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

[Emma Peel]

From the 11/6/23 brief filed w/ SCION;
HERE's GULL's Chambers Conference Written Statement's LIST OF "GROSS NEGLIGENCE"

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.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Motion for Transcript filed 11/6/2023

This is new information to us (that the court reporter essentially states the judge is not allowing her to release it)

Paragraph 5:
"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.”

Paragraph 7:
"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."

Paragraph 8:
"Attorney Wieneke asked Court Reporter Williams if Attorney Leeman should remain in Fort Wayne, in the event the trial court ruled on the motion for transcript. In response, Court Reporter Williams indicated that counsel could not obtain the transcript that day, even if the court permitted them to have it."

Paragraph 9:
"As of the date of filing this motion, the trial court has not ruled on counsel’s motion for transcript. Due to the emergent nature of this original action, counsel ... now asks this Court to order the transcript be prepared."

What a mess. jmo

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Wieneke also tweeted boosting this article about Odinist white supremecist killers: White supremacists are killing in the name of an ancient Nordic religion

https://twitter.com/x/status/1721554576552182225

 

[TL4S]

From today's releases: RA signed the papers for a speedy trial, and AB and BR told the court they were prepared to sign those papers this month and go to trial in January. This is yet another one of RA's rights that were taken away. Personally, I think JG is sticking to her guns for her own ethical reasons, and likely has every expectation to eventually be recused. JMO.

 

[Emma Peel]

from the 11/6/23 brief:

Defense asserted Statements of Duress aplenty in Chambers Conference. Baldwin withdrew in protest of that duress. MOO

Counsel also informed the court that they believed their withdrawal was involuntary and done under duress, since their refusal to withdraw would “publicly disparage their representation of the accused, framing their advocacy on his behalf as ‘gross negligence,’” and cast Rick, his attorneys, and the merits of his defense in a negative light. [R1, 231]. Such a public statement “risked tainting the jury pool, harming their client’s defense, undermining their professional relationship with the client, and possibly creating an actual conflict for their continued representation.”[R1, 231].Faced with this dilemma, Attorney Baldwin Faced with this dilemma, Attorney Baldwin orally moved to withdraw his appearance, and Attorney Rozzi informed the trial court he would file a formal motion to withdraw his appearance at a later date. [R2, 6]. Attorney Rozzi did not withdraw. [See R1, 31-39].

footnote re: above chambers record, that the Court Reporter declined to provide transcript.

1 The court reporter declined to provide a transcript of the in-chambers proceeding, and the court did not rule on Relator’s motion for the transcript. Relator is relying upon the recollection of Rick’s attorneys memorialized shortly after the proceeding

Advanced-planned Ambush indeed. MOO

The judge entered the courtroom, went on the record without Rick or his attorneys being present, and stated there was an “unexpected turn of events” and that Rick’s lawyers had withdrawn from the case. [R2, 6]. The court concluded the hearing by noting that the State “had some witnesses here that came earlier to have the hearing, but clearly, this is outside of our control.” [R2, 7].

 

[Trebor5591]

Here is the filing from this morning.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

 

[CGBSpender]

From today's releases: RA signed the papers for a speedy trial, and AB and BR told the court they were prepared to sign those papers this month and go to trial in January. This is yet another one of RA's rights that were taken away. Personally, I think JG is sticking to her guns for her own ethical reasons, and likely has every expectation to eventually be recused. JMO.

I don't understand how they can make this claim of being ready for trial in January. They hadn't even picked up the latest batch of Discovery when they filed the Franks Memo in mid Sept...and there was still more Discovery heading their way up until Nov 1st. To think they would get through all of that discovery competently, and be ready for trial by January does not seem realistic nor in the best interest of the client.

Edit: Not to mention preparing for and arguing the multiple motions the former D filed that have yet to be heard.

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

[sbm]

This (your mark-up which is formally on the books) is effective January 1, 2024

Rule 74 - Recording Proceedings; Transcripts; Audio Recordings [Effective January 1, 2024], Ind. R. Trial. P. 74 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 74 - Recording Proceedings; Transcripts; Audio Recordings [Effective January 1, 2024], Ind. R. Trial. P. 74, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

This is in effect right now (until January 1, 2024)

Rule 74 - Recording machines; court reports; stenographic report or transcript as evidence [Effective until January 1, 2024], Ind. R. Trial. P. 74 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Rule 74 - Recording machines; court reports; stenographic report or transcript as evidence [Effective until January 1, 2024], Ind. R. Trial. P. 74, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

Neither specifically references in-chambers meetings. The rule presently in effect does not require audio unless I missed it. But, just because audio isn't required does not mean it was prohibited. They still could have audio recorded it but the question is, did they? I hope they did. Tone could make all the difference.

jmo

 

[CGBSpender]

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].

