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

[Cyber sleuth]

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

I bet it’s in one of those hard drives or phones retrieved during the search warrant.

 

[photographer4]

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

It is not going to shock me if B&R opt to file. I would. I would want the entire world looking at this Judge and how she runs her courtroom. I would absolutely file even if just to ensure that RA has the best chance at appeal or acquittal down the road! JG needs to be off this case. TODAY.

 

[MistyWaters]

I don't understand that post.

jmo

Sorry, either brain and fingers aren’t cooperating this am. I’ll try again.

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

 

[arielilane]

Defense attorneys are NOT allowed to stay on the case pro bono. ALSO - trial delayed until October 2024.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1719375704037687419

https://twitter.com/cathyrusson

 

[AugustWest]

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

Bingo! Great post!

Automatic reversal is the remedy for breach of the assistance of counsel clause.

 

[Emma Peel]

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.

Old D has not directly asked for a review/decision of their disqualification by the Court ... yet.
They've teed it up with that filing.

But ... yesterday's filing was and administrative corrective review request. And I think they'll use yet another court for an appeal on their DQ of today's proceedings.

 

[EllaMinnowP]

Wanted to do a side by side... moo


View attachment 457237
Pic courtesy of wthr.com

Thanks for doing this.
IMO, he’s so thin now that it is tough to do the comparison. I wish Bridge Guy’s ears were showing.

I wish we could see/hear the entire video clip. It’s been said that A&L’s voices are heard. Many things have been “said”, though, and I’ve lost confidence in just about everything I’ve heard regarding this case. I’ve been wondering for quite awhile if the BG video was planted on L’s phone. It’s too strange to me that the phone was left at the crime scene. Under a body. A body that had supposedly been moved and staged. Sounds to me like no accident that the phone was not taken/destroyed.

MOO

 

[Emma Peel]

Bingo! Great post!

Automatic reversal is the remedy for breach of the assistance of counsel clause.

Agree.

We're not at trial yet.
Perhaps Gull feels she has this one opportunity pre-trial to rid her Court of these meddlesome priests. moo

 

[MistyWaters]

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

My theory of what’s behind this all, in addition to the leaked photo.….

It’s all about the contents of the memo, far beyond ”not completely true. It’s rife with distorted, deceptive and manipulated facts aka plain old lies but both attorneys signed their name to it so they’re accountable. I wouldn’t doubt they didn’t even bother to read it prior to being filed. The manner in which it’s written sure does not point toward their high standards of professionalism in the least.

Much the same as with the situation regarding MW, whoever wrote it on behalf of D&B (and possibly it was him) took advantage of their casual, relaxed lawyering style and now it’s all coming back to bite them (or haunt them, re Halloween) A defendant cannot receive a fair trial if his entire defense it built on lies rather than facts.

JMO

 

[AugustWest]

Sorry, either brain and fingers aren’t cooperating this am. I’ll try again.

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

Criminal defendants are owed rights conferred by the sixth and fourteenth amendments:

1. Sixth: In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

2. Fourteenth: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Those are the requirements of a "fair trial"

 

[Jurisprudence]

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?

You're talking about Rozzi's filings? I thought you were talking about the filings last night. Rozzi's motion to DQ her was filed to her court, not the Indiana Supreme Court. (Exhibit N) (ETA she ordered it stricken from the record and stated the court would not entertain it)

jmo

 

[CGBSpender]

This is not correct.

Moo

The Sixth Amendment gives the accused in criminal cases the right to hire attorneys of their choice. Turner, 594 F.3d at 948, citing Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The right has been regarded as “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee” in the Sixth Amendment. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. at 147–48, 126 S.Ct. 2557, citing *749 Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. Even so, a defendant's choice of counsel may be overridden and counsel may be disqualified where an actual conflict of interest or a serious potential for conflict exists. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163–64, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (affirming refusal to accept defendant's waiver of attorney's “serious potential” for conflict of interest); accord, Turner, 594 F.3d at 952. A conflict that amounts to a breach of the code of professional ethics “obviously qualifies” as an actual conflict of interest of the sort that allows the trial court to disqualify counsel regardless of a defendant's offer to waive. Turner, 594 F.3d at 952.

United States v. Turner, 651 F.3d 743, 748–49 (7th Cir. 2011)

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

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

IMO, the Court's decisions and the facts she's basing those decisions on must be transparent.

The Court cannot hold a secret as to old D's misconduct and base her ruling on facts she doesn't document.

Gull has written a letter at some point (described in SC filings yesterday) outlining her view of the gross negligence upon which she's basing disqualifying the Old D as private counsel to the defendant. That stuff in that letter could be her fact basis, although it's not clear it's been put o the record. Did she read the letter into the record today? (I really don't know.)

In my view, that letter - meant to outline gross negligence - might not meet the bar for disqualifying defendant's chosen PRIVATE counsel.

At the higher court (appellate), neither party can bring any new facts or evidence in. They will examine Gull's decision based only upon what facts Gull offered as the basis of her decision. The higher court will examine the statue and case law the parties bring to argue their case.

