IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #169

[tlcya]

Thank u again tlcya.
(I'm supposed to be workin'. So thank you for helping me cheat. This is MUCH more fun than workin'.)

shhhhhh - same

 

[MistyWaters]

Well this truly is pathetic.
He is obviously deluded.
Why are they clinging so tightly to this case? Go away.
Please get this last clown off this case, so RA can get proper representation and Libby and Abby can have a chance at justice.

I’m disgusted too. What I get from this all is that the Judge had prepared a statement listing issues that demonstrated “gross negligence“ committed by the D that she intended to read in open court. It would appear Hennessy’s brief was drafted ahead of time in response to this occurring at the hearing. R perceived this as “public shaming” and had a hissy fit and rather than considering the D‘s own actions may be at fault, now is attempting to blame the judge.

I agree, best plan would be to get new D and move forward. This D grandstanding needs to stop. JMO

ETA - How can R possibly continue with examples of “gross negligence” already out on the table? That spells ineffective counsel.

 

[zh0r4]

Thank you for posting Rozzi's filing

Does anyone have the time or inclination to look up the Judicial rules (Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct) Rozzi accuses JG of breaking? Judicial rules: I.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, 2.11. TIA

View attachment 456079
last page with sig

RULE 1.2: Promoting Confidence in the Judiciary

A judge shall act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence,* integrity,* and impartiality* of the judiciary, and shall avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety.
[1] Public confidence in the judiciary is eroded by improper conduct and conduct that creates the appearance of impropriety. This principle applies to both the professional and personal conduct of a judge.

[2] A judge should expect to be the subject of public scrutiny that might be viewed as burdensome if applied to other citizens, and must accept the restrictions imposed by the Code.

[3] Conduct that compromises or appears to compromise the independence, integrity, and impartiality of a judge undermines public confidence in the judiciary. Because it is not practicable to list all such conduct, the Rule is necessarily cast in general terms.

[4] Judges should participate in activities that promote ethical conduct among judges and lawyers, support professionalism within the judiciary and the legal profession, and promote access to justice for all.

[5] Actual improprieties include violations of law, court rules, or provisions of this Code. The test for appearance of impropriety is whether the conduct would create in reasonable minds a perception that the judge violated this Code or engaged in other conduct that reflects adversely on the judge's honesty, impartiality, temperament, or fitness to serve as a judge.

[6] A judge should initiate and participate in community outreach activities for the purpose of promoting public understanding of and confidence in the administration of justice. In conducting such activities, the judge must act in a manner consistent with this Code.

RULE 2.2: Impartiality and Fairness

A judge shall uphold and apply the law,* and shall perform all duties of judicial office fairly and impartially.* A judge may make reasonable efforts, consistent with the law and court rules, to facilitate the ability of all litigants, including self-represented litigants, to be fairly heard.
[1] To ensure impartiality and fairness to all parties, a judge must be objective and open-minded.

[2] Although each judge comes to the bench with a unique background and personal philosophy, a judge must interpret and apply the law without regard to whether the judge approves or disapproves of the law in question.

[3] When applying and interpreting the law, a judge sometimes may make good-faith errors of fact or law. Errors of this kind do not violate this Rule.

[4] It is not a violation of this Rule for a judge to make reasonable accommodations to ensure pro se litigants the opportunity to have their matters fairly heard.

[5] A judge’s responsibility to promote access to justice, especially in cases involving self-represented litigants, may warrant the exercise of discretion by using techniques that enhance the process of reaching a fair determination in the case. Although the appropriate scope of such discretion and how it is exercised will vary with the circumstances of each case, a judge’s exercise of such discretion will not generally raise a reasonable question about the judge’s impartiality. Reasonable steps that a judge may take, but in no way is required to take, include:

(a) Construe pleadings to facilitate consideration of the issues raised.

(b) Provide information or explanation about the proceedings.

(c) Explain legal concepts in everyday language.

(d) Ask neutral questions to elicit or clarify information.

(e) Modify the traditional order of taking evidence.

(f) Permit narrative testimony.

(g) Refer litigants to any resources available to assist in the preparation of the case or enforcement and compliance with any order.

(h) Inform litigants what will be happening next in the case and what is expected of them.

RULE 2.3: Bias, Prejudice, and Harassment

(A) A judge shall perform the duties of judicial office, including administrative duties, without bias or prejudice.

(B) A judge shall not, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifest bias or prejudice, or engage in harassment, including but not limited to bias, prejudice, or harassment based upon race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, and shall not permit court staff, court officials, or others subject to the judge's direction and control to do so.

