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

[Caylee Advocate]

Gull doesn't need the cameras on the 31st. She only had them there to televise the sandbagging of B & R with added LE pile on for shame. Job done now back to behind the curtain.

Nothing to see here!

All MOO.

She reminds me of Rosanne Barr having temper tantrums.
Not a good look IMO.

 

[Batgirl 2.0]

I don’t usually say much, mostly just listen and learn, but I have some sincere questions. First, let me state that IANAL, nor do I have any aspiration. First question: if the court can giveth a public defender, then why can’t it also take it away, especially if the public defender is viewed by the court as being in contempt (ie, defying court orders). IMO, JG offered a professional courtesy to resign or be fired, and the D chose to resign rather than have their transgressions aired in court on camera. Second, and I mean no disrespect to the defendant, but if the defendant isn’t paying for his defense (as opposed to hiring private counsel), then does he have a say in the selection of the public defender that’s appointed on his behalf (as long as competent counsel is appointed)?

 

[Emma Peel]

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.

JMO

Not sure if everyone saw the long clips of the courtroom/gallery seated and waiting for Gull to arrive at the bench 1/2 hour late or so ... Cameras rolled prior to Gull's arrival and one could see what Rozzi was doing.

Also, MS was present in the courtroom and reported Rozzi's comings and goings, with their better view and ability to hear Rozzi's directions to his client's families - this is my recollection of MS's description of Rozzi's activities from their in-person coverage of the hearing that wasn't:

Pre-mini-hearing, Rozzi came into court and brought RA's wife back behind the bench, exited, and she had a chance to speak with Rozzi and her husband, RA. She returned on her own in tears, sat with her Mother. Rozzi then came into court again and asked RA's wife to come with him, she got up and went with him, Mother stayed. But immediately Rozzi signaled for Mother to come as well, and to bring the coats. Mother gathered coats and followed Rozzi, who accompanied them both out of the courtroom. Within a few seconds after RA's family leaving the courtroom, Gull entered courtroom to the bench. JMO

I'll just add that it seems at that moment - it's likely Rizzo didn't return to the courtroom for the 3 minute update from Gull, and instead was where he should be; speaking in private with his client's family, and possibly his client once again, and possibly with Baldwin as well?

 

[CGBSpender]

You make an excellent point. R comes across as a weak-kneed junior, not a skilled and aggressive defense attorney. Especially if indeed he had no knowledge of the leak and that was the main issue, as he tells it just doesn’t jive. What is missing is what specifically forced and coerced him to quit as opposed to him daring the judge to “shame him in public”, if he did nothing wrong obviously it would be impossible for him to be “shamed”. Instead he chose to quit.

BBM

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

"(E)ither voluntarily withdraw their appearances and exit the courthouse in advance of the hearing," Rozzi wrote about the Oct. 19 in-chamber hearing in Fort Wayne, "or ... participate in the 2:00 p.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, at which time the Court would read the the prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both Attorney Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin in the presences of Defendant Allen, his family and the general public."

"... Attorney Rozzi's oral acquiescence to withdraw his appearance as Defendant Allen's attorney was forced, coerced and driven only by the circumstances created by the Tribunal which delivered two terrible options: quit or be shamed in public before being 'disqualified' from representing Mr. Allen," Rozzi wrote in his notice to the court to continue representing Allen, calling the court's threat to frame their advocacy as "gross negligence."….”

Okay this makes more sense, thank you, I had not seen this information. So yeah, if the judge thinks the lawyers need to be disqualified for gross negligence, then she would likely have needed to put that inquiry on the record in open court, because then the evidence supporting disqualification can be reviewed by an appellate court I imagine if the attorney wants to contest it. I doubt there is anyway around that process…unless the lawyer wants to privately withdraw their representation on the record in chambers. It sounds like they may have opted for the latter.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

Okay this makes more sense, thank you, I had not seen this information. So yeah, if the judge thinks the lawyers need to be disqualified for gross negligence, then she would likely have needed to put that inquiry on the record in open court, because then the evidence supporting disqualification can be reviewed by an appellate court I imagine if the attorney wants to contest it. I doubt there is anyway around that process…unless the lawyer wants to privately withdraw their representation on the record in chambers. It sounds like they may have opted for the latter.

