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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ravenmoon said:
Well this proves that the defense was well aware of what was going to happen on the 19th of October.

There was NO ambush by Judge Gull. She had EVERY right to hold the hearing in public and admonish the attorneys publicly. But, she offered them to be spared from this taking place in public.

The way Rozzi stomped through the court room would make one conclude that he did, in fact, agree to withdraw.

The fact that Rozzi now refuses to step down and asks that Gull be removed is disgusting. Ego for days.

Regardless of how anyone feels about RA's guilt or innocence, I would imagine that the public would support their removal. They have been amazing with their antics and side shows. It seems like many people have forgotten about the horrific murders of two children. Shame, shame.


JMO
Click to expand...
This is about unethical actions by Judge Gull who has until Nov 9 to respond and answer for her shadiness (JMO) and provide missing records. The Supreme Court of Indiana is who gave her the Nov 9 deadline. This is not a bad thing for the (ex&future reinstated?) defense, it gives their claims re: the court merit.
 
So, what happened in chambers???
Some new info here - See this section of Appellate Brief; bottom of p 9 - p 11:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

During the October 19th, 2023 in-chambers meeting—at which Allen was not present even though he was in the courthouse and his presence had been requested—the trial court read a prepared statement to Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin accusing them of “gross negligence” in their capacity as Allen’s counsel. (Record, pp.223-24.)These purported acts of “gross negligence” included:3 See fn1, supra.Page 10 of 22 efforts by the defense to level the playing field with a press release after the prosecution filed multiple releases; filing motions 4 to protect Allen’s basic human rights—motions that the trial court either granted or that remain pending; filing the Franks memorandum that the trial court believed contained “improper statements”; filing a tort claim notice to preserve Allen’s rights to seek redress from conditions and treatment related to his ncarceration; and a third-party’s unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of no rparticipated in.(Record, pp.223-24.)After reading from this prepared statement, the trial court then informed Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin that they had two options:1) they “voluntarily” withdraw their appearances immediately; or 2) the trial court would read the prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both attorneys in open court.(Record, p.230.)
Click to expand...

Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin were shocked and asked to meet with Allen before making any decisions. (Id.)
Click to expand...

Allen re-affirmed that he did not believe Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin had engaged in any negligence, much less gross negligence. (Id.) Allen also re-affirmed his desire to move forward with Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin as his sole counsel and objected to the trial court’s attempts to strip him of that counsel. (Id.)
Click to expand...

After speaking with Allen, Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi returned to chambers 4 (Record, p.202-218.)Page 11 of 22 and articulated that they believed the trial court had engaged in an unconstitutional ambush of defense counsel without due process. (Record, p.231.)
Click to expand...

They informed the trial court that any withdrawal would be involuntary and under duress because the trial court had made clear that if they did not agree to withdraw, the Court would disqualify them in open court. (Id.)Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi believed this placed them in an “impossible ethical bind.” (Record, p.232.)
Click to expand...

If they did not withdraw in chambers, “the trial court would publicly disparage their representation of the accused, framing their advocacy on his behalf as ‘gross negligence,’ casting both counsel and the merits of their client’s defense in a negative light.” (Id.)
Click to expand...

They believed such a public statement from the trial court “risked tainting thejury pool, harming their client’s defense, undermining their professional relationship with the client, and possibly creating an actual conflict for their continued representation.” (Id.)
Click to expand...

Faced with this dilemma, Attorney Rozzi informed the trial court that he would file papers regarding his withdrawal at a later date and Attorney Baldwin orally made a motion to withdraw. (Id.)
Click to expand...
 
zh0r4 said:
Wowza.

240 page document of Record of Court Proceedings & Exhibits filed by Smith, Wieneke, & Cook
Attorneys for Relator Richard Allen.

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com drive.google.com
Click to expand...
I guess the most noteworthy thing in this for me is the email dump that shows P knew about the leak before the defense. And the judge was directing ISP, even names a certain LE agent, to investigate the leak? An investigative agency that was involved with the underlying crimes--now being used to investigate alleged leaks by the defense. Meanwhile the defense has pending motions that might result in a Brady listing if ruled upon favorably? Now that defense has been removed. MOO but something reeks and I wish there was some sober media coverage of this, of the non-podcast variety.
 
Emma Peel said:
So, what happened in chambers???
Some new info here - See this section of Appellate Brief; bottom of p 9 - p 11:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase
Click to expand...

The only question I’m curious as to the answer - what was in the Judge’s prepared statement alleging gross negligence that D&G were so fearful of if it were to be read in public?

No matter how many times they offer the same excuse, their explanation just seems so shallow, if the accusations were nothing.

