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

[FrostedGlass]

So, I guess my question would be, was this person reporting on the in-chambers meeting, or the courtroom portion of the 19th, when JG announced before the public that RA's attorneys had withdrawn?

How to interpret all of the proceedings?

I would guess that if it was just the several minutes in open court, she would have released them with no fight.

If JG ever lets go of them, we'll know.

 

[Emma Peel]

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

also - @steeltowngirl
following your lead above ... same as your article; just the original the DCS press release.

Press Release re: Luttrull - from Indiana DCS, 2019:

https://www.in.gov/dcs/files/James-Luttrull-press-release.pdf
RSandBBM

Luttrull will focus on reducing attorney turnover, while also advising agency lawyers who are new to working in child welfare. ... . Much of his work focused on the prosecution of child abuse and the training and mentoring of prosecutors, child protection workers and law enforcement officials who respond to child abuse cases.

well alrighty then. prosecution of child abuse expert takes Prosecution 2nd chair as a special counsel

let's not let our P newcomer sneak by, shall we?

RA CSA or CSAM history? Any witnesses suggesting such RA history?

Didn't Luttrell show up about the same time JG put a deadline on P getting D the rest of the discovery?

 

[sunshineray]

Inaccurate speculation by anyone and everyone-podcasters, the media, individuals, all over social media. The Oct 19 hearing was an absolute mess. There have already been documentaries about the case before the D even got on the case. Now that a suspect has been arrested, the public (which are the same as potential jurors IMO), are left to speculate from what the media is hand-feeding them (not official documentation, which has regularly been hidden and concealed). This causes speculation on both sides, whether you believe RA is guilty or not guilty. Most of the bias has been favorable to the state, when factually, the documentation of evidence, alleged confessions, general records appear either extremely sloppy or are completely sealed. It is disconcerting to me that people are so ready to crucify a suspect with no due process, & based on selective information, when they don’t have the entire truth. Justice for Abby & Libby = a fair trial. So again, why is the Judge violating the defendant’s constitutional right to counsel? Why did the P ask for the D to be DQ’d, if the D is such a silly joke? Why on earth would a judge act on recommendation from the P? This is a blatant abuse of power. I have faith SCOIN will rule in the best interest of Justice. Hopefully everything won’t be so convoluted by then, so there is a fair trial and the correct perp is convicted.

AJMO.

Sorry I don't agree with that. Protecting information before a trial is not a bad thing. The defense gets full disclosure, the prosecution has the same. The public doesn't need to know all the details until a trial reveals them. This trial doesn't need to play out for us before that. If the SC decides certain things shall be released to the public it will be after taking into consideration the harm certain info being made public may cause to either side. A fair trial for both sides I would think is part of any SC decisions. Youtubers and media sorts don't necessarily have those same concerns in their need-to-know professions. AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

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.

Aren't lawyers handling court labeled sensitive material required by law to get anyone working with it (physically or verbally) to sign an order of protection for that sensitive material?

 

[sunshineray]

Amicus Curiae rec'd in SC case 2, what does the Notice of Defect Issued mean?

11/08/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 11/06/23 Appearance by Indiana Public Defender Council (Bernice Corley & Joel Schumm), Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae & Brief (certificate of service does not specify a method of service. PostmarkDate: 11/06/2023
11/08/2023	Notice of Defect Issued Appearance, Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae & Brief of IPDC Party: Indiana Public Defender Council Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Issue Date: 11/08/2023
11/08/2023	Document Transmitted

Is it just to add those two new lawyers, Corley and Schumm? So correcting who will be appearing?

 

[photographer4]

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.

So then they probably had conversations about "hypothetical" things that may or may not have been revealing of anything of the case. Can't tell you how often lawyers I know have "hypothetical" conversations about cases / files. Things that didn't happen, some that did and things that make ya wonder just what they're on about!

 

[Cyber sleuth]

RA CSA or CSAM history? Any witnesses suggesting such RA history?

Didn't Luttrell show up about the same time JG put a deadline on P getting D the rest of the discovery?

