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

[sunshineray]

She verbally declared they voluntarily withdrew.
There appears to be a disagreement on this between Rozzi and Gull.

If Rozzi didn't withdraw, as Gull assumed he would, then Gull needs to decide to remove him.
I don't think we've seen Gull's decision remove him. We've only seen Gull's insistence that Rozzi withdrew.

Those three new lawyers will certainly gain access to whatever was said in chambers...unless no record was made. Hope there was a court reporter in chambers for all that.

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm going to take a wild guess that ... due to public interest in the integrity of all proceedings for the RA trial ... the Appellate Court will immediately take up this appeal from RA.

Whoever can keep an eye on the Appellate docket - we will see a response from the Court and possibly from the P filed to the Appellate docket in the next 24 hours.

Even if they grant it, it just means the 118 motions that were contained in the online zip drive will be reorganized with titles in accordance to Access to Court Record rules. I didn’t get anything more out of it than that, did you?

 

[FrostedGlass]

He probaly never thought in a million years he'd be chosen to serve RA. He said nothing about whether he believed any of the PCA science, he just commented on the science being used.
AJMO

I don't think he did either; however, he apparently has done other interviews about this case.

To my ears, his explanation of how that science worked and his general tone as he discussed it led me to think he believes the science is solid. Maybe when he puts his trial hat on, he'll come out strongly against it.

I'm going to take a wild guess that ... due to public interest in the integrity of all proceedings for the RA trial ... the Appellate Court will immediately take up this appeal from RA.

Whoever can keep an eye on the Appellate docket - we will see a response from the Court and possibly from the P filed to the Appellate docket in the next 24 hours.

Go to mycase site linked below and enter this: 23S-OR-00302

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Emma Peel]

I doubt it.

The only relief that this petition asks for is an order from the Indiana Supreme Court requiring Judge Gull to follow the Access to Court Records rules and stop deleting and excluding items from the CCS without following the correct procedure. It doesn't ask them to reinstate Rozzi & Baldwin. So it doesn't really affect the upcoming hearing.

However, I wouldn't be shocked if there's another petition filed asking for R&B to be reinstated.

Understood. One step at a time.

 

[Emma Peel]

I don't think he did either; however, he apparently has done other interviews about this case.

To my ears, his explanation of how that science worked and his general tone as he discussed it led me to think he believes the science is solid. Maybe when he puts his trial hat on, he'll come out strongly against it.

Go to mycase site linked below and enter this: 23S-OR-00302

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

thank u, @FrostedGlass

 

[FrostedGlass]

thank u, @FrostedGlass

I didn't mean to do that double post.

If you go to mycase site and put in his murder case number, you'll see his lower court cases listed in the 'related' box. The SJ case is Special Judge. OR you can search for all of his cases by just entering his name.

State of Indiana v. Richard M. Allen​

Case Number	08C01-2210-MR-000001
Court	Carroll Circuit Court
Type	MR - Murder
Filed	10/28/2022
Status	10/28/2022 , Pending (active)
Related	Lower Trial Court Case 22S-SJ-00369 Lower Trial Court Case 23S-OR-00302

 

[Emma Peel]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

I.A. Hundreds of documents are improperly excluded from publicaccess. ............................................................................................. 3
I.B. Allen files a Franks Memorandum of Law and the trial courtsua sponte removes it from the public CCS without notice orhearing. .......................................................................................... 7
I.C. The trial court attempts to effectuate the removal of Allen’schosen counsel over his objection and without his consent orapproval. ......................................................................................... 8
I.D. Allen instructs his chosen counsel to make filings on hisbehalf and the trial court orders the Clerk to “remove” thosefilings from both the CCS and the electronic case file. .............. 1

*****

CONCLUSION

If there was ever a time when the openness mandated by the Trial Rules andAccess to Court Records Rules was critical, it is the present case—one of the mosthigh-profile cases this state has ever seen. For many Hoosiers this is the first timethey have followed the workings of a court in this state.

Yet the Trial Rules and Access to Court Records Rules have been repeatedlyviolated, leaving the public and the media in the dark. A writ of mandamus orprohibition is appropriate to ensure that, going forward, this Court’s mandates regarding public access are followed without exception.