This is interesting...did MW, AB or BR talk to RF before ISP tried to speak with RF on the afternoon of Oct 10th? Is that possibly why RF refused to talk to ISP, and told them he was getting a lawyer? If MW was already taking responsibility for the leak...why was RF so distraught over telling the truth that he opted to end his own life on Oct 11th?

The more we learn...the less sense it makes...

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

I just wanna say, this is some elegant briefing by Wieneke & Co. On both briefs.
Refreshing. Writing quality is excellent. MOO

 

[Jurisprudence]

Wieneke also tweeted boosting this article about Odinist white supremecist killers: White supremacists are killing in the name of an ancient Nordic religion

https://twitter.com/x/status/1721554576552182225

I think this may be stepping out of her lane. I hope this doesn't come back to damage the matter currently before the court.

jmo

ETA: Unless she tied this in somehow as relevant in this morning's brief (haven't read that yet)

 

[girlhasnoname]

I don't understand how they can make this claim of being ready for trial in January. They hadn't even picked up the latest batch of Discovery when they filed the Franks Memo in mid Sept...and there was still more Discovery heading their way up until Nov 1st. To think they would get through all of that discovery competently, and be ready for trial by January does not seem realistic nor in the best interest of the client.

Edit: Not to mention preparing for and arguing the multiple motions the former D filed that have yet to be heard.

JMO

Agreed, I have learned never to take at face value anything this former Defense Team says. With all the court holidays coming between Nov, Dec and Jan no way. Now, if they were actually going to use that preposterous Memorandum from the Franks Hearing Motion as their defense, well.......

RA would probably be spending his time as a convicted murderer rather than accused Defendant.

MOO

 

[tlcya]

wrong thread

 

[girlhasnoname]

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].

This is interesting...did MW, AB or BR talk to RF before ISP tracked tried to speak with RF on the afternoon of Oct 10th? Is that possibly why RF refused to talk to ISP, and told them he was getting a lawyer? If MW was already taking responsibility for the leak...why was RF so distraught over telling the truth that he opted to end his own life on Oct 11th?

The more we learn...the less sense it makes...

JMO

Maybe someone suggested he not cooperate and retain an attorney, the receiving and passing on of CSAM is a punishable offense, not to mention a breach of his military code of conduct.

How awful for his family?? And for people to think that this still does not constitute Gross Negligence is bewildering to me.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think this may be stepping out of her lane. I hope this doesn't come back to damage the matter currently before the court.

jmo

ETA: Unless she tied this in somehow as relevant in this morning's brief (haven't read that yet)

Bad look IMO

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Who are defense_diaries and @SleuthieGoosie and why are they involved with helping on a SC case?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Who are defense_diaries and @SleuthieGoosie and why are they involved with helping on a SC case?

Podcasters, you know, the epitome of ethical journalism these days.

 

[Emma Peel]

I think this may be stepping out of her lane. I hope this doesn't come back to damage the matter currently before the court.

jmo

ETA: Unless she tied this in somehow as relevant in this morning's brief (haven't read that yet)

Pretty sure that the Odinist stuff appears w/in the previous writ motion's exhibits?
Her X-feed regularly supports her tweets w/ links to various articles for further reference. MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Motion for Transcript filed 11/6/2023

This is new information to us (that the court reporter essentially states the judge is not allowing her to release it)

Paragraph 5:
"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.”

Paragraph 7:
"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."

Paragraph 8:
"Attorney Wieneke asked Court Reporter Williams if Attorney Leeman should remain in Fort Wayne, in the event the trial court ruled on the motion for transcript. In response, Court Reporter Williams indicated that counsel could not obtain the transcript that day, even if the court permitted them to have it."

Paragraph 9:
"As of the date of filing this motion, the trial court has not ruled on counsel’s motion for transcript. Due to the emergent nature of this original action, counsel ... now asks this Court to order the transcript be prepared."

What a mess. jmo

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

BBM

Wouldn't an in-camera recording have audio as well?

 

[abams]

Motion for Transcript filed 11/6/2023

This is new information to us (that the court reporter essentially states the judge is not allowing her to release it)

Paragraph 5:
"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.”

Paragraph 7:
"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."

Paragraph 8:
"Attorney Wieneke asked Court Reporter Williams if Attorney Leeman should remain in Fort Wayne, in the event the trial court ruled on the motion for transcript. In response, Court Reporter Williams indicated that counsel could not obtain the transcript that day, even if the court permitted them to have it."

Paragraph 9:
"As of the date of filing this motion, the trial court has not ruled on counsel’s motion for transcript. Due to the emergent nature of this original action, counsel ... now asks this Court to order the transcript be prepared."

What a mess. jmo

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Am I alone in wondering if it even exists?