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

[MistyWaters]

I note that the 30 days to respond to the motion requesting a Franks hearing is almost up.

Does that mean that we can expect a response from J Gull soon, or if not is the matter then applicable for referral to a superior court?

Presently RA isn’t represented by anyone so who’s going to refer anything to a superior court? I would think everything is in a state of limbo until new defense is appointed and expresses their intention of continuing or not any and all outstanding matters introduced by the ex-D.

Appointing new D would be the #1 priority right now, I would think. They will not obliged to fill the same shoes and continue exactly where the ex-D left off.


JMO

 

[legalmomma]

10/23/2023

Hearing Scheduling Activity Hearing scheduled for 10/31/2023 at 9:00 AM. Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access public.courts.in.gov

 

[FrostedGlass]

I don't generally pay attention as to what court hears murder cases; I follow murder cases out of Elkhart Co and those are heard in circuit court.

Indiana court system.

Indiana Case Law

Indiana Case Law

law.justia.com

 

[Bergmann]

Presently RA isn’t represented by anyone at the moment

Open question for more legally minded - is that strictly true in a legal sense? AB has withdrawn orally but that still has to go through court procedure I'd have imagined?

I assume the court docket hasn't changed with regard to RA's D until J Gull writes this?

BR indicated he is going to withdraw formally by submitting a written motion to the court as such, but has yet to do so.

Until then could either conduct any action at all on behalf of RA? (not the 31st hearing) Or does the court regard them officially as de facto removed as D without motion?

Agree that nominating a new D is urgent but AFAIK the fact that RA is without D doesn't remove the motion for Franks hearing off the docket? J Gull can choose what to cover at the 31/10 hearing appropriate to whether RA has representation or not.

JMO but I can't see many new D counsels not wanting to go forward with the actual material allegations within the 136p memo even if they disagree or don't want to pursue the other lines like Odinist SODDI etc. Regardless of your POV, from a D team perspective trying to get that SW off the table is a no-brainer IMO (separate to questions of probability of success/ failure).

 

[MistyWaters]

New Murder Sheet episode, interview with leaker recorded March 2023.

The Delphi Murders: A March 2023 Interview with Alleged Delphi Leaker Mitch Westerman

Months ago, we interviewed Mitch Westerman for a profile we did on Delphi defense attorney Andrew Baldwin. We used portions of that on-the-record conversation in the profile, and are released the full-profile here. Keep in mind, our audio sounds really quiet. We tried our best to improve the...

art19.com

Well he’s certainly a talker….on and on. So I’m imaging him in a private FB group and he‘s glowing as the centre of attention due to his legal knowledge and close association to AB.

Just by knowing AB’s ‘style’, he had to have anticipated just by dropping for a chat that he’d learn at least some inside info about the Delphi case and it appears he indeed hit the jackpot. Real tough lesson for AB.

MW should be facing legal consequences, without a doubt. IMO

 

[MistyWaters]

Open question for more legally minded - is that strictly true in a legal sense? AB has withdrawn orally but that still has to go through court procedure I'd have imagined?

I assume the court docket hasn't changed with regard to RA's D until J Gull writes this?

BR indicated he is going to withdraw formally by submitting a written motion to the court as such, but has yet to do so.

Until then could either conduct any action at all on behalf of RA? (not the 31st hearing) Or does the court regard them officially as de facto removed as D without motion?

Agree that nominating a new D is urgent but AFAIK the fact that RA is without D doesn't remove the motion for Franks hearing off the docket? J Gull can choose what to cover at the 31/10 hearing appropriate to whether RA has representation or not.

JMO but I can't see many new D counsels not wanting to go forward with the actual material allegations within the 136p memo even if they disagree or don't want to pursue the other lines like Odinist SODDI etc. Regardless of your POV, from a D team perspective trying to get that SW off the table is a no-brainer IMO (separate to questions of probability of success/ failure).

