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

[Jade]

Respectfully sbm, @Ravenmoon

This is not, at all, a fact as it pertains to the court. The court has no record of this at all; we aren't at trial yet, and the jury is the finder of fact.

It is a fact and a matter of record:

>>

Allen first talked to investigators about the case in 2017, when he told a conservation officer he’d been on the trail on the day of the murders. That information resurfaced in October 2022, when investigators took a second look at Allen and interviewed him.

>>

Delphi documents: Richard Allen told wife he killed girls; investigators believe knife used in murders

 

[zh0r4]

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 we are playing 5D chess. They can file a writ, and to note, JG still has to answer to SCOIN by Nov 9 about the records.

What happens if she cannot produce what SCOIN is asking for by Nov 9? There is no official record of “gross negligence”, there was no hearing to present this evidence of alleged gross negligence/prove there was. My understanding is JG is being asked for all of the records including 2 from 2022? Also including court record of gross negligence. If she cannot produce these records and/or doesn’t do the right thing by recusing herself, what happens with the defense? If there’s not sufficient record for BR and AB being disqualified, would they be reinstated? I’m not sure. JMO.

Is Defense Diaries, the podcast with 2 defense attorneys, allowed here? They go through the docs/discuss legal. (Mods I’m sorry if this isn’t allowed pls snip if not!) Is there a link to approved podcasters?

 

[AugustWest]

It is a fact and a matter of record:

>>

Allen first talked to investigators about the case in 2017, when he told a conservation officer he’d been on the trail on the day of the murders. That information resurfaced in October 2022, when investigators took a second look at Allen and interviewed him.

>>

Delphi documents: Richard Allen told wife he killed girls; investigators believe knife used in murders

Evidence proffered by the State in a Motion are not considered "fact" in a case. Otherwise, why would we even need trials?

"State said you were there, so you were. That solves that." Really?

I mean, I believe he was there from what has been offered by the State too, but the defendant does get a chance to rebut that.

 

[zh0r4]

“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

The 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would disagree. JMO.

 

[MistyWaters]

>>>
Attorneys on Allen's behalf filed a motion Monday morning for writs of mandamus and prohibition. The motions were filed with the Indiana Supreme Court, and notes, "This case involves one of the most high-profile matters in Indiana history."

The motion for writs seeks to force Gull to open court filings to public inspection, reinstate Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi as Allen's attorneys and seeks to block her from interfering with Allen's case while the appeal is under way.

Allen is charged with murder. He is accused of killing 14-year-old Libby German and 13-year-old Abby Williams on Feb. 13, 2017 after forcing them off the trails on the north bank of the Deer Creek.
>>
Indiana Supreme Court asked to review decisions in suspected Delphi killer's case


>>
Gull's decision — as well as previous decisions since she signed on as special judge — are now an issue before the Indiana Supreme Court. >>

Accused Delphi killer gets new attorneys; motions to block removal pending

From your link -
“…and seeks to block her from interfering Alan’s case while the appeal is under way”.

Well that didn’t work very well. Today she dismissed RA’s pro bono ex-D attorneys but they agreed to send back the discovery to the prosecution, plus the new D filed a motion to move RA’s trial forward to Oct/25.

 

[sunshineray]

>>>
Attorneys on Allen's behalf filed a motion Monday morning for writs of mandamus and prohibition. The motions were filed with the Indiana Supreme Court, and notes, "This case involves one of the most high-profile matters in Indiana history."

The motion for writs seeks to force Gull to open court filings to public inspection, reinstate Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi as Allen's attorneys and seeks to block her from interfering with Allen's case while the appeal is under way.

Allen is charged with murder. He is accused of killing 14-year-old Libby German and 13-year-old Abby Williams on Feb. 13, 2017 after forcing them off the trails on the north bank of the Deer Creek.
>>
Indiana Supreme Court asked to review decisions in suspected Delphi killer's case


>>
Gull's decision — as well as previous decisions since she signed on as special judge — are now an issue before the Indiana Supreme Court. >>

Accused Delphi killer gets new attorneys; motions to block removal pending

Thank you, that's what I thought, the SC is reviewing her actions meaning to include WHY she did them. So her judgement of "gross negligence" by B & R has to be looked at and considered. Maybe it will be revealed in the SC's conclusions after consideration, maybe just some of it or maybe none of it, if it's thought to be prejudicial to the defendant.

 

[MistyWaters]

The 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would disagree. JMO.

But the judge said -

'I cannot and will not allow these attorneys to represent you' | Judge disqualifies Richard Allen's former attorneys, sets new trial date

The trial for the suspect in the killings of Libby German and Abby Williams will now take place Oct. 15-31, 2024.

www.wthr.com

“Judge Frances Gull told Richard Allen, "I cannot and will not allow these attorneys to represent you." She then disqualified Baldwin and Rozzi from representing him – even pro bono.

"I'm sorry that this has happened, Mr. Allen," Gull then said.”

 

[zh0r4]

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

To note, apparently Attorney Maggie Smith, one of the attorneys who drafted the writs yesterday, is quite versed in proper procedure.

bbm

“Maggie is recognized as one of the top appellate attorneys in the country. In addition to being named by Super Lawyers® as one the top 25 Women Attorneys in the state of Indiana, Maggie has been selected as one of The Best Lawyers in America® in the field of appellate practice every year since 2009, and she was named the 2021 “Lawyer of the Year” by Best Lawyers for appellate practice. Maggie is also recognized as an expert in Indiana’s Access to Court Records Rules (formerly Administrative Rule 9).