(C) A judge shall require lawyers in proceedings before the court to refrain from manifesting bias or prejudice, or engaging in harassment, based upon attributes including but not limited to race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation, against parties, witnesses, lawyers, or others.

(D) The restrictions of paragraphs (B) and (C) do not preclude judges or lawyers from making legitimate reference to the listed factors, or similar factors, when they are relevant to an issue in a proceeding.
[1] A judge who manifests bias or prejudice in a proceeding impairs the fairness of the proceeding and brings the judiciary into disrepute.

[2] Examples of manifestations of bias or prejudice include but are not limited to epithets; slurs; demeaning nicknames; negative stereotyping; attempted humor based upon stereotypes; threatening, intimidating, or hostile acts; suggestions of connections between race, ethnicity, or nationality and crime; and irrelevant references to personal characteristics. Even facial expressions and body language can convey to parties and lawyers in the proceeding, jurors, the media, and others an appearance of bias or prejudice. A judge must avoid conduct that may reasonably be perceived as prejudiced or biased.

[3] Harassment, as referred to in paragraphs (B) and (C), is verbal or physical conduct that denigrates or shows hostility or aversion toward a person on bases such as race, sex, gender, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, age, sexual orientation, marital status, socioeconomic status, or political affiliation.

[4] Sexual harassment includes but is not limited to sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature that is unwelcome.

RULE 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard

(A) A judge shall accord to every person who has a legal interest in a proceeding, or that person's lawyer, the right to be heard according to law.*

(B) A judge may encourage parties to a proceeding and their lawyers to settle matters in dispute but shall not act in a manner that coerces any party into settlement.
[1] The right to be heard is an essential component of a fair and impartial system of justice. Substantive rights of litigants can be protected only if procedures protecting the right to be heard are observed.

[2] The judge plays an important role in overseeing the settlement of disputes, but should be careful that efforts to further settlement do not undermine any party's right to be heard according to law. The judge should keep in mind the effect that the judge's participation in settlement discussions may have, not only on the judge's own views of the case, but also on the perceptions of the lawyers and the parties if the case remains with the judge after settlement efforts are unsuccessful. Among the factors that a judge should consider when deciding upon an appropriate settlement practice for a case are (1) whether the parties have requested or voluntarily consented to a certain level of participation by the judge in settlement discussions, (2) whether the parties and their counsel are relatively sophisticated in legal matters, (3) whether the case will be tried by the judge or a jury, (4) whether the parties participate with their counsel in settlement discussions, (5) whether any parties are unrepresented by counsel, and (6) whether the matter is civil or criminal.

[3] Judges must be mindful of the effect settlement discussions can have, not only on their objectivity and impartiality, but also on the appearance of their objectivity and impartiality. Despite a judge's best efforts, there may be instances when information obtained during settlement discussions could influence a judge's decision making during trial, and, in such instances, the judge should consider whether disqualification may be appropriate. See Rule 2.11(A)(1).

RULE 2.8: Decorum, Demeanor, and Communication with Jurors

(A) A judge shall require order and decorum in proceedings before the court.

(B) A judge shall be patient, dignified, and courteous to litigants, jurors, witnesses, lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity, and shall require similar conduct of lawyers, court staff, court officials, and others subject to the judge's direction and control.

(C) A judge shall not commend or criticize jurors for their verdict other than in a court order or opinion in a proceeding.
[1] The duty to hear all proceedings with patience and courtesy is not inconsistent with the duty imposed in Rule 2.5 to dispose promptly of the business of the court. Judges can be efficient and businesslike while being patient and deliberate.

[2] Commending or criticizing jurors for their verdict may imply a judicial expectation in future cases and may impair a juror's ability to be fair and impartial in a subsequent case.

[3] A judge may meet with jurors who choose to remain after trial but should be careful not to discuss the merits of the case.

RULE 2.11: Disqualification

(A) A judge shall disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge's impartiality* might reasonably be questioned, including but not limited to the following circumstances:

(1) The judge has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party or a party's lawyer, or personal knowledge* of facts that are in dispute in the proceeding.

(2) The judge knows* that the judge, the judge's spouse or domestic partner,* or a person within the third degree of relationship* to either of them, or the spouse or domestic partner of such a person is:

(a) a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, general partner, managing member, or trustee of a party;

(b) acting as a lawyer in the proceeding;

(c) a person who has more than a de minimis* interest that could be substantially affected by the proceeding; or

(d) likely to be a material witness in the proceeding.

(3) The judge knows that he or she, individually or as a fiduciary,* or the judge's spouse, domestic partner, parent, or child, or any other member of the judge's family residing in the judge's household,* has an economic interest* in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding that could be substantially affected by the proceeding.

