IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170

[Jurisprudence]

New filing.

11/02/2023	Appearance Filed Limited Appearance of Cara Schaefer Wieneke For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/02/2023
11/02/2023	Praecipe for Transcript Filed Defendant's Motion for Transcripts Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/02/2023

They need to get the record to prepare for the matter before the S Ct. And, they're going to have to check it with a fine tooth comb to the extent they can.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

What a mess. We should be able to see and pull those docs off easily unless they are sealed (see Idaho for example). And, where sealed we should see the order sealing enumerating the reasons why. This is what the writ is about.

jmo

The cases in any of the IN counties that I've followed have all been like the CCS currently is. We cannot see any of the pdfs in the entries, sealed or not.
Once in a while, in the lower level cases, I've found PCAs with clickable links.

As far as I know, in Indiana there are only two ways the public can see the documents. 1. Go to the courthouse in the county where the case is filed or 2. Buy them.

I have no idea how this works for people who can't physically go to the courthouse or how those on very limited incomes can afford to buy the documents.

 

[MistyWaters]

I was away, so have clarifying questioning: was it a 'not-high-up' individual given big task of copying reams for defense from prosecutor? Did whoever copied then pass directly to one friend who then disseminated to others? Though I never viewed them, it was tricky to unread some descriptions. I know here on WS we are all most sad for families. Was there a link to Odinism construed in CS images; or, what spurred that rumor to arise when it did?
Thank you for replies...

As best as I understand it, the ex-employee and trusted friend of B’s was invited to discuss the case as the office often engages in a collaborative approach. But instead he was snookered by this trusted friend who copied photos and shared confidential info with a 2nd friend. This 2nd friend shared it with one or more other people, who passed it along to Murder Sheet. At that point the 3rd party involved agreed with MS that the matter be turned over to LE including the FB messages illustrating the chain of events.

There was an earlier leak B had admitted to involving an email listing discovery docs and photos that was sent to a guy who B had earlier been in contact with, who was very vocal on FB and had filed a lawsuit against LE in Delphi. The FB messages pertaining to this latest leak indicated a plot to frame this same guy to make it appear as if he was the leaker, thereby protecting the identity of those who were involved.

What was the purpose? That’s not real clear but MS stated depending on what one believed, one could probably see whatever they wanted to validate an opinion.

Shortly after LE questioned the 2nd guy, he tragically took his life. Will the trusted friend of B be charged? Hasn’t happened yet, who knows.

This is just my perception the information which I read, others may disagree.

 

[Jurisprudence]

The cases in any of the IN counties that I've followed have all been like the CCS currently is. We cannot see any of the pdfs in the entries, sealed or not.
Once in a while, in the lower level cases, I've found PCAs with clickable links.

As far as I know, in Indiana there are only two ways the public can see the documents. 1. Go to the courthouse in the county where the case is filed or 2. Buy them.

I have no idea how this works for people who can't physically go to the courthouse or how those on very limited incomes can afford to buy the documents.

They'd have to make a written public records request moo. The Indiana Supreme Court made the relator's brief accessible immediately (by clickable link) so I suppose it depends. Either way it's good to know that it's not the practice to make it easy. However, it should be the practice to make them available by written request and they have not been. Have you seen the Clerk's response to a request for the MW affidavit? I am not permitted to post it I believe because it is a private person's X post but the person is generally very reliable imo and the response is easily searchable without the need to post it here. It's a response she should probably consider forwarding to Wieneke actually, because it cuts right to the issue of their writ.

jmo

 

[M. Kay]

This is just my perception the information which I read, others may disagree.

*****So very helpful!

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Very interesting find by SleuthieGoosie on twitter. Judge Gull also resided over Indiana v. Juventino Ramirez, accused of molesting his step daughter. The jury found him guilty but Indiana Supreme Court vacated the verdict and ordered a new trial, specifically due to JG not considering interests of the defense when denying their request for a continuance. (April 2022)
How horrible for this young girl. I pray the Indiana justice system will ensure it's done right the first time for Abby & Libby.

