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

[FrostedGlass]

[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

I read the 5 pages of what can be sealed; I'm dense... what is the difference between a confidential record and a sealed record. Apparently the public can see neither one.

Regarding the part I highlighted. For me, it's not available from the source I work from. Below is what we, the public, see. The MS podcasts and the "Attorney Dashboard" on mycase led me to conclude attorneys have a different view.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Richard Allen Case # 08C01-2210-MR-000001

10/27/2023	Appearance Filed Notice of Appearance For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/27/2023
10/28/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland
10/30/2023	Appearance Filed appearance For Party: State of Indiana File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/31/2023	Hearing Session: 10/31/2023 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
10/31/2023	Appearance Filed Pro Bono Appearance of Andrew Baldwin For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023

 

[sunshineray]

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

In that Franks memo, IIRC, the defense when describing a crime scene photo mentioned also the photo as being submitted and marked as "confidental".

I'm guessing describing in much detail something listed in discovery as "confidental" is tantamount to the description also being protected?

 

[FrostedGlass]

RS&BBM
At the trial of the petitioner, Kobina Ebo Abruquah, the Circuit Court for Prince George’s County permitted a firearms examiner to testify, without qualification, that bullets left at a murder scene were fired from a gun that Mr. Abruquah had acknowledged was his

Right here is the biggest problem I see immediately without wading into the whole appeal. I agree there will be arguments for/against this testimony, but it's still allowed in Court so the jurors will be the ones to listen and decide whom they think presents a more believable argument.

moo

You're right about the jurors. They found him guilty.

“The question for courts is whether or not the science is current and reliable,” said Brief.
An example of that effort is an appeal underway in Maryland of the murder conviction of Kobina Ebo Abruquah. Thirteen university professors are challenging the testimony of a tool mark examiner that linked bullets found in the murder victim to Abruquah’s gun.
The filed brief states studies supporting the analysis are “well below thresholds of scientific validity.”

Linking of Richard Allen’s gun to Delphi crime scene ‘not science’ says The Innocence Project

The Innocence Project is pressing on against tool mark evidence, claiming it’s “not settled science.”

fox59.com

 

[Bergmann]

Denial, denial, one eyed interpretations, magical thinking, more denial, mental gymnastics - rinse and repeat.

See you again, should this actually make it to court.

 

[FrostedGlass]

New Filing from yesterday. Either I totally missed this or it was added after I gave the update. From now on, I'm going to include the entry before my update to make sure there's not an error on my part. This is everything beginning 11/01/2023. The Order appears to be a record of the Oct 31 hearing.

11/01/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 10/31/2023 : James David Luttrull
11/01/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 10/31/2023 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato

11/01/2023	Order Granting Order granting withdrawal of counsel Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Scremin, Robert Cliff Noticed: Lebrato, William Santino Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Order Signed: 11/01/2023
11/02/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/1/2023 : James David Luttrull
11/02/2023	Order Issued Defendant appears in person with court appointed counsel Robert Scremin and William Lebrato. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas McLeland and Special Prosecutor James Luttrell. Former counsel Rozzi and Baldwin also appear, having entered an appearance October 30, 2023. Attorney Scremin and Lebrato's Motion to Continue the jury trial heard and granted without objection by the State as defendant is accepting the Criminal Rule 4 time. Court then addresses former attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi's appearance. The Court previously found gross negligence by said attorneys in their representation of the defendant. Nothing has changed in the intervening twelve (12) days that removes the Court's grave concerns about their representation. Over Rozzi and Baldwin's strenuous objections, Court disqualifies them from representing the defendant and affirms the appointment of contract Public Defenders Scremin and Lebrato. Former attorneys represent to the Court they will return all discovery to the State of Indiana by the end of the week. Counsel ordered to do so to enable the State to provide that discovery to Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato. Court encourages former attorneys to cooperate with Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato for the benefit of the defendant. Court notes two (2) pending motions (Motion to Suppress, Motion for Franks Hearing) and will await a report from Attorneys Scremin and Lebrato and Prosecuting Attorney McLeland regarding hearing dates. Baldwin's attorney, Hennessey, addresses the Court at Baldwin's request. Jury trial scheduled for October 15 - November 1, 2024, with jury selection to be conducted in Allen County and trial in Carroll County. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Scremin, Robert Cliff Noticed: Lebrato, William Santino Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Order Signed: 11/01/2023
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
11/03/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 11/2/2023 : James David Luttrull
11/03/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 11/2/2023 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
10/15/2024	Jury Trial

