IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171

[girlhasnoname]

They really should move this man. Not only has he not yet been convicted, he hasn't even gone to trial.

jmo

I.C. 35-33-8-2 states, “Murder is not bailable when the proof is evident or the presumption is strong. In all other cases, offenses are bailable.” This results in almost all people being charged with murder at least initially, being held without bond. However, that is not the final answer. The statute evident proof and showing a strong presumption. <Yes, I know RA hasn't had a PH yet>.

I'd say RA's 5 recorded confessions sealed his fate in regards to bond. Remember it was during that hearing for bond and transfer the State presented and Defense (agreed) RA had in fact made those confessions. They didn't even address a bond hearing after that IIRC.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I've always thought that "old Farm Bureau building" was kind of strange. When that info came out, I looked it up on the map and it appeared to have always been in its current location at that time.

RA has lived in Delphi for years, and if he visited the trails, he likely knew it was not the Farm Bureau building.

Yes, he was 'deflecting' even them IMO.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I think just about everyone heard Weineke say this on Motta's live (re: AG) [See TL's post upthread IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171]
Moo, she has to be very careful about what she says. I'm surprised she even did the live and hope it does not jeopardize the action. But, that's jmo

ETA: On the second point, putting aside CW's confirmation of it last night, let's assume for argument's sake that they did ask. Is the outcome different? Would a licensed attorney intervene - not even intervene, but start an original action in his or her own name for attorneys some are publicly alleging engaged in malpractice? I don't think so.
jmo

#1 I think it's questionable that she appear on a PODCAST talking about it with a gag order in place,

#2 Yes, I think it makes a huge difference between a lawyer being so moved my emotion and outrage to spontaneously support R&B of their own volition versus being asked by counsel or friends to make a record of support on their behalf.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

I actually don't think our views are all that far apart. I agree with everything you are saying here. From what I know, CW is a very good appellate practitioner. This is her wheelhouse and I would suspect that her crystal ball on how these issues might shake out is pretty on point.

JMO

Plus, I think she's enjoying the attention

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/relators-objection-to-responden_page_1-png.459368/

He lost almost half his body weight!!! So close to 100 pounds or more??
He was much larger prior to arrest than I had thought.

Yes, and shaved his very long beard. He looks a lot different than he did at arrest and I believe RA had done this intentionally in order to hide his likeness at that time and/or to garner sympathy.

I know that might sound harsh, but I believe RA is a lot more sly than we know.

moo

 

[TL4S]

I don't believe the defense never had a chance to defend themselves, they weren't "ambushed". JMO. I believe there was communication before Oct 19th about the latest leak. I wonder if the email threads from when the leaks were discovered/report by D included JG on cc and possible JG responses? Just a thought.

The D knew the leak would be addressed at the Oct. 19th hearing, and enough for AB to bring a lawyer, but I'm not convinced they knew just exactly what was going to go down. That doesn't seem appropriate conduct for a court proceeding. Jmo.

They apparently did not have any notice that multiple ISP and other LE would be sitting in the courtroom (including DC), or there to testify, or that the D were going to be found to be "grossly negligent" with no official legal citing to kick them off the case under the circumstances. Therefore, they were not able to fully prepare, with witnesses of their own, or have time to understand the extent of the consequences they would face that very day, before cameras and the world, and the ramifications these actions would have on their client and his potential trial, until the in-chambers meeting, which they seemingly wanted recorded.

BR requested for the transcript immediately afterward, and I think he planned to include it in a motion to make it transparent to the public. Jmo.

These guys are not saints and they majorly f'ed up (at least AB did), but regardless, JG does not get a free pass from me on how she decided to handle things in this case. Jmo.

 

[girlhasnoname]

The D knew the leak would be addressed at the Oct. 19th hearing, and enough for AB to bring a lawyer, but I'm not convinced they knew just exactly what was going to go down.