JMO

I notice here it indicates she did have a prepared statement, assumably for the record. JMO by choosing the option to not participate in the 2pm hearing, this was an acknowledgement by both attorneys to the issues comprising of the ‘gross negligence in carrying out their responsibilities for Allen’. Given that, it would serve as the reason the Judge was obligated to dismiss them. JMO

Judge grants 2 new court-appointed attorneys for Richard Allen, dismisses filings from former attorney

The trial for the suspect in the Delphi murders case was expected to start Jan. 8, 2024.

www.wthr.com

“According to the filing, the defense and prosecutor met prior to the Oct. 19 hearing when the judge read a prepared statement to Rozzi and Baldwin, identifying various issues throughout the case of the defense exercising "gross negligence" in carrying out their responsibilities for Allen.

The filing says the judge then gave Rozzi and Baldwin two options:

• Voluntarily withdraw their appearances and exit the courthouse in advance of the hearing
• Participate in the 2 p.m. hearing, and the judge would read a prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both Rozzi and Baldwin in the presence of Allen, his family and the public.

 

[sunshineray]

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

Yep he's locked up away from it all and his attorneys were running wild, IMO, and it all added up to egregious representation of their client. I think the judge was trying to save everyone's face by allowing them to resign without all their misdeeds being aired for the public record. I think that's where the judge made her mistake. She should have publically shamed them on the record and removed them from representing RA.
The above is AJMO

 

[mrjitty]

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.

JMO

My problem is the judge already ordered them both removed in her order of the 19th so she certainly was not honest about what had transpired.

This is a hot mess and I say this as someone who certainly doesn’t believe much of what Rozzi and Baldwin say

 

[Emma Peel]

Now that the docket's been "cleaned up", I'd like to share a quick overview of the Leak/LE/Court/Defense timeline of critical dates, and compare (see below astericks ***** below) with the Court's decision timeline to remove/withdraw the Defense attorneys.

Oct 5 - Murder Sheet receives Leak photos
Oct 5-7 - Murder Sheet investigates a bit (FB) and then meets w/ ISP LE investigator to hand it all over.
Oct 7-ish - Murder Sheet destroys all stuff related to LE investigation
- Murder Sheet calls Defense and lets them know of the leak, and that they've contacted ISP about it.

Oct 7 - 12 - LE investigates the Leak, contacts leakers
- After contact w/ LE investigation regarding the LEAK "R" took part in ... and before
the investigation was complete, Leaker "R" commits suicide (as reported by MS).

Oct 12 - Gull writes and sends ORDER for Old Defense to STOP WORK on RA's murder(s) case
This Order was not published to Docket (gagged), but was learned due to Rozzi's motions
filed oct 26/27.
Oct 12 - Gull schedules/reschedules hearings
for Oct 19th (for scheduling and things that came up recently) and
for Oct 31st (for outstanding motions to be heard/handled Oct 19)

Oct 14 - MURDER SHEET podcasts first version of first report of the LEAK and the story of their involvement and an LE investigation opened ... and a suicide, and ends podcasts suggesting that the Defense will suffer grave consequences, and secret expert source told them they "would not be surprised if Defense is removed from the case" for these very serious violations.

Oct 17 - Gull approves cameras at the Oct 19th hearing.

Oct 18 late pm - Defense (Baldwin via Hennessey) files a Memo in Defense regarding being removed from the case vs other sanctions, with accompanying documents, including Affidavit from client RA.

Oct 19 - Gull in chambers with ... Baldwin? Others? Gives Defense pre-written "you're fired" letter, with Hobson's choice - withdraw in Chambers or witnesses, etc are ready to have hearing w/ TV cameras.
- LE including ISP investigator that talked to MURDER SHEET in the courtroom.
- Gull announces to courtroom and cameras that hearing will not be happening after all
due to things that are "out of our control", that being the withdrawals from Baldwin and
(coming soon) from Rozzi from the case.
- On Oct 19th Gull also announced October 31 hearing date on various issues will be held
(rather than rescheduling Oct 31st so that Court can find new attorneys)

Oct 24th - Transfer Order for RA for Court Date of Oct 31.

Oct 25 & 26 - Rozzi flurry of motions, to remain as RA counsel, for Gull to DQ herself, etc.
- Rozzi's motions cite Gull's reasons for forcing withdrawals upon Defense - from a letter Gull wrote and threatened to read in Court in front of Cameras on Oct 19th,
Rozzi defends himself from Gull's accusations/reasonings.
- Court dockets Oct 19th Order with a number of previous orders/decided items,
items to be scheduled, orders given on Oct 19th brief hearing,
including the Court's acceptance of Rozzi/Baldwin Oct 19th withdrawals.

