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

[mrjitty]

If any J seeks to remove D counsel there are set procedures for this.

IMO these were not followed.

Whether or not people think that B&R required replacing (I did want them replaced with more sober methodical attorneys), it appears the J did some unprecedented things which are not only serious from a legal and constitutional point of view, they also now change the character of this case - new D will have to be very careful as they’ve seen what happens when you get on the wrong side of the J (not uncommon which is why I kept saying B&R were taking ridiculous risks by taking her on); more importantly if a conviction is now achieved in trial this whole episode and the J’s conduct could be used as the basis for appeal.

What I’m annoyed about is that the same outcome could have been achieved by following due process. B&R needed to go - that’s not at issue. J Gull could have done a number of prescribed things to censure and punish them whilst removing them from the court but inexplicably IMO chose not to.

<modsnip - discussing moderation on the thread>

The actions of the J as well as those of the former D are shaping this case (and not in a good way IMO) and are equally worthy of scrutiny and debate.

All JMO.

This is my concern - i don't think Judge Gull followed any obvious / proper procedure (though i am no expert in In. procedure!)

Where I am struggling is the Attorneys either need to file a motion to withdraw, or there should have been a hearing/ruling to disqualify.

Instead we have Gull claiming Baldwin and Rozzi agreed to withdraw, but we've never seen any paperwork for this and they dispute it. Certainly we didn't see any ruling on disqualification or indeed any proper hearing.

I especially don't see how Gull could order the removal of Rozzi on the 19th, against paperwork he had certainly not filed yet. At least with Baldwin she actually claims he made an oral application before she removed him.

So yes it seems bad but IMO there is no way these two guys will return and they are deservedly off the case IMO. I am certainly not willing to take at face value Baldwin's claim he is the victim in all this. It is remarkable to me that following that absurd Franks memo, then somehow they disclosed the crime scene photos - how can that happen? Some friend rummaging though his office???

 

[CGBSpender]

The Motion To Reconsider....some important points IMO...

Comes now counsel for Andrew J. Baldwin and moves the court to reconsider the erroneous order to the Clerk of Carroll County...

• This motion wasn't filed on behalf of BR! BR has nothing to do with this motion other than being mentioned it in. This is all stuff being filed on behalf of AB by his lawyer.

6. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin.

• AB admits an oral motion was obtained.

That withdrawal is a nullity and invalid as not in compliance with Rules 3.8 and 7.0(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.

• I don't see where rule 3.8 of Ind. R. Trial exists.
• Rule 7(B) gives the court discretion, so it doesn't have to be written if "otherwise ordered by the court". (See below for text of rule.)
  • (B) Motions and other papers. Unless made during a hearing or trial, or otherwise ordered by the court, an application to the court for an order shall be made by written motion. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and the relief or order sought. The requirement of notice is satisfied by service of the motion.
    Rule 7. Pleadings allowed—Form of motion, 22B Ind. Prac., Civil Trial Rule Handbook R 7

Mr. Baldwin has never filed a written motion to withdraw and will not do so. By operation of trial rules he remains counsel of record.

• Seems fairly clear AB made an oral motion, and the oral motion was granted consistent with R7. Caveat being I have no clue what R3.8 is in reference to. I feel like the written motion is a moot point, and this argument fails big time. Why make these filings? CYA?

7. On that same date the court obtained in the same manner an oral promise from Attorney Rozzi to file a motion to withdraw which he has not done and will not do.

• Interesting this lawyer is making statements on behalf of BR...since the lawyer that filed this motion doesn't seem to represent BR...little inappropriate IMO. (As a side note: I think BR would be unwise to have this individual representing him given how his co-counsel's actions/inactions create a conflict of interest were the same individual to attempt to represent both BR and AB as to these matters.)
• This motion is silent as to whether BR made an oral motion to withdraw. Just because he made an "oral promise" to file a written motion doesn't mean he didn't also make an oral motion, the two are not mutually exclusive.
  • Could have gone something like this...BR withdraw orally and offers to follow-up with a written motion...AB withdraws orally and refuses to follow-up with a written motion (wouldn't be shocking, he's clearly unhappy about the situation).
• Unless I missed it...I haven't seen anything to indicate that BR is contesting his withdrawal on the 19th is he? This is all coming from AB's lawyer, who does not appear to represent BR and doesn't appear to have any authority to speak on BR's behalf.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

I think the D Memo was full of misinformation and I believe the State was going to challenge that in Court hearing that was scheduled for that afternoon. They had witnesses lined up.