They apparently did not have any notice that multiple ISP and other LE would be sitting in the courtroom (including DC), or there to testify, or that the D were going to be found to be "grossly negligent" with no official legal citing to kick them off the case under the circumstances. Therefore, they were not able to fully prepare, with witnesses of their own, or have time to understand the extent of the consequences they would face that very day, before cameras and the world, and the ramifications these actions would have on their client and his potential trial, until the in-chambers meeting, which they seemingly wanted recorded.

BR requested for the transcript immediately afterward, and I think he planned to include it in a motion to make it transparent to the public. Jmo.

These guys are not saints and they majorly f'ed up (at least AB did), but regardless, JG does not get a few pass from me on some of the ways she decided to handle things in this case. Jmo.

Agree with majority of your post, but on a conference call on the Oct. 10th they (Defense) knew the State was asking for disqualification, and the Judge said she was leaning towards that. They had plenty of time to prepare (and did obtain) a response by legal counsel.

As of the 19th hearing, B&R had withdrawn and were no longer attorney's of record for Defendant Allen and not entitled to a copy of that hearing IMO.

MOO

 

[TL4S]

Agree with majority of your post, but on a conference call on the Oct. 10th they (Defense) knew the State was asking for disqualification, and the Judge said she was leaning towards that. They had plenty of time to prepare (and did obtain) a response by legal counsel.

As of the 19th hearing, B&R had withdrawn and were no longer attorney's of record for Defendant Allen and not entitled to a copy of that hearing IMO.

MOO

Yes, I agree, they knew disqualification was on the table, NMcL requested that. But shouldn't there have been some kind of official information about what would be covered at the hearing?

Nobody fully knew what the heck was going to be discussed that day, except apparently JG and the prosecution and their witnesses. It just seems one-sided to me. And not because I feel sorry for the D, but because this kind of judicial conduct breeds distrust, just like all the missing documents from the docket.

 

[mrjitty]

I.C. 35-33-8-2 states, “Murder is not bailable when the proof is evident or the presumption is strong. In all other cases, offenses are bailable.” This results in almost all people being charged with murder at least initially, being held without bond. However, that is not the final answer. The statute evident proof and showing a strong presumption. <Yes, I know RA hasn't had a PH yet>.

I'd say RA's 5 recorded confessions sealed his fate in regards to bond. Remember it was during that hearing for bond and transfer the State presented and Defense (agreed) RA had in fact made those confessions. They didn't even address a bond hearing after that IIRC.

MOO

This is one thing I found really interested in the latest MS podcast interview with the prosecutors.

In their opinion that defence was far from ready to go to trial in Jan and would have sought a continuance. This is based on the lack of pretrial motions that one would expect to see.

First up, the prelim was quietly dropped. Then they invested lots of time in trying to get the defendant moved based on frankly spurious reasons (I believe valid reasons exist). Then they made the bizarre Franks motion, instead of a genuine franks motion whereby they could have had the hearing by now.

What they haven't done is file any of the expected pre-trial motions e.g around admissibility beyond the Franks motion. We should have been in the middle of those hearings by now.

 

[mrjitty]

Agree with majority of your post, but on a conference call on the Oct. 10th they (Defense) knew the State was asking for disqualification, and the Judge said she was leaning towards that. They had plenty of time to prepare (and did obtain) a response by legal counsel.

As of the 19th hearing, B&R had withdrawn and were no longer attorney's of record for Defendant Allen and not entitled to a copy of that hearing IMO.

MOO

Right

Also the defence admit (in Rozzi's subsequent motion) all the facts which led to their disqualification. So i don't think the defence needed witnesses particularly. What they might have needed is to make actual legal submissions about whether the grounds for dismissal were met.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Right

Also the defence admit (in Rozzi's subsequent motion) all the facts which led to their disqualification. So i don't think the defence needed witnesses particularly. What they might have needed is to make actual legal submissions about whether the grounds for dismissal were met.

