Problematic how? Does RA have any say as to his attorney withdrawing or being forced to step away? I don't think he has any way to consent or not to consent because it is not up to him. IMO Circumstances beyond his control, led to the withdrawal of his defense team. JMO
I think the perception of bias has come from the "former Defense Team'. I don't count anything they say as particularly thoughtful or legitimate.
bbm
We just are not privy to that transcript. When she addressed Open Court that very day her exact words were:
I appreciate your reply but do not agree. A State Appointed Defense Lawyer can be removed by the presiding Judge, especially for gross misconduct. It's not common, but it can happen.bbm
p. 1 of the Verified Notice of Continuing Representation filed by Rozzi, on October 12, JG communicated to D and P, that D “cease work on Mr. Allen’s case” until the parties appeared in court on October 19. This was reasonably seen by the D as a means of disarming them and stripping RA of his 6th Amendment right to counsel, as the order was sua sponte.
According to Wikipedia, sua sponte “"of his, her, its or their own accord") or suo motu ("on its own motion")[1] describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party.[2] The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties.
<snip>
Common reasons for an action taken sua sponte are when the judge determines that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction[4] or that the case should be moved to another judge because of a conflict of interest,[5] even if all parties disagree.”
Under “Notable Cases” there are only 2 in the U.S.: one in the Supreme Court and the other in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The 2 notable cases being in a higher court, IMO, reflect the rarity of this type of behavior from JG. Rozzi, who has an impressive career prior to this case, has zero reason to risk his career and make up anything in any of these filings.
Sua sponte - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
JMO analyzation of the information in the D’s motions in addition to JG’s abrupt, unprofessional behavior adds legitimacy to the D motions.
Trying to get more information (also on p.1), Rozzi contacted the court October 17, 2023 and requested a conference on “what we [the Court, Prosecutor, and Defense Counsel] are trying to accomplish on Thursday, especially in terms in what is expected of us while we are on the record in open court?” The Court responded….telling everyone to be there on October 19, 12:30pm.
I personally find it problematic to assume JG knows more of what Rozzi wanted than Rozzi himself, whom agreed to file something in writing…presumably all of subsequent motions, not including his withdrawal (which again this alleged happening was only stated by JG who conveniently refuses to release the chamber transcripts). These are court appointed defense attorneys, and there should be official filings from these attorneys stating their withdrawal, which still hasn’t happened. Some might say JG’s public camera announcement was in itself unprofessional and should have been done via official filing instead of media charade. JMO.
This is only the first page of that document. I would love to discuss other pages/topics in the motions.
Regardless, it is not for the public to choose who the best D for RA is-every defendant has a right to counsel-it is unconstitutional, IMO, to remove Rozzi when RA has explicitly stated he wants Rozzi on the case. If P had a strong case, they would welcome Rozzi staying on the case so they could successfully prosecute and convict.
Per MLK, “It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people.”
For the record, Rozzi or any attorney for that matter, can still represent RA pro bono as private counsel. This is my hope, bc this is what RA wants and because Rozzi did nothing wrong.
Even if he is guilty, he, like everyone else, should be able to make this choice. This is why the 6th Amendment exists.
JMO
Like in this pro-prosecution interview from Nov 2022 where he claims ~3:15min the unspent cartridge is damning evidence, when there is debate among the ballistics community whether ejector marks are reliable to identify an individual gun? And when there’s no apparent chain of custody for the unspent cartridge (per D memo)?
www.wane.com
I appreciate your response and willingness to discuss. I agree that we don’t know what happened in chambers, so how do we know Rozzi did anything wrong anymore than we didn’t?
It wasn’t a presser. She went on the record. He wasn’t in Court at the defendant’s table sitting where he should have been on the 19th….I presume because he left. If he didn’t resign on the 19th he should have been sitting in that courtroom demanding his client be brought in from lock up for a hearing.
