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

[sunshineray]

Yes, he couldn't get out of that mess fast enough IMO.

Why then are posters saying no he didn't, he just withdrew in a limited way? It's all so confusing. Didn't H only sign on as B's lawyer in a "limited" way so withdrawing in that "limited" way is the same as withdrawing completely in how he was ever involved? Am I wrong in thinking of it like that?

 

[sunshineray]

From Wieneke Law Office, LLC. 8 hours ago:

https://x.com/wienekelo/status/1721126999765258534?s=46&t=rlxmmTQVKLhzP78ILfWjKQ

So this special attorney hired/engaged by God knows who, is calling RA's defense team "exceptional" with no comment on the violations that occured which originated from that defense team?

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Maybe B&R thought that was the only way they could bring the Odin issue forward? Am I correct in thinking that once something is on record, it's always going to be on record for appeal?
SCOIN has it right now in the Record of Proceedings.
Case # 23S-OR-00302

10/30/2023

Record of Proceedings (Original Action) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23 Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023

The proper way to bring the Odin issue forward and get it on record was to bring it up at trial, where witnesses are sworn in, and can be cross examined and evidence can be explained or refuted in front of a jury. What we have now is 100+ pages of what the ex-defense thinks happened.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

So this special attorney hired/engaged by God knows who, is calling RA's defense team "exceptional" with no comment on the violations that occured which originated from that defense team?

Just like Libby and Abby who have been all but forgotten, so has the blatant and continuous misbehavior of the ex-defense.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The proper way to bring the Odin issue forward and get it on record was to bring it up at trial, where witnesses are sworn in, and can be cross examined and evidence can be explained or refuted in front of a jury. What we have now is 100+ pages of what the ex-defense thinks happened.

Yes, what they 'think' may have/possibly happened. We know LE has already corrected some of the rumors, allegations as false.

It was a cheap shot, Hail Mary, end run and it blew up in spectacular fashion right in their faces. Gross misconduct and exploitation of Abby & Libby's death scene all day long IMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

So this special attorney hired/engaged by God knows who, is calling RA's defense team "exceptional" with no comment on the violations that occured which originated from that defense team?

Oh, just when you think it can't get any crazier in IN.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

And this isn't even all of them, I can't find the actual list as a PDF but in the memorandum they reference up to 120 exhibits (some of the ones not listed here include RA's interview, 2 interviews and description sheet by witness BB, interview with witness SC, KA's statement, affidavits by members of the defense team, depositions with members of LE). While the memorandum did include speculation and parts of it were ... not very effective, I think it did have a lot of info clearly rooted in fact.

What I do find odd is that a single bullet of the same make and caliber was found in a keepsake style box in RA's home during the search. Seems very odd to me, like why would you have one particular bullet like that unless it meant something very sentimental to you? Like leaving one at the crime scene and one at home for the two girls?.....

IMO I'd expect a killer to keep a token from the crime like something from the girls rather than a bullet from a weapon he didn't kill them with. I'm very interested to learn if any of the other evidence processed that they found at his house ended up having any connection to the girls that maybe they didn't fully analyze prior to RA's arrest so didn't include in the PCA.

Why then are posters saying no he didn't, he just withdrew in a limited way? It's all so confusing. Didn't H only sign on as B's lawyer in a "limited" way so withdrawing in that "limited" way is the same as withdrawing completely in how he was ever involved? Am I wrong in thinking of it like that?

That is also my understanding, it states "withdrawal of limited appearance" on the docket. I think he only planned to represent AB for a hearing on whether he could continue as D for RA.

So this special attorney hired/engaged by God knows who, is calling RA's defense team "exceptional" with no comment on the violations that occured which originated from that defense team?

She also serves on the commission for the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission which is charged with disciplining lawyers who don't abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct

Judicial Nominating / Qualifications Commission

www.in.gov

 

[Emma Peel]

SCOIN DOCKET ALERT :

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1721544971742859484?s=20

from the Appellate Attorney. Looks like a new Case. No. 23S-OR-311

https://twitter.com/Wienekelo
@Wienekelo
·
48m

Indiana Supreme Court Case No. 23S-OR-311. Should be up soon. A special shout-out to three people: my co-counsel, Mark Leeman, who dropped everything to get this done.
And @defense_diaries and @SleuthieGoosie, who helped immensely with background and context.

 

[Emma Peel]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

That, hopefully, will bring you to the new case on the docket. I'm not great at links. (sorry)
@FrostedGlass, where are ya ???

