IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #172

[zh0r4]

Why do you suppose three different LE agencies did “nothing” with the Odinist theory, even when they were under intense scrutiny and pressure to solve this crime?
Not being snarky. I genuinely want someone to answer this question, without the answer being “maybe they are all Odinists”. If someone can put forth a legitimate reason as to why this may have happened, maybe I can be swayed.
Thus far all I’ve seen is talk of antlers, blood draining, Odinist guards forcing RA to confess, a “lazy” judge, and the like. Color me not convinced.

At least 3 detectives (Click, Ferency, & Murphy), including 2 working for the FBI’s JTTF, never changed their mind abt the possibility of multiple perps. Doug Carter allegedly kicked the FBI off the case in 2021. There is ZERO reason, IMO, any PD would not welcome the help of the FBI and their plentiful resources unless they were up to no good-most PDs would love the FBI’s help, especially in small towns and National cases.

Ferency was murdered in front of a federal building in July 2021. Click recently agreed with the defense about who committed the murders (presumably multiple perps and/or not RA), although he disagreed about the Odinist angle on a MS podcast. With respect, Odinists are the least of the worries of the FM, and it unfortunately seems to be used to ignore and redirect conversation away from all of the other plentiful issues with this investigation brought up in the Franks memo.
No one is trying to convince anyone of anything, most are only wishing to engage in stoic intellectual discussion re: the documents that have been released.

-Correctional officers admitted under oath to wearing the patches.
-The warden admitted they allowed the COs to wear the patches, so why did he also instruct them to remove the patches if it wasn’t against policy? That IMO is weirder than the patches.
-COs admitted tasing RA
-A letter has been released corroborating RA is being abused in a PRISON without a trial.
-Defense attorneys were DQ’d without due process, violating the constitutional rights of RA, Baldwin, and Rozzi. I understand justice systems may work differently in other countries, but in the US the constitution is the law.

AJMO

Sources:
Delphi PD has a history of corruption, including officers in this case:
Post in thread 'IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171'
IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #171
Indiana man charged with murder after FBI Task Force officer shot outside federal building (7/9/2021)
Indiana man charged with murder after FBI Task Force officer shot outside federal building
FRANKS MEMO
DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police
p. 10
“Although, State Police Superintendent Doug Carter pulled the plug and kicked the FBI off the Delphi murder case around 2021 over some conflicts, according to Jerry Holeman. (Holeman depo. pages 123-130). Interestingly, Tony Liggett (who was deposed before Holeman) claimed under oath that Doug Carter was not involved in making decisions for the case (Liggett depo p. 30, lines 10-24). Furthermore, he (Liggett) claimed to be unaware that the FBI was even kicked out, let alone that any agency had actually kicked out the FBI from investigating the Delphi case. (Liggett depo p. 64, lines, 14-25). It is quite odd that the salient topic of Doug Carter kicking the FBI off of the Delphi case would never have been discussed between Liggett and Holeman who were working so closely with one another in Unified Command. If that can be believed, it would be quite perplexing.” (Pic below)

 

[Jurisprudence]

I find the timing of the motion to clarify the Nov. 16 deadline interesting. Why wait until the deadline? Did they just assume they had until Nov 27 and then thought they had better check.
Filed: 11/16/2023 7:33 PM

If you recall, they had no interest in stepping into these matters. They are copied and have a right to speak on them but they are not the respondents. They elected to not be involved. Suddenly now, they have decided to become involved. This is why they waited imo. They waited because in actuality, they just decided to dip into this.

"Judge Gull filed a motion with the supreme court on Friday citing the Indiana Attorney General’s refusal to represent her in the high court debate. She claimed she needed time to find another lawyer.
Chief Justice Loretta Rush granted Judge Gull’s request, and a new attorney was found."

Delphi judge asks Indiana Supreme Court for more time to respond to challenge of how she’s run the case

The judge overseeing the Delphi double murder trial of Richard Allen has asked the Indiana Supreme Court for more time to respond to a challenge of how she’s run the case. Allen County Superior Jud…

fox59.com

Now, this ---^ was with respect to the 1st original action (filed 10/30).

