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

[girlhasnoname]

Yes, AB did make an oral motion, but also submitted the Memorandum by his attorney in support of NOT wanting to withdraw. That was file stamped so it's already in Court records and not under seal. (I sent you the first page)

<snipped>

The attorneys withdrew their representation of Allen on Thursday in an “unexpected turn of events,” according to Gull.

“Mr. Baldwin made an oral motion to withdraw,” the judge said during the hearing, which lasted only a few minutes. “I granted that oral motion to withdraw, and Mr. Rozzi will be submitting a written motion to withdraw, I’m assuming, within the next couple of days.”

https://www.cnn.com/2023/10/19/us/delphi-murders-richard-allen-attorneys-indiana/index.html

EBM: Corrected word

 

[MistyWaters]

You can watch it on their YouTube channel.

Thank you, yes! found it! I also noticed this referenced elsewhere but my searches were unable to find that specific podcast anywhere so I began to wonder if it had been removed. Not so.

 

[mrjitty]

View attachment 455381

Right but these were his submissions in relation to a hearing to discuss possible sanctions for the discovery leak violations - arguing he should not be removed.

Then later in an oral application in chambers, he moved to be dismissed. i.e the opposite.

We only know about this because the Judge made some comments in court afterwards. As far as we know, Baldwin did not file any written motion before or since.

So this is all quite peculiar because there is really nothing official on the record just some broad comments from the judge after the fact that don't give the basis or the grounds for the decision.

 

[mrjitty]

Thank you for your answer. I'm always humbled by the expertise here.

I read opinions that the D brought it up first to get ahead of P's announcement of the confessions. I don't know at what point D found out about the confessions or when they learned that P planned on bringing them up.

I have no idea why D didn't ask for them to be suppressed; maybe there was a time constraint. Additionally, I don't think we have documents for all the motions to suppress and I'm not even sure the judge issued orders on all of them.

Well what would be the grounds to suppress it?

The presumption is in favour of open justice so i don't see how that is met here. Lots of the case against him is already public (as is the norm). Recordings of prison telephone calls are almost certainly admissible against him so I don't see any special prejudice personally. The jury will hear these recordings.

Regarding the part I bolded in red: a lot of folks here have been really upset that the memorandum and the leaks will prejudice any potential jury. In reality, all of that will probably be admissible, too.

So I'm not understanding why one thing is prejudicial but not another?

I think there is quite a bit of stuff in the Franks memo that will not be admissible. The defence intentionally included a lot of wild speculation to create media narratives and conspiracies. At trial they won't be given wide latitude to call witnesses to embark upon conspiratorial endeavours. Especially they won't be allowed to introduce a bunch of hearsay. I have no doubt the judge was pissed off - especially the disclosures about the crime scene which have nothing to do with the Franks application. But at the end of the day, the defence can do that. While it's dumb and bad, I don't think the risk of prejudice is that high to be honest

 

[zh0r4]

While updating one of my other cases, I was reminded that one of Laura Mitchell's accused murderers was denied a transfer to IDOC. The reason given was he did not meet the criteria. So that sent me on a mission to find what that criteria is. During that search, I found this, putting it here for ease in future searching. Bookmark it.

This is the 2022 Indiana Code
Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure
Article 33. Preliminary Proceedings
Chapter 11 addresses Emergency Transfer of Certain Inmates.

2022 Indiana Code :: Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure :: Article 33. Preliminary Proceedings

Justia Free Databases of US Laws, Codes & Statutes

law.justia.com

2022 Indiana Code
Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure
Article 33. Preliminary Proceedings
Chapter 11. Emergency Transfer of Certain Jail Inmates
35-33-11-1. Inmate in County Jail in Imminent Danger of Serious Bodily Injury or Death or Represents Substantial Threat to Safety of Others​

Universal Citation: IN Code § 35-33-11-1 (2022)
Sec. 1. Upon motion by the:
(1) sheriff;
(2) prosecuting attorney;
(3) defendant or his counsel;
(4) attorney general; or
(5) court;
alleging that an inmate in a county jail awaiting trial is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, the court shall determine whether the inmate is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. If the court finds that the inmate is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, it shall order the sheriff to transfer the inmate to another county jail or to a facility of the department of correction designated by the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of that prisoner and provided that space is available. For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.

So RA was being tased by COs, for an unknown reason somewhat recently? He allegedly threatened to hurt himself when arrested? But he’s being held in prison with violent convicted criminals?

“For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.”

Does other medical condition include psychiatric medical conditions?

As far as we know RA didn’t try to attack anyone, correct?

 

[Arkay]

It's of enough significance that one on the leakers apparently committed suicide so I think is a lot darker than we know. How sick is it that we are even having this conversation? Just when you thought this case couldn't get crazier.....

Poor Abby & Libby have been exploited even in their death, first by the ridiculous Franks Memo and the gory CS details, which had nothing to do with the actual Franks Hearing, and secondly by the release of the CS photos to SM and God only knows who else.

I hope they throw the book at whomever was involved in this. It's heartbreaking for the families and loved ones of these girls.