 

[MistyWaters]

Interesting to reflect on, for the past five + years our biggest hope was for an announcement of an arrest, every time a press conference was scheduled the optimism rose. Several male POIs who could have been a possible fit to BG didn’t pan out. Finally October/22, a year ago came the arrest of RA. We began anxiously awaiting the upcoming trial, optimistic the tragic murders of Libby and Abby would finally reach a conclusion.

Thud. Who could’ve imagined the suspects lawyers have overtaken the headlines? IMO ever since they were appointed RA’s (old) attorneys have invested all their efforts solely into deflecting blame and creating pity. It’s as if they’ve been stuck in muck, spinning their wheels, splattering it everywhere. Anybody can play the blame game, doesn’t require a license to practise, the media thrives on it.

It’s been continual - poor Rick is innocent; he was setup by lying LE, being treated like a dog in prison; will be spending too long in prison before trial; the trusted friends fault for snookering and betraying B; the Judge treats us unfairly, is incompetent and biased; RA wants us and we can’t be there for him; and only we can prevent a wrongful conviction. I’ve probably missed many other examples but it’s getting really tiresome. The attempt to play on the public’s emotions is all too obvious. I hope the new defense can move it forward.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

Interesting to reflect on, for the past five + years our biggest hope was for an announcement of an arrest, every time a press conference was scheduled the optimism rose. Several male POIs who could have been a possible fit to BG didn’t pan out. Finally October/22, a year ago came the arrest of RA. We began anxiously awaiting the upcoming trial, optimistic the tragic murders of Libby and Abby would finally reach a conclusion.

Thud. Who could’ve imagined the suspects lawyers have overtaken the headlines? IMO ever since they were appointed RA’s (old) attorneys have invested all their efforts solely into deflecting blame and creating pity. It’s as if they’ve been stuck in muck, spinning their wheels, splattering it everywhere. Anybody can play the blame game, doesn’t require a license to practise, the media thrives on it.

It’s been continual - poor Rick is innocent, he was setup by lying LE, being treated like a dog in prison, will be spending too long in prison before trial, all the friends fault for snookering and betraying B, the Judge is mean, incompetent, biased, RA wants us and we can’t be there for him, only we can prove him innocent. I’ve probably missed many other examples but it’s getting really tiresome. The attempt to play on the public’s emotions is all too obvious. I hope the new defense can move it forward.

JMO

I for two am tired of all this. ^^^^^

You can defend your client and advocate for your client incredibly effectively without doing what the old team has done.

MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

I for two am tired of all this. ^^^^^

You can defend your client and advocate for your client incredibly effectively without doing what the old team has done.

MOO

Yes. Blaming the leaker guy for instead of taking responsibility for giving him access to confidential material that he had no business seeing really annoys me. Any respect I had for them went out the window with that comment “well it would’ve been out at trial anyway” or something like that. No apology, nothing, not to forget it was the beginning of the chain of events that caused a life to be lost.

I have a sneaking suspicion they’ve lost touch on the art of relating to people, surely a critical attribute during courtroom battles. RA is better off with them.

JMO

 

[iamshadow21]

Yes. Blaming the leaker guy for instead of taking responsibility for giving him access to confidential material that he had no business seeing really annoys me. Any respect I had for them went out the window with that comment “well it would’ve been out at trial anyway” or something like that. No apology, nothing, not to forget it was the beginning of the chain of events that caused a life to be lost.