JMO

I thought so too, can’t think of another reason Carrol County LE attended and possibly had affidavits in hand ready and prepared to contest. That makes sense to me as it can’t be expected that court time be wasted on a Frank’s Hearing if the document supporting the request is faulty. Plus we know the prosecution had earlier indicated the memo to be “not entirely true”, I’m sure they wouldn’t leave untruths on the record unchallenged.

It will be very interesting to learn if the new D withdraws the Frank’s request or continues it.

JMO

 

[LaurelTedytamer]

Justice for Abby and Libby.
RA is entitled to a fair trial.

I read everyone’s thoughts but still I feel very strongly:-

I understand gag orders to protect the girls families concerning details, but when it’s the removal of a defense counsel surely you do everything in open court to show the defendant is getting a fair trial.

Has how the Judge dealt with Rozzi (I’m excluding Baldwin cos the leaks sound like from his office) by not having open record of Rozzi’s treatment in booting him from the case when RA wants him defending him still? Will this open a window to appeals over this if RA is found guilty?

Everyone wants a fair trial and the guilty party brought to justice so the girls families can grieve. Instead of appeals and a constant media circus.

 

[Jurisprudence]

January 2018

"The attorney for a man facing the death penalty was removed from the case after a judge said he was unprepared and inexperienced. Nikos Nakos, the defense attorney in the state of Indiana’s murder case against Marcus Dansby, was removed as counsel by Allen Superior Court Judge Fran Gull Friday morning during a hearing...

... Nakos, who has twice filed motions to have Gull recuse herself from the case for violating the code of judicial conduct, said he plans to appeal the ruling...

... Nakos had said Allen County Prosecutors will argue that Dansby killed the family because the baby wasn’t his but a DNA test confirmed with near-certainty that Dansby was the father...

'Unprepared' defense attorney removed from death penalty case in Ft. Wayne

The attorney was defending a man in a quadruple homicide case.

www.wishtv.com

I wonder what the circumstances were surrounding his filing that she recuse herself. Curious.

 

[sunshineray]

If any J seeks to remove D counsel there are set procedures for this.

IMO these were not followed.

Whether or not people think that B&R required replacing (I did want them replaced with more sober methodical attorneys), it appears the J did some unprecedented things which are not only serious from a legal and constitutional point of view, they also now change the character of this case - new D will have to be very careful as they’ve seen what happens when you get on the wrong side of the J (not uncommon which is why I kept saying B&R were taking ridiculous risks by taking her on); more importantly if a conviction is now achieved in trial this whole episode and the J’s conduct could be used as the basis for appeal.

What I’m annoyed about is that the same outcome could have been achieved by following due process. B&R needed to go - that’s not at issue. J Gull could have done a number of prescribed things to censure and punish them whilst removing them from the court but inexplicably IMO chose not to.

<modsnip - discussing moderation on the thread>

The actions of the J as well as those of the former D are shaping this case (and not in a good way IMO) and are equally worthy of scrutiny and debate.

All JMO.

Maybe the new D will not flout the rules of the court and go as far as to facilitate the release of crime scene photos of two children, now FOREVER on the web.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Maybe the new D will not flout the rules of the court and go as far as to facilitate the release of crime scene photos of two children, now FOREVER on the web.

I don't think they ever actually made it on the internet. Weren't they turned over to MS who turned them over to LE before they were posted?

ETA for clarity: To date I have seen no evidence that the cs photos depicting the victims were ever posted online.

jmo

 

[CGBSpender]

Justice for Abby and Libby.
RA is entitled to a fair trial.

I read everyone’s thoughts but still I feel very strongly:-

I understand gag orders to protect the girls families concerning details, but when it’s the removal of a defense counsel surely you do everything in open court to show the defendant is getting a fair trial.

Has how the Judge dealt with Rozzi (I’m excluding Baldwin cos the leaks sound like from his office) by not having open record of Rozzi’s treatment in booting him from the case when RA wants him defending him still? Will this open a window to appeals over this if RA is found guilty?

Everyone wants a fair trial and the guilty party brought to justice so the girls families can grieve. Instead of appeals and a constant media circus.

Given the content of the Franks memo and other alleged behavior of the D, I can understand offering the option of withdrawing privately in order to a) allow the D to save face a bit, and b) prevent the D from making any statements in front of press cameras in open court that might harm their client's case publicly.

In light of everything that is alleged to have happened, the D have a conflict of interest with their own client. The Court I believe was balancing a number of things, and was probably damned if the do, damned if they don't so to speak. The Court's top priority however needs to be protecting the future integrity of the trial, and preventing the accused from not receiving a fair trial due to actions or inactions his counsel might be inclined to take to protect themselves from certain liabilities (hence the conflict of interest problem).