Oh! Goodie! That link works, for now, it seems. Time to READ.

Relates to RA's Old Defense being removed by the Trial Court.

There's a Brief.
There's a record of a request by Wieneke for the in-chambers hearings at the Trial Court; Trial Court didn't respond, so Wieneke asks that the SCION request that record from the Trial Court.

Here's the Final ASK from the Brief:

CONCLUSION​

To ensure that, going forward, Richard Allen receives his fundamental right to counsel, a writ of mandamus is appropriate to reinstate Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi as court-appointed counsel, to set a trial date within 70 days from the issuance of the writ, and to remove the special judge and appoint a new one.

Specific request for SCION to intervene with a writ of mandamus directing:

The RA trial date to be set for 70 days w/ Baldwin, Rozzi and a newly appointed Judge for RA's trial.


Adding: With this 2nd SCION filing we have yet another attorney repping RC at the SCION (that's 4 at the SCION now). Most recently w/ this filing comes: Mark Leeman

If I've properly kept track of counsel in support of RA in both courts, that's now a BAKER's Dozen.

 

[Jurisprudence]

It appears this ain't the Judge's first rodeo.
Below see the last time, 2018, the replacement Defense moved to have their client's revocation of counsel by Judge Gull reviewed. But they opted to simply make the objection record and they didn't pursue to the interlocutory review.


Private attorneys in death penalty cases create dilemmas for judges, public defenders - The Indiana Lawyer

Yes. Defendant twice filed motions to have Gull recuse herself from the case for violating the code of judicial conduct. #685
So removal of defense counsel aside, it's not the first time she's been accused of violating code and oath.

jmo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Why then are posters saying no he didn't, he just withdrew in a limited way? It's all so confusing. Didn't H only sign on as B's lawyer in a "limited" way so withdrawing in that "limited" way is the same as withdrawing completely in how he was ever involved? Am I wrong in thinking of it like that?

DH was only representing AB in his memorandum to Judge Gull not to be dismissed from the case, so I guess you could say limited in a way. He is not part of RA's defense team and since AB will not be representing Allen, DH is no longer needed.

This is how I understand it.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

And this isn't even all of them, I can't find the actual list as a PDF but in the memorandum they reference up to 120 exhibits (some of the ones not listed here include RA's interview, 2 interviews and description sheet by witness BB, interview with witness SC, KA's statement, affidavits by members of the defense team, depositions with members of LE). While the memorandum did include speculation and parts of it were ... not very effective, I think it did have a lot of info clearly rooted in fact.

IMO I'd expect a killer to keep a token from the crime like something from the girls rather than a bullet from a weapon he didn't kill them with. I'm very interested to learn if any of the other evidence processed that they found at his house ended up having any connection to the girls that maybe they didn't fully analyze prior to RA's arrest so didn't include in the PCA.

That is also my understanding, it states "withdrawal of limited appearance" on the docket. I think he only planned to represent AB for a hearing on whether he could continue as D for RA.

She also serves on the commission for the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission which is charged with disciplining lawyers who don't abide by the Rules of Professional Conduct

Judicial Nominating / Qualifications Commission

www.in.gov

RSBBM

IMO I'd expect a killer to keep a token from the crime like something from the girls rather than a bullet from a weapon he didn't kill them with. I'm very interested to learn if any of the other evidence processed that they found at his house ended up having any connection to the girls that maybe they didn't fully analyze prior to RA's arrest so didn't include in the PCA.

I think there is more recovered from the SW's that we don't know about yet, hence the D's crazy, fan fic Memorandum in support of the "Franks Hearing".

It might have taken some items to be fully analyzed and it's not surprising that they might not have been included in the PCA. The State doesn't have to share every single thing, just enough to show probable cause.

JMO

 

[TL4S]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

That, hopefully, will bring you to the new case on the docket. I'm not great at links. (sorry)
@FrostedGlass, where are ya ???

Oh! Goodie! That link works, for now, it seems. Time to READ.

Relates to RA's Old Defense being removed by the Trial Court.

There's a Brief.
There's a record of a request by Wieneke for the in-chambers hearings at the Trial Court; Trial Court didn't respond, so Wieneke asks that the SCION request that record from the Trial Court.

Here's the Final ASK from the Brief:


Specific request for SCION to intervene with a writ of mandamus directing:

The RA trial date to be set for 70 days w/ Baldwin, Rozzi and a newly appointed Judge for RA's trial.


