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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jurisprudence said:
Moo, removing him and starting over could delay this probably for a year or more. I know it's not a popular opinion, but leaving him on is actually best for the families I think. Not only in terms of timing but in terms of handing him an appealable issue if he's convicted, making the families go through it all again.

jmo
Click to expand...
Not if he had knowledge of CS photos that were leaked from his partner's office. This Defense team has been playing fast and loose since the day they were appointed. I have lost all respect for them, as have many others. They are the ones who have done a huge disservice to their client and the innocent families and loved ones of the victims.

RA deserves competent counsel, one's who don't already have potential appealable issues in their representation.

Judge Gull will not be taken off this case. Rozzi is making another grab at fame and attention and it's going to backfire as spectacularly as their Memorandum in support of the Franks Hearing.

Good to know from the article you linked that there was a recording and written documentation of the hearing the Judge had with AB prior to the scheduled hearing at 2:00 pm. I knew Judge Gull would make a record for the protection of the case and herself. Oh, I admit how I'd love to hear it.

#Justice4Abby&Libby

JMO
 
StarryStarryNight said:
I am not impressed with the ex-defense and truly do not believe there has been nefarious behavior from the court.
RA needs competent counsel and he sure wasn’t getting it from Baldwin and Rozzi. Libby and Abby are the victims here, but this is RA’s trial too. He should want someone looking out for his best interest. Those two guys were not.
Click to expand...
I admit that I am trying to wrap my head around the whole thing. Why didn’t defense accept sanctions, and stay on the case? Was that not an option?

RA needs competent counsel, but if this defense team is who he wants, maybe it should be allowed. Right to speedy trial, etc.

Heck, Darrell Brooks was allowed to represent himself in court. He was a clown in court, but he maintained his right to choose his defense.

jmo
 
zh0r4 said:
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.
Click to expand...
That reads like blackmail (by the judge). MOO
 
These attorney's were removed as of mid morning on Oct 19th. Baldwin in person at the Judge's chambers and Rozzi who agreed to the withdrawal terms (I believe he was on the phone while this was happening.) The Judge gave them 2 options, and for once they didn't want to appear with cameras in the court and get a dressing down on their pathetic, unprofessional behavior and misconduct. Hah, imagine that!

There is no merit to these accusations of Judge Gull playing around with the court docket. They were removed as of Oct. 19th and were no longer Attorney's of record. They have no right to, now a week later, file any Motions to the Court on behalf of their no longer client. Judge Gull has possibly appointed new counsel by the sounds of things.

Rozzi and Baldwin need to slink back under the rock from which they came. They are an embarrassment to the legal profession.

MOO
 
FromGermany1 said:
Thank you very much! :) I'm able to read it!
Click to expand...
Great! Here they are in a bunch. I'd like to give credit but I can't remember who posted them originally.

Rozzi Verified Notice of Continuing Representation

Allen Noticepdf.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
Rozzi Motion to Disqualify Judge

Allen Motionpdf.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
Rozzi Motion for Continuance
pdfhost.io

Motion for Continuance | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - Motion for Continuance
pdfhost.io
Rozzi Praecipe for Transcript of Oct 19 Hearing
pdfhost.io

prec for transcript | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - prec for transcript
pdfhost.io
 
steeltowngirl said:
I admit that I am trying to wrap my head around the whole thing. Why didn’t defense accept sanctions, and stay on the case? Was that not an option?

RA needs competent counsel, but if this defense team is who he wants, maybe it should be allowed. Right to speedy trial, etc.

Heck, Darrell Brooks was allowed to represent himself in court. He was a clown in court, but he maintained his right to choose his defense.

jmo
Click to expand...
Because they didn't want the Judge to put their removal in public. It must be more egregious than we are even aware of.

If they committed serious misconduct, it doesn't matter what RA wants. The Court has a right to fire an attorney(s) if the matters are serious enough.
FromGermany1 said:
That reads like blackmail (by the judge). MOO
Click to expand...
I disagree, I think she gave them a chance from being publicly humiliated.

MOO
 
girlhasnoname said:
Because they didn't want the Judge to put their removal in public. It must be more egregious than we are even aware of.

If they committed serious misconduct, it doesn't matter what RA wants. The Court has a right to fire an attorney(s) if the matters are serious enough.

I disagree, I think she gave them a chance from being publicly humiliated.

MOO
Click to expand...
Good point. We don’t know what we don’t know. If the defense team already let crime scene photos get leaked, we don‘t know what else they’ve mishandled. Judge Gull exercised damage control over court-appointed attorneys. He didn’t hire them privately.

”I, Richard M. Allen, hereby throw myself at the mercy of the court. I am begging to be provided with legal assistance in a public defender or whatever help is available."

www.jconline.com

Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen says wife cannot work, asks for public defender

"I, Richard M. Allen, hereby throw myself at the mercy of the court. I am begging to be provided with legal assistance in a public defender ... ."
www.jconline.com
 
Words spoken by the judge; comparing this to R's accusations:

Unexpected turn of events
Mr. Rozzi will be submitting a written motion to withdraw, I'm assuming within the next couple of days.
(Talking to McL) Clearly this is outside of our control
See you in October

 
Also, there must be some expectation/confirmation of new Defense counsel, if they're dragging RA back to court for the 31st October. RA's going to need representation.