As for BR, unless I've missed it, I don't see where BR is contesting his withdrawal. Everything I've seen appears to have been filed by an attorney on behalf of AB...and that attorney doesn't represent BR as far as I am aware.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't think they ever actually made it on the internet. Weren't they turned over to MS who turned them over to LE before they were posted?

jmo

According to MurderSheet the leak was not fully contained, possibly because “R” leaked the photos to at least one more person aside from Mark. If that’s the case it can be assured if the photos are still circulating it’s being done so secretly as opposed to posted on X/twitter or FB.

JMO

 

[twall]

The Motion To Reconsider....some important points IMO...

Comes now counsel for Andrew J. Baldwin and moves the court to reconsider the erroneous order to the Clerk of Carroll County...

• This motion wasn't filed on behalf of BR! BR has nothing to do with this motion other than being mentioned it in. This is all stuff being filed on behalf of AB by his lawyer.

6. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin.

• AB admits an oral motion was obtained.

That withdrawal is a nullity and invalid as not in compliance with Rules 3.8 and 7.0(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.

• I don't see where rule 3.8 of Ind. R. Trial exists.
• Rule 7(B) gives the court discretion, so it doesn't have to be written if "otherwise ordered by the court". (See below for text of rule.)
  • (B) Motions and other papers. Unless made during a hearing or trial, or otherwise ordered by the court, an application to the court for an order shall be made by written motion. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and the relief or order sought. The requirement of notice is satisfied by service of the motion.
    Rule 7. Pleadings allowed—Form of motion, 22B Ind. Prac., Civil Trial Rule Handbook R 7

Mr. Baldwin has never filed a written motion to withdraw and will not do so. By operation of trial rules he remains counsel of record.

• Seems fairly clear AB made an oral motion, and the oral motion was granted consistent with R7. Caveat being I have no clue what R3.8 is in reference to. I feel like the written motion is a moot point, and this argument fails big time. Why make these filings? CYA?

7. On that same date the court obtained in the same manner an oral promise from Attorney Rozzi to file a motion to withdraw which he has not done and will not do.

• Interesting this lawyer is making statements on behalf of BR...since the lawyer that filed this motion doesn't seem to represent BR...little inappropriate IMO. (As a side note: I think BR would be unwise to have this individual representing him given how his co-counsel's actions/inactions create a conflict of interest were the same individual to attempt to represent both BR and AB as to these matters.)
• This motion is silent as to whether BR made an oral motion to withdraw. Just because he made an "oral promise" to file a written motion doesn't mean he didn't also make an oral motion, the two are not mutually exclusive.
  • Could have gone something like this...BR withdraw orally and offers to follow-up with a written motion...AB withdraws orally and refuses to follow-up with a written motion (wouldn't be shocking, he's clearly unhappy about the situation).
• Unless I missed it...I haven't seen anything to indicate that BR is contesting his withdrawal on the 19th is he? This is all coming from AB's lawyer, who does not appear to represent BR and doesn't appear to have any authority to speak on BR's behalf.

JMO

I believe you are looking at Civil Trial Rules. It states so in the post.

 

[Emma Peel]

I guess it just seems to me like the killer(s) thought through the staging and visual, and that things were placed certain places to support their sick fantasy...assuming the other items not used in the staging / visual were found in the river...I guess I'm just wondering why those two items were placed underneath a victim...as opposed to ending up discarded with the other items not used in the staging/visual.

Can you remind me which victim the shoe/phone were found under? Thanks.

Speculating: a shoe can be a reasonable place to set a phone when undressing outdoors.

 

[TL4S]

Can you remind me which victim the shoe/phone were found under? Thanks.

Speculating: a shoe can be a reasonable place to set a phone when undressing outdoors.

According to LE: under L.
According to the x-D: under A.

 

[Emma Peel]

Given the content of the Franks memo and other alleged behavior of the D, I can understand offering the option of withdrawing privately in order to a) allow the D to save face a bit, and b) prevent the D from making any statements in front of press cameras in open court that might harm their client's case publicly.

In light of everything that is alleged to have happened, the D have a conflict of interest with their own client. The Court I believe was balancing a number of things, and was probably damned if the do, damned if they don't so to speak. The Court's top priority however needs to be protecting the future integrity of the trial, and preventing the accused from not receiving a fair trial due to actions or inactions his counsel might be inclined to take to protect themselves from certain liabilities (hence the conflict of interest problem).

As for BR, unless I've missed it, I don't see where BR is contesting his withdrawal. Everything I've seen appears to have been filed by an attorney on behalf of AB...and that attorney doesn't represent BR as far as I am aware.

JMO

It's interesting that none of the 25th-27th flurry of Old Defense's motions mention conflict of interest. Baldwin's still fighting to stay in the case. Not so easy to do if you have a conflivct.