The AG's office however, also had immediate notice of the second original action pertaining to counsel (filed 11/6) and did nothing (see Certificate of Service on filing). It was only after her counsel filed its response brief in connection with the first action (which we expect to be dismissed as moot now for reasons stated many times) that the AG's office decided they wanted to become involved - but the deadline for submitting a brief passed:

11/06/2023

Order Issued Any briefs opposing issuance of the writ or any supplemental records must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, November 16, 2023. Any supplemental record must be submitted in the same format required for the record under Original Action Rule 3(C) and (G). Once briefing is completed, the Court will take the matter under advisement.

So in order to become involved they needed to clarify if they could have the benefit of Gull's extension too bc they aren't the respondent (Gull), and their response should have been filed yesterday. But since they only decided to get involved either yesterday or today, we do not know, they had to make sure they still could. The CJ of SCION is allowing it.

Now today, the Deputy AGs filed their appearance.

11/17/2023

Appearance by Deputy AG Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/16/23 DAG: Sanchez, Angela DAG: Kobe, Andrew Anton Party: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/16/2023

I'm very interested to see what they say. I suspect it will be in defense of not violating any constitutional right and the right to remove his counsel. I imagine they'll say something like RA consented on the record on 10/31 so nothing to see here. Problem is, not only did he not consent and was not present in that 10/19 in-chambers meeting (not a hearing), but he actually objected to it immediately prior via writing. Come 10/31 did he have a choice? Imo, he did not.

jmo

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[zh0r4]

If you recall, they had no interest in stepping into these matters. They are copied and have a right to speak on them but they are not the respondents. They elected to not be involved. Suddenly now, they have decided to become involved. This is why they waited imo. They waited because in actuality, they just decided to dip into this.

"Judge Gull filed a motion with the supreme court on Friday citing the Indiana Attorney General’s refusal to represent her in the high court debate. She claimed she needed time to find another lawyer.
Chief Justice Loretta Rush granted Judge Gull’s request, and a new attorney was found."

Delphi judge asks Indiana Supreme Court for more time to respond to challenge of how she’s run the case

The judge overseeing the Delphi double murder trial of Richard Allen has asked the Indiana Supreme Court for more time to respond to a challenge of how she’s run the case. Allen County Superior Jud…

fox59.com

Now, this ---^ was with respect to the 1st original action (filed 10/30).

The AG's office however, also had immediate notice of the second original action pertaining to counsel (filed 11/6) and did nothing (see Certificate of Service on filing). It was only after her counsel filed its response brief in connection with the first action (which we expect to be dismissed as moot now for reasons stated many times) that the AG's office decided they wanted to become involved - but the deadline for submitting a brief passed:

11/06/2023

Order Issued Any briefs opposing issuance of the writ or any supplemental records must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, November 16, 2023. Any supplemental record must be submitted in the same format required for the record under Original Action Rule 3(C) and (G). Once briefing is completed, the Court will take the matter under advisement.

So in order to become involved they needed to clarify if they could have the benefit of Gull's extension too bc they aren't the respondent (Gull), and their response should have been filed yesterday. But since they only decided to get involved either yesterday or today, we do not know, they had to make sure they still could. The CJ of SCION is allowing it.

Now today, the Deputy AGs filed their appearance.

11/17/2023

Appearance by Deputy AG Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/16/23 DAG: Sanchez, Angela DAG: Kobe, Andrew Anton Party: State of Indiana File Stamp: 11/16/2023

I'm very interested to see what they say. I suspect it will be in defense of not violating any constitutional right and the right to remove his counsel. I imagine they'll say something like RA consented on the record on 10/31 so nothing to see here. Problem is, not only did he not consent and not be present on 10/19, but he actually objected via writing. Come 10/31 did he have a choice? Imo, he did not.

jmo

Would the “blame the clerk” narrative by JG in her filings yesterday have anything to do with the AG filing? I tried looking this up to no avail-would the AG defend the clerk (since the clerk doesn’t technically work for JG)? Or is there no way the clerk can defend themselves? TIA

 

[Jurisprudence]

Would the “blame the clerk” narrative by JG in her filings yesterday have anything to do with the AG filing? I tried looking this up to no avail-would the AG defend the clerk (since the clerk doesn’t technically work for JG)? Or is there no way the clerk can defend themselves? TIA

