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

[steeltowngirl]

The second prosecutor. I don't know why he's noticed separately.

Is Luttrull a (mostly) retired prosecutor? Is he consulting with the case now?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-luttrull-93314b8/

INDIANAPOLIS (Jan. 11, 2019) – The Indiana Department of Child Services announces Jim Luttrull, Jr. as its new deputy general counsel of the litigation division. Luttrull, a former prosecutor and criminal justice professor, will oversee and manage all functions of the DCS litigation department.

New hire to supervise DCS litigation division - WYRZ.org

INDIANAPOLIS (Jan. 11, 2019) – The Indiana Department of Child Services announces Jim Luttrull,

wyrz.org

 

[FrostedGlass]

Is Luttrull a (mostly) retired prosecutor? Is he consulting with the case now?

https://www.linkedin.com/in/james-luttrull-93314b8/

INDIANAPOLIS (Jan. 11, 2019) – The Indiana Department of Child Services announces Jim Luttrull, Jr. as its new deputy general counsel of the litigation division. Luttrull, a former prosecutor and criminal justice professor, will oversee and manage all functions of the DCS litigation department.

New hire to supervise DCS litigation division - WYRZ.org

INDIANAPOLIS (Jan. 11, 2019) – The Indiana Department of Child Services announces Jim Luttrull,

wyrz.org

He was identified as the atty sitting with NMcL and he's listed in mycase:

State Plaintiff	State of Indiana
	Attorney Nicholas Charles McLeland #2830008, Lead Attorney address 101 W. Main St. Suite 204 Delphi, IN 46923 Attorney phone 765-564-4514(W) Attorney James David Luttrull Jr. #1001827 Attorney address 101 E 4th ST RM 107 Marion, IN 46952

 

[girlhasnoname]

To points 14 and 15, I'm not sure why you consider the D action to be "slight of hand and questionable behavior." They got the motion signed by RA and held it to see what transpired over the next few months.

Because I question everything that comes from them. It's my natural instinct based on their behavior, I can't help it.

JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

He was identified as the atty sitting with NMcL and he's listed in mycase:

State Plaintiff	State of Indiana
	Attorney Nicholas Charles McLeland #2830008, Lead Attorney address 101 W. Main St. Suite 204 Delphi, IN 46923 Attorney phone 765-564-4514(W) Attorney James David Luttrull Jr. #1001827 Attorney address 101 E 4th ST RM 107 Marion, IN 46952

Ok, looks like he is a Special Prosecutor. From your post last week. (And the courts can’t keep his name spelling consistent.)

Defendant appears in person with court appointed counsel Robert Scremin and William Lebrato. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas McLeland and Special Prosecutor James Luttrell.

Post in thread 'IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170'
IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170

 

[girlhasnoname]

In the Ex-Parte Pleading dated 10/12/23 first page, last paragraph BR states “Andy communicated to me that Mitch was a fairly skilled strategist and that he would sometimes communicate ideas, and circumstances with Mitch to get his feedback. Andy reported that he did this. on occasion, in this case.

A big no no if MW didn't sign a Confidentiality Agreement or NDA since he wasn't even employed by AB.

EBM: To add still a huge no no because of the Gag Order.

MOO

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Another way to think about this is to imagine of MW was actually a paid consultant to the team and then leaked.

That would be an intentional leak by the defence but not by Baldwin personally. Yet obviously Baldwin and Rozzi would both be responsible for it at the end of the day

Does the situation alter if MW was an ad hoc mentor to Baldwin and Baldwin shared strategy with him?

IMO that makes it quite a bit worse for Baldwin and Rozzi as I am guessing MW had not signed any documentation on confidentiality requirements.

This is why I suspect they are correctly held liable to a negligence standard. The disclosure was intentional by the team member but not by them personally. Rather they shared case details in a manner which was negligent - negligence is judged on an objective rather than subjective standard.

It isn’t prohibited for AB to discuss trial strategy with a friend. Nothing in the protective order or gag order states that they can only discuss the case with specific people. Gag order refers to dissemination of info to the public and protective order refers to actual access to discovery docs. If he’s talking about strategy or even case details with trusted friends that doesn’t break any rules or give grounds for punishment. JMO
edit: fixed typo

 

[steeltowngirl]

It isn’t prohibited for AB to discuss trial strategy with a friend. Nothing in the protective order or gag order states that they can only discuss the case with specific people. Gag order refers to dissemination of info to the public and protective order refers to actual access to discovery docs. If he’s talking about strategy it even case details with trusted friends that doesn’t break any rules or give grounds for punishment. JMO

Would discussion of strategy with friends violate attorney-client privilege?
Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information

Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Question, how can the Defense now state they were ambushed by the Judge about disqualification when they knew on Oct 10th that the State had suggested it and Judge Gull was leaning in that direction?

