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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
mrjitty said:
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
Click to expand...

I don’t know if you watched The Prosectors youtube interview of Cain and Greenlee but all the attorneys said they professionally knew it to be very common for the P, D and judge to meet in chambers to discuss business prior to upcoming hearings. So it might’ve been as a courtesy the judge intended to forewarn the D with the issues (R acknowledges she intended to reveal during open court) , instead it didn’t happen since he perceived it as a “public shaming”. The judge can’t be blamed for it not happening because the D balked.

But the issues relating to “gross negligence” still remain.
 
Last edited:
MistyWaters said:
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
fox59.com

‘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 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.”
Click to expand...

Just bumping this news report. Rozzi and Baldwin indeed have been erased from the docket. Their names were listed within a Defense category earlier today.

1698357475817.jpeg
 
10/26/2023Order 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
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Order Signed:
10/19/2023
 
None of this is about Abby and Libby.
It's a circus. I don't know how this goes to trial.
I don't know why the content creators, the defense and those working with the defense decided this was all about them.

I wish there was a lot more normalcy and none of the shenanigans. Nightmare. All of it.


JMO
 
MistyWaters said:
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

www.jconline.com

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.“
Click to expand...
My understanding is the P also brought witnesses, which the D was suppose to be notified in advance of (to prepare a defense against said witnesses for the courtroom), but wasn’t notified of. Tl;Dr They were set up to fail. JMO.
 
legalmomma said:
The Notice of Continuing Representation
pdfhost.io

Notice of Continuing Rep | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - Notice of Continuing Rep
pdfhost.io
Click to expand...
pt 7

“Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin asked for clarification at which time the Court communicated to Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin that there were 2 distinct options: 1) either voluntarily withdraw their Appearances and exit the courthouse in advance of the hearing, or, 2) participate in the 2p.m. hearing in the courtroom where a media camera was installed, the national media was present, and the law enforcement community was seated in the jury box directly behind defense counsel table, at which time the Court would read the prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both Attorney Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin in the presence of Defendant Allen, his family, and the general public;”

I find these accusations extremely disconcerting to the justice system. If Judge Gull truly took them off the docket, how is she not going to refuse herself? This is extremely unethical-her actions alone, regardless of whether what the D says is true. It is also a disgrace to the majority of those who work in the justice system and LE and truly care about justice, transparency, and truth. JMO.
 
zh0r4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
It has been five years since I viewed the local TV interview with Anna W., Abby's mother; I have posted this clarification previously. She was sitting outdoors, quiet and vulnerable, during the video. She says she opted out of viewing or hearing beyond the end of the bridge. Though she knows of it; knows what was said, that they were afraid! No need to be 'suspicious' or 'confused' about this not shown to the public now.
 
zh0r4 said:
My understanding is the P also brought witnesses, which the D was suppose to be notified in advance of (to prepare a defense against said witnesses for the courtroom), but wasn’t notified of. Tl;Dr They were set up to fail. JMO.
Click to expand...

We don’t know what the examples of “gross negligence” were but it would seem neither D was interested in defending themselves, much less calling witnesses.
 
can’t even imagine what the families of Abby and Libby are going through now, when they were so close to getting justice been served

This case is a nightmare.


P.D. Oh, BTW, Some of us abbreviate some terms such as the Defense as The D, which is a slang term for d*ck or sex. Just saying :)
 
Last edited:
MistyWaters said:
We don’t know what the examples of “gross negligence” were but it would seem neither D was interested in defending themselves, much less calling witnesses.
Click to expand...
Rozzi listed judicial rules: I.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, 2.11 per the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.

I am very confused as how one would come to the conclusion “it would seem neither D was interested in defending themselves, much less calling witnesses”, when they are saying they had no chance to call their own witnesses due to the incompetence of the court to adequately notify them of the true nature of the upcoming court hearings, and have filed multiple motions trying to state their case-especially RULE 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard? I am impressed at the amount of energy court-appointed D is putting into trying to represent their client. Everyone deserves defense, it is the prosecution’s job to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if RA is guilty, the nefarious behavior of the court itself is producing doubt. All documentation should be public, the judge should not be able to hypothetically withhold anything that would help D OR P. This is absolutely ridiculous.

JMO.
 
MistyWaters said:
I don’t know if you watched The Prosectors youtube interview of Cain and Greenlee but all the attorneys said they professionally knew it to be very common for the P, D and judge to meet in chambers to discuss business prior to upcoming hearings. So it might’ve been as a courtesy the judge intended to forewarn the D with the issues (R acknowledges she intended to reveal during open court) , instead it didn’t happen since he perceived it as a “public shaming”. The judge can’t be blamed for it not happening because the D balked.

But the issues relating to “gross negligence” still remain.
Click to expand...

I am fine with them meeting in chambers first to discuss a solution. For instance the Judge may well say she is leaning towards booting them. See if AB agrees to fall on his sword (he should have IMO).

But she needs to hold the hearing. The defence does not decide whether or not they want to attend the hearing. If they don't present then hold them in contempt.

This has blown up in Gull's face because she tried to do it all via backroom pressure and you just can't do that. Why on earth did she tell everyone they agreed to resign when now they say the opposite?

She should recuse now IMO.
 
twall said:
10/26/2023Order 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
Click to expand...
“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

How is this legal? Doesn’t this violate RA’s 6th Amendment rights?

Unbelievable. JMO.
 
zh0r4 said:
Rozzi listed judicial rules: I.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, 2.11 per the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.

I am very confused as how one would come to the conclusion “it would seem neither D was interested in defending themselves, much less calling witnesses”, when they are saying they had no chance to call their own witnesses due to the incompetence of the court to adequately notify them of the true nature of the upcoming court hearings, and have filed multiple motions trying to state their case-especially RULE 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard? I am impressed at the amount of energy court-appointed D is putting into trying to represent their client. Everyone deserves defense, it is the prosecution’s job to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if RA is guilty, the nefarious behavior of the court itself is producing doubt. All documentation should be public, the judge should not be able to hypothetically withhold anything that would help D OR P. This is absolutely ridiculous.

JMO.
Click to expand...

Well if they didn’t want to be publicly shamed by the instances of “gross negligence” becoming known, appealing the Judges dismissal regardless of how unfair they think they were treated will certainly reveal all.

Who is R working for, RA or himself? How can he think he can just unwind the clock and move forward after all these pages upon pages of arguments expecting the judge to step aside so he can stay? Defense competency would then surely become a future issue is RA is found guilty.

What’s that saying - you can win the battle but lose the war. He already lost the war IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 71 more.
Total: 1,949 (members: 72, guests: 1,877)

Online statistics

Members online
72
Guests online
1,877
Total visitors
1,949
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,140
Messages
18,104,583
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top