(4) [Reserved]

(5) The judge, while a judge or a judicial candidate,* has made a public statement, other than in a court proceeding, judicial decision, or opinion, that commits or appears to commit the judge to reach a particular result or rule in a particular way in the proceeding or controversy.

(6) The judge:

(a) served as a lawyer in the matter in controversy, or was associated with a lawyer who participated substantially as a lawyer in the matter during such association;

(b) served in governmental employment, and in such capacity participated personally and substantially as a lawyer or public official concerning the proceeding, or has publicly expressed in such capacity an opinion concerning the merits of the particular matter in controversy;

(c) was a material witness concerning the matter; or

(d) previously presided as a judge over the matter in another court.

(B) A judge shall keep informed about the judge's personal and fiduciary economic interests, and make a reasonable effort to keep informed about the personal economic interests of the judge's spouse or domestic partner and minor children residing in the judge's household.

(C) A judge subject to disqualification under this Rule, other than for bias or prejudice under paragraph (A)(1) or for conflicts under paragraph (A)(2), shall disclose on the record the basis of the judge’s disqualification and may ask the parties and their lawyers to consider, outside the presence of the judge and court personnel, whether to waive disqualification. If, following the disclosure, the parties and lawyers agree, without participation by the judge or court personnel, that the judge should not be disqualified, the judge may participate in the proceeding. The agreement shall be incorporated into the record of the proceeding and shall be in writing and signed by the parties.

Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct

www.in.gov

 

[tlcya]

So Odinists killed the girls, then

LE planted the bullet at crime scene or used junk science to make RA's non crime scene gun look like it once held said crime scene bullet, and

LE has framed RA for reasons unknown and covered up the existence of a murderous odinistic cult, and

BTW - prison guards are Odinists and have engaged in intimidating RA and maybe worse, and now

to top it all off the Judge is prejudiced against RA and his counsel. Has fired them and has hidden court filings to include sworn affidavits.

Man, Indiana, Y'all okay?

the bad luck this defendant and his counsel have is truly astounding, why you'd almost think all of the Indiana justice system is secretly part of the dread pagan cult . . .

 

[MistyWaters]

So this says both Rozzi and Baldwin have been dismissed today. They might appeal her decision but do they really want to subject themselves to “public shaming”? Good news IMO, too much drama.

BBM

‘Ambushed’: Delphi defense attorney says judge coerced him to leave double murder case, asks for her removal

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The remaining attorney left defending Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen is asking that the judge overseeing the case be thrown out, claiming she “ambushed” and …

fox59.com

“Despite all of these filings from Rozzi, Judge Gull issued an order around 3:30 p.m. Thursday reiterating that both Rozzi and Baldwin have been dismissed and their names are removed from the court docket.

Attorney David Hennessey, who is representing the defense team, told FOX59/CBS4’s Russ McQuaid on Thursday that Judge Gull has overstepped her bounds and does not have the authority to dismiss the lawyers based on a secret conversation in her chambers last week absent of a written withdrawal.

“What a mess,” another veteran lawyer following the case closely told McQuaid….”

Also from that same link -
“The Defense also claims that the judge has ruled unethically in sealing several pro-defense documents from the open record for public scrutiny.”

 

[mrjitty]

We can thank the Defense team, AB in particular, for this latest crap show. It's their actions that have caused the delay, and now a new Defense appointment, which will push it back another year or so IMO. RA can thank them personally not the Prosecution for another year of waiting.

You keep saying there is no record. We don't know that court reporter wasn't in Chambers during the entire conversation. For a case of this magnitude and the ramifications of such an unusual ruling, I would BET that the Judge most definitely had a record made. We just don't know either way yet, maybe because of the gag order, or maybe because the Defense did something so egregious that it is under seal.

JMO

By no record, I mean nothing on the docket.

Maybe there is a transcript, maybe not, but no motions, briefs or rulings have been filed in relation to AB withdrawing after the in chambers hearing. I get some stuff might be sealed - but as we've seen in this case, a lot of stuff was simply not on the docket even though there was no order to seal it?!

The judge sat down for 3 mins to announce some stuff that had happened and some rulings. I would have expected that stuff to be in writing?

Especially the withdrawal of AB - why is there not at least a basic application from him on that, then confirmed by the judge? If the reasons/grounds have to be sealed fine, but just to have nothing is bizarre.

And then Rozzi is supposedly withdrawing according to the Judge but then nothing is filed?

This is a procedural mess!

ETA - i see my post was superseded by events

 

[tlcya]

the most recent motion said that on the 19th the judge ruled on some pending motions and then coerced D to step down. I am super curious which motions she ruled on since there is no docket entry about rulings made in that in camera session.

