IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #168

[girlhasnoname]

Memorandum of possible disqualification or sanctions - Filed 10/19/2023 10:07AM by Attorney Hennessy (Baldwin’s attorney)

p. 1

“Continuity of counsel is critical for adequate representation. Article 1 Section 12 of the Indiana Constitution must also be given consideration. Mr. Allen has developed a strong and trusting bond with Mr. Baldwin. Disqualification of either of his court appointed attorneys would greatly prejudice his right to counsel and a timely trial.”

p. 2

“Disqualification of counsel is an extreme remedy for any alleged or perceived violation of a court’s order. Most if not all cases concerning disqualification of counsel involve conflicts of interest. There is no case allowing disqualification when an individual not part of the attorney’s office or staff surreptitiously purloins information from the attorney and disseminates it without permission or the attorney’s knowledge.
Furthermore, any sanction first requires proof of knowing, willful or intentional conduct, as do the rules of Professional Conduct. Here the attorney’s trust and office were violated without his knowledge.”

With RA wanting to keep them on as Counsel and they have a 'bond' according to Baldwin's filing early this morning, I get the feeling they might have been recused from the case. It just doesn't make sense to dismiss the attorneys of record at this late stage, especially if the client wants to keep them on, if there hasn't been some sort of serious misstep by Defense. I think the Judge allowed them to withdraw rather than admonish them and recuse them in open court.

JMO

ETA: Time of filing added

 

[CGBSpender]

I may be in the minority, but I am not surprised. IMO I don't think the D had much choice. There is a conflict that I can't see how they avoid any way other than withdrawing. I'll try to explain...

Allegedly an incident has taken place where client case information was not kept confidential. This raises a possible malpractice issue. In order to continue to represent the client, the attorney would likely need to have the client consent in writing to continued representation despite the conflict of interest that now exists (that being the client having a potential malpractice claim against their lawyers). Why is this a problem you ask...

Well, either their client is, or is not, mentally competent. I don't see how you argue that your client is not mentally sound due to his treatment while in jail, or for other reasons...but turn around and say that he is mentally sound to execute a consent to waive a conflict of interest for continued representation. The position that is best for the client in this case, does not support the client's ability to consent to the continued representation.

It's too messy IMO, and I think the D did the right thing by withdrawing...and the J did the right thing by allowing it...as disappointing as it is for everyone.

JMO

 

[Arkay]

What?????????

Catch me up…these are the defense attorneys who had the lengthy memorandum for the Franks hearing? The ones who spun the Odinist ritual narrative?

Or am I missing something?

Please, Abby and Libby, I hope your justice is not further delayed.

 

[girlhasnoname]

What?????????

Catch me up…these are the defense attorneys who had the lengthy memorandum for the Franks hearing? The ones who spun the Odinist ritual narrative?

Or am I missing something?

Please, Abby and Libby, I hope your justice is not further delayed.

Yep, one and the very same. Hah

 

[Salah11]

What?????????

Catch me up…these are the defense attorneys who had the lengthy memorandum for the Franks hearing? The ones who spun the Odinist ritual narrative?

Or am I missing something?

Please, Abby and Libby, I hope your justice is not further delayed.

Yep unfortunately so.

 

[Arkay]

Yep, one and the very same. Hah

Thank you! This is insane.

Maybe they can go on to have careers writing fairy tales for nursery school students.

I just hope this doesn’t start the clock all over again. Abby and Libby deserve better and so do their families.

 

[SkyBoomer]

Whoa. I didn't have this on my bingo card.

Jeebus Tapdancing Creezy. I am gobsmacked.

 

[SkyBoomer]

I'm actually confused as to why a judge would allow them to withdraw at this point. If it's about the breach, that seems like it would be better dealt with through sanctions?

Iirc, Jodi Arias’s defense tram wanted to quit and were told they could not. But my memory ain’t all that good.

 

[SkyBoomer]

And, believe it or not, there are people who do not pay attention to true crime, even if it's a big news story in their area. Even people who know of this crime are not following details years later and forgot or never knew the original story very well anyway. I think a jury can be found.

jmo

I think it will require a change of venue, however. I hope I am wrong.

This is just so out of left field. At least to me. I’m floored.

 

[SkyBoomer]

Mr. Baldwin's attorney was prepared to vigorously defend him against sanctions and dismissal. (Dismissal wasn't really a good bet IMO anyway)

So what the heck changed or happened to make Baldwin quit? I suspect he realized he was out of his depth, had a stinker of a client who repeatedly confessed to the crime on audio tape to several persons, and then the criticism of his Odinism memo/motion/mess and now this leaking from his office. I think he simply threw in the towel because things just kept getting harder and harder at each turn.

Is it possible they were given the option to withdraw or be withdrawn? Like “we will allow you to resign to save face”? Idk if that is even legal, just trying to stop my head from spinning.

 

[sunshineray]

They were good friends with someone still inside the firm?

Just guessing.

It would have to be someone else who actually made copies of the crime scene photos in the law firm but that's not what's being said...is it? There's just talk about the person who worked for Baldwin numerous years ago.

 

[sunshineray]

Could they be disbarred for this leak?

You'd think so...

 

[girlhasnoname]

Is it possible they were given the option to withdraw or be withdrawn? Like “we will allow you to resign to save face”? Idk if that is even legal, just trying to stop my head from spinning.

