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

[zh0r4]

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

Maybe. It could also be that SCOIN wants to make sure they give her a fair chance to get everything together. There are a couple of different things going on, it is hard to keep up tbh.

(I thought I posted this but in case I haven’t, for easy viewing)

Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time
SCION, Rush, filed 11/9/2023

Source:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase...Jv1eg0TkKLzR9WMm3VBbhwWvzjofk7gSgj0WA503CuBA2

 

[zh0r4]

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.

The most recent “complaints” are not from the defense, but other lawyers concerned with other issues, like due process (for both RA and the former D attorneys) and proper protocol re: record filings. Wieneke is an appellate lawyer, who said in an interview recently she contacted BR and AB after watching the abnormality of record filings in this case trying to figure out what was going on.

Corley & Schumm are filing on the behalf of the IPDC (Indiana Public Defender’s Council), on behalf of public defenders in the state. According to their amicus brief, under the ARGUMENT heading on p.3:

Bbm

“This case raises significant concerns about the independence of defense counsel and the public defense structures designed to ensure it.

The removal or replacement of appointed counsel must occur in a manner that ensures the independence of defense counsel. IPDC is also concerned that the removal does not undermine the public defender structures in both Carroll and Allen counties.”

Although these filings may appear to be about RA or the “former defense”, it is a bigger deal IMO, & about the integrity, functionality, and efficiency of the justice system.

If anyone is interfering with RA’s trial, it is JG. If the P had integrity, they would never have asked the D to be DQ’d, bc they would have been confident in their case against RA. JG taking P’s recommendation to DQ his literal court opponents seems considerably bias. It is important to note, CW only found TWO cases where Indiana public defenders were *ever* disqualified: (1) bc a conflict of interest and (2) bc they weren’t a member of the bar.

The D was and is ready to go to trial in January 2024 bc they know the state has a flimsy case and that they would win. The DQ is a way to cheat, IMO, bc the P is being out lawyered. How would going to trial sooner than later be interfering at all? If the state is so confident, why prolong it? Another way this is corrupt and underhanded, is bc it is likely the P wants to prolong it in hopes RA gives up and pleads bc he’s being treated abhorrently for someone who hasn’t even had a trial. If he gives up, again, they don’t have to take it to trial to present their presumably weak case.

Look up Lebrato’s reviews on Google. William S Lebrato.

AJMO.

Source:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/Case/Document/?token=yroVXjsr1iG0aUEhCs9EDy6nwNvbC8GSh4K2Q-uvn7sUcdrCG9veJ93UU-GiUToixEC1EpqpaqlNXyvoQjkLqyWESRwUy_dzuNoCxESQAw7jOJWpqS09xeI1w8Y2nBjUUawUYM9CuZazoY45jy7okJb0t4KYotosAxxGSmyvO-AS4Sd_N-mBv6Hy_BDkVMgMgY7M0f0PxUKQ2YR2zhZIPDMI7cAtpYE3YvG13_rxgfw1

Edit: to add source for amicus brief

 

[Andieinsyd]

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

Thanks. So the ex D pointed out some parts of the PCA which seemed to omit information (witness descriptions, car descriptions) because they didn’t fit RA. And they are looking to invalidate the search based on this. Is there legal space to also be concerned about someone being held in prison on a PCA which was artificially inflated? I know a lot of us scratched our head after reading the ex-Ds memorandum.

 

[zh0r4]

Thanks. So the ex D pointed out some parts of the PCA which seemed to omit information (witness descriptions, car descriptions) because they didn’t fit RA. And they are looking to invalidate the search based on this. Is there legal space to also be concerned about someone being held in prison on a PCA which was artificially inflated? I know a lot of us scratched our head after reading the ex-Ds memorandum.

There is a lot more than just the bullet, the PCA is only Part III of a total of 5 Parts of the memo. To note, Judge Gull admitted she hadn’t even read it in the 10/31 transcripts. It’s actually pretty detailed and points out numerous issues.

I do believe there are numerous Attorneys watching this closely due to constitutional violations and bizarre behavior in the Court.

JMO.

Link to the Defense memo, filed 9/18/2023
DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

 

[mrjitty]

Thanks. So the ex D pointed out some parts of the PCA which seemed to omit information (witness descriptions, car descriptions) because they didn’t fit RA. And they are looking to invalidate the search based on this.

