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

[MistyWaters]

I'm not surprised at a stop work order by the Judge, what else might be leaked? This was a major violation with serious consequences to the the case. The vicious photos of the CS were loose on the internet. She had a right to be cautious.

I also disagree, Judge Gull looked shocked and frazzled and it was far from a prepared statement. It was 3:48 minutes long.

JMO

What else? Information was leaked according to MS, going by memory that included planned defense trial strategy, who and when dispositions were to be taken, and one more Odinist that was going to publicly named.

According to them the leaked information was just as damaging to RA‘s defense as the crime scene photos as it‘s a serious violation of client/attorney privilege, and easily grounds for a future appeal, if required.

If this is true, why wouldn‘t RA want to keep the ex-D along with a free ticket for an appeal if he’s convicted?
JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Richard Allen's new attorneys claim there's been a lack of 'meaningful' public access in Delphi Case

The attorneys for Allen, who is accused of killing Abigail Williams and Liberty German in Delphi in 2017, claim that hundreds of documents in the case have been improperly excluded from the public.

www.wrtv.com

[sbm]

"The new attorneys for Richard Allen are asking the Indiana Supreme Court to make access to court filings more public and easier to access after they claim there's been a lack of "meaningful" public access in the case."

The attorneys who filed this are not his attorneys. They are representing the people and in a way, the state, in his name. They are noticing the AD of the numerous statutory and procedural violations on the part of Judge Gull (in her playing around with the docket and the record). It's an action qui tam. These 3 Indiana attorneys are basically pointing out to the appellate court that she's taking it upon herself to remove things from the record, label things "confidential" without proper procedure to file or reason for sealing, and in the process she's also destroying the defendant's record for appeal (a big problem since you need the complete record for an appeal). They are asking the court to hear them and order this fixed even though they jumped the step of filing this with Judge Gull because Judge Gull will not accept any filings so they had to do it this way. They had to skip this step. She caused extraordinary and/or exigent circumstances (or whatever term they used, I forget, same thing though) that has been recognized by the AD in the past as an exception to them not getting a final ruling on the matter (from Gull's court) first before being heard by the appellate court.

jmo

 

[Ravenmoon]

Disagree. They knew only that this was to be discussed and they were ordered to cease work. They asked the judge what else would be addressed (I bet they were hoping it was the Franks hearing. She didn't give them an answer).

She went to the bench and announced on camera (the one and only day she allowed (in advance) for cameras to be in the courtroom) that there had been an "unexpected turn of events".

Now knowing facts that we did not previously know, this was anything but unexpected. She had a prepared statement ready in advance, and the jury box filled with LE.

jmo

Noooooo, they stated that they were aware that they may be disqualified in that document.

EBM to add please see post #795.


JMO

 

[zh0r4]

A real Catch 22...RA's old attorneys are not recognized by the court (Judge Gull) so anything they file is removed from the record. RA won't recognize his newly appointed attorneys to act on his behalf.

Who assigned/paid for these three new attorneys to act for RA. His name is on their filings.

This is all so confusing

I am unsure who (if anyone) is paying the 3 new attorneys, but from my understanding they are filing in a different court-the Indiana Supreme Court. SCOIN has already responded, and has given the Judge until Nov 9 to file opposition/a response and to provide missing records. SCOIN response below:

 

[Jurisprudence]

I'm not surprised at a stop work order by the Judge, what else might be leaked? This was a major violation with serious consequences to the the case. The vicious photos of the CS were loose on the internet. She had a right to be cautious.

I also disagree, Judge Gull looked shocked and frazzled and it was far from a prepared statement. It was 3:48 minutes long.

JMO

[BBM]

And, it's okay for people to disagree. My position only is that for you to believe this you must accept as fact and as true that Rozzi, an attorney with no disciplinary history whatsoever to our knowledge, lied to the court in his filings. That did not happen imo. No way. Not a chance. Not only would he not risk his license, but he actually asked for a copy of the audio recording of her in-chambers meeting (threats) which filing (requesting this audio recording) she also removed from the docket.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

No. I did a word search; his name is mentioned 3 times but no affidavit.

No affidavit but McLeland mentions him as the one who took "pictures of the pictures" in his 10/12 email in exhibit I

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[zh0r4]

Baldwin just signed on pro bono.

“Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance as Mr. Allen's privately contracted lawyer. Attorney Baldwin acknowledges his prior representation of Mr. Allen as his contracted Public Defender and reaffirms that he (Attorney Baldwin) did not and has not, voluntarily withdrawn from Mr. Allen's case in said capacity. The filing of this appearance is intended to convert Attorney Baldwin's status as Mr. Allen's Public Defender to Mr. Allen's private counsel, wherein Attorney Baldwin will move forward with said representation on a pro bono basis, in the event that he is not reinstated as Mr. Allen's Public Defender. With well over 1,000 hours of time spent reviewing evidence, analyzing evidence and preparing Mr. Allen's case for trial, and with the desire to have the Court hear suppression evidence, and the desire to get this case in front of a jury as soon as possible in order to honor Mr. Allen's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights, Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance.”

 

[katydid23]

Just to clarify, I think the new D attnys Gull selected are likely fine; and I think she went with familiar counsel b/c she is very concerned about the case, and it's many investigative errors, and wants RA to get a fair trial under her watch ... not a fairy tale trial ... and not a social media trial.

I agree.

If Gull can refute the Rozzi unfairness with a transcript from chambers ... fine.

My gut tells me she has a transcript and/or some kind of formal record to support her version of events. I could be wrong ....

Otherwise ... she should recuse due to her manipulative choice to offer D a televised hearing all about her laundry list of THEM and THEIR INCOMPETENCE and GROSS NEGLIGENCE and the LE team investigating the LEAK ... vs. an "oral withdrawal this very moment".

I don't think it was unfairly manipulative. I think she had learned enough about how the D team was operating----filing that messy misleading ODIN-esque nonsense, which created chaos, and being responsible for ghastly leaks which ended up in the hands of you-tube channels...filing endless show-boaty motions accusing everyone else of various wrong doings...and previously disobeying rules of the court.

All of the above spurred her decision shut this clown show down. I think she considered her options and wanted it to be quick and private, for everyone's sake. Baldwin saw the writing on the wall and admits that he agreed to step down.

I tend to think that Rizzo also 'appeared' to agree to her request. If he had said NO, she would not have continued in the way she did. IMO. Apparently he told her he would fill out the application to withdraw the next day. That appears to be an agreement on his part. JMO

 

[LaurelTedytamer]

Baldwin just signed on pro bono.

“Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance as Mr. Allen's privately contracted lawyer. Attorney Baldwin acknowledges his prior representation of Mr. Allen as his contracted Public Defender and reaffirms that he (Attorney Baldwin) did not and has not, voluntarily withdrawn from Mr. Allen's case in said capacity. The filing of this appearance is intended to convert Attorney Baldwin's status as Mr. Allen's Public Defender to Mr. Allen's private counsel, wherein Attorney Baldwin will move forward with said representation on a pro bono basis, in the event that he is not reinstated as Mr. Allen's Public Defender. With well over 1,000 hours of time spent reviewing evidence, analyzing evidence and preparing Mr. Allen's case for trial, and with the desire to have the Court hear suppression evidence, and the desire to get this case in front of a jury as soon as possible in order to honor Mr. Allen's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights, Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance.”
View attachment 457111

Wow …. I wonder if Rozzi will do the same. I wonder what the Judge will say tomorrow…can she ignore that???

 

[Emma Peel]

today's lesson:
"how to get your lower court recusal/disqualification arguments to the higher court and ... basically the world ... without even trying"

*********

Far as I can tell, Gull made RA's defense disqualification decision on Oct 12th, via email, without a hearing, and in spite of defendant RA's wishes ... on the same day that she learned the ISP investigation she ordered on the leaks resulted in a suicide.

Apparently the ISP investigation stopped there. And not a single leaker is paying a price.

But RA is.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Noooooo, they stated that they were aware that they may be disqualified in that document.

EBM to add please see post #795.


JMO

From the post at #795 dated 10/11/2023:

"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."

They had zero knowledge this would occur because this procedurally could not have (should not have) occurred. There was no motion filed. There was no hearing scheduled. There was nothing of record. And, herein lies the problem with what she's doing. There are rules. There are procedures. There is a statutory framework and structure so that things like what happened here never happen.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Baldwin just signed on pro bono.

“Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance as Mr. Allen's privately contracted lawyer. Attorney Baldwin acknowledges his prior representation of Mr. Allen as his contracted Public Defender and reaffirms that he (Attorney Baldwin) did not and has not, voluntarily withdrawn from Mr. Allen's case in said capacity. The filing of this appearance is intended to convert Attorney Baldwin's status as Mr. Allen's Public Defender to Mr. Allen's private counsel, wherein Attorney Baldwin will move forward with said representation on a pro bono basis, in the event that he is not reinstated as Mr. Allen's Public Defender. With well over 1,000 hours of time spent reviewing evidence, analyzing evidence and preparing Mr. Allen's case for trial, and with the desire to have the Court hear suppression evidence, and the desire to get this case in front of a jury as soon as possible in order to honor Mr. Allen's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights, Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance.”
View attachment 457111

Wow. I knew they would show up. So did she probably which is why there are no cameras allowed.
Has Rossi filed yet? He's next.
jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

I agree.

My gut tells me she has a transcript and/or some kind of formal record to support her version of events. I could be wrong ....


I don't think it was unfairly manipulative. I think she had learned enough about how the D team was operating----filing that messy misleading ODIN-esque nonsense, which created chaos, and being responsible for ghastly leaks which ended up in the hands of you-tube channels...filing endless show-boaty motions accusing everyone else of various wrong doings...and previously disobeying rules of the court.

All of the above spurred her decision shut this clown show down. I think she considered her options and wanted it to be quick and private, for everyone's sake. Baldwin saw the writing on the wall and admits that he agreed to step down.

I tend to think that Rizzo also 'appeared' to agree to her request. If he had said NO, she would not have continued in the way she did. IMO. Apparently he told her he would fill out the application to withdraw the next day. That appears to be an agreement on his part. JMO

Papers i read today suggest that Rozzi agreed verbally that he'd submit withdrawal in writing later but also took exception to the coercive choice: go silently of his own accord or go with a public shaming.

Gull wasn't offering withdraw or we'll have a hearing. She wasn't offering anything other than "buh-bye". It was withdraw here in chambers, or I'll read this prepared letter disqualifying you during a public hearing and a media circus. (How about we save the public humiliation?)

I'll add here that, if she's correct about gross negligence, she has every right to force withdrawal or disqualify with no hearing. And Rozzi has every right to appeal. Define gross negligence? (Appellate court care to weigh in?)

Baldwin agreed to orally withdraw; Rozzi said he wouldn't orally withdraw but he'd put his withdrawal in writing and send it to her later.

Apparently, rather than writing his withdrawal, Rozzi called his Apellate lawyers.

Anyway, Gull - in her 3 minute "out of our control" statement in Court didn't make up Rozzi's statement of sending her a withdrawal letter up. Gull just left out the part where she gave them no hearing and no choice ... b/c in her judgement it was gross negligence.

Because that was the deal. She would just hide that gross negligence opinion ... if they would just please go away.

 

[MistyWaters]

Baldwin just signed on pro bono.

“Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance as Mr. Allen's privately contracted lawyer. Attorney Baldwin acknowledges his prior representation of Mr. Allen as his contracted Public Defender and reaffirms that he (Attorney Baldwin) did not and has not, voluntarily withdrawn from Mr. Allen's case in said capacity. The filing of this appearance is intended to convert Attorney Baldwin's status as Mr. Allen's Public Defender to Mr. Allen's private counsel, wherein Attorney Baldwin will move forward with said representation on a pro bono basis, in the event that he is not reinstated as Mr. Allen's Public Defender. With well over 1,000 hours of time spent reviewing evidence, analyzing evidence and preparing Mr. Allen's case for trial, and with the desire to have the Court hear suppression evidence, and the desire to get this case in front of a jury as soon as possible in order to honor Mr. Allen's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights, Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance.”
View attachment 457111

Apparently it’s both of them, what a farce they’ve created.

So much for tomorrows hearing, unless the Judge takes the opportunity to formally dismiss them.

'I cannot and will not allow these attorneys to represent you' | Judge disqualifies Richard Allen's former attorneys, sets new trial date

The trial for the suspect in the killings of Libby German and Abby Williams will now take place Oct. 15-31, 2024.

www.wthr.com

DELPHI, Ind. — 13 Investigates has learned the two attorneys who were Richard Allen’s original defense team in the Delphi murders case filed appearances late Monday to be officially back on the case...

Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi told the court they now plan to represent Allen as pro bono attorneys if the judge does not re-appoint them as public defenders.”