Late yesterday, the Court erased former D from Docket; I think we're on alert for the "new D notice of appearance".
 
Technically if Court wishes to DQ an appointed Defense, the Court would schedule a hearing about that and then render a decision.

Technically if Court is motioned to DQ self, then Court would likewise schedule a hearing about that, and render a decision.

Court can decided, after hearing, that they're not going to DQ themselves.
Then the motioning party can appeal that decision.

Wondering what's going to happen with these most recent Defense DQ motions?

Wondering if Former Defense will Appeal the first Court action of removing the Defense w/o hearing?

Can we be done yet?
 
Emma Peel said:
Technically if Court wishes to DQ an appointed Defense, the Court would schedule a hearing about that and then render a decision.

Technically if Court is motioned to DQ self, then Court would likewise schedule a hearing about that, and render a decision.

Court can decided, after hearing, that they're not going to DQ themselves.
Then the motioning party can appeal that decision.

Wondering what's going to happen with these most recent Defense DQ motions?

Wondering if Former Defense will Appeal the first Court action of removing the Defense w/o hearing?

Can we be done yet?
Click to expand...
I don't understand how a verbal withdrawal has a legal standing. Shouldn't there be something in writing and signed?

"Can we be done yet?" lol
 
The Court has avenues.

These were/are Officers of the Court.

Why couldn't she sanction them or hold them in contempt?

Asking/forcing them into recusal? How is that within a judge's perview?

Is there any precedent for this anywhere?

JMO
 
I think this was the Judge possibly giving them an out, a way to withdraw quietly with some shreds of dignity and a career. Rather than taking the hint, the defense are taking the opportunity to scream about how horrible she is and try to railroad her out because of it.

Meanwhile, I think about Abby and Libby and justice feels further than ever away. Maybe even than before the arrest, where the case languished for years with no information. At least then, the girls got a look-in and were remembered. All the drama lately, it's easy to even forget about the defendant. It's all the defense show, with hit after awful hit. If it was a film, I wouldn't find it credible what they've done and said. Instead, we're all living through this horrible reality.

MOO
 
<modsnip: opinion stated as fact>

Also said that J Gull was going Suo Moto and that legal bods I speak with felt she was making it up as she went along. Again, this is not normal and it is not okay. It has nothing to do with the D! They are not making her choose to do things this way.

Has there ever been another case where the J sends an email to D saying 'cease and desist representation of the accused upon my order' without any hearing, evidence or process...? Like the one that J Gull sent to D on Oct 12th? (Hmmm, significant date, I wonder..)

Well, like him or not Rozzi is within his rights to call this out and draw attention to it. I mean, its a major risk on his part and takes big balls to come out swinging against a J who has just tried to 'illegally' get D counsel off the case and prejudicing RAs right to counsel. J's have powers but they still have to follow the rule of law in doing so.

This is not a matter of whether you've decided that RA is guilty or not. It is not a matter of whether you like the D team or not. It has nothing to do with the conduct of the D team nor the investigation into the recent leak of CS photos. All these things can be dealt with - appropriately and properly, and without conflation.

This is about the conduct of a J who rather than try to get the case under some kind of order, has instead been alleged to illegally conspired to remove RA's appointed D from the case. This is about a J who has then been alleged to have tried to change the court record to reflect her preferred sequence of events and distort the record accordingly! This is a J who appears to have made improper comments about the D strategy and their pleadings - sorry you can't do that. It also helps with the process and smooth running of a trial if the J responds in good time to motions and IMO it appears as if J Gull is dragging her feet for some reason.

<modsnip: rude> The J's alleged misconduct is not the fault of the D, its on her if proven out - let the truth come forward as it will.

If a J is unhappy with the conduct of a D then there are laid out procedures to follow. Which were apparently not followed. Why did J Gull not report/ make a formal complaint to the disciplinary committee? Instead it appears that non-prescribed steps falling outside the code governing J actions were pursued.

IMO It will be very difficult for objective parties to review the J's alleged actions and consider them to be appropriately impartial and not prejudiced against the D (reasons unknown).

Prediction one: Gull is not going to recuse herself in the first instance, in response from a direct challenge from Rozzi.

Prediction two: The superior J of CC is going to have a fit when they gets hold of the DQ request! I imagine Gull's bench peers are going to have a few things to say about this. We might IMO see Gull recuse at a later date after some friendly advice.

Prediction three: If Gull chooses to continue and Rozzi cannot be forced off D then the trial is going to be a disaster in terms of impartiality and fairness and the court opens itself up to lots of problems down the line. I just can't see it proceeding on this basis - one or both will have to go IMO.

<modsnip: rude>

Justice in this case keeps moving further away out of sight.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 76 more.
Total: 1,987 (members: 77, guests: 1,910)

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
1,910
Total visitors
1,987
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,146
Messages
18,104,631
Members
230,991
Latest member
lyle.person1
Back
Top