It's Rizzo remember? haha

I agree they knew crap was going to hit the fan. A man committed suicide for goodness sake, this was as serious as it gets.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I found the latest MS podcast interview with The Prosecutors. They talked more about the actual law, case law precedents etc which I find much more relevant than some of the breathless coverage based on takes about "the 6th amendment" than any solid legal analysis. So not saying they are correct, but I think these are the arguments that will be made. In no particular order;

Removal: In their view, Judge Gull has quite broad discretion on removal. Grounds clearly made out. Also likely Rozzi and Baldwin are now conflicted out given the criminal investigation into MW, and their own disciplinary exposure. This is one reason why Gull might have done this in chambers. Outlining gross negligence on the record is very serious and leaves the defence lawyers personally exposed.

Process: Obviously what Gull has done is not satisfactory as there is no official record and this breeds conspiracy, speculation, perception of bias etc

Remedy: Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will only be granted where something has gone badly wrong. It's not the same as an appeal. SCOIN isn't going to reverse the judge. Rather that might send it back and say "hey wait a minute - you need a proper hearing to do this". But if they send it back for a hearing, then Gull will hold the hearing and dismiss Rozzi + Baldwin on the record. They would then have to appeal that. So basically they also need SCOIN to recuse Gull.

Recusal: Seems unlikely SCOIN would order this. There is no evidence Gull is biased against the defence. The grounds for removal are admitted. Longshot remedy is that SCOIN says Gull can't fairly hold the hearing and appoints a different judge for said hearing.

The interview was quite scathing of Rozzi and Baldwin and I agree with the criticism. They've taken a conspiratorial approach and then the leak on top (outrageous), and now they are attempting to build a conspiratorial narrative against the judge ----> not cool.

My personal 02c - shoot this bungling duo into the sun

 

[Betty P]

So she couldn't give the ex-D the opportunity to prepare to defend themselves at the Oct. 19th hearing, yet she gets extra time to prepare to defend herself.

JMO, she’s a good judge who stood up to a defense team intent on breaking as many rules as possible in order to try their case in the news media.

JMO, the former defense team is still trying to influence these hearings, even though they’ve been removed and new counsel appointed. They seem to have a goal of removing the judge from the case, derailing the trial. Is it just because they want to win or also because the judge is a woman?

Is it possible the former defense team made false and inflammatory statements during their meeting in the judge’s chambers with the intention of later ordering transcripts and releasing them to the news media? Would this be considered interference in a case they’re no longer assigned to? Aren’t they working against their former clients best interests?

I don’t think this is going to end the way they anticipate. JMO

 

[mrjitty]

It's Rizzo remember? haha

I agree they knew crap was going to hit the fan. A man committed suicide for goodness sake, this was as serious as it gets.

MOO

right?

Where is the law society disciplinary committee in all of this? (or what ever you have in Indiana)

One hopes Baldwin at least will face interrogation by law enforcement and disciplinary investigators as to the course of events. I do no take Rizzo's selective brief at face value. There has to be at least a suggestion here, if not an actual suspicion, that the defence intentionally leaked this material, or at the least, an ad-hoc adviser to the defence decided to take that route.

 

[mrjitty]

JMO, she’s a good judge who stood up to a defense team intent on breaking as many rules as possible in order to try their case in the news media.

JMO, the former defense team is still trying to influence these hearings, even though they’ve been removed and new counsel appointed. They seem to have a goal of removing the judge from the case, derailing the trial. Is it just because they want to win or also because the judge is a woman?

Is it possible the former defense team made false and inflammatory statements during their meeting in the judge’s chambers with the intention of later ordering transcripts and releasing them to the news media? Would this be considered interference in a case they’re no longer assigned to? Aren’t they working against their former clients best interests?

I don’t think this is going to end the way they anticipate. JMO

BIB - I think this will end very badly for Baldwin in particular. Getting all this stuff on the record creates exposure for him w.r.t. follow up proceedings.

