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

[Jurisprudence]

“Allen asked us to represent him”

IMO someone independent should inform Allen of the possible consequences of retaining a defense team who could harm his chance of having a fair trial. He’s in no way qualified to make that decision on his own. Does he want to risk spending the rest of his life in jail just because they‘re nice and bring gummy bears for him whenever they visit? (my speculation).

JMO

I see this differently. She's been teetering on handing him an appeal if he's convicted. Now, after this gets out and the American people see what's being done in our justice system in contravention of basic constitutional rights, she may be handing him an acquittal for which jeopardy will attach. I really do believe that the majority of people who are following this case will be disturbed by these latest events.

jmo

 

[arielilane]

New trial date set for next October with the newly appointed attorneys that Richard Allen doesn't want.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719371545854783824

https://twitter.com/NewsyBarbara

Wanted to do a side by side... moo



Pic courtesy of wthr.com

 

[MistyWaters]

JG has denied an accused counsel of his choice and instead, has appointed counsel of her choice. Whatever you think about this case or the defense, this is backwards and should be alarming to all.

jmo

A fair trial is a Constitutional Right of indigents, is it not? That right takes precedence over his choice of counsel IMO.

 

[CGBSpender]

“Allen asked us to represent him”

IMO someone independent should inform Allen of the possible consequences of retaining a defense team who could harm his chance of having a fair trial. He’s in no way qualified to make that decision on his own. Does he want to risk spending the rest of his life in jail just because they‘re nice and bring gummy bears for him whenever they visit? (my speculation).

JMO

For goodness sake...so now suddenly RA is competent to make decisions, and communicate effectively with counsel? Wasn't that the basis for the motion to move him from Westville...he was mentally unstable and non-communicative, and unable to assist with his own defense?

This guy is no dummy...of course he wants them to continue to represent him...because they have a conflict of interest, and their actions/inactions that are allegedly negligent may open the door for him to successfully appeal any conviction on the merits of his case.

I really don't get it. The former D are officers of the Court. No matter how passionate they may be about their client, I don't understand their inability to accept that some things happened on their watch that were not good for the client...and that they need to step down in order to ensure that their former client receives representation with counsel that has no conflicts of interest, and that the integrity of the trial is protected. I feel like their digging their heels in, and not putting what is in the best interest of the client first is making them look even worse publicly.

JMO

 

[Vern]

I'm wondering if there is precedent ... if this has ever happened before - w/ a withdrawal of state-paid defense, only to have the same defense return as defendant's private pro-bono defense.

Experts say the privately funded defense is near impossible for the Court to remove.
The public-paid Defense is easy for the Court to remove.
This situation seems inequitable in our system, but it's been this way forever.

Gull and the Old D's might be testing new territory here. JMHO

I have a question that I'm hoping some of the legal experts in here can answer:

Original Defence Team are court-appointed ergo paid by State taxpayers. Their hours and work, and office space etc are on the taxpayers dime.

If they do/did continue to work Allen's case "Pro-Bono", are they having take vacation days to show up for court appearances and trial, prohibited from working the case in any way, shape or form from their taxpayer paid offices, using state resources etc? Must do all ther work after going home for the day (ie: cannot work the case during their paid hours or in their state workplace or sing any state resources).

If not and they can use State time & dime, resources and working hours that taxpayers are paying for ... are they really representing Allen "pro-bono"??

It would seem to me that any other means would infer that the State was still "paying" and ergo they wouldn't actually be "pro-bono" at all??

 

[MistyWaters]

I see this differently. She's been teetering on handing him an appeal if he's convicted. Now, after this gets out and the American people see what's being done in our justice system in contravention of basic constitutional rights, she may be handing him an acquittal for which jeopardy will attach. I really do believe that the majority of people who are following this case will be disturbed by these latest events.

jmo

What is still unknown are the specifics of the alleged gross negligence the ex-D committed in their representation of RA. But should that exist, that’s not teetering on an appeal, that’d be handing it to him.

JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

How can a judge deny a defendant pro bono representation?