She also has been identified as an Indiana Super Lawyers® appellate attorney, listed as a Chambers USA® Top Tier Appellate Litigator, and recently was celebrated for fifteen years as a Martindale Hubbell AV Preeminent Rated Lawyer with the “Highest Possible Peer Review Rating in Legal Ability & Ethical Standards.”

<snip>

“Prior to entering private practice, she served as a judicial law clerk with the Indiana Supreme Court and was an Adjunct Professor of Law at Indiana University, teaching legal writing and reasoning and appellate advocacy.

The Indiana Supreme Court appointed Maggie to an eight-year term on its Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure in 2009, and in this capacity, she was engaged in the continuous study of all the Indiana Rules of Procedure (Trial Rules, Evidence Rules, Jury Rules, Appellate Rules, Professional Conduct Rules, etc.).”

Maggie L. Smith - Frost Brown Todd

frostbrowntodd.com

 

[MistyWaters]

Thank you, that's what I thought, the SC is reviewing her actions meaning to include WHY she did them. So her judgement of "gross negligence" by B & R has to be looked at and considered. Maybe it will be revealed in the SC's conclusions after consideration, maybe just some of it or maybe none of it, if it's thought to be prejudicial to the defendant.

JMO if B&D want the supreme court to review the situation involving the ex-D‘s dismissal, I think the filing is going to have to come directly from both of them or their appointed counsel. This recent SC motion was filed by three civil attorneys reportedly representing RA, who cannot possibly become the spokesperson for his prior attorneys.

JMO

 

[sunshineray]

The 6th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution would disagree. JMO.

I just read the 6th and am having trouble understand which part of the representation clauses would disagree with someone explaining to a defendant that when the judge rules his lawyers have acted with gross negligence, it would not be in his favor to want to continue with them and instead continue with newly appointed council? Is that not making sure a defendant has strong council?

 

[mrjitty]

“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

Agreed. He can’t be represented by them

 

[Emma Peel]

Agreed. He can’t be represented by them

Until/unless she's reversed.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Something I notice that I wonder about is the expectation of transparency in criminal cases in states such as Indiana who does not have a Sunshine Law, like Florida does, for example. It’s a controversial subject often with no perfect balance but it’s the state laws that usually restricts and defines the flow of public information, not the people involved. JMO

Thank you for that!
That could explain a lot!

Only my opinion:
I have questioned the secrecy in this case often and deeply. But, unlike many, I actually like DC and TL. I think that they have tried to do the best they can.

I believe that they have the correct man in custody.

I don't think that the D really believe in his innocence. I think what they really believe is that they are smarter and better versed in technicalities and don't want to go out with their tail between their legs.

Even so, I want RA to have a fair trial.

JMO

 

[EllaMinnowP]

Something I notice that I wonder about is the expectation of transparency in criminal cases in states such as Indiana who does not have a Sunshine Law, like Florida does, for example. It’s a controversial subject often with no perfect balance but it’s the state laws that usually restricts and defines the flow of public information, not the people involved. JMO

Fair enough.

IMO, with A&L’s case specifically being the topic of this discussion, what has been revealed thus far regarding the investigation certainly doesn’t give me a warm and fuzzy feeling about what’s going on behind closed doors in Indiana.

 

[zh0r4]

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

Is it the D or the clerk who would typically do this?

 

[mrjitty]

Bingo! Great post!

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

I don’t think this will happen because the issue will be litigated pre trial.

I am guessing this is why Gull set the new trial date so far back. She knows there will now be litigation over everything that happened here.

 

[MistyWaters]

Hennessy spoke today even though iirc B&D denied he represented them. I wonder why they didn’t they say anything at all defend themselves today? Might it be because they don’t want the public to know the issues involved in the “gross negligence”? We’ll see what happens next. Maybe Hennessy will step up and argue ‘the Constitution’ on their behalf?

Accused Delphi killer gets new attorneys; motions to block removal pending

Suspected Delphi killer Richard Allen has new court-appointed attorneys over his objection, for the time being.

www.jconline.com

“….David Hennessy, an attorney representing Baldwin, asked to address the court about the order to remove the Baldwin and Rozzi, who were now private counsel, not public defenders.

The court appears to be saying it's protecting Mr. Allen, but the court's finding of gross negligence is arbitrary," Hennessy said.

Hennessy argued that had Baldwin and Rozzi been given advance notice about the nature of the Oct. 19 hearing in Fort Wayne, they would have been prepared to rebut Gull's claims of gross negligence and provide a defense against being removed.

"Your summary ruling violates the Constitution," Hennessy said.…”

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Evidence proffered by the State in a Motion are not considered "fact" in a case. Otherwise, why would we even need trials?

"State said you were there, so you were. That solves that." Really?

I mean, I believe he was there from what has been offered by the State too, but the defendant does get a chance to rebut that.

He can rebut it, but he admitted to being there both in 2017, to the conservation officer, and in 2022, in his interview with LE.
The original post was not arguing RA’s guilt or innocent, just stating that RA was on the bridge that day, by his own word.
So if RA wants to rebut at trial his being on the bridge, he is basically calling himself a liar…twice. That should help with his credibility.
I would also add that evidence proffered by the defense in a motion is not considered “fact” in a case either.

 

[Emma Peel]

Is it the D or the clerk who would typically do this?

IMO:

It's weird that D's named various POIs and witnesses. I didn't care for it.

But the Court could have bounced them back for a redacted version to post on the docket. It's not that big a deal.

Courts usually have a set of local and admin guidelines preferred by the Judge available for counsel to follow. Wondering if perhaps administration is not this Court's strength?

 

[Salah11]

So we are now another year away from Trial?