Oct 27 - Hennessey files similar motions to reconsider (as Rozzi) on behalf of Baldwin
- Court's Clerk deletes all Rozzi / Baldwin/Hennessey motions citing "filing errors;
counsel had withdrawn from case", strikes all from record.
- Court Denies requests for camera coverage of 0ct 31st due to bad behavior by cameras on Oct 19th.
- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE for RA NEW DEFENSE ATTNYS Scremin & Lebrato

*******************************

JMHO; JMOTheory

Based upon the above timeline - here's a theory of the Court's Decision to Remove Defense Counsel(s) timeline:

Gull learned of Leak same day as Prosecution (by Oct. 7th). Gull was kept abreast on investigation, fact-gathering.
Likely LE provided to Gull a written LEAK report prior to Oct 12th.

Sometime prior to October 12th, Gull already had enough investigative information that she'd already made her decision that she must remove the Defense Counsel from the case.
we know because:
1. On Oct 12th, Gull also wrote to Defense "ORDER to STOP WORK" and
(I'm thinking she must have) told them that the Leak was the last straw and she's scheduling
Oct 12th to decide the consequences.
(This "Stop Work Order" is what Baldwin/Hennessey responded to on Oct 18.)
2. Also on Oct 12th, Gull ALSO announced the October 31st hearing knowing replacement
lawyers would be available and on the case.
3. By Oct 17th Gull had fine tuned her "force them to withdraw" strategy and permitted
cameras for the 19th.
4. Very late on Oct 18 pm, Hennessey puts Memo as to Other ways to address this on the
docket.
5. On Oct 19th, Gull gave the Defense a written letter citing her many complaints, and at least
one of gross negligence.
(note: Gull noticed the D & P on October 12th about the "things that came up" hearing being
held on Oct 19th. AND about the next hearing October 31st.)

In order to announce the Oct 31 hearing knowing the New Defense Counsel would show up on October 31st hearing (a hearing Gull announced on Oct 12th), Gull was likely already searching for New Defense Counsel commitments, to begin service on or before Oct 31st. Otherwise, Gull would have pushed the schedule. Certainly, on the 19th, when Gull confirmed (during brief court appearance) that October 31st was a go as scheduled to the Prosecution.

(The rest of the world was scratching our heads ... if you've just received resignations/withdrawals from the Defense Team on the 19th, why not first make sure RA has a New Defense before scheduling a big hearing for October 31?)

This was a challenging timeframe; from Oct 8th to Oct 12 to lock in at least one New Defense Team member that could start work before Oct 31st. No wonder Gull used her home county attorneys she knows quite well and is familiar with their work to very quickly fill the bill. (No interviews necessary.)

All Just MOO.
As onlookers, we didn't see it coming. But, IMO, Gull had been planning Old Team Defense's removal since first she learned of the LEAK. (Perhaps even before. )

 

[TL4S]

Now that the docket's been "cleaned up", I'd like to share a quick overview of the Leak/LE/Court/Defense timeline of critical dates, and compare (see below astericks ***** below) with the Court's decision timeline to remove/withdraw the Defense attorneys.

Oct 5 - Murder Sheet receives Leak photos
Oct 5-7 - Murder Sheet investigates a bit (FB) and then meets w/ ISP LE investigator to hand it all over.
Oct 7-ish - Murder Sheet destroys all stuff related to LE investigation
- Murder Sheet calls Defense and lets them know of the leak, and that they've contacted ISP about it.

Oct 7 - 12 - LE investigates the Leak, contacts leakers
- After contact w/ LE investigation regarding the LEAK "R" took part in ... and before
the investigation was complete, Leaker "R" commits suicide (as reported by MS).

Oct 12 - Gull writes and sends ORDER for Old Defense to STOP WORK on RA's murder(s) case
This Order was not published to Docket (gagged), but was learned due to Rozzi's motions
filed oct 26/27.
Oct 12 - Gull schedules/reschedules hearings
for Oct 19th (for scheduling and things that came up recently) and
for Oct 31st (for outstanding motions to be heard/handled Oct 19)

Oct 14 - MURDER SHEET podcasts first version of first report of the LEAK and the story of their involvement and an LE investigation opened ... and a suicide, and ends podcasts suggesting that the Defense will suffer grave consequences, and secret expert source told them they "would not be surprised if Defense is removed from the case" for these very serious violations.

Oct 17 - Gull approves cameras at the Oct 19th hearing.

Oct 18 late pm - Defense (Baldwin via Hennessey) files a Memo in Defense regarding being removed from the case vs other sanctions, with accompanying documents, including Affidavit from client RA.

