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

[Emma Peel]

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

b/c they have identified all POIs.
There's been no arrests.
Baldwin is dancing around like he's got nothing to do with the leak.
If he was under investigation it would be a conflict and another one of Gull's' reasons to DQ Baldwin.

And sorry, I should have said, "it seems to me ... "

 

[sunshineray]

b/c they have identified all POIs.
There's been no arrests.
Baldwin is dancing around like he's got nothing to do with the leak.
If he was under investigation it would be a conflict and another one of Gull's' reasons to DQ Baldwin.

And sorry, I should have said, "it seems to me ... "

It's still early on investigating. There are people's SM and phone records to obtain and go though. It's going to take some time.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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.

pp 9-10 of the brief:
These purported acts of “gross negligence” included:

efforts by the defense to level the playing field with a press release after the prosecution filed multiple releases;

filing motions 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 incarceration; and

a third-party’s unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of nor participated in.

It's a leap for a judge to summarily state that these actions, many of which are their duty, amounted to gross negligence to a degree that warrants violating a criminal defendant's 6th Amed right to counsel, in defiance of a written letter to her, and without him even being consulted, without him being allowed to be present for this in-chambers meeting (even though he was in the courthouse), and not have him on the record, after a year of his being represented by them, without the required 10-day notice, and not provide counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard

jmo

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[O.Incandenza]

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.

It is much, much harder to dismiss private attorneys who a defendant has chosen than it is to change court-appointed attorneys. When you're relying on the court to provide (and pay) your lawyers for you, you give up most of the ability to choose who they are.

But if Baldwin & Rozzi are really determined to represent Allen pro bono, and he wants them to, then they become his private attorneys, just as if he was paying them. Dismissing them at that point has major 6th Amendment implications. It would create an absolutely huge and appealable issue IMO. Which doesn't mean Gull won't do it, but it's not at all the same as dismissing them when they were court-appointed attorneys.

 

[MistyWaters]

It's still early on investigating. There are people's SM and phone records to obtain and go though. It's going to take some time.

I agree, messages and photos subpoenaed from Facebook take time.

 

[Jurisprudence]

This is an important observation.

[sbm]

It's been like this for some time now and it's a shame.
jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

It's still early on investigating. There are people's SM and phone records to obtain and go though. It's going to take some time.

The information McLeland gave to the judge about RF in his email dated 10/12 (Exhibit I) needs to be vetted and investigated imo. I found that one little line to be one of the most disturbing pieces of information that none of us knew until this filing. It requires further investigation. What a weird/odd thing to say, if true.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

It is much, much harder to dismiss private attorneys who a defendant has chosen than it is to change court-appointed attorneys. When you're relying on the court to provide (and pay) your lawyers for you, you give up most of the ability to choose who they are.

But if Baldwin & Rozzi are really determined to represent Allen pro bono, and he wants them to, then they become his private attorneys, just as if he was paying them. Dismissing them at that point has major 6th Amendment implications. It would create an absolutely huge and appealable issue IMO. Which doesn't mean Gull won't do it, but it's not at all the same as dismissing them when they were court-appointed attorneys.

Agree. And, I also think Gull has already created a huge 6A appealable issue (for the reasons stated in post above). She's also destroying the record to such a degree that other attorneys in the legal community are stepping up to bring it to the attention of the Indiana Sup Ct. What a mess.
jmo

 

[sunshineray]

The information McLeland gave to the judge about RF in his email dated 10/12 (Exhibit I) needs to be vetted and investigated imo. I found that one little line to be one of the most disturbing pieces of information that none of us knew until this filing. It requires further investigation. What a weird/odd thing to say, if true.

jmo

McLeland mentioned RF's occupation?

 

[Jurisprudence]

McLeland mentioned RF's occupation?

Not that. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph on P. 2 of Exhibit I. (Page 192)

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[sunshineray]

Not that. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph on P. 2 of Exhibit I. (Page 192)

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

Yes, all of it, not just that one email, just shouts Shakespeare's ohhh what a tangled web...BR's lackluster, IMO, reply is very concerning also.

 

[O.Incandenza]

Agree. And, I also think Gull has already created a huge 6A appealable issue (for the reasons stated in post above). She's also destroying the record to such a degree that other attorneys in the legal community are stepping up to bring it to the attention of the Indiana Sup Ct. What a mess.
jmo

I don't disagree. But it's definitely an even clearer 6th amendment issue if Gull's denying Allen the private attorneys of his choice.

I wonder if she'll even grant them leave to appear tomorrow?