These goofy things makes me wonder if LE investigation cleared Baldwin; thus no conflict.

Westerman's affidavit Westerman's affidavit Westerman's affidavit, I wanna see it!

 

[Emma Peel]

According to LE: under L.
According to the x-D: under A.

good grief. no wonder I needed to be reminded.

Another quick Q:
Do we know who's shoe had the phone in it at the crime scene.
Do we know where the matching shoe to the shoe found under a body at the crime scene was found?

 

[Jurisprudence]

No cameras allowed in the courtroom on Tuesday so we'll have to get information from media reports. I suspect BR and AB will appear. I'm also expecting that the court will not acknowledge them. Tuesday will be interesting.
jmo

Defense team chosen in Delphi murders case; judge issues decorum order for next hearing

ALLEN COUNTY, Ind. — Two attorneys have been appointed to defend Richard Allen on two counts of murder in the killings of Abby Williams and Libby German outside of Delphi in 2017. On Friday, the Ca…

fox59.com

 

[Emma Peel]

Given the content of the Franks memo and other alleged behavior of the D, I can understand offering the option of withdrawing privately in order to a) allow the D to save face a bit, and b) prevent the D from making any statements in front of press cameras in open court that might harm their client's case publicly.

In light of everything that is alleged to have happened, the D have a conflict of interest with their own client. The Court I believe was balancing a number of things, and was probably damned if the do, damned if they don't so to speak. The Court's top priority however needs to be protecting the future integrity of the trial, and preventing the accused from not receiving a fair trial due to actions or inactions his counsel might be inclined to take to protect themselves from certain liabilities (hence the conflict of interest problem).

As for BR, unless I've missed it, I don't see where BR is contesting his withdrawal. Everything I've seen appears to have been filed by an attorney on behalf of AB...and that attorney doesn't represent BR as far as I am aware.

JMO

As to Rozzi, he spent the 25/26th filing assertions that he never withdrew, never intended to withdraw, and that Gull should disqualify herself. Gull's clerk spent the 27th striking Rozzi's filings from the docket, declaring his filings were a filing error.

 

[CGBSpender]

I believe you are looking at Civil Trial Rules. It states so in the post.

See: Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure
JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

As to Rozzi, he spent the 25/26th filing assertions that he never withdrew, never intended to withdraw, and that Gull should disqualify herself. Gull's clerk spent the 27th striking Rozzi's filings from the docket, declaring his filings were a filing error.

I'm sorry I must be missing something...I know it says in the CCS "filings by former attorney BR"...but the documents filed that I've seen all appear to be documents drafted by AB's attorney, signed by AB's attorney, and filed on behalf of AB (not BR). I wonder if the reference to BR in the CCS notes referencing those filings is a typo?

JMO

 

[twall]

See: Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure
JMO

I did. What you stated is from the Indiana Rules of Civil Procedure.

Snipped from your previous post
6. On October 19, 2023, Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin.

• AB admits an oral motion was obtained.

That withdrawal is a nullity and invalid as not in compliance with Rules 3.8 and 7.0(B) of the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure.

• I don't see where rule 3.8 of Ind. R. Trial exists.
• Rule 7(B) gives the court discretion, so it doesn't have to be written if "otherwise ordered by the court". (See below for text of rule.)
  • (B) Motions and other papers. Unless made during a hearing or trial, or otherwise ordered by the court, an application to the court for an order shall be made by written motion. The motion shall state the grounds therefor and the relief or order sought. The requirement of notice is satisfied by service of the motion.
    Rule 7. Pleadings allowed—Form of motion, 22B Ind. Prac., Civil Trial Rule Handbook R 7

Indiana Court Rules | Indiana Rules of Civil Procedure | Casetext

Browse Indiana Court Rules | Indiana Rules of Civil Procedure for free on Casetext

casetext.com

Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed-Form of Motion, Ind. R. Civ. P. 7 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed-Form of Motion, Ind. R. Civ. P. 7, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[Emma Peel]

I'm sorry I must be missing something...I know it says in the CCS "filings by former attorney BR"...but the documents filed that I've seen all appear to be documents drafted by AB's attorney, signed by AB's attorney, and filed on behalf of AB (not BR). I wonder if the reference to BR in the CCS notes referencing those filings is a typo?

JMO

Yes, if you can check postings here on the 25th and the 26th where there are links to full sets of Rozzi's motions/filings. Basically Rozzi says he didn't agree to withdraw, he is RA's lawyer and continues to want to be his lawyer on this case, and Gull attempted to remove him coercively with no grounds and asks she DQ herself. I'm on my phone right now - best I can do is give you those dates to skim through posts for attachments to his motions. Or maybe someone who's quick with this stuff can post the thread links here for you?