SBM - because this is a legal proceeding and therefore they should have been given legal notice and due process, which was not afforded to them (and therefore RA in a very consequential matter). There was nothing (as far as we know) in the legal record prior to being told to withdraw to indicate that was coming. Imo even though they knew it was being considered they view the actions taken by Gull as an ambush because they had every reason to expect notice and then a hearing rather than a secretive ultimatum in her chambers, since that would be the accepted legal process.

 

[girlhasnoname]

It isn’t prohibited for AB to discuss trial strategy with a friend. Nothing in the protective order or gag order states that they can only discuss the case with specific people. Gag order refers to dissemination of info to the public and protective order refers to actual access to discovery docs. If he’s talking about strategy it even case details with trusted friends that doesn’t break any rules or give grounds for punishment. JMO

Not according to this order by Judge Gull:

Counsel for the State of Indiana and the Defendant, as well as their professional staff and other personnel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and all family members are prohibited from commenting on this case to the public and to the media, directly or indirectly, by themselves or through any intermediary, in any form, including any social media platforms.
Counsel are reminded that they are required to conform to the Indiana Rules of Court, Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity in its entirety, and Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor in its entirety.

Judge issues gag order in Delphi case

 

[TL4S]

More on Rick Snay. Snay also claims to be friends with the Germans.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1587168258561548292

Suspect charged in connection with murder of Indiana teen girls

The suspect was reportedly booked into the Carroll County Jail Friday and then moved to a state facility for his safety

www.fox19.com

Me thinks RS has his dirty little fingers in everybody's pie.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Not according to this order by Judge Gull:

Counsel for the State of Indiana and the Defendant, as well as their professional staff and other personnel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and all family members are prohibited from commenting on this case to the public and to the media, directly or indirectly, by themselves or through any intermediary, in any form, including any social media platforms.
Counsel are reminded that they are required to conform to the Indiana Rules of Court, Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity in its entirety, and Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor in its entirety.

Judge issues gag order in Delphi case

BBM- Imo talking to a trusted friend isn’t considered talking to the public or media. Imo it seems pretty clear from that wording that the gag order is specifically about media and widespread dissemination not a swearing to total confidentiality.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Me thinks RS has his dirty little fingers in everybody's pie.

I really don't know anything about RS other than this mention. It's a shame that close friends of the German's would be posting or making comments like this.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

BBM- Imo talking to a trusted friend isn’t considered talking to the public or media. Imo it seems pretty clear from that wording that the gag order is specifically about media and widespread dissemination not a swearing to total confidentiality.

snipped & BBM from my post:

Counsel are reminded that they are required to conform to the Indiana Rules of Court, Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity in its entirety, and Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor in its entirety.

So not according to Rules of Professional Conduct, which is even worse IMO. These guys have practiced law for a combined 50+ years.

Rule 1.6. Confidentiality of Information (thanks @steeltowngirl)

(a) A lawyer shall not reveal information relating to representation of a client unless the client gives informed consent, the disclosure is impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation or the disclosure is permitted by paragraph (b).

(b) A lawyer may reveal information relating to the representation of a client to the extent the lawyer reasonably believes necessary:

(1) to prevent reasonably certain death or substantial bodily harm;

(2) to prevent the client from committing a crime or from committing fraud that is reasonably certain to result in substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another and in furtherance of which the client has used or is using the lawyer's services;

(3) to prevent, mitigate or rectify substantial injury to the financial interests or property of another that is reasonably certain to result or has resulted from the client's commission of a crime or fraud in furtherance of which the client has used the lawyer's services;

(4) to secure legal advice about the lawyer's compliance with these Rules;

(5) to establish a claim or defense on behalf of the lawyer in a controversy between the lawyer and the client, to establish a defense to a criminal charge or civil claim against the lawyer based upon conduct in which the client was involved, or to respond to allegations in any proceeding concerning the lawyer's representation of the client; or

(6) to comply with other law or a court order.

(c) In the event of a lawyer's physical or mental disability or the appointment of a guardian or conservator of an attorney's client files, disclosure of a client's names and files is authorized to the extent necessary to carry out the duties of the person managing the lawyer's files.

 

[EllaMinnowP]

What do you think about RS (Rick S, the podcaster, who was mentioned recently in the doc dumps)? What do you think about him saying very specific things about the CS and saying he has had sources back 2 years ago?

I just went and had a look at his YouTube channel. Episode posted June 7, 2023 jumped right out at me. He looks frightening and “familiar” IMO! ahem

really don't know anything about RS other than this mention. It's a shame that close friends of the German's would be posting or making comments like this

“The Murder Sheet” also spoke with Rick Snay with the “Delphi After Dark” YouTube channel, who told the podcast he knows Tony Kline.