“They believed such a public statement from the trial court “risked tainting thejury pool, harming their client’s defense, undermining their professional relationship with the client, and possibly creating an actual conflict for their continued representation.” (Id.)”

And so what about the jury pool now?

JMO
 
Last edited:
Record of Proceedings.pdf

Chess Move?
How to put motions in the Public Record that Gull wouldn't accept on her docket to the Appellate:


from the google drive above and easier to read:

Exhibit O, p 228 of this google drive. - What happened in Chambers?

(This is one of the filings that hit Gull's docket last week and Gull's Clerk. whacked it away.)

The Court then suggested that Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin
engage in discussion, outside of chambers, regarding

the allegations. Attorneys Rozzi
and Baldwin asked for clarification at which time the Court communicated to Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin that there were two distinct options: 1) either voluntarily withdraw
their Appearances and exit the courthouse in advance of the hearing, or, 2) participate
in the 2:00 p.m. hearing in the courtroom where 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;

8. After waiting approximately one-half of an hour for Defendant Allen to
arrive at the courthouse, Attorney Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin communicated with Defendant Allen regarding the stark choice the Court had offered in chambers. Defendant Allen re-affirmed his desire to move forward under the representation of Attorney Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin.1 As of October 24th, Defendant Allen objects to the Court's attempts t0 strip him of his current counsel, Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin;

9. After speaking with Mr. Allen, Attorney Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin then
returned to chambers at which time Attorney Rozzi articulated to the Court that the
Court had engaged in an ambush of Defense counsel, entirely void of due process, and
that Attorney Rozzi would withdraw his Appearance, but that said withdrawal was not
voluntary withdrawal because the Court made clear that if Attorney Rozzi did not agree
to withdraw, the Court would publicly shame him in front of the world and his client
before forcinhg him of fthe case by disqualifying him.;

13. There are no bona fide facts or circumstances wherein Attorney Rozzi engaged in gross negligence nor was there any showing that any conduct by Attorney Rozzi resulted in negative consequences to another party, i.e., Defendant Allen. In sum, Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin did nothing to compromise Richard M. Allen's defense;

14. 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;

15. The Court's pre-meditated ambush of the Defense, placed Attorneys

Rozzi, Baldwin and the client, Richard Allen,

in most compromising position. The trial Court's stated intention to read prepared statement criticizing defense counsel created an impossible ethical bind. If counsel did not agree to withdraw in chambers,the trial Court would publicly disparage their representation of the accused, framing their advocacy on his behalf as "gross negligence," casting both counsel and the merits
of their client's defense in negative light. This public statement and circumstance
created by the trial Court risked tainting the jury pool, harming their client's defense,
undermining their professional relationship with the client, and possibly creating an
actual conflict for their continued representation;
Click to expand...
 
Record of Proceedings.pdf
^ this links to the google drive for the appellate exhibit submissions
See Exhibit I, page 190.

NEW - Email Chain ... Where upon All the Parties learn about the LEAK and it gets dramatic.

I feel like I should not copy the entire email chain ... but y'all need to go to the google drive and read Exhibit I ... it's in reverse Chron order. Names of the Leakers, and Prosecution's narrative on the ISP investigation of the leak is in these docs.

Stuff for the timeline:

Oct 12, STOP WORK was a request via an email, upon Gull learning via email about the suicide.
Oct 6, Defense alerts Court of the Leak.
Prosecution knew 30 hours before Defense knew, had already started the Leak investigation, and didn't bother to alert the Defense.
Oct 4/5, Prosecution/LE starts Leak investigation.
 
Last edited:
abams said:
I guess the most noteworthy thing in this for me is the email dump that shows P knew about the leak before the defense. And the judge was directing ISP, even names a certain LE agent, to investigate the leak? An investigative agency that was involved with the underlying crimes--now being used to investigate alleged leaks by the defense. Meanwhile the defense has pending motions that might result in a Brady listing if ruled upon favorably? Now that defense has been removed. MOO but something reeks and I wish there was some sober media coverage of this, of the non-podcast variety.
Click to expand...
There is a memo from Rozzi dated Oct 6th to the Judge and P that they were 'concerned' of a potential leak (see page 193 of the download), so the P didn't know before the D, the Judge replied to all parties on the 8th and the P responded on the 12th after one of the leakers committed suicide.

Curiously, who else at this point should have investigated a leak of this nature than ISP, certainly not local LE?

MOO
 
MistyWaters said:
The only question I’m curious as to the answer - what was in the Judge’s prepared statement alleging gross negligence that D&G were so fearful of if it were to be read in public?

No matter how many times they offer the same excuse, their explanation just seems so shallow, if the accusations were nothing.

“They believed such a public statement from the trial court “risked tainting thejury pool, harming their client’s defense, undermining their professional relationship with the client, and possibly creating an actual conflict for their continued representation.” (Id.)”

