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

[Jurisprudence]

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??

Original defense team are attorneys in private practice. In short-staffed PD offices or in very small counties where the PD office may be small, private attorneys are pulled from a list to fill the void. B&W were pulled to rep RA, but this never made them public defenders. It only set them up to be paid as PDs for his case at a rate much lower than what they would likely receive if privately retained. Their appearance filings last night to continue on as pro bono counsel "in the event they are not reinstated as his PDs" would have resulted in them doing this work for free and in eating all of the costs associated with the representation. To go to these lengths has me convinced they believe in his innocence but this is speculation only. They could have easily washed their hands of this.

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

Bottom line, this AM Old D finally got Gull on the record, (and not on camera), DQ-ing them for "gross negligence". They officially exhausted remedies at the lower court - which they really needed to do. Now they can bring a clearer case to the higher court.

(We probably shouldn't forget that Gull had other options at her disposal to get the Old D in line that she never used. She could have sanctioned them.)

JMHO

 

[MistyWaters]

JMHO:
Sometimes I think we're making simple things over-complicated.

IMO, we have a prosecution-friendly Judge in Gull (yesterday's filing at Supreme Court lays it out), her attorney work back in the day was all prosecution, the P in this case asked her to remove the D, she did, and she went back to her hometown bar neighborhood and hired some new Ps ( whose work she's familiar with over the years).

And Gull can do and be ALL of the above - and that's fine. But she will be challenged b/c the legal system is meant to be adversarial. Which is also a good thing.

I also think Gull may not have great Clerk support. Gull whines about reading the Frank memo's 136 pages. (c'mon. Attnys read like the wind. Why don't the Clerks do that and brief their Judge?) Also the clerks have murdered the docket (LOL) and landed that problem in Supreme Court.

Big Case, Cameras, Press, Critics, Microscopes, Flamboyance. Judge Gull & her team may not the best match for it. All moo.

It’s not quite “Gull and her team”. The county‘s Clerk of the Court is an elected position.

Chris Nancarrow

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

 

[sunshineray]

The judge is not who should be mentoring a defendant involving decision making. The ex-D have already accused her of being biased.

The prosecution backed her up on it. The SC will look at it all and we must wait for that to be completed. I thinking about it, another aspect of it has to be be publically naming 5 people in the Franks memo as being involved in the murders. I mean what was the D doing by revealing names like that? It's possible those people now will sue. The D also revealed many of the witnesses. They doxed like over 10 people...to what end? If tgat's not negligence what is? AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

We might find out via the appeals process if simple stating on the record "I have great concerns", cuts it.

( p.s. If Gull knows something about the Old D team that no one else knows, (such as they remain under investigation for the Leak, and are not cleared, therefore have a conflict of interest), I would think she'd be referencing that concern. And she's not.) MOO

She doesn't have to voice it publically, just to the SC when asked about it all.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

What serious legal proceedings? A bar complaint which the state bar handles but other than possible contempt of court, what would be the charges?

RSBM
There is an ongoing investigation on all parties involved in the Delphi crime scene photo leaks. So what laws have been broken and what the defenses’ involvement in it remains to be determined.
Defense’s distancing from the horrific event, downplaying and then redirecting attention to other parties and other issues makes me think they know full well what legal issues may arise from the investigation.

 

[Vern]

Original defense team are attorneys in private practice. In short-staffed PD offices or in very small counties where the PD office may be small, private attorneys are pulled from a list to fill the void. B&W were pulled to rep RA, but this never made them public defenders. It only set them up to be paid as PDs for his case at a rate much lower than what they would likely receive if privately retained. Their appearance filings last night to continue on as pro bono counsel "in the event they are not reinstated as his PDs" would have resulted in them doing this work for free and in eating all of the costs associated with the representation. To go to these lengths has me convinced they believe in his innocence but this is speculation only. They could have easily washed their hands of this.

jmo

Thank you!!

 

[Emma Peel]

Original defense team are attorneys in private practice. In short-staffed PD offices or in very small counties where the PD office may be small, private attorneys are pulled from a list to fill the void. B&W were pulled to rep RA, but this never made them public defenders. It only set them up to be paid as PDs for his case at a rate much lower than what they would likely receive if privately retained. Their appearance filings last night to continue on as pro bono counsel "in the event they are not reinstated as his PDs" would have resulted in them doing this work for free and in eating all of the costs associated with the representation. To go to these lengths has me convinced they believe in his innocence but this is speculation only. They could have easily washed their hands of this.

jmo

Yes, agreed.
Old D has a lot of confidence in their client's case.
(And some excellent appellate attnys confidently cleared their schedules last week in support of the Old D.)

 

[Cyber sleuth]

The prosecution backed her up on it. The SC will look at it all and we must wait for that to be completed. I thinking about it, another aspect of it has to be be publically naming 5 people in the Franks memo as being involved in the murders. I mean what was the D doing by revealing names like that? It's possible those people now will sue. The D also revealed many of the witnesses. They doxed like over 10 people...to what end? If tgat's not negligence what is? AJMO

If I was the victims family I would be suing the all parties responsible for the leak. I would be pushing for arrest for all involved in the negligence and resulting distribution of the photos that showed children murdered and exposed.