^^^These aren’t in order and they are RSBM.

Though I’ve followed this case since long before I joined WS, this RS/ “Delphi After Dark” business is all new to me. I’m not liking what I’m seeing.

Thanks for sharing who he is.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Takesies backsies

 

[StarryStarryNight]

BBM- Imo talking to a trusted friend isn’t considered talking to the public or media. Imo it seems pretty clear from that wording that the gag order is specifically about media and widespread dissemination not a swearing to total confidentiality.

“Counsel for the State of Indiana and the Defendant, as well as their professional staff and other personnel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and all family members are prohibited from commenting on this case to the public and to the media….”

Yet, that’s what it says.
I don’t think it’s really open for interpretation.

 

[TL4S]

“Counsel for the State of Indiana and the Defendant, as well as their professional staff and other personnel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and all family members are prohibited from commenting on this case to the public and to the media….”

Yet, that’s what it says.
I don’t think it’s really open for interpretation.

And even if there are different interpretations, I don't feel like RA's attorney, of all people, should be taking ANY chances.

 

[Emma Peel]

They've been put on notice today. I wonder why James Luttrull gets a separate paper notice.

11/06/2023	Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court Order Signed: 11/06/2023
11/08/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 11/6/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
11/08/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 11/6/2023 : James David Luttrull

IMO:
IN still giving the choice - digital or paper.
Attnys of record provide their preference as part of their entry paperwork when first announcing their appearance on the docket. That's my guess.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

“Counsel for the State of Indiana and the Defendant, as well as their professional staff and other personnel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and all family members are prohibited from commenting on this case to the public and to the media….”

Yet, that’s what it says.
I don’t think it’s really open for interpretation.

public - adjective​

1 a: exposed to general view : OPEN
b: WELL-KNOWN, PROMINENT
c: PERCEPTIBLE, MATERIAL

2 a: of, relating to, or affecting all the people or the whole area of a nation or state
public law
b: of or relating to a government
c: of, relating to, or being in the service of the community or nation

3 a: of or relating to people in general : UNIVERSAL
b: of, by, for, or directed to the public (see PUBLIC entry 2 sense 2) : POPULAR
in the public eye
a campaign to raise public awareness of the issue
He's certainly aware that public opinion has soured on him this year …—Bryan Rolli

4: of or relating to business or community interests as opposed to private affairs : SOCIAL

5: devoted to the general or national welfare: HUMANITARIAN

6 a: accessible to or shared by all members of the community
b: capitalized in shares that can be freely traded on the open market—often used with go

7: supported by public funds and private contributions rather than by income from commercials

Definition of PUBLIC

exposed to general view : open; well-known, prominent; perceptible, material… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Regarding the rules of professional conduct, I'd be interested in a verified attorney's opinion as to whether such conduct is in violation of attorney-client confidentiality. In any case however, the Rules of Professional Conduct also states (bbm):
SCOPE
[20] Violation of a Rule should not itself give rise to a cause of action against a lawyer, nor should it create any presumption in such a case that a legal duty has been breached. In addition, violation of a Rule does not necessarily warrant any other nondisciplinary remedy, such as disqualification of a lawyer in pending litigation. The Rules are designed to provide guidance to lawyers and to provide a structure for regulating conduct through disciplinary agencies. They are not designed to be a basis for civil liability, but these Rules may be used as non-conclusive evidence that a lawyer has breached a duty owed to a client. Furthermore, the purpose of the Rules can be subverted when they are invoked by opposing parties as procedural weapons. The fact that a rule is a just basis for a lawyer's self-assessment, or for sanctioning a lawyer under the administration of a disciplinary authority, does not imply that an antagonist in a collateral proceeding or transaction has standing to seek enforcement of the Rule. Nevertheless, since the Rules do establish standards of conduct by lawyers, a lawyer's violation of a Rule may be evidence of breach of the applicable standard of conduct.
If breeching the Rules is the allegation against AB, it should be reported to the Disciplinary Commission who can institute a sanction.

About the Commission

www.in.gov

AJMO

 

[TL4S]

From the latest episode of MS, which was an interview with The Prosecutors, Brett and Alice, the one thing that jumped out at me the most was when Alice said she suspects there was NOT any recording of the in-chambers hearing, which clearly BR was aware of because he was there, and that's EXACTLY why he requested the recording/transcript. By requesting it, there would be no way for the judge to hide the fact that there is no recording, and since RA was not present in the chambers, there will be nothing on record to prove what exactly went down that day, either for the docket, or to show RA. That would be a huge problem if true.

Maybe someone here knows...if there really isn't any kind of record for that in-chambers meeting, is it possible that the judge and all attorneys present can testify to what happened, to make it part of the record?