Oct 19 - Gull in chambers with ... Baldwin? Others? Gives Defense pre-written "you're fired" letter, with Hobson's choice - withdraw in Chambers or witnesses, etc are ready to have hearing w/ TV cameras.
- LE including ISP investigator that talked to MURDER SHEET in the courtroom.
- Gull announces to courtroom and cameras that hearing will not be happening after all
due to things that are "out of our control", that being the withdrawals from Baldwin and
(coming soon) from Rozzi from the case.
- On Oct 19th Gull also announced October 31 hearing date on various issues will be held
(rather than rescheduling Oct 31st so that Court can find new attorneys)

Oct 24th - Transfer Order for RA for Court Date of Oct 31.

Oct 25 & 26 - Rozzi flurry of motions, to remain as RA counsel, for Gull to DQ herself, etc.
- Rozzi's motions cite Gull's reasons for forcing withdrawals upon Defense - from a letter Gull wrote and threatened to read in Court in front of Cameras on Oct 19th,
Rozzi defends himself from Gull's accusations/reasonings.
- Court dockets Oct 19th Order with a number of previous orders/decided items,
items to be scheduled, orders given on Oct 19th brief hearing,
including the Court's acceptance of Rozzi/Baldwin Oct 19th withdrawals.

Oct 27 - Hennessey files similar motions to reconsider (as Rozzi) on behalf of Baldwin
- Court's Clerk deletes all Rozzi / Baldwin/Hennessey motions citing "filing errors;
counsel had withdrawn from case", strikes all from record.
- Court Denies requests for camera coverage of 0ct 31st due to bad behavior by cameras on Oct 19th.
- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE for RA NEW DEFENSE ATTNYS Scremin & Lebrato

*******************************

JMHO; JMOTheory

Based upon the above timeline - here's a theory of the Court's Decision to Remove Defense Counsel(s) timeline:

Gull learned of Leak same day as Prosecution (by Oct. 7th). Gull was kept abreast on investigation, fact-gathering.
Likely LE provided to Gull a written LEAK report prior to Oct 12th.

Sometime prior to October 12th, Gull already had enough investigative information that she'd already made her decision that she must remove the Defense Counsel from the case.
we know because:
1. On Oct 12th, Gull also wrote to Defense "ORDER to STOP WORK" and
(I'm thinking she must have) told them that the Leak was the last straw and she's scheduling
Oct 12th to decide the consequences.
(This "Stop Work Order" is what Baldwin/Hennessey responded to on Oct 18.)
2. Also on Oct 12th, Gull ALSO announced the October 31st hearing knowing replacement
lawyers would be available and on the case.
3. By Oct 17th Gull had fine tuned her "force them to withdraw" strategy and permitted
cameras for the 19th.
4. Very late on Oct 18 pm, Hennessey puts Memo as to Other ways to address this on the
docket.
5. On Oct 19th, Gull gave the Defense a written letter citing her many complaints, and at least
one of gross negligence.
(note: Gull noticed the D & P on October 12th about the "things that came up" hearing being
held on Oct 19th. AND about the next hearing October 31st.)

In order to announce the Oct 31 hearing knowing the New Defense Counsel would show up on October 31st hearing (a hearing Gull announced on Oct 12th), Gull was likely already searching for New Defense Counsel commitments, to begin service on or before Oct 31st. Otherwise, Gull would have pushed the schedule. Certainly, on the 19th, when Gull confirmed (during brief court appearance) that October 31st was a go as scheduled to the Prosecution.

(The rest of the world was scratching our heads ... if you've just received resignations/withdrawals from the Defense Team on the 19th, why not first make sure RA has a New Defense before scheduling a big hearing for October 31?)

This was a challenging timeframe; from Oct 8th to Oct 12 to lock in at least one New Defense Team member that could start work before Oct 31st. No wonder Gull used her home county attorneys she knows quite well and is familiar with their work to very quickly fill the bill. (No interviews necessary.)

All Just MOO.
As onlookers, we didn't see it coming. But, IMO, Gull had been planning Old Team Defense's removal since first she learned of the LEAK. (Perhaps even before. )

I totally agree. I think S and L were flying standby on Oct 19.

 

[Bergmann]

If any J seeks to remove D counsel there are set procedures for this.

IMO these were not followed.

Whether or not people think that B&R required replacing (I did want them replaced with more sober methodical attorneys), it appears the J did some unprecedented things which are not only serious from a legal and constitutional point of view, they also now change the character of this case - new D will have to be very careful as they’ve seen what happens when you get on the wrong side of the J (not uncommon which is why I kept saying B&R were taking ridiculous risks by taking her on); more importantly if a conviction is now achieved in trial this whole episode and the J’s conduct could be used as the basis for appeal.