 

[sunshineray]

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

Not if, as she stated, there was gross negligence on the part of those lawyers.

 

[gremlin444]

The prosecution backed her up on it. The SC will look at it all and we must wait for that to be completed. I thinking about it, another aspect of it has to be be publically naming 5 people in the Franks memo as being involved in the murders. I mean what was the D doing by revealing names like that? It's possible those people now will sue. The D also revealed many of the witnesses. They doxed like over 10 people...to what end? If tgat's not negligence what is? AJMO

The Prosecutors Podcast (and Murder Sheet as well, I believe) has specifically addressed whether the people named in the Franks memo can use the Defense lawyers. Answer: they can not. If an attorney is engaged in official court business (filings, speaking in court) on behalf of a client, it is absolutely protected.

Now, if they step onto the courthouse steps and say those same statements to reporters, that is NOT protected.

 

[photographer4]

I guess this is double down time for JG. "There's a writ now filed in S Ct questioning my integrity so I'm holding firm." Problem for JG though imo, her double down of today also broke with procedure. So I suppose she's doubling down in defense of herself while at the same time, doubling down and shining a light on her questionable conduct, all the while leaving collateral damage of the victims families and the accused in her wake. I'd be curious if she felt emboldened due to a backing by other members of the judiciary.
jmo

Exactly! I do not like JG and never have! She says she will do X by X date, and yet it is still weeks before X is done (eg: release of documents to the public that were sealed in error). I'm not a fan of her behind closed doors discussions with counsel and announcements to the court without a hearing or explanation in writing! I don't believe she should be allowed to continue to preside over this particular matter. I'd like to see her recuse herself and to have a new judge appointed. This is madness. I feel badly for the family of the victims, I do - but I also feel terribly for RA who will now waste away in jail for another full YEAR of his life when in fact, he MAY be completely innocent of all charges!!

 

[Jurisprudence]

The prosecution backed her up on it. The SC will look at it all and we must wait for that to be completed. I thinking about it, another aspect of it has to be be publically naming 5 people in the Franks memo as being involved in the murders. I mean what was the D doing by revealing names like that? It's possible those people now will sue. The D also revealed many of the witnesses. They doxed like over 10 people...to what end? If tgat's not negligence what is? AJMO

The Indiana Supreme Court will not be looking at this issue unless B&R file and are granted an appeal from what she did today (which was actually a formal order). The case filed yesterday pertains to the docket but all justices will see the background by those exhibits.

jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

It’s not quite “Gull and her team”. The county‘s Clerk of the Court is an elected position.

Chris Nancarrow

Ballotpedia: The Encyclopedia of American Politics

ballotpedia.org

I'm not sure I understand.

Elected Clerk of the Court is a State Admin position; they would not be working as legal staff (incl lawyers) for the Judges.

Where I come from, we can have a single State Supreme Court Civil Justice with 1,000 cases on their docket AT THE SAME TIME. They'd get nothing done w/o their clerk (lawyers/paralegal) staff.

jmho

 

[sunshineray]

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

It's what he did after he was hired that's the issue. He says it's "zealous", she says it's "negligence". SC will get to the truth of it when they see all the particulars.

 

[Jurisprudence]

It's what he did after he was hired that's the issue. He says it's "zealous", she says it's "negligence". SC will get to the truth of it when they see all the particulars.

This keeps getting repeated but they are not being asked to rule on this - at least not yet. We'll see if B&R file.
See the brief dated 10/30

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Emma Peel]

The prosecution backed her up on it. The SC will look at it all and we must wait for that to be completed. I thinking about it, another aspect of it has to be be publically naming 5 people in the Franks memo as being involved in the murders. I mean what was the D doing by revealing names like that? It's possible those people now will sue. The D also revealed many of the witnesses. They doxed like over 10 people...to what end? If tgat's not negligence what is? AJMO

Just an observation along the same lines:
The Supreme Court has published same on the docket w/ no redactions.
The Supreme Court has published emails w/ Gull's, D's, P's personal emails and cell phone #s, w/ no redactions.

 

[sunshineray]

The Indiana Supreme Court will not be looking at this issue unless B&R file and are granted an appeal from what she did today (which was actually a formal order). The case filed yesterday pertains to the docket but all justices will see the background by those exhibits.

jmo

They've asked that she be disqualified. Wasn't that one of the filings? To look into that the SC will have look into it all...all the "gross negligence" that led to the judge's decisions. Is that not how it works?

 

[sunshineray]

This keeps getting repeated but they are not being asked to rule on this - at least not yet. We'll see if B&R file.
See the brief dated 10/30

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

The other lawyers filed it no?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Just an observation along the same lines:
The Supreme Court has published same on the docket w/ no redactions.
The Supreme Court has published emails w/ Gull's, D's, P's personal emails and cell phone #s, w/ no redactions.

Another can of worms opened. Probably won’t interfere in the slightest.