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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Looks like an interlocutory appeal has been made today to the Supreme Court of IN for a writ of mandamus. JMO but I assume this means it's requesting the higher court to review the judge's actions on removing RA's desired counsel and possibly to re-instate them.
 
Looks like an interlocutory appeal has been made today to the Supreme Court of IN for a writ of mandamus. JMO but I assume this means it's requesting the higher court to review the judge's actions on removing RA's desired counsel and possibly to re-instate them.
I just saw it, too.

State of Indiana ex rel. Richard M. Allen, et al. v. Carroll Circuit Court, et al.​

Case Number23S-OR-00302
CourtSupreme Court
TypeOR - Original Actions
Filed10/30/2023
Status10/30/2023 , Pending (active)
ReferenceCase cross references
Original County Cause Number
08C012210MR1
RelatedLower Trial Court Case
08C01-2210-MR-000001

Parties to the Case​

Show all party details
RespondentCarroll Circuit Court
RelatorAllen, Richard M.
RespondentGull, Frances M. Cutino
RelatorState of Indiana

Chronological Case Summary​

10/30/2023Petition for Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition(Original Action)
Certificate of Service-Electronic 10/30/23
Attorney:
Smith, Margaret Lee
Attorney:
Wieneke, Cara Schaefer
Attorney:
Cook, Jessie A.
Party:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
10/30/2023
10/30/2023Brief - Relator
Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23
Attorney:
Smith, Margaret Lee
Attorney:
Wieneke, Cara Schaefer
Attorney:
Cook, Jessie A.
Party:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
10/30/2023
10/30/2023Record of Proceedings (Original Action)
Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23
Party:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
10/30/2023
10/30/2023Received Document
Receive Date: 10/30/23 Permanent Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition

PostmarkDate:
10/30/2023
10/30/2023Original Action Documents Transmitted

 
RelatorAllen, Richard M.
Attorney
Margaret Lee Smith
#1957253, Lead, Retained
Attorney address
201 North Illinois St.
Ste:1900
PO Box 44691
Indianapolis, IN 46204
Attorney phone
317-237-3800(W)

Attorney
Jessie A. Cook
#371584, Retained
Attorney address
3650 N Washington Blvd
Indianapolis, IN 46205
Attorney phone
812-232-4634(W)

Attorney
Cara Schaefer Wieneke
#2437449, Retained
Attorney address
WIENEKE LAW OFFICE LLC
PO Box 368
Brooklyn, IN 46111
Attorney phone
317-331-8293(W)
 
Defense attorney weighs in on Scremin:
Shay Hughes
@publicdefender_

Court would be better served appointing someone who has not publicly commented. His comment about tool marking is troubling as this evidence will be heavily relied upon by the State. Summarily, his comments are favorable to the prosecution. Folks are going to question his representation given this interview. #RobertAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders #TrueCrime

Thanks for posting -- I knew I recalled the name from somewhere.

Is there a risk that these comments might be brought into proceedings? Or is it a concern that they'll be rehashed publically?
 
Looks like an interlocutory appeal has been made today to the Supreme Court of IN for a writ of mandamus. JMO but I assume this means it's requesting the higher court to review the judge's actions on removing RA's desired counsel and possibly to re-instate them.

The 22 page filing for the latest side show. Just by glancing most of it relates to unavailability of filed documents.

<modsnip>
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Looks like an interlocutory appeal has been made today to the Supreme Court of IN for a writ of mandamus. JMO but I assume this means it's requesting the higher court to review the judge's actions on removing RA's desired counsel and possibly to re-instate them.
Thanks for the explanation. One of my other cases had an IA but it went to the Court of Appeals, where it was denied.
 
Abby's mom said she didn't have a phone.

The blood is a bit of a question mark. From Ron Logan's search warrant linked below.

A large amount of blood was lost by the victims at the crime scene. Because of the nature of the victim's wounds it is nearly certain the perpetrator of the crime would have gotten blood on his person/clothing.
Thanks for this logan warrant. I also hadn't seen it before.

Q: When and how LE determined that RL was no longer a suspect? Did the fish store timeline provide the alibi that cleared RL?

New (for me) information from this 2017 warrant:
- the voice saying "down the hill" was at the end of the 43 second recorded video.
- victim's bodies revealed no struggle or fight
- 2 witnesses who were interviewed and quoted in this warrant - with close long-term relationships w/ RL - told LE that the think the photo of BG is a photo of RL.
- Fish store timeline established by a store receipt.
 
The 22 page filing for the latest side show. Just by glancing most of it relates to unavailability of filed documents.

<modsnip>

Yes that's part of it. It seems to address the lack of public/media access to information, things missing from the record, as well as the removal of his desired counsel.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks for this logan warrant. I also hadn't seen it before.

Q: When and how LE determined that RL was no longer a suspect? Did the fish store timeline provide the alibi that cleared RL?

New (for me) information from this 2017 warrant:
- the voice saying "down the hill" was at the end of the 43 second recorded video.
- victim's bodies revealed no struggle or fight
- 2 witnesses who were interviewed and quoted in this warrant - with close long-term relationships w/ RL - told LE that the think the photo of BG is a photo of RL.
- Fish store timeline established by a store receipt.