What I’m annoyed about is that the same outcome could have been achieved by following due process. B&R needed to go - that’s not at issue. J Gull could have done a number of prescribed things to censure and punish them whilst removing them from the court but inexplicably IMO chose not to.

<modsnip - discussing moderation on the thread>

The actions of the J as well as those of the former D are shaping this case (and not in a good way IMO) and are equally worthy of scrutiny and debate.

All JMO.

 

[zh0r4]

I expect BR to fight this because he likely truly thinks his client is innocent-otherwise, why go to all of this trouble at this point? He has a successful practice and isn’t a public defender. He makes more money taking on cases privately, so he is not fighting for money, and not for fame since the media/podgrifters err….I mean podcasters and many in the public hate him. Although I may be the only one here that feels this way, I hope BR, at least, is able to continue representing RA. JMO

(Do I bbm when it’s not an article but I wanna b emphasize? Idk)

(Bbm x2)

To add to above fantastic points about lack of procedural due process, questionable docket happenings & unconstitutional actions by J, it is worth noting-SCOIN thankfully appears to take these violations seriously.

SCOIN (coincidentally?) ruled on another case, an Appeal from the Allen Superior Court, October 19, 2023 (filed at 12:16pm). They overturned a conviction and remanded a new sentencing hearing. The 4 page doc is linked and posted below, and is worth a read. It hints to what could occur in this case due to J’s reckless behavior. JMO.

SCOIN in appeal ruling on Oct 19:

“Appellate courts cannot ignore errors apparent on the face of the record which offend our concepts of criminal justice.

<snip>

We remind litigants and courts alike of the importance of making a record,

<snip>

"to be cautious of using procedures- however efficient they may be-without following all of the steps required to implement those procedures in a way that is fair to all involved").

We therefore vacate Williams's sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing. In all other respects, we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion.”

Also, as stated in Hennessy’s Motion to Reconsider, “The County Clerk is an elected position duly elected by the people of the county. She or he is a member of the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch.”

This raises another issue with J’s actions/messing with the docket/demanding the clerk strike records from the docket-it is possible now both the J and Clerk will face action from the higher court on appeal.

And just like that, as others have said above, J’s actions will likely be appealed. Any potential conviction of RA will likely be appealed, and justice is delayed for the victims once again.

JMHO.


INDIANA SUPREME COURT RULING OCT 19 2023
https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisi...plsJ4U6NhpSclhmLHOk5XnaRiht7OaeP-7GH-ibOZhyR0

 

[Bergmann]

I expect BR to fight this because he likely truly thinks his client is innocent-otherwise, why go to all of this trouble at this point? He has a successful practice and isn’t a public defender. He makes more money taking on cases privately, so he is not fighting for money, and not for fame since the media/podgrifters err….I mean podcasters and many in the public hate him.

All JMO -

One of the problems of politics and pretty much any topic where opinions differ in modern internet land, is that things can quickly become polarised, and indeed seen in absolute terms where there is inevitably more shades of grey etc. It makes debate over substance very difficult when people take entrenched positions and are offended by anyone who takes a different position.

I can make a list of pros and cons for BR but in summary I agree he has worked hard and taken risks because he clearly feels RA is innocent; however he has been part of team that have made a number of pretty big errors and potentially transgressions.

This doesn't make him inherently bad or a rotten human being IMO. I stand by needing to walk a mile in anyones shoes before condemning them in the terms we have seen. People may not agree with him, might vehemently disagree with his actions, behaviour etc (justifiably) but these don't make him an inherently bad person. He's been practicing law for 25 years so he's probably not a shyster lawyer, but for reasons we may or may not discover this case has seen him and AB do things which I think are at best regrettable and at worst reprehensible and require further action (if the leak is proved to have been a willful and deliberate strategy, which I personally can't reconcile as advantageous to the D but hey its all opinions, then they are likely both going to reap significant professional punishment).

So I don't personally go for all the demonising and dismissing everything he and AB have ever done on social media because if I've learned anything in my own career it is that you will always have people who disagree with you, frustrate you, and try to oppose what you are trying to do - but you should always respect them as human beings, and never begin to objectify or belittle them. Nothing good comes from that. JMO and YMMV etc.

So, whilst I don't agree with J Gull's actions in this case - IMO she has overstepped her span of powers and affected the case negatively to no good end. I don't disagree with removing the former D per se - that is within her gift, but I do have a problem with the way she has gone about this. However I can separate my criticism of her behaviour from any feelings about her as a person (I don't know her, I don't pretend to understand her motivations or her character).