Opinion by Chief Justice Rush: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisi...YtGOdjBVU1cpNdaaTW4byWRIJB4zufi39iDqRKzvSHGI0

IN Supreme Court: Defendant denied fair proceeding, ordered new trial in child molestation case - The Indiana Lawyer

A man convicted of child molestation has secured a new trial after the Indiana Supreme Court concluded he was wrongly denied a continuance to review new evidence submitted one day before trial.

www.theindianalawyer.com

[...]
“The Local Rule is void because it imposes requirements not found in our trial rules for obtaining otherwise discoverable evidence,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote for the high court. “And the record is devoid of any specific reason to support the court’s issuance of a protective order for the video. Although we ultimately find that neither basis requires reversal, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of Ramirez’s motion for continuance does.
“The court abused its discretion because there is no evidence it engaged in the appropriate balancing of interests when it denied the (continuance) request, and Ramirez made specific showings as to why additional time was necessary and how it would have benefitted the defense,” Rush continued. [...]

Justices vacate verdict, trial rule

INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Supreme Court voided an improper Allen County trial rule that denied a defendant access to evidence and also vacated his child molesting conviction because the judge

www.journalgazette.net

[...]
“Instead of addressing any of these reasons, the court simply remarked, 'I don't see a reason to continue the trial.' And it also told Ramirez's counsel – four times – that the motion was not timely, even though counsel moved for a continuance within hours of receiving the new allegations,” the Supreme Court ruling said.
[...]
The justices found that Gull didn't balance the interests of the parties when making the decision and noted there is no evidence that the state would have been adversely affected by a delay.

---
I'm new to websleuths so I apologize if this is considered off topic as it's relating to the trial judge but not specifically to this case, please let me know if so

 

[Jurisprudence]

Very interesting find by SleuthieGoosie on twitter. Judge Gull also resided over Indiana v. Juventino Ramirez, accused of molesting his step daughter. The jury found him guilty but Indiana Supreme Court vacated the verdict and ordered a new trial, specifically due to JG not considering interests of the defense when denying their request for a continuance. (April 2022)
How horrible for this young girl. I pray the Indiana justice system will ensure it's done right the first time for Abby & Libby.

Opinion by Chief Justice Rush: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisi...YtGOdjBVU1cpNdaaTW4byWRIJB4zufi39iDqRKzvSHGI0

IN Supreme Court: Defendant denied fair proceeding, ordered new trial in child molestation case - The Indiana Lawyer

A man convicted of child molestation has secured a new trial after the Indiana Supreme Court concluded he was wrongly denied a continuance to review new evidence submitted one day before trial.

www.theindianalawyer.com

[...]
“The Local Rule is void because it imposes requirements not found in our trial rules for obtaining otherwise discoverable evidence,” Chief Justice Loretta Rush wrote for the high court. “And the record is devoid of any specific reason to support the court’s issuance of a protective order for the video. Although we ultimately find that neither basis requires reversal, we conclude that the trial court’s denial of Ramirez’s motion for continuance does.

“The court abused its discretion because there is no evidence it engaged in the appropriate balancing of interests when it denied the (continuance) request, and Ramirez made specific showings as to why additional time was necessary and how it would have benefitted the defense,” Rush continued. [...]

Justices vacate verdict, trial rule

INDIANAPOLIS – The Indiana Supreme Court voided an improper Allen County trial rule that denied a defendant access to evidence and also vacated his child molesting conviction because the judge

www.journalgazette.net

[...]
“Instead of addressing any of these reasons, the court simply remarked, 'I don't see a reason to continue the trial.' And it also told Ramirez's counsel – four times – that the motion was not timely, even though counsel moved for a continuance within hours of receiving the new allegations,” the Supreme Court ruling said.
[...]
The justices found that Gull didn't balance the interests of the parties when making the decision and noted there is no evidence that the state would have been adversely affected by a delay.