Yes. If it is found that probable cause was lacking, then the evidence obtained by the warrant could be thrown out. However probable cause is a low bar, so even if you strike out those bits, IMO you still get over the line. Of course if police really did mislead the judge, a judge on review might punish law enforcement for that kind of behaviour.

Is there legal space to also be concerned about someone being held in prison on a PCA which was artificially inflated? I know a lot of us scratched our head after reading the ex-Ds memorandum.

Well yes but the defence has to bring it in the appropriate manner e.g in a prelim or at trial.

Bringing up a whole lot of wild accusations in a Franks memo is poor form

 

[mrjitty]

There is a lot more than just the bullet, the PCA is only Part III of a total of 5 Parts of the memo. To note, Judge Gull admitted she hadn’t even read it in the 10/31 transcripts. It’s actually pretty detailed and points out numerous issues.

I do believe there are numerous Attorneys watching this closely due to constitutional violations and bizarre behavior in the Court.

JMO.

Link to the Defense memo, filed 9/18/2023
DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

That stuff is not relevant to a Franks application though

 

[zh0r4]

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

This is not true. It isn’t just about the bullet. The defense argued LE blatantly lied about eyewitness statements, withheld evidence about eyewitness statements, and timelines. A heap of nefariousness in the section “Part III - Liggett Concealed and Falsified Evidence in his Affidavit for Search Warrant.” p. 105-118 are the pages in the D memo for anyone who wants to take a peep and chime in with their thoughts. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

The bullet would be thrown out anyway bc there is no chain of custody. JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

This is not true. It isn’t just about the bullet. The defense argued LE blatantly lied about eyewitness statements, withheld evidence about eyewitness statements, and timelines. A heap of nefariousness in the section “Part III - Liggett Concealed and Falsified Evidence in his Affidavit for Search Warrant.” p. 105-118 are the pages in the D memo for anyone who wants to take a peep and chime in with their thoughts. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

The bullet would be thrown out anyway bc there is no chain of custody. JMO

IMO that whole search was kind of sketchy. The search times claimed by NMcL and the time the warrant was signed and served are different from his version.

Then, we have this Barbara McDonald interview clearly showing LE at RA's house while the daylight is still good. This absolutely does not match the time Liggett claims he served the warrant.

If RA gave LE permission to search his property prior to the SW being issued, then that's one thing. If not, then IMO there's a problem.

As for chain of custody, so far we are missing that for all three parts of the search.

BM interview, picture is at the 35:44 mm.

 

[Justice101]

Book mark

 

[FrostedGlass]

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

I'm not sure how your thinking on this works:
The D were given 9 days notice and that was plenty of time (IYO).
The J knew full well there were going to be problems ahead but she needs over a month to prepare. (IYO)

 

[mrjitty]

This is not true. It isn’t just about the bullet. The defense argued LE blatantly lied about eyewitness statements, withheld evidence about eyewitness statements, and timelines. A heap of nefariousness in the section “Part III - Liggett Concealed and Falsified Evidence in his Affidavit for Search Warrant.” p. 105-118 are the pages in the D memo for anyone who wants to take a peep and chime in with their thoughts. Maybe I am misunderstanding.

The bullet would be thrown out anyway bc there is no chain of custody. JMO

I think we are at cross purposes.

At a Frank's hearing, the defence allege that a search warrant was granted based on false statements by law enforcement in the supporting affidavit. If the judge finds that there were so many irregularities that probable cause was not established, the warrant can be invalidated. That could then mean that the evidence that was obtained pursuant to the warrant would not be admissible.

As far as we know, the critical evidence obtained under the warrant was the bullet. There may have been other important evidence - we don't know.

But one suspects without the bullet, the case could collapse.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm not sure how your thinking on this works:
The D were given 9 days notice and that was plenty of time (IYO).
The J knew full well there were going to be problems ahead but she needs over a month to prepare. (IYO)

I don't think you can look at it this way.

Stuff can go down at first instance hearings relatively quickly, and it was a critical situation.

The Judge is not a lawyer working the case. It's not surprising she is given time to retain counsel and prepare her response on a matter of some constitutional importance. IMO this is all happening fairly quickly.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I don't think you can look at it this way.

Stuff can go down at first instance hearings relatively quickly, and it was a critical situation.