I hope BR, at least, is able to continue representing RA. JMO

I think that's pretty much over as a possibility. J Gull has removed him from the board and he now has very little by way of options to proceed. My understanding is that he would have to make an 'appearance' (by motion) as a privately retained attorney representing RA, and as duly recognised by the court he could then pursue his deleted motion to DQ the J; which would suspend any further action by the J at this court, and refer her to SCOIN.

IMO that would be valiant if he truly believes in his cause but ultimately career suicide! He'd be most unwelcome in any court in IN and met with consistent hostility from benches across the state. Who is going to hire someone to defend them who is under that level of ire?

 

[girlhasnoname]

If any J seeks to remove D counsel there are set procedures for this.

IMO these were not followed.

Whether or not people think that B&R required replacing (I did want them replaced with more sober methodical attorneys), it appears the J did some unprecedented things which are not only serious from a legal and constitutional point of view, they also now change the character of this case - new D will have to be very careful as they’ve seen what happens when you get on the wrong side of the J (not uncommon which is why I kept saying B&R were taking ridiculous risks by taking her on); more importantly if a conviction is now achieved in trial this whole episode and the J’s conduct could be used as the basis for appeal.

What I’m annoyed about is that the same outcome could have been achieved by following due process. B&R needed to go - that’s not at issue. J Gull could have done a number of prescribed things to censure and punish them whilst removing them from the court but inexplicably IMO chose not to.

<modsnip - discussing moderation on the thread>

The actions of the J as well as those of the former D are shaping this case (and not in a good way IMO) and are equally worthy of scrutiny and debate.

All JMO.

I would say the multiple infractions of the former D forced the Judge into the terrible position she had to address.

I'm sure it will be scrutinized and debated forever, but I think Judge Gull was smart enough to seek her own counsel before making this very uncommon ruling.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I expect BR to fight this because he likely truly thinks his client is innocent-otherwise, why go to all of this trouble at this point? He has a successful practice and isn’t a public defender. He makes more money taking on cases privately, so he is not fighting for money, and not for fame since the media/podgrifters err….I mean podcasters and many in the public hate him. Although I may be the only one here that feels this way, I hope BR, at least, is able to continue representing RA. JMO

(Do I bbm when it’s not an article but I wanna b emphasize? Idk)

(Bbm x2)

To add to above fantastic points about lack of procedural due process, questionable docket happenings & unconstitutional actions by J, it is worth noting-SCOIN thankfully appears to take these violations seriously.

SCOIN (coincidentally?) ruled on another case, an Appeal from the Allen Superior Court, October 19, 2023 (filed at 12:16pm). They overturned a conviction and remanded a new sentencing hearing. The 4 page doc is linked and posted below, and is worth a read. It hints to what could occur in this case due to J’s reckless behavior. JMO.

SCOIN in appeal ruling on Oct 19:

“Appellate courts cannot ignore errors apparent on the face of the record which offend our concepts of criminal justice.

<snip>

We remind litigants and courts alike of the importance of making a record,

<snip>

"to be cautious of using procedures- however efficient they may be-without following all of the steps required to implement those procedures in a way that is fair to all involved").

We therefore vacate Williams's sentence and remand for a new sentencing hearing. In all other respects, we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals opinion.”

Also, as stated in Hennessy’s Motion to Reconsider, “The County Clerk is an elected position duly elected by the people of the county. She or he is a member of the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch.”

This raises another issue with J’s actions/messing with the docket/demanding the clerk strike records from the docket-it is possible now both the J and Clerk will face action from the higher court on appeal.

And just like that, as others have said above, J’s actions will likely be appealed. Any potential conviction of RA will likely be appealed, and justice is delayed for the victims once again.

JMHO.


INDIANA SUPREME COURT RULING OCT 19 2023
https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisi...plsJ4U6NhpSclhmLHOk5XnaRiht7OaeP-7GH-ibOZhyR0

RSBBM
To add to above fantastic points about lack of procedural due process, questionable docket happenings & unconstitutional actions by J, it is worth noting-SCOIN thankfully appears to take these violations seriously.

How do we know any of these things have actually happened? Did I miss a ruling already by SCOI? Just because Rozzi is making an allegation doesn't make it true.

MOO

 

[zh0r4]

All JMO -

One of the problems of politics and pretty much any topic where opinions differ in modern internet land, is that things can quickly become polarised, and indeed seen in absolute terms where there is inevitably more shades of grey etc. It makes debate over substance very difficult when people take entrenched positions and are offended by anyone who takes a different position.

I can make a list of pros and cons for BR but in summary I agree he has worked hard and taken risks because he clearly feels RA is innocent; however he has been part of team that have made a number of pretty big errors and potentially transgressions.