I'm not sure we know the when, but they did carry out a couple of searches of his property and when he was held for parole violation they used that time to question him, probably moving on from him thereafter.
 
Last edited:
Looks like an interlocutory appeal has been made today to the Supreme Court of IN for a writ of mandamus. JMO but I assume this means it's requesting the higher court to review the judge's actions on removing RA's desired counsel and possibly to re-instate them.

Okay.
That's what I was expecting, based on the docket motion flurry last week.
It was an attempt to exhaust remedies w/ Gull at the lower court level ... prior to appealing to the higher court.

PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION = appeal for the higher court to force the lower court to take an action (mandamus) and to stop an action (prohibition).
 
Thanks for posting -- I knew I recalled the name from somewhere.

Is there a risk that these comments might be brought into proceedings? Or is it a concern that they'll be rehashed publically?
IMO, it's a bad idea to pick an attorney with his points of view on the PCA and shell casing being right out there for everyone to hear. Especially since those are 2 very important issues for RA's case.

Here is a link to the interview; it's embedded in the article.
 
Wondering if we'll see the lower court 10/31 hearing rescheduled due to the interlocuter action.

3 new attorneys representing RA on this Appellate action - I'm guessing these attnys represent RA's desire to keep Rozzi (if not both Rozzi and Baldwin). And likely, RA desires a new Judge moving forward.

These 3 new attnys are each out of a different law firm. Are they appellate specialists? Gonna have a peek.
 
Last edited:
I just saw it, too.

State of Indiana ex rel. Richard M. Allen, et al. v. Carroll Circuit Court, et al.​

Case Number23S-OR-00302
CourtSupreme Court
TypeOR - Original Actions
Filed10/30/2023
Status10/30/2023 , Pending (active)
ReferenceCase cross references
Original County Cause Number
08C012210MR1
RelatedLower Trial Court Case
08C01-2210-MR-000001

Parties to the Case​

Show all party details
RespondentCarroll Circuit Court
RelatorAllen, Richard M.
RespondentGull, Frances M. Cutino
RelatorState of Indiana

Chronological Case Summary​

10/30/2023Petition for Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition(Original Action)
Certificate of Service-Electronic 10/30/23
Attorney:
Smith, Margaret Lee
Attorney:
Wieneke, Cara Schaefer
Attorney:
Cook, Jessie A.
Party:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
10/30/2023
10/30/2023Brief - Relator
Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23
Attorney:
Smith, Margaret Lee
Attorney:
Wieneke, Cara Schaefer
Attorney:
Cook, Jessie A.
Party:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
10/30/2023
10/30/2023Record of Proceedings (Original Action)
Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23
Party:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
10/30/2023
10/30/2023Received Document
Receive Date: 10/30/23 Permanent Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition

PostmarkDate:
10/30/2023
10/30/2023Original Action Documents Transmitted
Three new attorneys mentioned from three separate law firms. One is "exclusively" post-conviction. One is an "appelate" lawyer. The third is listed on the Super Lawyers site as a defense for people accused of major crimes and has served on the Supreme Court's Rules Committee for 10 years and has chaired it for the last 5 years.



 
Aha.
Maggie Smith bio

Biography​

Maggie is recognized as one of the top appellate attorneys in the country. In addition to being named by Super Lawyers® as one the top 25 Women Attorneys in the state of Indiana, Maggie has been selected as one of The Best Lawyers in America® in the field of appellate practice every year since 2009, and she was named the 2021 “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers for appellate practice. Maggie is also recognized as an expert in Indiana’s Access to Court Records Rules (formerly Administrative Rule 9).
 
Three new attorneys mentioned from three separate law firms. One is "exclusively" post-conviction. One is an "appelate" lawyer. The third is listed on the Super Lawyers site as a defense for people accused of major crimes and has served on the Supreme Court's Rules Committee for 10 years and has chaired it for the last 5 years.



lol. @sunshineray

didn't mean to be a copy cat. we'll just say "great minds ... google alike". ;)
 
No worries, I was like whoa three new names, who are they? Heavy hitters for sure.

Yes, this is why the papers submitted last week to Gull's court (by Rozzi) seemed to take so long to be submitted ... they were developed by this new team.

Rozzi (and maybe Baldwin) had to find this new team - which took time.
I wonder if the state also pays for RA's Appellate team?

Also this is why the Clerk was slam-banging the filings on the docket; Gull knew what was coming down and had to tighten up her timeline and determine the dates Rozzi/Baldwin officially "withdrew".
 
Nicely condensed summary. These 3 along with the ex-D and new-D make it 7 attorneys RA has or had looking out for him. What a guy!…and to think he couldn’t afford to hire even one.

They are not just looking out for him; they are also protecting our rights.

The secrecy that has gone on with this case needs to be dealt with; bad things can happen behind closed doors.

BTW there are millions of Americans who strongly believe in what you just called the "latest side show."
 
Are we to expect the next happening is an RA hunger strike over the trusted ex-D who are no more?

”..Asserting his Sixth Amendment right, Allen had only consented and authorized Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin to represent him in the trial court below and only they are authorized to made filings on his behalf.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
585
Total visitors
765

Forum statistics

Threads
608,026
Messages
18,233,264
Members
234,275
Latest member
MaestraV
Back
Top