JHMO

 

[AugustWest]

The Sixth Amendment gives the accused in criminal cases the right to hire attorneys of their choice. Turner, 594 F.3d at 948, citing Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The right has been regarded as “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee” in the Sixth Amendment. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. at 147–48, 126 S.Ct. 2557, citing *749 Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. Even so, a defendant's choice of counsel may be overridden and counsel may be disqualified where an actual conflict of interest or a serious potential for conflict exists. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163–64, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (affirming refusal to accept defendant's waiver of attorney's “serious potential” for conflict of interest); accord, Turner, 594 F.3d at 952. A conflict that amounts to a breach of the code of professional ethics “obviously qualifies” as an actual conflict of interest of the sort that allows the trial court to disqualify counsel regardless of a defendant's offer to waive. Turner, 594 F.3d at 952.

United States v. Turner, 651 F.3d 743, 748–49 (7th Cir. 2011)

JMO

Where in the record has Judge Gull made a finding of "conflict of interest?'

 

[EllaMinnowP]

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!!

Very RSBM
In my mind, jail for 2 years for someone who is ‘presumed innocent’ and hasn’t faced trial is bad enough, nevermind actually being in a maximum security prison.

I hope and pray that the truth ~whatever the truth is~ comes to light. That will be the only chance for true justice for Abby & Libby. Convicting an innocent in order to close a case would only serve to tack on to the tragedy.

Moo

 

[MistyWaters]

It is not going to shock me if B&R opt to file. I would. I would want the entire world looking at this Judge and how she runs her courtroom. I would absolutely file even if just to ensure that RA has the best chance at appeal or acquittal down the road! JG needs to be off this case. TODAY.

At the centre of this entire mess is what did D&G do that provoked the judge to disqualify them. If it was over nothing much, then I agree with your post.

Otherwise if the accusations of gross negligence are proven to be true, she’d be accused of negligence for not running a courtroom, instead turning a blind eye so people won’t be mad.

What keeps coming back to me is the fact the allegations had to be serious enough for B to intentionally avoid what he perceived would’ve been a ‘public shaming’.

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

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?

You're correct that the Old D's motion to have Gull DQ herself made it in papers to the Supreme Court filing yesterday. (Provided as background.)

But the specific corrective/intervention requested of the Supreme Court yesterday was limited to incorrect docket recordings and transparency violations related to this case's docket and records.

moo

 

[O.Incandenza]

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

Barham v. State, 641 NE2d 79, 82 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994):

The Sixth Amendment guarantees that "n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall ... have the assistance of counsel for his defense." U.S. Const., Amendment VI. The right to counsel of choice has been described as an "essential component" of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel, U.S. v. Nichols (1988), 10th Cir., 841 F.2d 1485, 1501, and "a defendant should be afforded a fair opportunity to secure counsel of his own choice." Powell v. Alabama (1932), 287 U.S. 45, 53, 53 S. Ct. 55, 58, 77 L. Ed. 158. The right privately to retain counsel of choice derives from a defendant's right to determine the type of defense he wishes to present. U.S. v. Mendoza-Salgado (1992), 10th Cir., 964 F.2d 993, 1014; U.S. v. Collins (1990), 10th Cir., 920 F.2d 619, 625, cert. denied, (1991), 500 U.S. 920, 111 S. Ct. 2022, 114 L. Ed. 2d 108. Lawyers are not fungible, and often the most important decision a defendant makes in shaping his defense is the selection of an attorney. Nichols, at 1502. In situations where a defendant is able to retain counsel privately "the choice of counsel rests in his hands, not in the hands of the state." Collins, at 625. In criminal cases, the right to retain counsel of choice becomes a question of fundamental fairness, the denial of which may rise to a level of constitutional violation. Id.

 

[MistyWaters]

Where in the record has Judge Gull made a finding of "conflict of interest?'

Wouldn’t the conflict to D&B be that RA couldn’t be assured of a fair trial if they represented him due to their prior gross negligence in representation of him?

 

[O.Incandenza]

The Sixth Amendment gives the accused in criminal cases the right to hire attorneys of their choice. Turner, 594 F.3d at 948, citing Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. The right has been regarded as “the root meaning of the constitutional guarantee” in the Sixth Amendment. Gonzalez–Lopez, 548 U.S. at 147–48, 126 S.Ct. 2557, citing *749 Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159, 108 S.Ct. 1692. Even so, a defendant's choice of counsel may be overridden and counsel may be disqualified where an actual conflict of interest or a serious potential for conflict exists. Wheat, 486 U.S. at 163–64, 108 S.Ct. 1692 (affirming refusal to accept defendant's waiver of attorney's “serious potential” for conflict of interest); accord, Turner, 594 F.3d at 952. A conflict that amounts to a breach of the code of professional ethics “obviously qualifies” as an actual conflict of interest of the sort that allows the trial court to disqualify counsel regardless of a defendant's offer to waive. Turner, 594 F.3d at 952.

United States v. Turner, 651 F.3d 743, 748–49 (7th Cir. 2011)

JMO

What's the alleged conflict of interest here? Not even Judge Gull has said anything about a conflict of interest.