My guess is it’s because they will be facing serious legal proceedings themselves if not bar hearings regarding misconduct.
The fact that they had a very serious leak that originated from their office and occurred right before the memorandum was issued describing the crime scene deserves serious scrutiny.
The fact that there was discussion of a cover up framing a local influencer (divulged by Murder Sheet) by the parties involved in the leak and then the Defense also followed up with an email to the judge on 10/6 also pointing to this same individual that had been targeted as the scapegoat is also very concerning.

 

[CGBSpender]

JG has denied an accused counsel of his choice and instead, has appointed counsel of her choice. Whatever you think about this case or the defense, this is backwards and should be alarming to all.

jmo

I have to disagree. The Court has an obligation to uphold the integrity of the future trial and verdict. The defendant cannot insist on using counsel whose actions/inactions may result in his ability to successfully appeal any future verdict...and the J has a duty to not knowingly allow that to happen.

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

https://x.com/davebangert/status/1719366142563602854?s=20


Dave Bangert
@davebangert
·
22m

As hearing was supposed to start, Rozzi & Baldwin went to defense table, as newly appointed defense attys stood behind them. Set up a showdown.Judge: “What’s changed in the past 12 days?” When she announced Rozzi & Baldwin withdrew as she presented ‘gross negligence’ claims. 3/

Rozzi said that was laid out in filings in past two weeks, saying they’d been zealous in defense, not negligent. Rozzi: “We’re on a different page on what happened.”Indiana Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on Gull’s decision. Here’s background.

Supreme Court gets taste of fight between judge, attorneys in Delphi murder case

All leads up to a status hearing scheduled Tuesday for Richard Allen, charged in the 2017 murders of Abby Williams and Libby German

www.basedinlafayette.com

Unfortunately, the Indiana Supreme Court has not been asked to weigh in on the removal of counsel issue imo. The writ pertains to what she's been doing in the docket and asks the court to step in, stop it, and order it corrected. The filings tangentially make reference to the Rozzi and Baldwin issues because it is all of their filings that are being removed. I'm not sure what R&B will do now. Will they go away and wait for a verdict and then act or will they try to get this heard as an extraordinary circumstance.

jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

For goodness sake...so now suddenly RA is competent to make decisions, and communicate effectively with counsel? Wasn't that the basis for the motion to move him from Westville...he was mentally unstable and non-communicative, and unable to assist with his own defense?

This guy is no dummy...of course he wants them to continue to represent him...because they have a conflict of interest, and their actions/inactions that are allegedly negligent may open the door for him to successfully appeal any conviction on the merits of his case.

I really don't get it. The former D are officers of the Court. No matter how passionate they may be about their client, I don't understand their inability to accept that some things happened on their watch that were not good for the client...and that they need to step down in order to ensure that their former client receives representation with counsel that has no conflicts of interest, and that the integrity of the trial is protected. I feel like their digging their heels in, and not putting what is in the best interest of the client first is making them look even worse publicly.

JMO

Yes and if a couple of prison guards wearing Odinists patches can cause RA to falsely confess his guilt to his wife and mother five times, I’d ask what power and control do a couple of strong-willed attorneys have over him?

 

[Jurisprudence]

A fair trial is a Constitutional Right of indigents. That right takes precedence over his choice of counsel IMO.

I don't understand that post.

jmo

 

[Justice101]

We need a side by side from him about circa 2017, correct?

 

[Emma Peel]

I have a question that I'm hoping some of the legal experts in here can answer:

Original Defence Team are court-appointed ergo paid by State taxpayers. Their hours and work, and office space etc are on the taxpayers dime.

If they do/did continue to work Allen's case "Pro-Bono", are they having take vacation days to show up for court appearances and trial, prohibited from working the case in any way, shape or form from their taxpayer paid offices, using state resources etc? Must do all ther work after going home for the day (ie: cannot work the case during their paid hours or in their state workplace or sing any state resources).

If not and they can use State time & dime, resources and working hours that taxpayers are paying for ... are they really representing Allen "pro-bono"??

It would seem to me that any other means would infer that the State was still "paying" and ergo they wouldn't actually be "pro-bono" at all??

