving children places him at a higher risk of retaliation and violence from other inmates. Galipeau said he would be concerned about Allen's safety if he were to place him in the general population of Westville Correctional Facility.
• Allen is permitted to shower three times per week, and he is allowed one hour of recreation time outside his cell five times per week.
• The defendant is provided three sets of clothing each week. He also has access to the prison commissary and has purchased socks, shoes and shirts, according to the warden.
• Each inmate, including Allen, is provided an electronic tablet that allows him to listen to music, watch movies and make phone calls. Those calls can be accessed and monitored by a prison investigator.
• Unlike other inmates in the maximum security unit, Allen is permitted to have face-to-face visits with his family.
• When Allen is being transported from his cell to other locations within the prison, he is placed in chains/cuffs around his hands, feet and torso, and is sometimes transported with a restraint chain, which his defense team described as a leash similar to those used to walk a dog.
• Allen has been on “suicide watch” since last fall. The warden testified that Allen’s mental health seemed to decline a few months after he arrived when the defendant “received his legal paperwork.”

Yeah, that's cushy treatment, lavish living ... who says that, again? Anybody who thinks it's nice should try it, and THEN talk about how plush it is.

Six months of that lifestyle, in a hospital, without the 24/7 surveillance, made me feel suicidal at times, and that's with a staff that LIKED me and wanted me to do well. Add in the 24/7 oversight from people who are openly hostile at times (staff and convicts) and it's no wonder the man thinks about suicide. I'm not saying it's unreasonable under the circumstances, I don't know how our society could do better (though OTHER civilized societies manage it.) But IMO it IS cruel, even if we can't reasonably avoid it. TRY IT YOURSELF and see if it feels fun.
--ken (been there, done that, got the scars)

 

[CGBSpender]

I'm not aware of any way he could change a plea, absent conclusion of the case.

Contract law is involved, here. He pleads guilty if that is the conclusion of the court, at the conclusion of the case. Or he's found guilty by a jury. He then signs the Indiana contract pleading guilty to whatever statutes the court determines he's guilty of, and in that contract is his sentence(s).

I'm not sure that I follow...he can change his plea from not guilty to guilty at any point prior to the start of the trial. This is more the norm than the exception since most cases never actually go to trial. The defense counsel works out a plea deal with the prosecution, and the Court then sets a date for a "change of plea" hearing at which time the defendant pleads guilty in exchange for usually a reduction in the charges, or a favorable sentence recommendation or something like that. Sometimes they decide (sometimes at the last minute) they don't want to go to trial and request a hearing to change their plea from not guilty to guilty without any deal from the prosecutor.

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

DBM

 

[girlhasnoname]

The round at the CS on RL's property was merely ejected, someone racked the slide back and the round in the chamber came out.

Stands to reason why RA's attorneys want that thrown out, I've said since early on they probably have little physical evidence which could be traces back to a perp. Are the markings a P226 makes in .40 caliber when a round is not fired but ejected the same on every model RA owns, or would they be different on each one made? My understanding is fired round remnants have been admissable in court, not unfired.

JMO

The bullet will come into court, fired or not. It was the type of ammo used in the gun the Defendant admitted owning lying in between Abby & Libby at the Crime Scene. (Which LE obtained during their SW).

It will be a battle of the 'ballistic experts' giving their qualified opinions on the scientific evidence that supports each side's theory of the bullet's significance . The jury will then decide which, if any, expert made the most logical argument.

All MOO

Rule 702 addresses Ballistics and Firearms use in trial