The Judge is not a lawyer working the case. It's not surprising she is given time to retain counsel and prepare her response on a matter of some constitutional importance. IMO this is all happening fairly quickly.

I can and do look at it this way. She was very prepared to do what she did and IMO should have been prepared for the outcome.

There should be no big issue with the transcript. Either hit that "send" key or issue her statement explaining why she's fighting tooth and nail to keep it secret.

I've seen it said she either is or was on the short list for Supreme Court judge.
MOO

 

[Betty P]

The most recent “complaints” are not from the defense, but other lawyers concerned with other issues, like due process (for both RA and the former D attorneys) and proper protocol re: record filings. Wieneke is an appellate lawyer, who said in an interview recently she contacted BR and AB after watching the abnormality of record filings in this case trying to figure out what was going on.

Corley & Schumm are filing on the behalf of the IPDC (Indiana Public Defender’s Council), on behalf of public defenders in the state. According to their amicus brief, under the ARGUMENT heading on p.3:

Bbm

“This case raises significant concerns about the independence of defense counsel and the public defense structures designed to ensure it.

The removal or replacement of appointed counsel must occur in a manner that ensures the independence of defense counsel. IPDC is also concerned that the removal does not undermine the public defender structures in both Carroll and Allen counties.”

Although these filings may appear to be about RA or the “former defense”, it is a bigger deal IMO, & about the integrity, functionality, and efficiency of the justice system.

If anyone is interfering with RA’s trial, it is JG. If the P had integrity, they would never have asked the D to be DQ’d, bc they would have been confident in their case against RA. JG taking P’s recommendation to DQ his literal court opponents seems considerably bias. It is important to note, CW only found TWO cases where Indiana public defenders were *ever* disqualified: (1) bc a conflict of interest and (2) bc they weren’t a member of the bar.

The D was and is ready to go to trial in January 2024 bc they know the state has a flimsy case and that they would win. The DQ is a way to cheat, IMO, bc the P is being out lawyered. How would going to trial sooner than later be interfering at all? If the state is so confident, why prolong it? Another way this is corrupt and underhanded, is bc it is likely the P wants to prolong it in hopes RA gives up and pleads bc he’s being treated abhorrently for someone who hasn’t even had a trial. If he gives up, again, they don’t have to take it to trial to present their presumably weak case.

Look up Lebrato’s reviews on Google. William S Lebrato.

AJMO.

Source:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/Case/Document/?token=yroVXjsr1iG0aUEhCs9EDy6nwNvbC8GSh4K2Q-uvn7sUcdrCG9veJ93UU-GiUToixEC1EpqpaqlNXyvoQjkLqyWESRwUy_dzuNoCxESQAw7jOJWpqS09xeI1w8Y2nBjUUawUYM9CuZazoY45jy7okJb0t4KYotosAxxGSmyvO-AS4Sd_N-mBv6Hy_BDkVMgMgY7M0f0PxUKQ2YR2zhZIPDMI7cAtpYE3YvG13_rxgfw1

Edit: to add source for amicus brief

Apologies, I missed this part: Did you say the negilgent defense attorneys weren't a member of the bar? Who are they referring to?

JMO, IANAL, but it sounds like a lot of dotting of i's and crossing of t's. I don't think anyone can argue that the actions and negligence of the first defense team were pretty astonishing and very unprofessional. They nearly derailed the trial. While defense attorneys are increasingly creative these days in bending the rules in order to try their cases in the news media, isn't it important to make sure there's a fair trial? Isn't the public safety also important, especially in cases where there's a great deal of evidence and the defendant has confessed multiple times?

Isn't there a limit to how far the state has to bend to accommodate aggressive defense attorneys, especially when they're circumventing gag orders by releasing key evidence to the public without giving the state the appropriate means to present their case? Doesn't the state also have a right to a fair trial? Aren't we supposed to try cases in the court room?

 

[Betty P]

I don't think you can look at it this way.

Stuff can go down at first instance hearings relatively quickly, and it was a critical situation.

The Judge is not a lawyer working the case. It's not surprising she is given time to retain counsel and prepare her response on a matter of some constitutional importance. IMO this is all happening fairly quickly.