---
I'm new to websleuths so I apologize if this is considered off topic as it's relating to the trial judge but not specifically to this case, please let me know if so

Welcome! Thank you for this. And that's a good place to look for the response from the clerk around 10/27).

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

“The court abused its discretion because there is no evidence it engaged in the appropriate balancing of interests when it denied the (continuance) request, and Ramirez made specific showings as to why additional time was necessary and how it would have benefitted the defense,” ... “Instead of addressing any of these reasons, the court simply remarked, 'I don't see a reason to continue the trial.' And it also told Ramirez's counsel – four times – that the motion was not timely, even though counsel moved for a continuance within hours of receiving the new allegations,” the Supreme Court ruling said.

Opinion by Chief Justice Rush: https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisi...YtGOdjBVU1cpNdaaTW4byWRIJB4zufi39iDqRKzvSHGI0

IN Supreme Court: Defendant denied fair proceeding, ordered new trial in child molestation case - The Indiana Lawyer

A man convicted of child molestation has secured a new trial after the Indiana Supreme Court concluded he was wrongly denied a continuance to review new evidence submitted one day before trial.

www.theindianalawyer.com

[...]

[sbbm]
This really stands out since it sounds so very familiar in this present case. So she's been down this road before and doesn't seem a bit concerned about traveling it again. That's tragic for the people of Indiana imo. Anyone's brother, sister, mother, cousin, friend could find themselves in this situation.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

They'd have to make a written public records request moo. The Indiana Supreme Court made the relator's brief accessible immediately (by clickable link) so I suppose it depends. Either way it's good to know that it's not the practice to make it easy. However, it should be the practice to make them available by written request and they have not been. Have you seen the Clerk's response to a request for the MW affidavit? I am not permitted to post it I believe because it is a private person's X post but the person is generally very reliable imo and the response is easily searchable without the need to post it here. It's a response she should probably consider forwarding to Wieneke, actually.

No, I haven't seen that response.

I follow a murder case out of Okmulgee Oklahoma and almost all of the entries are clickable and free. There are only a very few where going to the courthouse is required. I don't see why Indiana can't do that also. IMO, it must be about money.

 

[sunshineray]

I think her problem will be how well they documented this, despite her removing their filings. For example, AB filed a motion on the matter the very day of the 19th. He documented pretty well the reasons why he intends to stay on the case and that this was his client's wish. That filing alone negates any argument by the judge that they came into the 19th hearing with an intent to withdraw.

jmo

After seeing in chambers what the judge and prosecution considered "gross negligence" they also could have changed their minds and intent.

 

[sunshineray]

[sbbm]
This really stands out since it sounds so very familiar in this present case. So she's been down this road before and doesn't seem a bit concerned about traveling it again. That's tragic for the people of Indiana imo. Anyone's brother, sister, mother, cousin, friend could find themselves in this situation.

jmo

It sounds nothing like the Delphi case IMO. Discovery was fully given to the defense, even all the crime scene photos, which were then leaked from their office.

The SC justices said the other two issues (besides the continuance) were judged as being fine and to the law. (declaring some discovery "confidental")

The only issue judged to be in error was not giving the defendant a continuance in light of recently revealed new evidence. In Delphi JG just grant an almost year continuance to the defense.

That other case was also not a case of first degree murder.

AJMO

 

[O.Incandenza]

New filing.

11/02/2023	Appearance Filed Limited Appearance of Cara Schaefer Wieneke For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/02/2023
11/02/2023	Praecipe for Transcript Filed Defendant's Motion for Transcripts Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/02/2023

So it looks like there will very likely be another original action filed with the Indiana Supreme Court over the attorney removal issue.

Not totally relevant, but I looked up Cara Wieneke, and it appears she was just recently appointed by the Supreme Court to its Disciplinary Commission: Commission Members

 

[FrostedGlass]

On pg 42 in the link below: does that mean that a sealed file is always confidential or were some of the files marked as sealed and others were marked as confidential?