 

[MistyWaters]

By no record, I mean nothing on the docket.

Maybe there is a transcript, maybe not, but no motions, briefs or rulings have been filed in relation to AB withdrawing after the in chambers hearing. I get some stuff might be sealed - but as we've seen in this case, a lot of stuff was simply not on the docket even though there was no order to seal it?!

The judge sat down for 3 mins to announce some stuff that had happened and some rulings. I would have expected that stuff to be in writing?

Especially the withdrawal of AB - why is there not at least a basic application from him on that, then confirmed by the judge? If the reasons/grounds have to be sealed fine, but just to have nothing is bizarre.

And then Rozzi is supposedly withdrawing according to the Judge but then nothing is filed?

This is a procedural mess!

It appears mycase protects itself by stating this disclaimer of the online docket on the website. Maybe we’re expecting it to serve more of a purpose than it does in reality?

“Information displayed on this site is not to be considered or used as an official court record and may contain errors or omissions. Accuracy of the information is not warranted. Official records of court proceedings may only be obtained directly from the court maintaining a particular record.“

 

[MistyWaters]

the most recent motion said that on the 19th the judge ruled on some pending motions and then coerced D to step down. I am super curious which motions she ruled on since there is no docket entry about rulings made in that in camera session.

Whatever it was, I’d bet that‘s connected to the “gross negligence” aside from the leaks. IIRC the prosecution stated the memo “wasn’t entirely true”, maybe that’s a big clue.

 

[Emma Peel]

So Odinists killed the girls, then

LE planted the bullet at crime scene or used junk science to make RA's non crime scene gun look like it once held said crime scene bullet, and

LE has framed RA for reasons unknown and covered up the existence of a murderous odinistic cult, and

BTW - prison guards are Odinists and have engaged in intimidating RA and maybe worse, and now

to top it all off the Judge is prejudiced against RA and his counsel.

Man, Indiana, Y'all okay?

the bad luck this defendant and his counsel have is truly astounding, why you'd almost think all of the Indiana justice system is secretly part of the dread pagan cult . . .

Can't argue with your above list.

Is it just me ... or does that thing actually read that the Defense Memo said that the 2 prison guards with their patches may have killed the girls?

I mean ... the Defense Memo said some things and pointed in -version of odin-ish directions, but it really didn't assert that the prison guards did it. lol.

moo

 

[mrjitty]

OK so the worst fears are true

This is why you don't force counsel to resign back of house.

Judge Gull had more than enough reason to remove Baldwin from the case. She should have ordered so in public court with reasoning. Baldwin could argue or not, or claim it was all prejudicial

Now Judge Gull made a huge mess and the defence will grandstand

 

[mrjitty]

Both things can be true

The defence team - or at least Baldwin, should have been sacked from the case for outrageous negligence or worse. (will we ever get the full story on how on earth this can have happened?)

Judge Gull has messed up big time.

It is surely obvious that the Judge should not pre-decide such a momentous decision without a hearing. Further, she had more than enough grounds to sack Baldwin - so do so transparently in open court.

Forcing him to 'resign' in a back room play is the dumbest timeline

 

[mrjitty]

Allen Motionpdf.pdf

top of page 5 Allen's response to paragraph d.

tomayto/tomhto indeed tee hee

As noted by some lawyers it was simply bizarre that all this happened without Allen being present in court and even being consulted by the judge.

 

[tlcya]

Can't argue with your above list.

Is it just me ... or does that thing actually read that the Defense Memo said that the 2 prison guards with their patches may have killed the girls?

I mean ... the Defense Memo said some things and pointed in -version of odin-ish directions, but it really didn't assert that the prison guards did it. lol.

moo

yeah the motion's sentence on that is very poorly constructed.

"Two motions filed by the defense, one of which addressed the health and safety of Defendant Allen, and the second of which addressed the immediate transfer of the Accused due to the not so coincidental and undisputed facts that individuals engaging in Norse Paganistic practices may have not only murdered two girls, but that they were also escorting Defendant Allen around the prison at the same time his health was in rapid decline."

I though the same thing, I kept re-reading it and wondering is it meant to imply prison guards may have not only murdered the girls but are now RA's keepers? Or is the "they" describing Odinists in general?

Sheesh with almost 50 years of combined legal practice between Baldwin and Rozzi you would think at least one of them would have learned to write in that time.

 

[dm799]

What is it with this case?

Incompetence just seems to abound at every single turn. And why are things still seemingly being done in the dark? Has nothing been learned?

 

[MistyWaters]

If the “public shaming” was over unjustified petty matters or unproven issues, why didn’t the D just call her bluff and go for it?