 

[Jurisprudence]

I don't think it was unfairly manipulative. I think she had learned enough about how the D team was operating----filing that messy misleading ODIN-esque nonsense, which created chaos, and being responsible for ghastly leaks which ended up in the hands of you-tube channels...filing endless show-boaty motions accusing everyone else of various wrong doings...and previously disobeying rules of the court.

[sbm]

But, she can't do this. She is a judge. She is supposed to remain impartial. She may not like the defense's theory of the case, but she has no right to strip it from the record and worse, penalize them for it. They put their defense forward - no matter how whacky or sane it may be, and the jury decides.

jmo

ETA: I've said it before and I'll say it again (moo) she is handing him an appeal if he's convicted. (And, perhaps this is why she is destroying the record? Who knows. But I think the appellate court has to hear this and order the trial record corrected at minimum. At least I hope they will)

 

[MistyWaters]

[sbm]

But, she can't do this. She is a judge. She is supposed to remain impartial. She may not like the defense's theory of the case, but she has no right to strip it from the record and worse, penalize them for it. They put their defense forward - no matter how whacky or sane it may be, and the jury decides.

jmo

As we all know, the focus of a Frank’s Hearing is if LE illegally sought a SW, which is entirely distinct from their defense plan. It’s as if they’re mocking procedure, then calling out the J for not following it.

They want a Frank’s Hearing? IIRC the J said in addition to the 136 pages of the motion, including all the footnotes it amounted to 100s or 1000s of pages of reading. It’s not that complicated, why the nonsense, who does that?

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

... unless the Judge takes the opportunity to formally dismiss them.

[sbm] Yes. That is exactly what she will have to do imo. She has to officially remove them. However, .... they can stay on pro bono as private counsel. She cannot strip him of his private counsel imo.

ETA: (She arguably could not strip him of his public defender counsel either without due process which has yet to occur (notice and opportunity to be heard). Good news for all parties is, this trial is closer to being back on track to the original trial date.



jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

Baldwin just signed on pro bono.

“Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance as Mr. Allen's privately contracted lawyer. Attorney Baldwin acknowledges his prior representation of Mr. Allen as his contracted Public Defender and reaffirms that he (Attorney Baldwin) did not and has not, voluntarily withdrawn from Mr. Allen's case in said capacity. The filing of this appearance is intended to convert Attorney Baldwin's status as Mr. Allen's Public Defender to Mr. Allen's private counsel, wherein Attorney Baldwin will move forward with said representation on a pro bono basis, in the event that he is not reinstated as Mr. Allen's Public Defender. With well over 1,000 hours of time spent reviewing evidence, analyzing evidence and preparing Mr. Allen's case for trial, and with the desire to have the Court hear suppression evidence, and the desire to get this case in front of a jury as soon as possible in order to honor Mr. Allen's Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights, Attorney Baldwin enters his appearance.”
View attachment 457111

Whelp this is getting silly.

IMO,
Same rules apply with regard to gross negligence.
Why wouldn't Gull now simply disqualify him in court in the AM? She's already written the letter.

 

[MistyWaters]

[sbm] Yes. That is exactly what she will have to do imo. She has to officially remove them. However, .... they can stay on pro bono as private counsel. She cannot strip him of his private counsel imo.

ETA: (She arguably could not strip him of his public defender counsel either without due process which has yet to occur (notice and opportunity to be heard). Good news for all parties is, this trial is closer to being back on track to the original trial date.



jmo

For what purpose would RA require private counsel at this time?

Don‘t tell me, I’ll guess… The court appointed public defenders are required to deal with RA through his private counsel.

 

[Emma Peel]

Apparently it’s both of them, what a farce they’ve created.

So much for tomorrows hearing, unless the Judge takes the opportunity to formally dismiss them.

'I cannot and will not allow these attorneys to represent you' | Judge disqualifies Richard Allen's former attorneys, sets new trial date

The trial for the suspect in the killings of Libby German and Abby Williams will now take place Oct. 15-31, 2024.

www.wthr.com

DELPHI, Ind. — 13 Investigates has learned the two attorneys who were Richard Allen’s original defense team in the Delphi murders case filed appearances late Monday to be officially back on the case...

Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi told the court they now plan to represent Allen as pro bono attorneys if the judge does not re-appoint them as public defenders.”

Can't decide if we're still playing chess.

Might be playing battleship now.