That's so bad. I can't believe she did that. jmo The Justices are well aware the clerk can't do things by his or herself. They need an order to act. They can't do whatever they want or play around with the docket. And, I wish it was as benign as this but it's not. We know this because this is a different case. That case is the first original action and this one they're seeking to respond to is the second (Baldwin, Rossi, and RA's rights - also appointing substitute counsel from the wrong county). I hope the clerk has a lawyer and asks to intervene in that though because getting thrown under the bus like that wasn't right. The Clerk needs to protect his/her reputation now too.

jmo

 

[Ward Thisperer]

I hope they can file their responses early so no one catches me refreshing MyCase at the Thanksgiving dinner table…

 

[MistyWaters]

That's so bad. I can't believe she did that. jmo The Justices are well aware the clerk can't do things by his or herself. They need an order to act. They can't do whatever they want or play around with the docket. And, I wish it was as benign as this but it's not. We know this because this is a different case. That case is the first original action and this one they're seeking to respond to is the second (Baldwin, Rossi, and RA's rights - also appointing substitute counsel from the wrong county). I hope the clerk has a lawyer and asks to intervene in that though because getting thrown under the bus like that wasn't right.

jmo

The Clerk of the Court is an elected position, although the title of ”Clerk” might give the perception of the position as an office-type clerk.

I didn’t get the impression the Judge was throwing the Clerk under the bus at all. She clearly described the separation of duties since for some reason, the writ insinuated maintaining the CCS was the responsibility of the Judge.

https://allencoclerk.us/

“In addition to managing a staff of over 50 employees and processing over $90 million per year in financial transactions, the Clerk is also responsible for assisting the Allen Circuit and Superior Courts with processing more than 60,000 new cases per year.

The Clerk’s duties related to court case processing are broad but include making entries on the Chronological Case Summary……”

****

Judge argues Delphi suspected killer's motion should be denied

Richard Allen's motions for writs from the Supreme Court doesn't meet the urgency or criteria for the court's review, states a recently filed brief.

www.jconline.com

“….Gull's brief indicated that they were not, and Gull also noted that it is the Carroll County clerk's job — not Gull's — to maintain the docket's filings for all criminal cases.

To clear up any allegations in Allen's filing, Gull ordered on Nov. 14 that the clerk to unseal some of the sealed documents.

"(Gull) has issued an order directing the Clerk to make available to the public ... all non-confidential documents (Allen) requests be made public," the brief states. "In any event, (Gull) has no absolute duty to maintain (the public filings in the docket)."…”

 

[zh0r4]

<snip>

bbm

“In a shocking turn, Rozzi recently filed a motion calling on Judge Gull to be recused from the Delphi case after suddenly backpedaling on the previous story of his impending withdrawal from the case and instead stating he did not want to withdraw from the case and instead wished for Gull to be thrown off the murder trial.

Now, however, that very motion is being stricken from the records. In an order issued by Gull on Friday, the judge said that Rozzi was withdrawn from the Delphi case on Oct. 19 and therefore was no longer the legal counsel of record for Richard Allen. The clerk was then ordered to remove Rozzi’s filing calling for the removal of Gull from the recordbooks and note that it was filed in error since Rozzi is no longer considered legally a part of the case due to being removed prior to him filing the motion on Oct. 25.

David Hennessy, an attorney representing Rozzi and Baldwin, recently argued against Gull and claimed she “strong-armed Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin” into offering oral withdrawals from the case and contends Gull doesn’t have the authority to direct the clerk to strip Baldwin and Rozzi’s names from the court docket without a filed Notice of Withdrawal or a valid written motion.

<snip>

In the soon-to-be-filed motion, Hennessey calls on the court to reconsider the “erroneous order to the Clerk of the Carroll County and the removal of appointed counsel without the opportunity to be heard.”

“No judge has the authority to oversee the clerk or order the clerk to alter the record of court filings,” Hennessy wrote in the filing.

<snip>

“There have been no valid motions to withdraw by appointed counsel,” Hennessy argues in the motion. “There has been no order of disqualification. There is no legitimate basis for disqualification.”