Very telling IMO that R is not denying the seriousness of the issues, he just doesn’t want the public to know what they are, to protect his ego from shame I suppose. Ironic how it’s absolutely fine for the D to publicly “shame” the P and LE by allegations of incompetence and lying and that doesn’t matter? JMO

Delphi murder suspect's attorney says he will stay on the case; calls for judge to quit

Accused Delphi killer Richard Allen's attorney, Brad Rozzi, refused to resign from the case, as he indicated he would do after last week's hearing.

www.jconline.com

“The in-chamber hearing was Gull forcing Rozzi and Baldwin to resign or she would publicly shame them before ordering their removal from the case, according to Rozzi's filing.“

 

[LaurelTedytamer]

From the motion Rozzi filed (because I am a curious creature) I would love to see any transcripts of what exactly the Judge said to the Defence in her chambers that caused Baldwin to step down and got Rozzi so mad. No secrecy just release it!!!!

Justice for Abby and Libby but RA deserves a fair trial with the Defence Counsel he wants.

 

[Arkay]

The video is only 43 seconds, I’m still confused as to why they haven’t shown it all since BG presumably walks towards them and we could get a better look at the face. Not showing the entire 43 sec video is suspicious to me. JMO.

I disagree. IMO this video is not ours to view.

I have NO desire to see the rest of what happened to Abby and Libby. I have NO desire to witness them in fear and agony.

If it were my granddaughters I would vociferously object to the public watching my babies suffer.

LE has seen the entire video, so if more of BG’s face is visible, then they already have that information.

We are strangers to Abby and Libby, despite how much we care. It’s not my business to see any more of the video, and again there may be details that LE cannot disclose, because it’s info and details known only to the true killer.

IMO

 

[twall]

10/26/2023

Order Issued Court notes the following pleadings which may be resolved without further argument or hearing: 1. Defendant's Motion for Broadcasting Order is overbroad. The Court will consider broadcast requests by the media (after notice to the Defense and the State) on a hearing-by-hearing basis. Therefore, the Motion for Broadcasting Order is denied. 2. Defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoenas (requested by the State for defendant's medical and mental health records) is granted as the State is not entitled to such records. 3. Defendant's Verified Motion for Immediate Transfer of Custody is denied based upon the State's Response and attached Affidavits. The Defense multiple Motions for a Franks Hearing remain unresolved as the Court is still reviewing the thousands of pages of exhibits attached to the Motions, as well as the multiple hours of digital evidence submitted by counsel. The Court will continue to review same. Defendant's Motion to Suppress and Supplemental Motions to Suppress, as well as the State's Responses, will be set for hearing upon resolution of the defense Franks Motions. Prior to the scheduled hearing this date, Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin advise the Court they will be withdrawing their representation of the defendant. Court accepts their representations and orders them withdrawn from the cause. Counsel ordered to comply with the previously entered Protective Order on Discovery and are ordered to turn the discovery over in full to the State of Indiana to be made available to successor counsel. Court requests their cooperation with successor counsel in the best interests of their former client, but is not requiring them to cooperate. Court will maintain the hearing currently scheduled for October 31, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in the Carroll Circuit Court for successor counsel to appear. Clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court ordered to remove Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi as attorneys of record in this cause. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 10/19/2023

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I’m disgusted too. What I get from this all is that the Judge had prepared a statement listing issues that demonstrated “gross negligence“ committed by the D that she intended to read in open court. It would appear Hennessy’s brief was drafted ahead of time in response to this occurring at the hearing. R perceived this as “public shaming” and had a hissy fit and rather than considering the D‘s own actions may be at fault, now is attempting to blame the judge.

I agree, best plan would be to get new D and move forward. This D grandstanding needs to stop. JMO

ETA - How can R possibly continue with examples of “gross negligence” already out on the table? That spells ineffective counsel.

It sounds to me like Rozzi is having a little temper tantrum.
Just because a Judge rules against your motions doesn’t make the Judge prejudiced. Maybe they ruled against them because it was all a bunch of hogwash and inflated lies.
The ex-defense has twice leaked information including very sensitive crime scene photos.
They filed an inflammatory motion claiming RA was being mistreated and tortured like a POW and that RA mental health was in jeopardy. After a hearing the Judge ruled RA was not being mistreated and it was a bunch of lies. Yet the ex-defense continues to push this narrative.
The ex-defense filed a memorandum trying to throw out the search warrant. They included with that a 100+ page narrative detailing their pagan cult sacrifice theory which they presented as fact when it was only their fantasy scenario. This was their way to get around the gag order, by filing it as part of a legitimate court document.
They deserved a public shaming. They still do.