And so what about the jury pool now?

JMO
Click to expand...

I agree this is odd

The Defence don't get to decide if a disqualification hearing will take place
 
girlhasnoname said:
There is a memo from Rozzi dated Oct 6th to the Judge and P that they were 'concerned' of a potential leak (see page 193 of the download), so the P didn't know before the D, the Judge replied to all parties on the 8th and the P responded on the 12th after one of the leakers committed suicide.

Curiously, who else at this point should have investigated a leak of this nature than ISP, certainly not local LE?

MOO
Click to expand...
I'm looking at the email at the beginning of the chain, dated Friday 10/6/23 from Rozzi. " ...We just learned of this in the last hour. I immediately called Nick and informed him of the circumstance. Turns out, Nick has known about this for the past 24-30 hours or so. He informed me they are looking into the matter."
So I read this as, yes, P did in fact know about it before the defense attorneys. It makes sense, too, considering some recipients claim they were good and duly notified/turned the materials over to LE.
What do you mean leak of this nature? I think basically any police outfit could investigate it for the court if deemed necessary, no? I wouldn't invite the conflict of interest.
 
mrjitty said:
I agree this is odd

The Defence don't get to decide if a disqualification hearing will take place
Click to expand...

No the D shouldn’t get to decide if a disqualification hearing will take place, especially as it appears the Judge has the right to disqualify public defenders who commit gross negligence in the representation of their client (according to Henneessy’s brief Oct 18). Instead they withdrew rather than publicly face whatever was in the judges prepared statement.

It’s not as if Judge Gull unilaterally demanded they revoke their licence to practise on behalf of the Bar.

The issue even now isn’t that a hearing wasn’t held, as far as I can tell, it’s that RA wants to keep their representation. JMO
 
Last edited:
abams said:
I'm looking at the email at the beginning of the chain, dated Friday 10/6/23 from Rozzi. " ...We just learned of this in the last hour. I immediately called Nick and informed him of the circumstance. Turns out, Nick has known about this for the past 24-30 hours or so. He informed me they are looking into the matter."
So I read this as, yes, P did in fact know about it before the defense attorneys. It makes sense, too, considering some recipients claim they were good and duly notified/turned the materials over to LE.
What do you mean leak of this nature? I think basically any police outfit could investigate it for the court if deemed necessary, no? I wouldn't invite the conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
I meant with the gag order in place who else should have investigated this?

I reread and see where you're reading from the same memo that Rozzi said the P already knew. I would say there's nothing nefarious about that, they could have been informed, rightly so, by any of the recipients of the leaked photos.
 
zh0r4 said:
This is about unethical actions by Judge Gull who has until Nov 9 to respond and answer for her shadiness (JMO) and provide missing records. The Supreme Court of Indiana is who gave her the Nov 9 deadline. This is not a bad thing for the (ex&future reinstated?) defense, it gives their claims re: the court merit.
Click to expand...

This is unethical:

Making accusations that RA is being kept in conditions on par with being a prisoner of war.

Creating a story that revolves around a cult group that are "THE REAL murderers ."

'Leaking" a 200 plus page court document that was not meant to be public.
Knowing that the information in said document continuously points out the slow suffering death of a 13 year old girl.
Knowing that said document NAMES people in the community that will now be targeted forever.

Allowing friends to have free access to everything that happened to 2 children during their murder, and allowing this friend enough time to photograph and distribute photos of 2 dead children.

Not unethical enough? Well, let's add in the suicide of a family man that was next in line to receive the photos. His family now lives without him.
AB knew he was WRONG. He willingly withdrew from the case.

Rozzi, apparently, is doing all he can to stay in the center of attention. Clown, IMO, BUT it's not funny. It's appalling.


JMO
 
abams said:
I'm looking at the email at the beginning of the chain, dated Friday 10/6/23 from Rozzi. " ...We just learned of this in the last hour. I immediately called Nick and informed him of the circumstance. Turns out, Nick has known about this for the past 24-30 hours or so. He informed me they are looking into the matter."
So I read this as, yes, P did in fact know about it before the defense attorneys. It makes sense, too, considering some recipients claim they were good and duly notified/turned the materials over to LE.
What do you mean leak of this nature? I think basically any police outfit could investigate it for the court if deemed necessary, no? I wouldn't invite the conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Why would a Detective from ISP represent a conflict of interest? Not every ISP Detective investigated this case. I'm confused...

MOO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 174 more.
Total: 498 (members: 175, guests: 323)

Online statistics

Members online
175
Guests online
323
Total visitors
498
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,007
Messages
18,233,066
Members
234,273
Latest member
Thaeinvehr
Back
Top