StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,386
- Reaction score
- 41,259
Rozzi listed judicial rules: I.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, 2.11 per the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.
I am very confused as how one would come to the conclusion “it would seem neither D was interested in defending themselves, much less calling witnesses”, when they are saying they had no chance to call their own witnesses due to the incompetence of the court to adequately notify them of the true nature of the upcoming court hearings, and have filed multiple motions trying to state their case-especially RULE 2.6: Ensuring the Right to Be Heard? I am impressed at the amount of energy court-appointed D is putting into trying to represent their client. Everyone deserves defense, it is the prosecution’s job to prove a case beyond reasonable doubt. Even if RA is guilty, the nefarious behavior of the court itself is producing doubt. All documentation should be public, the judge should not be able to hypothetically withhold anything that would help D OR P. This is absolutely ridiculous.
JMO.
I am not impressed with the ex-defense and truly do not believe there has been nefarious behavior from the court.
RA needs competent counsel and he sure wasn’t getting it from Baldwin and Rozzi. Libby and Abby are the victims here, but this is RA’s trial too. He should want someone looking out for his best interest. Those two guys were not.