I believe that is exactly what it was since the were begging to remain on the case according to Baldwin's filing as of 10 am this morning.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Attorney Shay Hughes had this to say:

In an unexpected turn of events, Andrew Baldwin has orally w/drawn (granted by the court) w/ Bradley Rozzi set to file a written w/draw (which will be granted). Pursuant to Indiana law, an attorney may w/draw for any reason 30 days prior to the omnibus date (Dec 14, 2022 would be the deadline in this case).

Afterwards, a court shall allow w/draw if there is a showing that 1) counsel has a conflict of interest; 2) other counsel has been retained; 3) attorney-client relationship has deteriorated to point where counsel cannot provide effective representation; 4) defendant insists on self-representation; or 5) there is a manifest necessity requiring w/draw (think of this as a catch-all). Nevertheless, there is no prohibition on ‘discretionary withdraws.’ In other words, a court may allow counsel to withdraw for a reason not provided above.

Long way of saying it’s anyone’s guess what the reasoning is behind the withdraw. This certainly sets the case back as it’ll take several months, if not more, for new counsel to get up to speed. #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders #TrueCrime #indiana #lawtwitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1715115728804725044

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think it will require a change of venue, however. I hope I am wrong.

This is just so out of left field. At least to me. I’m floored.

Well the Judge has already ordered that jurors would be bused in from another county already. So maybe a change of venue won't be necessary.

 

[mrjitty]

I guess we now get a trial without the odinism after all

 

[girlhasnoname]

Attorney Shay Hughes had this to say:

In an unexpected turn of events, Andrew Baldwin has orally w/drawn (granted by the court) w/ Bradley Rozzi set to file a written w/draw (which will be granted). Pursuant to Indiana law, an attorney may w/draw for any reason 30 days prior to the omnibus date (Dec 14, 2022 would be the deadline in this case).

Afterwards, a court shall allow w/draw if there is a showing that 1) counsel has a conflict of interest; 2) other counsel has been retained; 3) attorney-client relationship has deteriorated to point where counsel cannot provide effective representation; 4) defendant insists on self-representation; or 5) there is a manifest necessity requiring w/draw (think of this as a catch-all). Nevertheless, there is no prohibition on ‘discretionary withdraws.’ In other words, a court may allow counsel to withdraw for a reason not provided above.

Long way of saying it’s anyone’s guess what the reasoning is behind the withdraw. This certainly sets the case back as it’ll take several months, if not more, for new counsel to get up to speed. #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders #TrueCrime #indiana #lawtwitter

https://twitter.com/x/status/1715115728804725044

Unfortunately correct Frosted.

Justice delayed is justice denied and it's been far too long for these young girls. This isn't about the dumbo Defense or even RA, it's about prosecuting and getting a conviction for the murder(s) of the innocent young girls.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

You'd think so...

We will eventually be able to see if they are disbarred, but will we ever know if they are sanctioned is my big question?

 

[MistyWaters]

Is it possible they were given the option to withdraw or be withdrawn? Like “we will allow you to resign to save face”? Idk if that is even legal, just trying to stop my head from spinning.

Just catching up with the news, wow! I’m sort of shocked but not really. I think Baldwin’s reputation suffered due to the leaks reflecting negatively on qualities such as integrity and trust so perhaps Rozzi as well thought it better to leave RA with a clean slate. By walking there’s little reason for anyone to dig into the leak and that might’ve been a factor under consideration as well. If that is so, IMO it indicates there was deep concern over what would be unearthed.

Hopefully the newly appointed defence don’t follow in the path of the circus train.

Mostly I empathize with the family members of Libby and Abby who must be dizzy by all the ups and down this case has taken over the years.

Greenlee - “I think it was pretty clear that today was going to end with both defense attorneys off of this case…..because of the severity of leak of crime-scene photographs”

Cain added that they did not expect themselves to "preemptively withdraw themselves," especially because Baldwin brought Hennessy in to defend him. "Obviously, their plans changed quite a lot," Cain said…”

Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen's defense team withdraws from case after alleged leaked photos

Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen's defense attorneys quit the case Thursday after allegations that someone tied to an attorney's office leaked sensitive photos.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Gemmie]

Is it possible they were given the option to withdraw or be withdrawn? Like “we will allow you to resign to save face”? Idk if that is even legal, just trying to stop my head from spinning.

I'm confused. Did the defense withdraw, or were they removed? Not that I understand legal mumbo jumbo... (IANAL is a total understatement. lol) but this sounds like they were removed to me. Everything in black italics are from the linked "Memorandum Regarding Possible Disqualification or Sanctions" at the bottom of this post. Sorry if I'm late to the party and this has already been discussed. I was off doing other things and not totally caught up. My comments are in blue non-italics.

Mr. Allen has developed a strong and trusting bond with Mr. Baldwin. Disqualification of either of his court appointed attorneys would greatly prejudice his right to counsel and a timely trial.

The authority to remove appointed counsel is limited and has resulted in reversals in other jurisdictions.

Then it goes on to give an example of a different case:

A trial court may not remove a defendant's counsel merely over a disagreement regarding the conduct of defense counsel.

Why would they give an example where "the court can't remove a defendant's counsel over a disagreement regarding their conduct" if it's not applicable?

Disqualification of counsel is an extreme remedy for any alleged or perceived violation of a court’s order.

Furthermore, any sanction first requires proof of knowing, willful or intentional conduct, as do the Rules of Professional Conduct. Here the attorney’s trust and office were violated without his knowledge.

I'm guessing they were forced to be removed over the leaked material. But the timing of it... yikes.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com