Rossi has a conflict of interest and malpractice exposure, and a former client that is allegedly not capable of consent to continued representation. I think he is smart enough to know he can no longer represent this client without risking his law license and/or his insurance coverage. He’s creating a written record for himself…this is not about his client at this point IMO.bbm
p. 1 of the Verified Notice of Continuing Representation filed by Rozzi, on October 12, JG communicated to D and P, that D “cease work on Mr. Allen’s case” until the parties appeared in court on October 19. This was reasonably seen by the D as a means of disarming them and stripping RA of his 6th Amendment right to counsel, as the order was sua sponte.
According to Wikipedia, sua sponte “"of his, her, its or their own accord") or suo motu ("on its own motion")[1] describes an act of authority taken without formal prompting from another party.[2] The term is usually applied to actions by a judge taken without a prior motion or request from the parties.
<snip>
Common reasons for an action taken sua sponte are when the judge determines that the court does not have subject-matter jurisdiction[4] or that the case should be moved to another judge because of a conflict of interest,[5] even if all parties disagree.”
Under “Notable Cases” there are only 2 in the U.S.: one in the Supreme Court and the other in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit. The 2 notable cases being in a higher court, IMO, reflect the rarity of this type of behavior from JG. Rozzi, who has an impressive career prior to this case, has zero reason to risk his career and make up anything in any of these filings.
Sua sponte - Wikipedia
JMO analyzation of the information in the D’s motions in addition to JG’s abrupt, unprofessional behavior adds legitimacy to the D motions.
Trying to get more information (also on p.1), Rozzi contacted the court October 17, 2023 and requested a conference on “what we [the Court, Prosecutor, and Defense Counsel] are trying to accomplish on Thursday, especially in terms in what is expected of us while we are on the record in open court?” The Court responded….telling everyone to be there on October 19, 12:30pm.
I personally find it problematic to assume JG knows more of what Rozzi wanted than Rozzi himself, whom agreed to file something in writing…presumably all of subsequent motions, not including his withdrawal (which again this alleged happening was only stated by JG who conveniently refuses to release the chamber transcripts). These are court appointed defense attorneys, and there should be official filings from these attorneys stating their withdrawal, which still hasn’t happened. Some might say JG’s public camera announcement was in itself unprofessional and should have been done via official filing instead of media charade. JMO.
This is only the first page of that document. I would love to discuss other pages/topics in the motions.
Regardless, it is not for the public to choose who the best D for RA is-every defendant has a right to counsel-it is unconstitutional, IMO, to remove Rozzi when RA has explicitly stated he wants Rozzi on the case. If P had a strong case, they would welcome Rozzi staying on the case so they could successfully prosecute and convict.
Per MLK, “It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people.”
For the record, Rozzi or any attorney for that matter, can still represent RA pro bono as private counsel. This is my hope, bc this is what RA wants and because Rozzi did nothing wrong.
Even if he is guilty, he, like everyone else, should be able to make this choice. This is why the 6th Amendment exists.
JMO
Thanks. So if both of them orally withdrew in the chamber together, why did the judge say BR would be turning in a written statement in the next couple of days? Why would only 1 of them be turning in a written statement to withdrawal and not both?
Perhaps to allow BR the opportunity to create some form of written record that might be helpful to him in the event of having to defend a possible malpractice claim down the road (re: a claim on the basis of his withdrawal…since it doesn’t sound like he has anything to do with the alleged disclosure of client information)?
According to judges statement on record one made an oral motion to withdraw ( AB) and it was granted and the other (BR) had orally withdrawn and would put it in written form to be recorded shortly thereafter.
So it was granted to AB bc he made an oral motion to withdraw, but BR didn’t make an oral motion to withdraw, and agreed to make a formal motion to withdraw in written form (he kinda unofficially orally withdrew)? I thought something official was suppose to be put in writing regardless, from both attorneys? It’s a bit confusing.
That is my understanding from the materials that I referred to.