Hennessy’s motion also contends that the judge “loses the authority and jurisdiction to make rulings on other court motions or issue orders other (than) a hearing” upon the filing of the Motion for Recusal and To Disqualify — the motion filed on behalf of Rozzi just days ago which Gull ordered stricken from the record.”

How convenient. How can she claim she never did this? JMO

Source:

MSN

 

[Willow Knight]

Why do you suppose three different LE agencies did “nothing” with the Odinist theory, even when they were under intense scrutiny and pressure to solve this crime?
Not being snarky. I genuinely want someone to answer this question, without the answer being “maybe they are all Odinists”. If someone can put forth a legitimate reason as to why this may have happened, maybe I can be swayed.
Thus far all I’ve seen is talk of antlers, blood draining, Odinist guards forcing RA to confess, a “lazy” judge, and the like. Color me not convinced.

I cannot answer or give you a legitimate reason why LE is not on board with the Odinist did it.

From what I've read that theory was investigated. Based on that information it is my belief LE does not believe the Odinist are responsible for the murders. My guess is there are other theories LE investigated, is the defense entitled to receive all documentation of all theories?

RA has a right to a fair trial. An important factor for a fair trial is an impartial jury. This is the reason I believe we don't have access to more evidence in the case, we'll have to wait for the trial. This is about two girls that were murdered. Their families will never see them again. I don't believe LE or the people want an innocent RA to be found guilty AND a 'pagan cult' to be free to murder.

 

[DeDee]

The Clerk of the Court is an elected position, although the title of ”Clerk” might give the perception of the position as an office-type clerk.

I didn’t get the impression the Judge was throwing the Clerk under the bus at all. She clearly described the separation of duties since for some reason, the writ insinuated maintaining the CCS was the responsibility of the Judge.

https://allencoclerk.us/

“In addition to managing a staff of over 50 employees and processing over $90 million per year in financial transactions, the Clerk is also responsible for assisting the Allen Circuit and Superior Courts with processing more than 60,000 new cases per year.

The Clerk’s duties related to court case processing are broad but include making entries on the Chronological Case Summary……”

****

Judge argues Delphi suspected killer's motion should be denied

Richard Allen's motions for writs from the Supreme Court doesn't meet the urgency or criteria for the court's review, states a recently filed brief.

www.jconline.com

“….Gull's brief indicated that they were not, and Gull also noted that it is the Carroll County clerk's job — not Gull's — to maintain the docket's filings for all criminal cases.

To clear up any allegations in Allen's filing, Gull ordered on Nov. 14 that the clerk to unseal some of the sealed documents.

"(Gull) has issued an order directing the Clerk to make available to the public ... all non-confidential documents (Allen) requests be made public," the brief states. "In any event, (Gull) has no absolute duty to maintain (the public filings in the docket)."…”

Clerk CMNancarrow, who's held the elected position since 2019, is responsible for the entire staff of 50. Many of them must be deputized clerks, Deputy Clerks. They would likely be the ones to enter the data into the system. Mr Nancarrow isn't sitting at his desk typing rapidly to get the files entered in a timely fashion but he's responsible for their department's work to be done. And, for being done properly.

Wonder how closely the community scrutinizes important matters such as these? Is it something MS might opine about on their podcasts? I haven't listened to them since they skewed and tortured the families by dangling the KAK carrot, esp during the river search.

MOO edited: isn't

 

[Jurisprudence]

bbm

“In a shocking turn, Rozzi recently filed a motion calling on Judge Gull to be recused from the Delphi case after suddenly backpedaling on the previous story of his impending withdrawal from the case and instead stating he did not want to withdraw from the case and instead wished for Gull to be thrown off the murder trial.