I have a sneaking suspicion they’ve lost touch on the art of relating to people, surely a critical attribute during courtroom battles. RA is better off with them.

JMO

Like a banker walking out and leaving a random mate alone in a vault of cash, then crying about how betrayed he was the guy robbed the bank. It's like, "Dude, you had ONE job."

MOO

 

[CGBSpender]

I read the 5 pages of what can be sealed; I'm dense... what is the difference between a confidential record and a sealed record. Apparently the public can see neither one.

Regarding the part I highlighted. For me, it's not available from the source I work from. Below is what we, the public, see. The MS podcasts and the "Attorney Dashboard" on mycase led me to conclude attorneys have a different view.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Richard Allen Case # 08C01-2210-MR-000001

10/27/2023	Appearance Filed Notice of Appearance For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/27/2023
10/28/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland Order Issued ---- 10/27/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland
10/30/2023	Appearance Filed appearance For Party: State of Indiana File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/31/2023	Hearing Session: 10/31/2023 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
10/31/2023	Appearance Filed Pro Bono Appearance of Andrew Baldwin For Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023

Correct. This is the case with certain other States as well. Lawyers licensed in certain jurisdiction are able to access more electronic documents than the general public in the CCS. With PACER (Federal Docs) you need an account...I'm not sure if there is a difference in terms of what you can see based on account type. There are also some States/Counties were only the CCS is viewable, but they don't scan in the documents electronically at all...if you want copies (no matter who you are) you need to request them through whatever the process is for that particular Clerk's office and/or send a runner to the Court.

JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Yes. Blaming the leaker guy for instead of taking responsibility for giving him access to confidential material that he had no business seeing really annoys me. Any respect I had for them went out the window with that comment “well it would’ve been out at trial anyway” or something like that. No apology, nothing, not to forget it was the beginning of the chain of events that caused a life to be lost.

I have a sneaking suspicion they’ve lost touch on the art of relating to people, surely a critical attribute during courtroom battles. RA is better off with them.

JMO

That email to JG from BR was the most damning. Not only downplaying and distancing but stating in writing that the leak did not occur from their offices and blame shifting onto another party.
I found it very suspicious that the individual the ex-D was trying to focus attention on was the exact same individual that the leakers planned on blaming. I know I’ve said it before but this implicates ex-D was either involved in the leak or involved in the cover up. Both are horrific and completely in the realm of “gross negligence”. Once a defense is been shown to participate or cover up crimes then they lose their ability to gain trust from the public and even more importantly the jury.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Correct. This is the case with certain other States as well. Lawyers licensed in certain jurisdiction are able to access more electronic documents than the general public in the CCS. With PACER (Federal Docs) you need an account...I'm not sure if there is a difference in terms of what you can see based on account type. There are also some States/Counties were only the CCS is viewable, but they don't scan in the documents electronically at all...if you want copies (no matter who you are) you need to request them through whatever the process is for that particular Clerk's office and/or send a runner to the Court.

JMO

Thanks for verifying that.

On rare occasions, Elkhart Co. makes a PCA clickable. I don't know why those are the only ones they do that with. They are entered as this below and are very detailed.
MC - Miscellaneous Criminal
Probable Cause: Arrest without warrant

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Judge Gull has responded to the SC and asked for a 5 day extension
"The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has declined to represent Respondent in this matter, causing Respondent to need to engage counsel."


JG attorneys:
Matthew R. Gutwein (#16414-49)
Christopher S. Stake (#27356-53)
DELANEY & DELANEY LLC

 

[MistyWaters]

That email to JG from BR was the most damning. Not only downplaying and distancing but stating in writing that the leak did not occur from their offices and blame shifting onto another party.
I found it very suspicious that the individual the ex-D was trying to focus attention on was the exact same individual that the leakers planned on blaming. I know I’ve said it before but this implicates ex-D was either involved in the leak or involved in the cover up. Both are horrific and completely in the realm of “gross negligence”. Once a defense is been shown to participate or cover up crimes then they lose their ability to gain trust from the public and even more importantly the jury.