If RA isn’t represented by counsel during hearings, I’d think any Judge’s decisions would be at risk of getting thrown out. You will recall the Judge wouldn’t even allow RA to enter into the courtroom after his D withdrew. So how would that work, the Judge and the prosecution alone in hearings?

The Judge is not obliged to hold a Frank’s Hearing. She hasn’t ruled on the ex-Ds request for one to be held.

We’ll learn more in the coming days I’m sure.

 

[Bergmann]

If RA isn’t represented by counsel during hearings, I’d think any Judge’s decisions would be at risk of getting thrown out

Oh agree, I wasn't suggesting that. My question was whether it was strictly true that RA had no counsel until the court documents reflect that.

You will recall the Judge wouldn’t even allow RA to enter into the courtroom after his D withdrew

The J also wouldn't allow RA in the courtroom/ chambers when his D was withdrawing (presumably without his knowledge and consent due to his earlier submission). IMO this is potentially problematic.

The Judge is not obliged to hold a Frank’s Hearing

I know. But as per my actual question, she is obliged to respond to a motion for one. I was also questioning whether IN S law stipulates time frames for response and recourse if these are not met.

My key point was that nothing in the non-hearing and the withdrawal of AB changes that the motion for Franks hearing is still live on the docket (until and unless something changes eg like a new D and a motion to withdraw the request).

That pesky Franks hearing isn't going anywhere anytime soon IMO unless J Gull rules that the request does not meet the appropriate standard or some other rationale.

 

[girlhasnoname]

From the MS Podcast - MW the 'leaker' was tough to listen to. On one hand he's regaling stories of his past with AB, their strategies on other cases which would develop at the last minute oftentimes, about honesty and ethics, and now we know he's been caught in a big ole' fat lie and a huge, illegal activity of his own.

MW NEVER even passed the bar exam, he's not a licensed attorney. That tells me all I need to know about this dude. To what degree did AB know or was involved, I think more than being caught completely unaware by some 'trusted friend', but who knows at this point?

These photos were leaked to several other people and also MS. I suspect we will see some charges come out of this and it sickens me that anybody in connection with the Defense would do such an unethical, exploitative, and heartless thing.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

From the MS Podcast - MW the 'leaker' was tough to listen to. On one hand he's regaling stories of his past with AB, their strategies on other cases which would develop at the last minute oftentimes, about honesty and ethics, and now we know he's been caught in a big ole' fat lie and a huge, illegal activity of his own.

MW NEVER even passed the bar exam, he's not a licensed attorney. That tells me all I need to know about this dude. To what degree did AB know or was involved, I think more than being caught completely unaware by some 'trusted friend', but who knows at this point?

These photos were leaked to several other people and also MS. I suspect we will see some charges come out of this and it sickens me that anybody in connection with the Defense would do such an unethical, exploitative, and heartless thing.

JMO

I'm not a legal bod of any kind, but that sounds to me like career ending stuff for AB, potentially. It shows a pattern of behaviour. I'm hoping it doesn't lead to a bunch of retrials of past clients, for the sake of the victims.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

From the MS Podcast - MW the 'leaker' was tough to listen to. On one hand he's regaling stories of his past with AB, their strategies on other cases which would develop at the last minute oftentimes, about honesty and ethics, and now we know he's been caught in a big ole' fat lie and a huge, illegal activity of his own.

MW NEVER even passed the bar exam, he's not a licensed attorney. That tells me all I need to know about this dude. To what degree did AB know or was involved, I think more than being caught completely unaware by some 'trusted friend', but who knows at this point?

These photos were leaked to several other people and also MS. I suspect we will see some charges come out of this and it sickens me that anybody in connection with the Defense would do such an unethical, exploitative, and heartless thing.

JMO

Just my own opinion, I don’t think AB was knowingly involved. I’d give him a pass as leaking a few crime scene photos wouldn’t be worth potentially destroying his good reputation and entire career.