I agree. Is there a need to rush this trial without giving parties time to prepare reports, etc? Defense attorneys are given time. Is there a reason why judges are not? Judges are busy people, too. I assume this judge is handling other cases. As I mentioned previously, based on observing some recent trials, its possible the defense deliberately made inflammatory or false statements when in chambers with the intention of later demanding transcripts to be released to the public. Why is anyone even having to defend giving the judge time to prepare a report? These arguments seem so unusual, JMO.

 

[girlhasnoname]

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?

No

 

[StarryStarryNight]

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.

I’ve started wondering if the ex-defense actually did much of anything.

 

[iamshadow21]

I’ve started wondering if the ex-defense actually did much of anything.

They threw a lot of very rancid spaghetti at the walls. Don't know that any of it was helpful at all, or had any hope of being so.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

The most recent “complaints” are not from the defense, but other lawyers concerned with other issues, like due process (for both RA and the former D attorneys) and proper protocol re: record filings. Wieneke is an appellate lawyer, who said in an interview recently she contacted BR and AB after watching the abnormality of record filings in this case trying to figure out what was going on.

Corley & Schumm are filing on the behalf of the IPDC (Indiana Public Defender’s Council), on behalf of public defenders in the state. According to their amicus brief, under the ARGUMENT heading on p.3:

Bbm

“This case raises significant concerns about the independence of defense counsel and the public defense structures designed to ensure it.

The removal or replacement of appointed counsel must occur in a manner that ensures the independence of defense counsel. IPDC is also concerned that the removal does not undermine the public defender structures in both Carroll and Allen counties.”

Although these filings may appear to be about RA or the “former defense”, it is a bigger deal IMO, & about the integrity, functionality, and efficiency of the justice system.

If anyone is interfering with RA’s trial, it is JG. If the P had integrity, they would never have asked the D to be DQ’d, bc they would have been confident in their case against RA. JG taking P’s recommendation to DQ his literal court opponents seems considerably bias. It is important to note, CW only found TWO cases where Indiana public defenders were *ever* disqualified: (1) bc a conflict of interest and (2) bc they weren’t a member of the bar.

The D was and is ready to go to trial in January 2024 bc they know the state has a flimsy case and that they would win. The DQ is a way to cheat, IMO, bc the P is being out lawyered. How would going to trial sooner than later be interfering at all? If the state is so confident, why prolong it? Another way this is corrupt and underhanded, is bc it is likely the P wants to prolong it in hopes RA gives up and pleads bc he’s being treated abhorrently for someone who hasn’t even had a trial. If he gives up, again, they don’t have to take it to trial to present their presumably weak case.

Look up Lebrato’s reviews on Google. William S Lebrato.

AJMO.

Source:
https://public.courts.in.gov/mycase/Case/Document/?token=yroVXjsr1iG0aUEhCs9EDy6nwNvbC8GSh4K2Q-uvn7sUcdrCG9veJ93UU-GiUToixEC1EpqpaqlNXyvoQjkLqyWESRwUy_dzuNoCxESQAw7jOJWpqS09xeI1w8Y2nBjUUawUYM9CuZazoY45jy7okJb0t4KYotosAxxGSmyvO-AS4Sd_N-mBv6Hy_BDkVMgMgY7M0f0PxUKQ2YR2zhZIPDMI7cAtpYE3YvG13_rxgfw1

Edit: to add source for amicus brief

RSBBM
The D was and is ready to go to trial in January 2024 bc they know the state has a flimsy case and that they would win. The DQ is a way to cheat, IMO, bc the P is being out lawyered.

I do not believe under any circumstances that R&B were ready to go to trial in Jan. They hadn't even had the Franks Hearing Motion heard. They hadn't taken all of their witness depositions, let alone gotten their expert witness list together and their testimonies. Oh, and they hadn't filed a speedy trial motion yet either.

Also, figure in all the holidays during the remaining year, Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years. I simply believe this is more megalomania bluster by this Defense.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

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.

I think this Defense did what they did, (filing complaints against JG) as a form of payback. I honestly believe she was trying to save them embarrassment by giving the option of withdrawal during the in chambers hearing, which they did, instead of reading out the allegations in open court on record with cameras rolling. Which, btw, the D filed a motion in favor of having cameras in the courtroom. Hah

Now that decision has come back to bite Judge Gull in the rear, and these attorneys want payback. It will be interesting to see how SCOIN rules in this. She actually had been favorable to the Defense in prior rulings in general.

JMO