 

[Emma Peel]

pp 9-10 of the brief:
These purported acts of “gross negligence” included:

efforts by the defense to level the playing field with a press release after the prosecution filed multiple releases;

filing motions 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 incarceration; and

a third-party’s unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of nor participated in.

It's a leap for a judge to summarily state that these actions, many of which are their duty, amounted to gross negligence to a degree that warrants violating a criminal defendant's 6th Amed right to counsel, in defiance of a written letter to her, and without him even being consulted, without him being allowed to be present for this in-chambers meeting (even though he was in the courthouse), and not have him on the record, after a year of his being represented by them, without the required 10-day notice, and not provide counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard

jmo

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

It does seem a bit overkill.
I just think she's backed herself in to a corner ... can she change her mind?
recuse?
or just let them appear as RA's counsel and say "oops my bad last week, nevermind"
We saw papers today, where the P asked her to get rid of the D. And she did.

 

[MistyWaters]

Not that. The last sentence of the 1st paragraph on P. 2 of Exhibit I. (Page 192)

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

Sounds to me like he’s repeating what LE might‘ve told him.

 

[twall]

It appears that by representing Allen pro bono, the attorneys would be able to continue representing him despite the judge’s removal.

Rozzi and Baldwin are expected to attend tomorrow’s hearing at 9 a.m., along with the two new attorneys that were appointed to the case.

Defense team removed from Delphi case plans to represent Richard Allen pro bono

INDIANAPOLIS — The original defense attorneys in the Delphi murders case, who claim they were forced to step down as Richard Allen’s lawyers, have filed paperwork to represent Allen pro bono …

fox59.com

 

[Emma Peel]

I wonder:
Did New Defense go to pay RA a visit - and RA told them no thank you?

 

[Emma Peel]

It appears that by representing Allen pro bono, the attorneys would be able to continue representing him despite the judge’s removal.

Rozzi and Baldwin are expected to attend tomorrow’s hearing at 9 a.m., along with the two new attorneys that were appointed to the case.

Defense team removed from Delphi case plans to represent Richard Allen pro bono

INDIANAPOLIS — The original defense attorneys in the Delphi murders case, who claim they were forced to step down as Richard Allen’s lawyers, have filed paperwork to represent Allen pro bono …

fox59.com

I'm afraid I don't see how that works.
She decided they were grossly negligent. How are they not still (by her definition) grossly negligent?

If Rozzi & Baldwin stay ... does Gull have to go?

If RA has private counsel, the state would not provide the other 2 attorneys do they?

 

[Emma Peel]

It is much, much harder to dismiss private attorneys who a defendant has chosen than it is to change court-appointed attorneys. When you're relying on the court to provide (and pay) your lawyers for you, you give up most of the ability to choose who they are.

But if Baldwin & Rozzi are really determined to represent Allen pro bono, and he wants them to, then they become his private attorneys, just as if he was paying them. Dismissing them at that point has major 6th Amendment implications. It would create an absolutely huge and appealable issue IMO. Which doesn't mean Gull won't do it, but it's not at all the same as dismissing them when they were court-appointed attorneys.

Thank you for explaining.
So ...
IF appearing as pro-bono private RA counsel ... Baldwin & Rozzi are no longer grossly negligent?

Does Gull just turn a blind eye
Or does Gull recuse herself?

 

[MistyWaters]

Thank you for explaining.
So ...
IF appearing as pro-bono private RA counsel ... Baldwin & Rozzi are no longer grossly negligent?

Does Gull just turn a blind eye
Or does Gull recuse herself?

Maybe if R&B work pro-bono for RA they’ll hurry the process along, stop filing repetitive motions and strive for concise and direct.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

pp 9-10 of the brief:
These purported acts of “gross negligence” included:

efforts by the defense to level the playing field with a press release after the prosecution filed multiple releases;

filing motions 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 incarceration; and

a third-party’s unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of nor participated in.

It's a leap for a judge to summarily state that these actions, many of which are their duty, amounted to gross negligence to a degree that warrants violating a criminal defendant's 6th Amed right to counsel, in defiance of a written letter to her, and without him even being consulted, without him being allowed to be present for this in-chambers meeting (even though he was in the courthouse), and not have him on the record, after a year of his being represented by them, without the required 10-day notice, and not provide counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard

jmo

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

"a third-party’s unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of nor participated in."

I'll wait for the ISP to determine that this is the whole truth. Just these two attorneys saying it's true doesn't necessarily make it so...AJMO