What happened I think is people sometime get too bogged down with routine and overlook the fact there are sharks in the waters, like MW, awaiting an opportunity to snap. I can envision AB perceiving case discovery to simply be product to work with, really not any different than the recent $20 million gold heist from Toronto that was handled as if it simply a large, heavy package.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Interesting reading: Attorney Disciplinary Cases
There's only 25 listed for 2023

Orders and Opinions in Attorney Disciplinary Cases

www.in.gov

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Well he’s certainly a talker….on and on. So I’m imaging him in a private FB group and he‘s glowing as the centre of attention due to his legal knowledge and close association to AB.

Just by knowing AB’s ‘style’, he had to have anticipated just by dropping for a chat that he’d learn at least some inside info about the Delphi case and it appears he indeed hit the jackpot. Real tough lesson for AB.

MW should be facing legal consequences, without a doubt. IMO

Why has MW not been charged with anything yet? What this guy did did cannot be legal. If it was, leaking like this would happen all the time.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I feel D was involved by contributory negligence. Allowing someone not in direct employ in the defense of this case to have access to extremely sensitive photographs and information is more than a slight oversight it’s a hefty offense. Especially if/when the investigation finds out just how many it was ultimately distributed to and possibly included compensation.
To me, it speaks to the overall fast and loose and often chaotic handling of this defense team from day one.
IMO they didn’t perform in the best interest of their client. Ultimately, how could they bring errors of P out in trial when the D had such a colossal wreck of their own doing. Splinter<Log.

It's his firm so moo, he certainly bears some responsibility here. No doubt. She could have sanctioned him though. His memo (by his hired atty) made it clear that he wanted to stay on and would be willing to face sanctions. After all of that time invested, and being so close to trial, this is a dagger to all sides except perhaps the state if they get replacement counsel that abandons the theory of the defense. And, if we play that out, and the new defense theory is loose and fast for whatever reason (too many cases, not enough time to dedicate to it) without that deep dive that Baldwin and Rozzi engaged in, RA may easily be convicted, but he may also easily get an appealable issue handed to him. So, this is a bad situation for the families and RA alike.

My understanding of the photos is that they were extremely graphic cs photos that depicted the children. I can't see the defense wanting those leaked. After being so methodical in their preparation and investigation to leak photos that would enrage the public and possibly instill a demand that justice be done and their client be convicted without considering anything else the defense team found just doesn't make good sense to me. But, that's purely a guess. If there is evidence that he orchestrated this though, I would be surprised.

All jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

Interesting reading: Attorney Disciplinary Cases
There's only 25 listed for 2023

Orders and Opinions in Attorney Disciplinary Cases

www.in.gov

Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct

Here’s a the link for the underlying Indiana Rules of Court which also outlines professional conduct - for general interest only.

 

[tlcya]

LORT, just listening to the podcast with Mitch, the leak, Westerman. This guy must have been near soiling himself with excitement to be on a podcast talking about his association with Baldwin and "the team".

Loves to talk, loves to hear himself talk, thinks quite highly of himself even though he never passed the bar and is not able to practice as an attorney.

What I don't understand is how Baldwin could imagine him to be trustworthy. Why on earth would he let THIS GUY onto his "team" and further, let this yaywho run his law office??

ugggh, this podcast is so much longer and I can't stand hearing him just continue to go on and on and on about the chapter method. Seeds of thought. It's so obnoxious. I am trying to get through it but good gravy Baldwin is a horrible judge of character. Mitch is insufferable.

 

[FrostedGlass]

LORT, just listening to the podcast with Mitch, the leak, Westerman. This guy must have been near soiling himself with excitement to be on a podcast talking about his association with Baldwin and "the team".

Loves to talk, loves to hear himself talk, thinks quite highly of himself even though he never passed the bar and is not able to practice as an attorney.

What I don't understand is how Baldwin could imagine him to be trustworthy. Why on earth would he let THIS GUY onto his "team" and further, let this yaywho run his law office??

ugggh, this podcast is so much longer and I can't stand hearing him just continue to go on and on and on about the chapter method. Seeds of thought. It's so obnoxious. I am trying to get through it but good gravy Baldwin is a horrible judge of character. Mitch is insufferable.