 

[katydid23]

at this point, as far as Rozzi goes, it's a he said/she said with regard to Rozzi withdrawing.

Gull asserts Rozzi agreed to withdraw 10/19.

Rozzi asserts he absolutely did not, however on 10/19 he advised the Court that he'd respond to her invitation to withdraw in writing. And Rozzi did that, in his filings last week.

Gull rejected Rozzi's filing, with the rejection reason being that RA's withdrawal was already accepted as of the 19th.

Wouldn't there be a court reporter making a record of a private hearing? It can't be a 'he said/she said' in a legal hearing could it? There must be some kind of a record of the event, imo.

 

[MistyWaters]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

*****

Is Access to Court Records the type of business the Supreme Court of Indiana would normally be interested in hearing? Just curious as it seems rather administrative in nature, whether the motions be titled or released altogether in a zip file.

 

[Emma Peel]

Even if they grant it, it just means the 118 motions that were contained in the online zip drive will be reorganized with titles in accordance to Access to Court Record rules. I didn’t get anything more out of it than that, did you?

I'm "thinking" that (should the higher court agree) that last weeks Rozzi/Baldwin filings will get back on the docket and rather than "poof they're gone", Gull will need to show her work, consider and answer the motions therein.

Gull (likely) can argue that she doesn't need to consider Baldwin's stuff b/c he withdrew.
But she'll need to show the work to document that withdrawal.

Once Gull answers Rozzi's assertions
- that Rozzi continues to Rep RA,
and
- Rozzi's motion for her to DQ herself over the coercion game ...

THEN Rozzi can appeal those decisions. (Rozzi technically can't appeal a decision that's not been made.)

Big Picture:
The significance is that RA has himself a crackerjack Appeals team should not be overlooked here.
(I'm wondering if appellate team is pro-bono or if the state is paying for this.)

JMHO as to all above

 

[MistyWaters]

Wouldn't there be a court reporter making a record of a private hearing? It can't be a 'he said/she said' in a legal hearing could it? There must be some kind of a record of the event, imo.

According to court records the ex-D requested a transcript of something. Given no other meetings have recently taken place, it seems it must be a record of the private meeting which they’re seeking. Rozzi already claimed he withdrew prior to the hearing to avoid public shaming.

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm "thinking" that (should the higher court agree) that last weeks Rozzi/Baldwin filings will get back on the docket and rather than "poof they're gone", Gull will need to show her work, consider and answer the motions therein.

Gull (likely) can argue that she doesn't need to consider Baldwin's stuff b/c he withdrew.
But she'll need to show the work to document that withdrawal.

Once Gull answers Rozzi's assertions
- that Rozzi continues to Rep RA,
and
- Rozzi's motion for her to DQ herself over the coercion game ...

THEN Rozzi can appeal those decisions. (Rozzi technically can't appeal a decision that's not been made.)

Big Picture:
The significance is that RA has himself a crackerjack Appeals team should not be overlooked here.
(I'm wondering if appellate team is pro-bono or if the state is paying for this.)

I’m not seeing anywhere a review of legality involving the departure of R&D is being requested. And I’d question why two public defenders would require three civil attorneys to file on their behalf.

 

[zh0r4]

thank you kindly. i wasn't following during the RL- suspect timeline. but it only makes sense that there was a solid reason RL was - essentially - no longer of interest.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the FBI allegedly being removed from the case? I noticed the SW was drafted by the FBI?

 

[zh0r4]

October 11, 2023

Dear Judge Gull:

Please accept this letter as confirmation that I have communicated with my Attorney, Bradley A. Rozzi, regarding the circumstances regarding the leaking of sensitive information in this case. I am aware that images of crime scene photos and other related documents were taken by a friend and former employee of Attorney Baldwin, at Attorney Baldwin's office. I have discussed with Attorney Rozzi the potential impact that the distribution of these documents could have on my defense. Attorney Rozzi has also communciated to me that the Prosecutor has requested that my Attorneys be disqualified from representing me in this case. I do not want this to happen. I want Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Rozzi to continue to represent me until this case is resolved, one way or the other. I believe they are acting in a manner that is in my best interest. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard M. Allen
Westville Correctional Facility

 

[Emma Peel]

I’m not seeing anywhere a review of legality involving the departure of R&D is being requested.