The court has reviewed the electronic file recently and discovered many pleadings and filings have been marked as sealed and confidential and, therefore, unavailable to the public.
The Court has consulted with Counsel for the State of Indiana and the Defense and discovered the pleadings have been deemed confidential to comply with the Court Order dated December 2, 2022 which prohibits public comment, commonly referred to as the "Gag Order".

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[twall]

Allen County’s chief public defender says his office is prepared to take on Delphi killings case

Allen County Chief Public Defender William “Billy” Lebrato doesn’t believe the trial will impact the daily work of the department.

www.wane.com

 

[k-mac]

Just checking in.
Been awhile.
I have not followed this very closely since all the side show shenanigans started.

Just so angry and sad for the girls families.
Here we go again...its all about the perps rights...and getting a fair trial etc
what happened and why all gets lost in the perp being centre stage.

And being so close to trial and now we another year of circus ahead.

(6 years now)

 

[Jurisprudence]

It sounds nothing like the Delphi case IMO. Discovery was fully given to the defense, even all the crime scene photos, which were then leaked from their office.

The SC justices said the other two issues (besides the continuance) were judged as being fine and to the law. (declaring some discovery "confidental")

The only issue judged to be in error was not giving the defendant a continuance in light of recently revealed new evidence. In Delphi JG just grant an almost year continuance to the defense.

That other case was also not a case of first degree murder.

AJMO

The court's reasoning is very much in line with what's happening here. Discovery being confidential or protected is different from sealing a document on the docket but I'm not sure why you raise this since it was not the reason the defendant was granted a new trial.

 

[Jurisprudence]

On pg 42 in the link below: does that mean that a sealed file is always confidential or were some of the files marked as sealed and others were marked as confidential?

[sbm]

ETA: I found it. It's in the brief. They do use the term confidential for e-filings. It's A.C.R. 5(B). I see this above link is a letter from JG herself reproduced as an exhibit in the supreme court filing. But it's JG's conduct that's at issue.

The (Relator's) brief is where it discusses what they believe she did wrong and how she violated the rules. The brief is accessible from the docket by simple click but it has to be downloaded.

See Pages 3-4, Page 16-17, and 19.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

[sbbm]
This really stands out since it sounds so very familiar in this present case. So she's been down this road before and doesn't seem a bit concerned about traveling it again. That's tragic for the people of Indiana imo. Anyone's brother, sister, mother, cousin, friend could find themselves in this situation.

jmo

And/or, this is (at least) her 2nd trip to Supreme Court for tipping the scales to the prosecution.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

The only issue judged to be in error was not giving the defendant a continuance in light of recently revealed new evidence. In Delphi JG just grant an almost year continuance to the defense.

They judged 3 issues to be in error, but found only 1 to justify a retrial.
1. Not allowing defense to obtain a copy of the forensic interview (per an Allen County rule that SC deemed to be 'without force and effect', but from my reading it doesn't seem like it was the fault of JG to follow the current rule in her county)
2. Issuing a protective order to prevent defense from obtaining the interview "without providing any reasons for its decision"
3. Denying the request for continuance

The errors re: the forensic interview weren't judged to have likely substantially impacted the trial outcome, but were still noted.

Imo #2 seems the most relevant to this current case because now JG has declared she finds B&R to so grossly negligent they can't defend RA without supporting that finding with evidence.
P9 of the SC decision for Ramirez re: the protective order: "because the record is devoid of any particular or specific factual support, the court was not empowered to issue that order." bbm

 

[Emma Peel]

Just checking in.
Been awhile.
I have not followed this very closely since all the side show shenanigans started.

Just so angry and sad for the girls families.
Here we go again...its all about the perps rights...and getting a fair trial etc
what happened and why all gets lost in the perp being centre stage.

And being so close to trial and now we another year of circus ahead.

(6 years now)

Welcome back!

It's actually Good news: This Judge is being called to task BEFORE trial ... so the People of the State of Indiana can be assured the fair trial here does happen and that any conviction holds up under appeal.

(Sometimes you get a error-prone Judge and don't realize it until it's too late.)