MOO

I agree.

It’s miserable to think that years after their tragic deaths, Abby and Libby can still be exploited by having those pictures disseminated to the public.

I have no clue as to what really occurred here, whether it was some lawyerly trick or whether those pictures were indeed intended for consumption on the dark web.

The suicide of one of the parties involved seems so extreme a reaction that truthfully, it makes my mind start to churn.

God forbid, was that person involved in more than just distributing the images for defense reasons, or instead for some secretive and dreadful purpose?

Not accusing, just speculating.

 

[FrostedGlass]

@Niner The next hearing has been scheduled.

10/23/2023	Hearing Scheduling Activity Hearing scheduled for 10/31/2023 at 9:00 AM.
10/31/2023	Hearing Session: 10/31/2023 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

 

[girlhasnoname]

2022 Indiana Code​

Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure​

Article 33. Preliminary Proceedings​

Chapter 11. Emergency Transfer of Certain Jail Inmates​

35-33-11-1. Inmate in County Jail in Imminent Danger of Serious Bodily Injury or Death or Represents Substantial Threat to Safety of Others​

Universal Citation: IN Code § 35-33-11-1 (2022)
Sec. 1. Upon motion by the:
(1) sheriff;
(2) prosecuting attorney;
(3) defendant or his counsel;
(4) attorney general; or
(5) court;
alleging that an inmate in a county jail awaiting trial is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, the court shall determine whether the inmate is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. If the court finds that the inmate is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, it shall order the sheriff to transfer the inmate to another county jail or to a facility of the department of correction designated by the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of that prisoner and provided that space is available. For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.

So RA was being tased by COs, for an unknown reason somewhat recently? He allegedly threatened to hurt himself when arrested? But he’s being held in prison with violent convicted criminals?

“For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.”

Does other medical condition include psychiatric medical conditions?

As far as we know RA didn’t try to attack anyone, correct?

We just don't know what the conditions were. I do believe he wanted to self harm after arrest because he didn't want his family to hear the awful details. We saw how he reacted after the State dumped the big Discovery on him in early April. He got angry, destroyed his tablet, confessed to his wife and mother. RA knew then in black and white what the State has as evidence against him and he quit eating, quit communicating with his family, quit exercising and showering and tried to actually eat the paper documents.

Not being sarcastic, RA is a Defendant in a double kidnapping & murder case, so it's not a stretch to think he might become disproportionately angry or feel he has nothing to lose. Or perhaps he wanted confrontation from the guard in a self harm kind of way? IDK just speculating here.

This sounds unreasonable to us, but we need to consider the magnitude of the crimes RA is charged with. This crime was committed by a sick and depraved mind, most of us cannot even begin to fathom.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

@Niner The next hearing has been scheduled.

10/23/2023	Hearing Scheduling Activity Hearing scheduled for 10/31/2023 at 9:00 AM.
10/31/2023	Hearing Session: 10/31/2023 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

This needed to happen, this case needs to begin to regroup IMO.

 

[MistyWaters]

Listening to MS interview on The Prosectors, some legal opinions about various issues we’ve been wondering about.

One reason the D might’ve withdrew is because they violated the attorney client privilege with RA by sharing defense strategy with a third party which is a major issue. There’s also indication it wasn’t only a one time thing and that’s huge because potentially it indicates Hennessy’s filing was not entirely accurate. If the defense strategy was shared with 3rd parties prosecution actually has the right to seek that information because of reciprocal discovery. If RA was found guilty, that his attorneys violated attorney client privilege would justify a case being appealed, whether or not it would be successful. RA deserves counsel who’s competent. Another potential grounds for future appeal (incompetent counsel). Reasons B had no option but to withdraw or be disqualified, alternative was the hearing would go on with cameras in courtroom, witnesses called to testify etc.

Another opinion - B withdrew orally but Judge said she expected a written withdrawal from R possibly because it wasn’t required that he withdraw.

MS not believe the leak has been contained. The public will not be shown these graphic photos of children even if the trial is televised.

To sum it up, there was enough tragedy in this case, we don’t need more.

Hopeful new defense will be announced at Halloween hearing.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

2022 Indiana Code​

Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure​

Article 33. Preliminary Proceedings​

Chapter 11. Emergency Transfer of Certain Jail Inmates​

35-33-11-1. Inmate in County Jail in Imminent Danger of Serious Bodily Injury or Death or Represents Substantial Threat to Safety of Others​

Universal Citation: IN Code § 35-33-11-1 (2022)
Sec. 1. Upon motion by the:
(1) sheriff;
(2) prosecuting attorney;
(3) defendant or his counsel;
(4) attorney general; or
(5) court;
alleging that an inmate in a county jail awaiting trial is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, the court shall determine whether the inmate is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others. If the court finds that the inmate is in danger of serious bodily injury or death or represents a substantial threat to the safety of others, it shall order the sheriff to transfer the inmate to another county jail or to a facility of the department of correction designated by the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of that prisoner and provided that space is available. For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.