I noticed him first time at the 10/19 hearing. I thought his appearance may have had to do with the nature of the crime scene photos that were leaked. Which I believe the possession and distribution of photos of this nature is illegal (unless of course it’s in the scope of your legal profession).

 

[Cyber sleuth]

So then they probably had conversations about "hypothetical" things that may or may not have been revealing of anything of the case. Can't tell you how often lawyers I know have "hypothetical" conversations about cases / files.

Do they add those conversations to their billable hours? Can’t wait to find out when MW dropped by for strategy sessions.

 

[Emma Peel]

Is it just to add those two new lawyers, Corley and Schumm? So correcting who will be appearing?

These 2 (Corley/Schumm) represent the organization of Indiana's Public Defenders, and the Amicus Brief that group submitted which claimed this group of public defenders have a stake/standing in this case ... and have asked for their Amicus to be accepted and to appear as counsel repping ... ostensibly ... all of Indiana Public Defender Council's organization members - apparently to be able to present their arguments.

Not sure if there will be a live hearing at SCOIN?
Or if the SCION just deliberates off all the brief's arguments and evidence when they review/consider these motions.

 

[Emma Peel]

I noticed him first time at the 10/19 hearing. I thought his appearance may have had to do with the nature of the crime scene photos that were leaked. Which I believe the possession and distribution of photos of this nature is illegal (unless of course it’s in the scope of your legal profession).

He (Luttrull) didn't enter as temporary appearance. He entered as special counsel to the P.
He also showed up again to Oct 31 hearing ... along with the other new D attorneys appointed.
(Oct 31 - was not about the leak.) I got the impression that he's there for the trial and not the leak. JMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

He (Luttrull) didn't enter as temporary appearance. He entered as special counsel to the P.
He also showed up again to Oct 31 hearing ... along with the other new D attorneys appointed.
(Oct 31 - was not about the leak.) I got the impression that he's there for the trial and not the leak. JMO

Interesting

 

[Jurisprudence]

Why would the D want to shoot themselves in the foot to compromise the case they’ve worked so hard on? Why would the D spend so much time writing the infamous Franks memo most hate so much if their plan was to sabotage the case all along? Who benefits more from the leak, the D or the P? It’s all very clear to me this hurts the defense the most-and the timing, strategically, is interesting. The P was getting out lawyered, that’s why he wanted them DQ’d. JG acting on the P’s suggestion to DQ shows an obvious, unprofessional bias. I am one hundred percent for justice for Abby and Libby, but real justice only occurs with fair fighting. This is dirty and underhanded. JMO.

I agree. Post 113, October 24th

"... After all of that time invested, and being so close to trial, this is a dagger to all sides except perhaps the state if they get replacement counsel that abandons the theory of the defense. And, if we play that out, and the new defense theory is loose and fast for whatever reason (too many cases, not enough time to dedicate to it) without that deep dive that Baldwin and Rozzi engaged in, RA may easily be convicted, but he may also easily get an appealable issue handed to him. So, this is a bad situation for the families and RA alike.

My understanding of the photos is that they were extremely graphic cs photos that depicted the children. I can't see the defense wanting those leaked. After being so methodical in their preparation and investigation to leak photos that would enrage the public and possibly instill a demand that justice be done and their client be convicted without considering anything else the defense team found just doesn't make good sense to me. ...

All jmo"

I don't think they leaked them either @zh0r4

jmo

Reading this back I am alarmed by how much new information we have learned since the date of this post (10/24)

 

[Cyber sleuth]

IMy understanding of the photos is that they were extremely graphic cs photos that depicted the children. I can't see the defense wanting those leaked. After being so methodical in their preparation and investigation to leak photos that would enrage the public and possibly instill a demand that justice be done and their client be convicted without considering anything else the defense team found just doesn't make good sense to me. ...

All jmo"

I don't think they leaked them either

RSBM
I also don’t believe that defense intentionally leaked the photos. But they were leaked because of their actions/inaction.
So the public is enraged and may want swift justice and now this catastrophic leak of graphic crime scene photos is attached directly to the defense team of AB/BR. IMO those feelings of distrust may carry over to their client.
For the exact reasons you listed above I believe that the defense team of AB/BR should step aside.