On the surface, yes. But study the board and game out further and ask what happens if the higher court agrees that Gull needs to put all those filings (incl. last week's) back on the docket?

In my view, last week we were playing whack-a-mole; this week we're playing chess.

Rozzi is making moves to force Gull to put filings back on the docket such that Gull must DEAL with them in hearings and in papers.

In particular:
2 motions from Rozzi that Gull whacked away as "filing errors" - one of which was asking Gull to DQ herself, the other where Rozzi argues he continues as RA's counsel on this case.
3 Appellate experts motioning a Higher Court to order that Gull must have transparency on the docket.

We don't know if this appeal will succeed or not but ...
If the Appeal is successful, Gull must - on the record - go through the proper process, whether it be hearings, decisions, paperwork etc. of affirming or denying Rozzi's motions.

Once Rozzi gets an actual written Decision out of Gull (the 2 motions above) ... he can accept those decisions, or he can then choose to bring those decisions to the Higher Court for review. And he already has his Appeals team in place.

More transparency in general with regard to Gull's handling of the case is also on the table, and I don't mean to diminish the importance of the global transparency ask for the public good on this appeal ...

jmho

 

[Emma Peel]

October 11, 2023

Dear Judge Gull:

Please accept this letter as confirmation that I have communicated with my Attorney, Bradley A. Rozzi, regarding the circumstances regarding the leaking of sensitive information in this case. I am aware that images of crime scene photos and other related documents were taken by a friend and former employee of Attorney Baldwin, at Attorney Baldwin's office. I have discussed with Attorney Rozzi the potential impact that the distribution of these documents could have on my defense. Attorney Rozzi has also communciated to me that the Prosecutor has requested that my Attorneys be disqualified from representing me in this case. I do not want this to happen. I want Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Rozzi to continue to represent me until this case is resolved, one way or the other. I believe they are acting in a manner that is in my best interest. I appreciate your time and consideration in this matter.

Respectfully submitted,
Richard M. Allen
Westville Correctional Facility
View attachment 456986

Thanks @zh0r4

Attorney Rozzi has also communciated to me that the Prosecutor has requested that my Attorneys be disqualified from representing me in this case.

For the timeline ...
before October 11th: THE PROSECUTION requested the Attorneys be disqualified.
October 11: RA letter to Court says I prefer to keep my counsel
October 12: Gull ignores RA's request and orders the D team to STOP WORK.

 

[Emma Peel]

If the Appellate takes this appeal up ... will the 3 appellate judges agree w/ Gull re transparency?

 

[Megnut]

In my view, last week we were playing whack-a-mole; this week we're playing chess.

Rsbm

This!

 

[MistyWaters]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

*****

I don’t know but I think it‘s unlikely the Supreme Court would take the liberty of ruling on anything that’s not asked for. Below is what precedes the “Conclusion” in your quoted post. Also why I question the Supreme Court would be interested in administration business. These attorneys could’ve just filed a formal complaint with the Office of the Clerk of the Court and saved themselves a lot of work. (The 118 (untitled) documents refers to what was released all at once in the zip drive some time ago) JMO
From this link-

Invalid Document Link - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Emma Peel]

Appellate Docket update:

The RA Appeal has been taken up by Appeals Court; opposing papers due Nov 9th.
(see docket link where order is addressed to the 3 Appeals attnys for RA, to Gull, to Gull's clerks.)

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

OrderThe Relator, Richard Allen, by counsel, has filed a verified petition for a writ ofmandamus and prohibition, seeking relief under the rules governing original actions.Any briefs opposing issuance of the writ or any supplemental records must be filed directlywith the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, November 9, 2023. Anysupplemental record must be submitted in the same format required for the record underOriginal Action Rule 3(C) and (G). Once briefing is completed, the Court will take the matterunder advisement.Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on ___________.____________________________Loretta H. RushChief Justice of Indiana