Adding: With this 2nd SCION filing we have yet another attorney repping RC at the SCION (that's 4 at the SCION now). Most recently w/ this filing comes: Mark Leeman

If I've properly kept track of counsel in support of RA in both courts, that's now a BAKER's Dozen.

For anyone who listens to Defense Diaries...we already knew this was coming.

 

[FrostedGlass]

​

23S-OR-00311​

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

The blue links are clickable in mycase

Chronological Case Summary​

11/06/2023	Petition for Writ of Mandamus (Original Action) Certificate of Service-Electronic 11/06/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/06/2023
11/06/2023	Brief - Relator Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/06/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/06/2023
11/06/2023	Record of Proceedings (Original Action) - Two (2) Volumes Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/06/2023
11/06/2023	Document Filed Motion for Transcripts Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/06/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/06/2023
11/06/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 11/06/23 Emergency Writ and Permanent Writ of Mandamus PostmarkDate: 11/06/2023
11/06/2023	Original Action Documents Transmitted Brief - Relator Motion for Transcript

 

[Jurisprudence]

Here is a reference to an "audio" recording again. I look forward to the day when we learn if audio was actually recorded.

"Hennessy countered that the motion’s construction was an example of the competency of the defense team as opposed to the judge’s finding of their “gross negligence.”
Hennessy also argued that he was not allowed access to the private conference in the judge’s Fort Wayne chambers and could not address in real-time her allegations against the lawyers.
FOX59/CBS4 has submitted an Open Records Act request to the court seeking the audio recording of the discussion and ultimatum delivered behind closed doors.
“I didn’t expect to change your mind,” Hennessy said the judge."

Judge confirms defense attorney dismissals in Delphi double murder case

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The latest hearing in the case against accused killer Richard Allen was due to start at 9 a.m. in the third-floor courtroom of Carroll Circuit Court in Delphi today. Al…

fox59.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

Here is a reference to an "audio" recording again. I look forward to the day when we learn if audio was actually recorded.

"Hennessy countered that the motion’s construction was an example of the competency of the defense team as opposed to the judge’s finding of their “gross negligence.”
Hennessy also argued that he was not allowed access to the private conference in the judge’s Fort Wayne chambers and could not address in real-time her allegations against the lawyers.
FOX59/CBS4 has submitted an Open Records Act request to the court seeking the audio recording of the discussion and ultimatum delivered behind closed doors.
“I didn’t expect to change your mind,” Hennessy said the judge."

Judge confirms defense attorney dismissals in Delphi double murder case

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The latest hearing in the case against accused killer Richard Allen was due to start at 9 a.m. in the third-floor courtroom of Carroll Circuit Court in Delphi today. Al…

fox59.com

 

[girlhasnoname]

Page 2

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Bits I found interesting/clarifying:
Brief

On December 21, 2022, Rick’s counsel, Andrew Baldwin, inadvertently emailed a summary log of the evidence on a flash drive received during discovery. The log did not contain any substantive evidence but was similar to a table of contents. [R1, 242].

Rick also signed a motion for speedy trial, which Rick’s attorneys planned to file in early November to lock in the January trial date. [R2, 37]. During a telephone conference with the court in early October 2023, Rick’s attorneys informed the court that they were ready to proceed to trial in January. [R2, 37].

In August 2023, a former employee of Attorney Baldwin’s office, Mitchell Westerman, stopped by Baldwin’s office to visit. [R2, 34]. Westerman slipped into a conference room where he found crime scene photos, and by his own admission secretly photographed some of the discovery material and disseminated it. [R2, 34]. Attorney Baldwin was not aware Westerman had done this. [R1, 215].

On October 9, 2023, Westerman told Attorney Baldwin about his inappropriate, if not criminal, conduct in secretly photographing the discovery items. [R1, 215]. Rick’s counsel informed the State and the court the following day. [R1, 215]. The parties had a telephone conference with the court that day to discuss the matter, and the State mentioned the issue of disqualifying counsel. [R2, 37].