Query whether he should be practicing iMO.

 

[Betty P]

I found the latest MS podcast interview with The Prosecutors. They talked more about the actual law, case law precedents etc which I find much more relevant than some of the breathless coverage based on takes about "the 6th amendment" than any solid legal analysis. So not saying they are correct, but I think these are the arguments that will be made. In no particular order;

Removal: In their view, Judge Gull has quite broad discretion on removal. Grounds clearly made out. Also likely Rozzi and Baldwin are now conflicted out given the criminal investigation into MW, and their own disciplinary exposure. This is one reason why Gull might have done this in chambers. Outlining gross negligence on the record is very serious and leaves the defence lawyers personally exposed.

Process: Obviously what Gull has done is not satisfactory as there is no official record and this breeds conspiracy, speculation, perception of bias etc

Remedy: Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy that will only be granted where something has gone badly wrong. It's not the same as an appeal. SCOIN isn't going to reverse the judge. Rather that might send it back and say "hey wait a minute - you need a proper hearing to do this". But if they send it back for a hearing, then Gull will hold the hearing and dismiss Rozzi + Baldwin on the record. They would then have to appeal that. So basically they also need SCOIN to recuse Gull.

Recusal: Seems unlikely SCOIN would order this. There is no evidence Gull is biased against the defence. The grounds for removal are admitted. Longshot remedy is that SCOIN says Gull can't fairly hold the hearing and appoints a different judge for said hearing.

The interview was quite scathing of Rozzi and Baldwin and I agree with the criticism. They've taken a conspiratorial approach and then the leak on top (outrageous), and now they are attempting to build a conspiratorial narrative against the judge ----> not cool.

My personal 02c - shoot this bungling duo into the sun

I was just thinking, they should let the former defense counsel take their complaints to another judge. That way, they don’t have the opportunity to interfere in RAs trial. Take the dog and pony show elsewhere.

 

[mrjitty]

I was just thinking, they should let the former defense counsel take their complaints to another judge. That way, they don’t have the opportunity to interfere in RAs trial. Take the dog and pony show elsewhere.

Yes. The question of remedy is important

Even if due process was not followed, that does not mean they should be allowed back on the case. In fact, based on the admitted facts, they clearly should not be on the case.

Assuming there is nothing horrific in the transcript I suspect SCOIN may simply say that a reasoned decision needs to be entered on the record, such that they can appeal it.

But again, I doubt any Court is putting these guys back in the hot seat

 

[girlhasnoname]

I find it telling that the SCOIN did in fact grant JG an extension to Nov 27 to respond. If it was a blatant, obvious misuse of Judicial power, I don't think they would have.

Order - EOT 27th Nov.pdf

MOO

 

[Andieinsyd]

I.C. 35-33-8-2 states, “Murder is not bailable when the proof is evident or the presumption is strong. In all other cases, offenses are bailable.” This results in almost all people being charged with murder at least initially, being held without bond. However, that is not the final answer. The statute evident proof and showing a strong presumption. <Yes, I know RA hasn't had a PH yet>.

I'd say RA's 5 recorded confessions sealed his fate in regards to bond. Remember it was during that hearing for bond and transfer the State presented and Defense (agreed) RA had in fact made those confessions. They didn't even address a bond hearing after that IIRC.

MOO

Bit of a silly question, but is RA in prison solely on the basis of the content of the PCA that the D asked for a Franks hearing for?

 

[mrjitty]

Bit of a silly question, but is RA in prison solely on the basis of the content of the PCA that the D asked for a Franks hearing for?

He is held on the basis of the PCA.

The Frank's hearing attacks only the evidence in the PCA obtained via the warrant i.e. the bullet. One suspects the game plan was to try to get the warrant evidence thrown out - then apply to have the case dismissed.

The confessions are a bit of a spanner in the works to everything given they were recorded. My guess is the defence kissed goodbye to any hope of pre-trial release that day