That poses the question, is MW’s affidavit filled with lies and deceit or is it truthful. Without knowing anything more at this time, IMO better not to release it.

Something I do wonder about, it’s one thing to blame an innocent person for the leaks but entirely another if there an actual plan to set the guy up in some way using planted evidence. When the news of the leak first came out I got the impression LE was about to be blamed, not from anything specific, just a general sense of accusatory comments leaning in that direction. So I’ll wildly speculate the set-up guy would’ve been wrongfully accused of getting the photos from LE, possibly having paid money for them. If so, it can’t get much more dishonestly diabolical than that. Again, this is only my speculation.

 

[CGBSpender]

That email to JG from BR was the most damning. Not only downplaying and distancing but stating in writing that the leak did not occur from their offices and blame shifting onto another party.
I found it very suspicious that the individual the ex-D was trying to focus attention on was the exact same individual that the leakers planned on blaming. I know I’ve said it before but this implicates ex-D was either involved in the leak or involved in the cover up. Both are horrific and completely in the realm of “gross negligence”. Once a defense is been shown to participate or cover up crimes then they lose their ability to gain trust from the public and even more importantly the jury.

I just noticed...BR is communicating via e-mail with a Yahoo account...and in at least one instance AB was e-mailing discovery to BR (which he accidently sent to someone else)...despite the disqualification...and any efforts to delete...are copies BR's case related stuff going to be sitting on a Yahoo server somewhere in perpetuity? I said it before...and I'll say it again...this is what secure data rooms are for...

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

I just noticed...BR is communicating via e-mail with a Yahoo account...and in at least one instance AB was e-mailing discovery to BR (which he accidently sent to someone else)...despite the disqualification...and any efforts to delete...are copies BR's case related stuff going to be sitting on a Yahoo server somewhere in perpetuity? I said it before...and I'll say it again...this is what secure data rooms are for...

JMO

Good point. The ex-D have yet to blame hacking but it’s not over yet.

AB said the email error occurred as he only typed the first 3 letters and it just so happens the first 3 letters of Brad and Brandon are the same. Another, blame it on Yahoo.

JMO

 

[CGBSpender]

Thanks for verifying that.

On rare occasions, Elkhart Co. makes a PCA clickable. I don't know why those are the only ones they do that with. They are entered as this below and are very detailed.
MC - Miscellaneous Criminal
Probable Cause: Arrest without warrant

Electronic viewing and filing was a game changer for lawyers, particularly ones that remember the olden days of sending runners to the Clerk's office. IMO most systems were designed / set-up with a) Court efficiency in mind and b) ease of use for lawyers...and also designed to integrate with Lexis Courtlink and/or Westlaw Dockets for firms that need those broader tools. All this to say...these systems were not really designed with the idea in mind that they would provide services to the broader public (at least certainly not as a primary goal)...and I suspect some admins are better at managing certain features with respect to public access benefits than others.

JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

Judge Gull has responded to the SC and asked for a 5 day extension
"The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has declined to represent Respondent in this matter, causing Respondent to need to engage counsel."
View attachment 457949View attachment 457950View attachment 457951

JG attorneys:
Matthew R. Gutwein (#16414-49)
Christopher S. Stake (#27356-53)
DELANEY & DELANEY LLC

Expired Document Link - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[iamshadow21]

Good point. The ex-D have yet to blame hacking but it’s not over yet.

AB said the email error occurred as he only typed the first 3 letters and it just so happens the first 3 letters of Brad and Brandon are the same. Another, blame it on Yahoo.

JMO

Autocomplete. It's so new that nobody in the world has had time to adjust for it or learnt be conscientious enough to check the sender. Oh, wait...

Well, it should be easily provable. If the email he sent is addressed to the person he said he didn't mean to send it to, we'll know where to file this.

MOO

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Expired Document Link - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Thanks - extension granted