On October 19, 2023, the judge opened the courtroom to the media and, for the first time, authorized “one or two cameras providing pool coverage [to] be permitted in the Court session.” [R1, 30]. The attorneys appeared in chambers without Rick being present. [R1, 228]. During the conference, the trial court read a prepared statement to Rick’s counsel, accusing them of “gross negligence” and citing specific examples of their zealous advocacy as purported acts of their negligence. [R1, 241-42].
These purported acts of “gross negligence” included the following:
• Issuing a press release before entry of the gag order;
• Filing motions to protect Rick’s health and safety, which the court believed lacked evidentiary support;
• Unintentionally emailing a discovery log to a third party;
• Unspecified “improper” statements made in the motion to suppress;
• Filing a tort claim notice to preserve Rick’s right to seek redress for the conditions of his ongoing confinement;
• Attorney Baldwin hiring a lawyer to appear on his behalf on the issue of sanctions or disqualification; and
• A third party impermissibly photographing discovery without the knowledge or consent of either lawyer.

The court then informed Rick’s attorneys that they had two options: (1) “voluntarily” withdraw their appearances; or (2) be disqualified as counsel after the court read its prepared statement in open court. [R1, 228].

Indiana recognizes only two narrowly circumscribed situations where a trial court may sever the attorney-client relationship against the client’s wishes: (1) the lawyer is not a member of the state bar, Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988); or (2) the lawyer has an actual conflict of interest that will obstruct his ability to provide effective representation. See T.C.H., 714 N.E.2d 1162 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999).
No Indiana court has ever tolerated a trial judge removing a lawyer from a case, over the client’s objection, based on the judge’s subjective belief the lawyer is negligent, or even “grossly negligent.” And courts across the country regularly issue extraordinary writs in criminal cases to reinstate defense attorneys who have been kicked off cases for conduct the trial court found upsetting or negligent. See State v. Huskey, 82 S.W.3d 297, 311 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2002); Smith v. Superior Ct. of Los Angeles Cnty., 440 P.2d 65, 75 (Sup. Ct. Cal. 1968); Stearnes v. Clinton, 780 S.W.2d 216, 223 (Tex. Crim. App. 1989); Buntion v. Harmon, 827 S.W.2d 945 (Tex. Ct. Crim. App. 1992); Finkelstein v. State, 574 So. 2d 1164, 1168 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1991).

But Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi were removed because the trial court disagreed with their conduct. The judge made a sua sponte summary finding in-chambers of “gross negligence” after the State raised the issue of disqualifying them. [R2, 37]. It is entirely unclear from the record what the court found was “gross negligence.” The record only includes Attorney Rozzi’s recollection of the acts mentioned by the court, because Rick has been unable to obtain a transcript of the in-chambers proceeding.

Nevertheless, the judge’s subjective allegations of “gross negligence” fall into two categories: (1) a mere disagreement with zealous defense tactics, or (2) concerns about the unintended release of evidence, which objectively had no effect on the lawyers’ ongoing, effective representation of Rick. A Sixth Amendment interference-with-counsel claim is at its zenith when a trial court dismisses a lawyer because it disagrees with competent advocacy. See Stearnes, 780 S.W.2d at 223. That is precisely what occurred here.

Motion for Transcript

However, with respect to the in-chambers proceeding, Court Reporter Williams informed counsel that the “in-camera meeting was a meeting of the parties and not a hearing in open court, it is confidential, and I am unable to provide that at this time.”

7. After acknowledging that Attorney Wieneke’s limited appearance and motion for transcript were on the docket, Court Reporter Williams informed counsel that she still maintained the in-chambers proceeding was confidential and, thus, she could not provide a transcript to counsel until the trial court granted the motion for transcript.

 

[Emma Peel]

A Couple of Westerman notations in this new SCION writ brief (the briefs linked immediately above).

Westerman slipped into a conference room where he found crime scene photos, and by his own admission secretly photographed some of the discovery material and disseminated it. [R2, 34].Attorney Baldwin was not aware Westerman had done this. [R1, 215].

Is R2, 34, and R1, 215 etc ... from Baldwin's motion about Westerman? Or is some of this from another document, such as Westerman's Affidavit or an LE investigation report?

Is this some NEW info on WESTERMAN (at least I think this is new?) that Westerman told Baldwin directly he did a very bad thing? ON OCTOBER 9th? !!

On October 9, 2023, Westerman told Attorney Baldwin about his in appropriate,if not criminal, conduct in secretly photographing the discovery items. [R1, 215].Rick’s counsel informed the State and the court the following day. [R1, 215]. The parties had a telephone conference with the court that day to discuss the matter,and the State mentioned the issue of disqualifying counsel. [R2, 37].

 

[girlhasnoname]

Bits I found interesting/clarifying:
Brief








Motion for Transcript

Back to "Rick" again I see instead of Defendant Allen hah.