Can you give him a break? He has at least one friend. lol

 

[tlcya]

I made through half the podcast. I am done, that is a half hour I will never get back.

 

[Emma Peel]

Just looking at this timeline; WHEN was the Court informed of the LEAK?

10/12/2023

Correspondence to/from Court Filed Correspondence to Court Filed By: Allen, Richard M.

10/12/2023

Order Issued On the Courts motion, this cause is ordered set for status hearing on October 19, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in the Allen Superior Court. Counsel ordered to arrange their schedules to appear. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the up coming hearing on October 31, 2023 and other matters which have recently arisen. Court will prepare a transport order to have Defendant appear. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

10/19/2023	Status Hearing Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Rescheduled Session: 10/19/2023 2:00 PM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Comment: To be held in Allen Superior D05
10/19/2023	Affidavit Filed Affidavit Filed By: Allen, Richard M.
10/19/2023	Temporary/Limited Scope Appearance Filed Limited Appearance Form For Party: Allen, Richard M.
10/19/2023	Memorandum/Brief Filed MEMORANDUM REGARDING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION OR SANCTIONS Filed By: Allen, Richard M.

First, see 10/12 docket entries above; a week before 10/19:
In RED we see the decision that the 10/19 hearing is scheduled and ... it would address "other matters which have recently arisen" and some type of Correspondence to Court filed from Defense bear the same date.

(10/12 here, there's been a decision to add other matters to the upcoming 10/19 hearing)

Then, we see last minute 10/19 docket entry:
The next thing Defense files is the MEMORANDUM REGARDING POSSIBLE DISQUALIFICATION OR SANCTIONS

Begs the question: What happened prior to 10/12/2023 above?
I think we can surmise that ... there's been other discussion between the parties - prior to filing the 10/12 scheduling order - likely a conference where Leak is discussed. (perhaps at a scheduling conference that is not recorded on this docket?)

(Q ? Scheduling conferences don't necessarily make it to the docket; b/c the resulting scheduling order does).

Theory:
- Scheduling conference (or such) on or prior to 10/12/23, when we see correspondence from Defense and the Court's scheduling notice ... where Court is advised of leak.
- Prosecution came loaded for bear on 10/19 expecting a hearing.
- Defense hired Hennessey and prepped/expected to quash the hearing with a memo-plea to Court to skip hearing and sanction.

MOO.

 

[TL4S]

This is strictly JMO, but in the new MS episode with MW, I feel like we might be getting a hint at a possible motivation for the leak, although MW might not have known that at the time of the interview (March). Beginning around mm 00:58:00 and up to nearly the end, he delves into the importance of defense attorneys in keeping LE and prosecutors in check. He talks quite a bit about LE, specifically, not doing things correctly, construing things the way they want, and how much power they and the prosecutors have in small towns. IDK...he even says he and his "friends" talk a lot about it.

Just looking at the timing of the leak around the Franks hearing, it makes sense to me that he was likely supporting the D (in regards to the Franks issues), and when he had the opportunity, he shared photos and strategies with another trusted friend (R), most likely because they shared an interest in the case (or he knew R had an interest), but maybe even more so because of a shared distrust of some of LE or the prosecutor involved with Delphi. JMO. Of course it's unethical, on every level, but I'm seeing a potential "why" in there...

JMO, but I don't think it was MW's intention to spread the leak far and wide (it was still wrong, obviously).

 

[CGBSpender]

right but it's an oral application. so by definition AB did not file a written motion that is on the record. nor was it in open court where it would be in the transcript.

So unless the judge actually files some kind of written 'judgement' or memorandum to record the arguments and the decision we will never have anything 'on the record' beyond what we have now, unless Rozzi's motion gives us an inkling.

It's not common, but not unheard of either for Judges to bring their Court recorder/reporter back to their chambers and just put it on the record in chambers. Assuming that took place, a transcript could be prepared in the future if needed by either of the parties.

JMO