This doesn't make him inherently bad or a rotten human being IMO. I stand by needing to walk a mile in anyones shoes before condemning them in the terms we have seen. People may not agree with him, might vehemently disagree with his actions, behaviour etc (justifiably) but these don't make him an inherently bad person. He's been practicing law for 25 years so he's probably not a shyster lawyer, but for reasons we may or may not discover this case has seen him and AB do things which I think are at best regrettable and at worst reprehensible and require further action (if the leak is proved to have been a willful and deliberate strategy, which I personally can't reconcile as advantageous to the D but hey its all opinions, then they are likely both going to reap significant professional punishment).

So I don't personally go for all the demonising and dismissing everything he and AB have ever done on social media because if I've learned anything in my own career it is that you will always have people who disagree with you, frustrate you, and try to oppose what you are trying to do - but you should always respect them as human beings, and never begin to objectify or belittle them. Nothing good comes from that. JMO and YMMV etc.

So, whilst I don't agree with J Gull's actions in this case - IMO she has overstepped her span of powers and affected the case negatively to no good end. I don't disagree with removing the former D per se - that is within her gift, but I do have a problem with the way she has gone about this. However I can separate my criticism of her behaviour from any feelings about her as a person (I don't know her, I don't pretend to understand her motivations or her character).



I think that's pretty much over as a possibility. J Gull has removed him from the board and he now has very little by way of options to proceed. My understanding is that he would have to make an 'appearance' (by motion) as a privately retained attorney representing RA, and as duly recognised by the court he could then pursue his deleted motion to DQ the J; which would suspend any further action by the J at this court, and refer her to SCOIN.

IMO that would be valiant if he truly believes in his cause but ultimately career suicide! He'd be most unwelcome in any court in IN and met with consistent hostility from benches across the state. Who is going to hire someone to defend them who is under that level of ire?

I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t personally get offended over online discussion-so feel free to Gestalt me -I prefer bluntness. I’m way more likely to accidentally offend someone myself bc I kinda love stoicism tbh, which can come off as aloofness but it’s not. Tldr I appreciate hearing differing perspectives and opinions….I would get conversationally bored if everyone agreed with me! So thank you. FTR I have no idea who anyone in this case is in their personal life nor do I want to.

I am curious, if you don’t mind, what do you think Rozzi specifically has done that is regrettable (omitting the leak, for the sake of not much info/lack of chain of digital custody/but knowing it’s connected to AB’s office)? The Odinism theory?

Since dockets aren’t typically deleted from the record, and there are copies everywhere, what even happens? I think this will be more of a problem for J, and ironically, I feel like she is the one who is committing career suicide at the current moment. JMO.

On page 2 of the Motion to Reconsider:

“9. There have been no valid motions to withdraw by appointed counsel. There has been no order of disqualification. There is no legitimate basis for disqualification. See Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify previously filed and incorporated herein by reference.

10. Upon the filing of the Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify the court loses the authority and jurisdiction to make rulings on other motions or issue orders other a hearing and ruling on the request for recusal and disqualification. Lewis v. State 233 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 1968).”

So wouldn’t any further action by the court already be void since the filing of the DQ? Since technically, just bc you magic trick the docket and back date it…the original file dates have been observed and the Motion to Disqualify was still officially on the record?

 

[zh0r4]

RSBBM
To add to above fantastic points about lack of procedural due process, questionable docket happenings & unconstitutional actions by J, it is worth noting-SCOIN thankfully appears to take these violations seriously.

How do we know any of these things have actually happened? Did I miss a ruling already by SCOI? Just because Rozzi is making an allegation doesn't make it true.

MOO

MOO I don’t find it coincidental SCOIN ruled on the exact same date (Oct 19) on an appeal in Allen County Court, the same day as the weird hearing. There are people within the justice system watching very closely, and it is likely SCOIN is aware of the recent happenings in this case.

Rozzi filed numerous motions, properly. J did numerous things improperly, which is not the flex many think it is (not saying you do). If anything J action (and/or lack thereof), is detrimental to the overall case. Deleting records from the docket won’t make the issues brought up in court (filed appropriately and efficiently) by Rozzi go away. Furthermore, RA’s constitutional rights are being violated, so I doubt Rozzi will go down easily. If I were him and felt my client was innocent, I wouldn’t either. JMO

Re: how do we know any of these things actually happened? IMO he wouldn’t risk his career lying on official documents, and he seems good at keeping records. I’m unsure why I would think D or P would make false allegations on official documents? That seems a bit counterproductive. There is also the Motion to Reconsider filed by Hennessy.