So RA was being tased by COs, for an unknown reason somewhat recently? He allegedly threatened to hurt himself when arrested? But he’s being held in prison with violent convicted criminals?

“For the purpose of this chapter, an inmate is not considered in danger of serious bodily injury or death due to an illness or other medical condition.”

Does other medical condition include psychiatric medical conditions?

As far as we know RA didn’t try to attack anyone, correct?

Delphi murders defendant Richard Allen living in 8x12 prison cell under suicide watch and 24-hour video surveillance


Describes RA’s current living situation and why.

 

[CGBSpender]

So before this happened sensitive Documents were just left out?

Also why would you leak such sensitive documents like what did these so called “leakers” get out of it?

I'm failing to grasp why anybody would do this and not think of the consequences . This isn’t like stealing money where y you gain something.

Moo

Given that D has said the leaker was a "former" employee...my initial thought was that perhaps their actions were aimed at harming their former employer. In other words, perhaps they were disgruntled (maybe openly so, maybe not). Having access to the building as a former employee is a bit peculiar, but maybe they still had a spare key...or maybe they were renting office space in the building...or maybe even doing some kind of work as an independent contractor for their former employer. More to come on that whole matter I'm sure.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

You're much less cynical than me. I have no problem believing there are plenty of unscrupulous people who would purchase photos of dead children and plenty who would steal and sell those photos to make a profit. Neither side giving two figs for justice or the girls, just about themselves.

MOO

just bouncing off your cynicism...

The youtubers and podsters often allude to their "sources" with "inside" info.
Essentially, these "sources" = leakers.
These leakers are layers away from the true "source" of the leak.

Thus the source of the leak - is insulated by layers of leakers.

I imagine that "the middle layers of leakers) ... accepted the crime scene leaks thoughtlessly (just the next thing that to leak) ... and distributed as usual to "select social media" platforms.

The "critical thinking" parts of that leak infrastructure are top and bottom.

a) the leak originator (case inside guy from D, P, or LE) and

b) the social media platform (podcaster) that uses discretion with regard to use of the leaks they are fed.

Thinking through the various parties motivation - gives me a headache.
These podcasters and middle guys are on facebook, not signal; not a professional op by any means.

 

[MistyWaters]

Given that D has said the leaker was a "former" employee...my initial thought was that perhaps their actions were aimed at harming their former employer. In other words, perhaps they were disgruntled (maybe openly so, maybe not). Having access to the building as a former employee is a bit peculiar, but maybe they still had a spare key...or maybe they were renting office space in the building...or maybe even doing some kind of work as an independent contractor for their former employer. More to come on that whole matter I'm sure.

JMO

Possibly except that’s disputed by B taking responsibility in the brief Hennessy filed on his behalf. He gives no hint to unauthorized access or an office break in. He doesn’t even claim that he has no idea how the leaker got access. Instead what’s written - ”B trusted a friend to respect his office space. He was betrayed.” and then later goes on to admit the discovery documents were not secured and commits to do so on the future.

 

[Emma Peel]

Thank you for your answer. I'm always humbled by the expertise here.

I read opinions that the D brought it up first to get ahead of P's announcement of the confessions. I don't know at what point D found out about the confessions or when they learned that P planned on bringing them up.

I have no idea why D didn't ask for them to be suppressed; maybe there was a time constraint. Additionally, I don't think we have documents for all the motions to suppress and I'm not even sure the judge issued orders on all of them.

Regarding the part I bolded in red: a lot of folks here have been really upset that the memorandum and the leaks will prejudice any potential jury. In reality, all of that will probably be admissible, too.

So I'm not understanding why one thing is prejudicial but not another?

Just wondering:
D can argue the confessions should not be in evidence; should court agree, ... court can instruct jury not to consider jailhouse confessions?

 

[CGBSpender]

I am still stunned at the scale of failure by Baldwin here. How does this happen?

I am troubled by his exit being off the record. I don’t see how this happened without him filing a request. But the more I think about it the more I think he could not have stayed on the case.

My problem is the arguments for him to stay or go should be on the record.

I'm going to venture a guess that the parties probably went on the record in chambers at some point. Just because they didn't go on the record in open court, doesn't mean that a record was not still made.

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

Just wondering:
D can argue the confessions should not be in evidence; should court agree, ... court can instruct jury not to consider jailhouse confessions?

If the Court rules they should be excluded from evidence, then they will not be introduced or brought up in the presence of the jury. To do so in that case would possibly risk a mistrial. The reality is though, getting those admissions kicked out of evidence is highly unlikely based on the facts as we know them currently. More likely they will be admitted, and the jury will need to determine for themselves whether or not they are credible, and how much weight to give them.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Deleted.

 

[Trebor5591]

BTW anyone else see a glaring conflict of interest in the same LE who are being litigated against for misconduct with regard to the SW, are now investigating the D attorneys for criminal actions in same case...?

Is this how law works in Indiana?

"with regard to the SW"? What's the SW?

 

[Emma Peel]

"with regard to the SW"? What's the SW?

search warrant