The Old D are not govt employees. They are both in private criminal defense practice ... they were contracted and paid by the State ONLY to provide defense for indigent RA.

 

[sunshineray]

Are we still playing chess?
Old D can file an emergency appeal, methinks.
And ... they can file to have Gull DQ'd. moo

I think they aleady did that, no? That's what the heavy hitters are in it for, one being on the code review board for the State Supreme Court.

 

[iamshadow21]

I have to disagree. The Court has an obligation to uphold the integrity of the future trial and verdict. The defendant cannot insist on using counsel whose actions/inactions may result in his ability to successfully appeal any future verdict...and the J has a duty to not knowingly allow that to happen.

JMO

I agree, I think the Judge is trying to stop things going completely off the rails. She knows things about the alleged misconduct that we don't, and what we know already is pretty bad. I think the former team are going to be lucky if they walk away from this with careers, and trying to represent pro bono is nothing to do with RA at all, it's a Hail Mary.

MOO

 

[abams]

My guess is it’s because they will be facing serious legal proceedings themselves if not bar hearings regarding misconduct.
The fact that they had a very serious leak that originated from their office and occurred right before the memorandum was issued describing the crime scene deserves serious scrutiny.
The fact that there was discussion of a cover up framing a local influencer (divulged by Murder Sheet) by the parties involved in the leak and then the Defense also followed up with an email to the judge on 10/6 also pointing to this same individual that had been targeted as the scapegoat is also very concerning.

What serious legal proceedings? A bar complaint which the state bar handles but other than possible contempt of court, what would be the charges? Can't see it.

 

[Jurisprudence]

I have to disagree. The Court has an obligation to uphold the integrity of the future trial and verdict. The defendant cannot insist on using counsel whose actions/inactions may result in his ability to successfully appeal any future verdict...and the J has a duty to not knowingly allow that to happen.

JMO

This is not correct.

Moo

 

[sunshineray]

... and Judge Gull seems very shy about documenting these "great concerns" for the record.

Perhaps she should write it down so the Defendant can read it, and get a 2nd opinion, etc.
The fact that she hasn't documented/recorded her great concerns, leaves her decisions unsupported - and leaves her decisions vulnerable.

I think Gull has one eye on the door. Maybe even a foot. moo

The Supreme Court will decide, they've accepted the case and I'm sure will look at the grave concerns, the gross negligence that the judge ruled was there.

 

[Emma Peel]

For goodness sake...so now suddenly RA is competent to make decisions, and communicate effectively with counsel? Wasn't that the basis for the motion to move him from Westville...he was mentally unstable and non-communicative, and unable to assist with his own defense?

This guy is no dummy...of course he wants them to continue to represent him...because they have a conflict of interest, and their actions/inactions that are allegedly negligent may open the door for him to successfully appeal any conviction on the merits of his case.

I really don't get it. The former D are officers of the Court. No matter how passionate they may be about their client, I don't understand their inability to accept that some things happened on their watch that were not good for the client...and that they need to step down in order to ensure that their former client receives representation with counsel that has no conflicts of interest, and that the integrity of the trial is protected. I feel like their digging their heels in, and not putting what is in the best interest of the client first is making them look even worse publicly.

JMO

What conflict of interest?

IMO, If either of the Old D is under investigation, Gull would immediately OUT that info. Checkmate. Game over.

Something folks might not realize is that ... with Baldwin at least ... he believes that flexibility, thinking outside the box, pursuing other investigative trails, poking holes and discrediting a criminal investigation is a major part of his process ... a benefit, not a handicap.

I found his ethos, right there on the front page of his firm's website bio, to be frank as to his approach and style. If Judge Gull doesn't care for this ethos, this defense style, why did she hire it?

Here's Baldwin's website bio page:

Andrew J. Baldwin | The Criminal Defense Team

 

[sunshineray]

https://x.com/angelaganote/status/1719368043233497513?s=20

BREAKING: A new trial date for the man charged with killing Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi in 2017. Richard Allen leaves court today after learning his trial is moved to October 2024.

View attachment 457234

Looks like he put his weight back on.