 

[girlhasnoname]

MOO I don’t find it coincidental SCOIN ruled on the exact same date (Oct 19) on an appeal in Allen County Court, the same day as the weird hearing. There are people within the justice system watching very closely, and it is likely SCOIN is aware of the recent happenings in this case.

Rozzi filed numerous motions, properly. J did numerous things improperly, which is not the flex many think it is (not saying you do). If anything J action (and/or lack thereof), is detrimental to the overall case. Deleting records from the docket won’t make the issues brought up in court (filed appropriately and efficiently) by Rozzi go away. Furthermore, RA’s constitutional rights are being violated, so I doubt Rozzi will go down easily. If I were him and felt my client was innocent, I wouldn’t either. JMO

Re: how do we know any of these things actually happened? IMO he wouldn’t risk his career lying on official documents, and he seems good at keeping records. I’m unsure why I would think D or P would make false allegations on official documents? That seems a bit counterproductive. There is also the Motion to Reconsider filed by Hennessy.

Thanks for the mature discussion, even if we don't agree here. Yes, I do agree that SCOIN is watching closely (hey we do agree on something lol).

Rozzi didn't file the Motions properly since he was no longer the Attorney of record for Defendant Allen.

R & B risked their careers by publishing that hideous Memorandum in support of the Franks Hearing IMO. The leaked CS photos was just another brick in the wall.

Time will tell eventually. Until then, we wait and wonder.

MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

@zh0r4 Regarding your comment about the possibility of the judge and the clerk facing action: even though the J issued the order twice to have those items removed, the clerk has not yet done it.

 

[zh0r4]

@zh0r4 Regarding your comment about the possibility of the judge and the clerk facing action: even though the J issued the order twice to have those items removed, the clerk has not yet done it.

That is kind of awesome tbh. I would not appreciate being put in that situation if I was a clerk-I would interpret the orders as “stop doing your job.” It makes zero sense. I’ve never heard of a judge telling a clerk to remove something from the docket. From what I can tell via research, Hennessy is correct that the clerk is part of the executive branch (which I was unaware of until recently). JMO

Per his Motion to Reconsider:

1. On October 26, 2023, the court issued the following order: "Clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court ordered [sic] to remove Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi as attorneys of record in this cause."

2. The County Clerk is an elected position duly elected by the people of the county. She or he is a member of the executive branch of government, not the judicial branch.

3. Part of the clerk's responsibilities is to maintain a complete and accurate record of court filings.

4. No judge has the authority to oversee the clerk or order the clerk to alter the record of
court filings.

5. A judge may order sealings of filings only if she complies with Access to Court Records Rules which Judge Gull has not.

6. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin. That withdrawal is a nullity and invalid as not in compliance with Rules 3.8 and 7.0(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure. Mr. Baldwin has never filed a written motion to withdraw and will not do so. By operation of trial rules he remains counsel of record.

7. On that same date the court obtained in the same manner an oral promise from Attorney Rozzi to file a motion to withdraw which he has not done and will not do.

8. The due process clauses of the State and Federal constitutions apply to all citizens, not just the Accused. The fundamental notion of due process is notice and the opportunity to be heard.

9. There have been no valid motions to withdraw by appointed counsel. There has been no order of disqualification. There is no legitimate basis for disqualification. See Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify previously filed and incorporated herein by reference.

10. Upon the filing of the Motion for Recusal and to Disqualify the court loses the authority and jurisdiction to make rulings on other motions or issue orders other a hearing and ruling on the request for recusal and disqualification. Lewis v. State 233 N.E.2d 770 (Ind. 1968).

11. The court's order to remove appointed counsel leaves the Accused without representation, interferes with the attorney client relationship, was done outside the presence of the Accused and prejudices his substantial right to the effective representation of counsel.

 

[MistyWaters]

I would say the multiple infractions of the former D forced the Judge into the terrible position she had to address.

I'm sure it will be scrutinized and debated forever, but I think Judge Gull was smart enough to seek her own counsel before making this very uncommon ruling.

JMO

Easy to allege the Judge of wrong doing but I agree, she would’ve had access to her own counsel as this was not an everyday situation. Nowhere is it written online what procedure a judge should follow when publicly appointed attorneys are grossly negligence in representation of the accused.


i think the prepared statement was the first step. That same document would support the attorneys dismissal, as she forewarned them this was going to occur. It would also support the dismissal recorded on the case file although highly likely it was sealed so not to prejudice RA.

It does not prove the Judge committed wrong doing just because the general public hears only one side of the story from the side with nothing to lose, the ousted D.