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

[Tealgrove]

So now it’s about Lawyers and judges and not so much Libby and Abby, or even Richard Allen.

What a train wreck.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

This is all a hot mess, but all that really matters is the integrity of the trial

I think Judge Gull should do the right thing and immediately recuse so the case can get back on an even keel and all these potential issues are defanged.

 

[Tealgrove]

This is all a hot mess, but all that really matters is the integrity of the trial

I think Judge Gull should do the right thing and immediately recuse so the case can get back on an even keel and all these potential issues are defanged.

She’d be the second Judge to recuse.

You’re right. I called it a train wreck and you’re calling it a hot mess.

We are on the same wavelength.

MOO.

 

[Emma Peel]

Okay, maybe still chess.

Gull will have to pull out that letter and read it on the record; knowing it's going straight to the Appellate Court.

Which is fine. She should do it. And have the Appellate weigh in on her definition of "gross negligence".

(It's especially fine b/c she's gonna have to produce that Westerman affidavit while she's proving "gross negligence". ahem.)

 

[twall]

Did R. Labrota ever file an appearance as he was ordered to do?

 

[MistyWaters]

This is all a hot mess, but all that really matters is the integrity of the trial

I think Judge Gull should do the right thing and immediately recuse so the case can get back on an even keel and all these potential issues are defanged.

The issues don’t end with the Judge. RA will now have 4 defense attorneys.

 

[Jurisprudence]

[sbm]

"The new attorneys for Richard Allen are asking the Indiana Supreme Court to make access to court filings more public and easier to access after they claim there's been a lack of "meaningful" public access in the case."

The attorneys who filed this are not his attorneys. They are representing the people and in a way, the state, in his name. They are noticing the AD of the numerous statutory and procedural violations on the part of Judge Gull (in her playing around with the docket and the record). It's an action qui tam. These 3 Indiana attorneys are basically pointing out to the appellate court that she's taking it upon herself to remove things from the record, label things "confidential" without proper procedure to file or reason for sealing, and in the process she's also destroying the defendant's record for appeal (a big problem since you need the complete record for an appeal). They are asking the court to hear them and order this fixed even though they jumped the step of filing this with Judge Gull because Judge Gull will not accept any filings so they had to do it this way. They had to skip this step. She caused extraordinary and/or exigent circumstances (or whatever term they used, I forget, same thing though) that has been recognized by the AD in the past as an exception to them not getting a final ruling on the matter (from Gull's court) first before being heard by the appellate court.

jmo

Edit to edit myself (after time for editing expired). I just noticed I repeatedly referred to the appellate court in some posts instead of the Indiana supreme court.

 

[Ravenmoon]

[sbm] Yes. That is exactly what she will have to do imo. She has to officially remove them. However, .... they can stay on pro bono as private counsel. She cannot strip him of his private counsel imo.

ETA: (She arguably could not strip him of his public defender counsel either without due process which has yet to occur (notice and opportunity to be heard). Good news for all parties is, this trial is closer to being back on track to the original trial date.



jmo

Interesting!

Can I ask - if they stay on pro bono, can they literally do anything they want and not fear anything that she can do?

I am asking in a sincere manner.

TIA

 

[MistyWaters]

So now it’s about Lawyers and judges and not so much Libby and Abby, or even Richard Allen.

What a train wreck.

MOO

And to think the D requested that the trial be moved due to pretrial publicity. Ever since then the pretrial publicity from the D has been constant.

 

[Tealgrove]

And I thought the Leticia Stauch trial was a disaster.

That was a walk in the park compared to this.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Supreme Court docket is in-tact. The (Relator) Brief is available, as it should be.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Jurisprudence]

For what purpose would RA require private counsel at this time?

Don‘t tell me, I’ll guess… The court appointed public defenders are required to deal with RA through his private counsel.

That's how she forced them to file their appearance. It's how they notice their right to appear tomorrow. Whether she followed proper procedure or not it's done if this makes sense. So, to appear on behalf of him now this is the way they have to proceed. Not sure if I'm making sense.

 

[Emma Peel]

So now it’s about Lawyers and judges and not so much Libby and Abby, or even Richard Allen.

What a train wreck.

MOO

This is an important observation.

The Court has the cool head, protecting the process, ensuring it is about Libby and Abby and Richard Allen and Justice.

Gull has made her considered decision on RA's attorneys for the past year and has determined - based upon an assertion of gross negligence - that RA's attorneys need to be removed.
That is an extremely grave decision. It affects all parties.

I'd expect her to stick to her guns.
Let it go to the Appellate.
If she's been prudent and reasonable and fair, the higher Court will agree with her decisions.

She only loses integrity and control if she flips her position on Baldwin/Rozzi at this point.
JMHO

 

[sunshineray]

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

And it named witnesses.

 

[Caylee Advocate]

Just to clarify, I think the new D attnys Gull selected are likely fine; and I think she went with familiar counsel b/c she is very concerned about the case, and it's many investigative errors, and wants RA to get a fair trial under her watch ... not a fairy tale trial ... and not a social media trial.

If Gull can refute the Rozzi unfairness with a transcript from chambers ... fine. Otherwise ... she should recuse due to her manipulative choice to offer D a televised hearing all about her laundry list of THEM and THEIR INCOMPETENCE and GROSS NEGLIGENCE and the LE team investigating the LEAK ... vs. an "oral withdrawal this very moment".

Agree. I feel bad for Abby and Libby's family and friends with all of these delays. I'm sure they want RA to get a fair trial, and hopefully if RA is the one who committed these murders... it will be proven beyond ALL doubt. jmo

 

[sunshineray]

today's lesson:
"how to get your lower court recusal/disqualification arguments to the higher court and ... basically the world ... without even trying"

*********

Far as I can tell, Gull made RA's defense disqualification decision on Oct 12th, via email, without a hearing, and in spite of defendant RA's wishes ... on the same day that she learned the ISP investigation she ordered on the leaks resulted in a suicide.

Apparently the ISP investigation stopped there. And not a single leaker is paying a price.

But RA is.

I don't think it's apparent that the ISP investigation has stopped. What makes you say that?

 

[sunshineray]

For what purpose would RA require private counsel at this time?

Don‘t tell me, I’ll guess… The court appointed public defenders are required to deal with RA through his private counsel.

There you go.

 

[sunshineray]

This is all a hot mess, but all that really matters is the integrity of the trial

I think Judge Gull should do the right thing and immediately recuse so the case can get back on an even keel and all these potential issues are defanged.

Well I agree there's a whole lotta snakes in the grass to defang...even if a new judge is appointed to the case.

 

[Emma Peel]

Interesting!

Can I ask - if they stay on pro bono, can they literally do anything they want and not fear anything that she can do?

I am asking in a sincere manner.

TIA

I'll point out (and disagree a tiny bit with others perhaps) that Gull made a very serious decision, that is now been publicized.

Gull accused Rozzi/Baldwin for "gross negligence".

If Gull thought a sanction would solve the issue, she'd have sanctioned them and not dismissed them.

Just b/c Rozzi/Balswin change the way they are compensated, does not erase the "gross negligence".

If Gull believes this is the quality of their representation, she won't permit them as "appearing" back in her court representing RA.

She might be amenable, that they attend Court as consultants (and not RA counsel) and consult with the New Defense team until the New D is on its feet and running. But of course, the New Defense team would have to hire them as consultants.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Interesting!

Can I ask - if they stay on pro bono, can they literally do anything they want and not fear anything that she can do?

I am asking in a sincere manner.

TIA

No. They are still officers of the court and must act accordingly including, abiding by the judge's orders.

jmo