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

This is my understanding as well. The pictures deal with the protective order on discovery materials, not the gag order.

The Protective Order Governing Discovery that I saw (dated 2/17/2023) essentially states that no discovery material can be divulged to any unauthorized person without that person receiving a copy of the order and agreeing to bound by the court's contempt power.

AB did not divulge discovery materials to MW. As I understand from MW himself (his affidavit), he stole them.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

AC from MS is a journalist and they know very well how to use words for impact. "Massive" and "catastrophic" leak came from them.

So my question is: just how massive and catastrophic is this leak? Supposedly none of the jurors will have seen or heard about it so the jury pool should not be tainted.

A lot of us have thought for quite a while now that the murderer took pictures for personal reasons or ?.

 

[Jurisprudence]

RSBM
I also don’t believe that defense intentionally leaked the photos. But they were leaked because of their actions/inaction.
So the public is enraged and may want swift justice and now this catastrophic leak of graphic crime scene photos is attached directly to the defense team of AB/BR. IMO those feelings of distrust may carry over to their client.
For the exact reasons you listed above I believe that the defense team of AB/BR should step aside.

So he can be pleaded out? Or, the Franks motion dropped? I think people are starting to see a pattern here so I don't believe them being reinstated will harm his defense. I do believe them not being reinstated will carry a significant increased risk of harm though.

jmo

 

[Sillybilly]

ADMIN NOTE:

Posts with facts or screenshots that have no link to the source get removed. That includes attached PDF documents which can contain viruses, code etc that when opened can harm a user's computer.

WS has rules for a reason. Regardless of how important you think a document or something else is, NO LINK, NO POST !

 

[FrostedGlass]

One of the Supreme Court cases has been updated. As usual, the blue links are clickable and they take you to the actual document.

case # 23S-OR-00311

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

11/08/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 11/06/23 Appearance by Indiana Public Defender Council (Bernice Corley & Joel Schumm), Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae & Brief (certificate of service does not specify a method of service. PostmarkDate: 11/06/2023
11/08/2023	Notice of Defect Issued Appearance, Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae & Brief of IPDC Party: Indiana Public Defender Council Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Issue Date: 11/08/2023
11/08/2023	Document Transmitted
11/08/2023	Order Issued Being duly advised, the Court ORDERS Respondents to either file a response to Relator's "Motion for Transcript" with the Clerk of this Court on or before Thursday, November 16, 2023, or to include the requested transcript as a supplemental record filed pursuant to Original Action Rules 3(C) and (G) and this Court's order of November 6, 2023. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Gull, Frances M. Cutino Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Supreme Court Public Information Officer File Stamp: 11/08/2023
11/08/2023	Appearance Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/08/23 Attorney: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Attorney: Schumm, Joel M. Party: Indiana Public Defender Council File Stamp: 11/08/2023
11/08/2023	Notice of Amendment of Certificates of Service Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/08/23 Attorney: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Attorney: Schumm, Joel M. Party: Indiana Public Defender Council File Stamp: 11/08/2023
11/08/2023	Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/08/23 Attorney: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Attorney: Schumm, Joel M. Party: Indiana Public Defender Council File Stamp: 11/08/2023
11/08/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 11/08/23 Brief of Amicus Curiae - IPDC - pending ruling on motion to appear. PostmarkDate: 11/08/2023
11/08/2023	Notice of Defect Cured Clerk Comments: Appearance, Motion to Appear as Amicus Curiae & Brief of IPDC Party: Indiana Public Defender Council Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. File Stamp: 11/08/2023
11/08/2023	Document Transmitted
11/08/2023	Document Transmitted

 

[Megnut]

(How catastrophic to one's career would possession of those images be? Regardless of context, wouldn't they be considered CSAM? THE law might not be very forgiving.)

(jmo)

 

[FrostedGlass]

(How catastrophic to one's career would possession of those images be? Regardless of context, wouldn't they be considered CSAM? THE law might not be very forgiving.)

(jmo)

That's a good question. KAK got 40 (?) years for no charges higher than level 5 felonies. Others have gotten off with little more than a slap on the hand.

I have no idea if those photos are considered CSAM. It's definitely a crime against children; I don't know where the other fits in.