Looks like we've all got our theories as to the circumstances surrounding AB 'withdrawal' last week!
So far there are quite a few things about that which aren't clear/ transparent/ understood -
a. What was the original intended purpose, specific agenda and scope of the planned hearing? (ie beyond 'status')
b. What was in the various filings to the court ahead of the planned hearing - eg from state/ NMcL?
c. Why were DC and a bunch of other LE lined up in the jury box - were they to be called as witnesses and more importantly to what end/ motion?
d. What exactly happened in chambers? (apart from 'a lot happened' lol)
e. Will we see a written account of what happened in chambers as
@girlhasnoname helpfully suggests?
f. How is it that AB was allowed to withdraw orally, and BR via later written argument, without RA being present in court (chambers in this case where the 'non-motion' occurred?) to make him aware/ get his agreement?
g. Doesn't this go against his constitutional rights (by not being present)?
h. What was J Gull proposing to then cover in the hearing (relative to point a.)
Because of the uncertainty and lack of established record, I can't come up with a definitive picture of what happened at this stage as much as anyone else can't, but it does looks to me like AB had originally come prepared with HH to argue against being thrown off the D, and was looking to negotiate some kind of lesser punishment from the J for the second leak from his office.
[Speculating -]
When they arrive in chambers at 10am ish this plan goes out the window. Maybe NMcL has something in his motion which points to D breaking bar rules and ABs talking about RA case with others and breaking confidentiality rules etc.
J Gull says something to the effect that as these are serious allegations they need to be heard in court. Maybe that's what DC et al were there for - to testify what they knew with regard to these allegations as witnesses.
AB argues along the lines that this is 'trial by ambush' etc, and that he has not been afforded with either the allegations or the evidence in advance and therefore not been given opportunity to prepare a proper D against these.
Also I can't imagine with that being the case, that AB would have savoured the proposition of being put on trial and have the opposing P and LE give testimony against him in open court and also live TV. AB seems like a pretty thick skinned D attorney so he's probably used to criticism and flak, but maybe not to this extent.
Maybe AB decided that the prospect of a live TV grilling and dressing down was too much, that his credibility to try the case would be irreparably damaged and that would diminish his ability to represent RA and so he had to step down for the benefit of his client?
Maybe AB stepped down because he felt the case was now becoming about him and that he had to remove himself etc?
Also a public hearing of the allegations would likely have triggered an investigation by the Indiana Judicial Commission on attorney misconduct - maybe AB saw withdrawing as the only option to avoid that.
Don't know - again just speculating. I'm not trying to be kind or scathing of AB or any of the actors here - merely trying to make sense of a pretty unusual situation. This isn't normal.
Rozzi is clearly furious. You can see the look on his face as he heads out of chambers into the court room and collect members of RAs families and to my eyes 'storms out' of the courtroom.
HH then comes out to the media saying AB was 'co-erced to withdraw' - maybe that's the way he sees it but yet to be materially proved by an account of what did or didn't occur in chambers.
I'm not an expert by any means on Indiana State Law, but I'll take a guess that this isn't how it is intended to be applied or delivered!
Don't envy J Gull in writing the docket for the
hearing thing that happened.