This is another problem. Rozzi filed first. But she dated her order the 19th even though it wasn't posted to the docket until the 26th - after motion to recuse. There's a question as to whether this was backdated or simply not timely place on the docket "by the clerk" and the answer to the question matters because if Rozzi did indeed file first, and it seems he did, once he filed that motion to recuse everything on that case should have stopped. There should have been no further hearing. What is the only way to get around that? Backdate your order to predate his demand. (This even looks a bit different. It will have to be compared to the reproduction in the record submitted by CW in the first original action to see if it's been since altered)

10/26/2023

Order Issued ...Prior to the scheduled hearing this date, Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin advise the Court they will be withdrawing their representation of the defendant. Court accepts their representations and orders them withdrawn from the cause... Court will maintain the hearing currently scheduled for October 31, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in the Carroll Circuit Court for successor counsel to appear. Clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court ordered to remove Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi as attorneys of record in this cause. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ .... Order Signed: 10/19/2023

jmo

Now, however, that very motion is being stricken from the records. In an order issued by Gull on Friday, the judge said that Rozzi was withdrawn from the Delphi case on Oct. 19 and therefore was no longer the legal counsel of record for Richard Allen. The clerk was then ordered to remove Rozzi’s filing calling for the removal of Gull from the recordbooks and note that it was filed in error since Rozzi is no longer considered legally a part of the case due to being removed prior to him filing the motion on Oct. 25.

Agree (above)

David Hennessy, an attorney representing Rozzi and Baldwin, recently argued against Gull and claimed she “strong-armed Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin” into offering oral withdrawals from the case and contends Gull doesn’t have the authority to direct the clerk to strip Baldwin and Rozzi’s names from the court docket without a filed Notice of Withdrawal or a valid written motion.

Agree. Clerk can't remove things from the docket - even with an order. Judge can order them stricken from the official record but not the docket, provided she wasn't noticed with a motion to recuse first imo.

“No judge has the authority to oversee the clerk or order the clerk to alter the record of court filings,” Hennessy wrote in the filing.

This is what CW action is all about about. Things out of date order, not titled, things on a download, things on CCS, some things just gone. The reason there are strict rules about this is because any appeal of the accused can only be based on the record and this record was becoming a disaster. If not caught and he was convicted think about the problems he'd face. Docs never posted, long gone, out of order, buried with other docs on a separate public zip drive, exhibits detached from their filings. Not good jmo

“There have been no valid motions to withdraw by appointed counsel,” Hennessy argues in the motion. “There has been no order of disqualification. There is no legitimate basis for disqualification.”

At the time of this writing (your link) 3 weeks ago I believe this to be true as well. If there is something, show us. jmo

Hennessy’s motion also contends that the judge “loses the authority and jurisdiction to make rulings on other court motions or issue orders other (than) a hearing” upon the filing of the Motion for Recusal and To Disqualify — the motion filed on behalf of Rozzi just days ago which Gull ordered stricken from the record.”

Yes. This is at the top. Yes. This is why that date matters. Know who probably knows the truth here as to whether that order was made on the 19th or the 26th? The Clerk

Source:

MSN

All jmo

 

[mrjitty]

They didn't do "nothing". They buried it. See pages 4-6, 8. It's important to read sworn documents supported by time-stamped evidence before posting false information. There's too much of that going on imo. All of us now have access to a decent amount of materials since the SCION actions were instituted so this should have cooled off by now.

jmo

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

While I am not a fan of the fun and games that takes place in discovery, at the end of the day, this stuff was discovered before the deadline so .... ??

And yet again, what does any of that have to do with a Franks motion?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Would the “blame the clerk” narrative by JG in her filings yesterday have anything to do with the AG filing? I tried looking this up to no avail-would the AG defend the clerk (since the clerk doesn’t technically work for JG)? Or is there no way the clerk can defend themselves? TIA

I can't answer your question but I'm pretty sure the clerk's office was really unhappy when they heard that.

There was a March 23, 2023 council meeting where they were discussing NMcL's request for another secretary and an extra $5,000 for each one. The head of the clerk's office got up and said the work coming down through NMcL's office was trickling down to hers. She said they were getting 12-15 emails a day for news organizations wanting documents and they were doing all of this extra work with no more help and no more money.

36:10 mm

 

[mrjitty]

David Hennessy, an attorney representing Rozzi and Baldwin, recently argued against Gull and claimed she “strong-armed Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin” into offering oral withdrawals from the case and contends Gull doesn’t have the authority to direct the clerk to strip Baldwin and Rozzi’s names from the court docket without a filed Notice of Withdrawal or a valid written motion.

RSBM

This is IMO the potential flaw in the plaintiff's writ - which they admit in their own filing

There is a split in law between the formal law and equity. i.e sometimes the justice of the case is different to the formal position. An example is where you are forced to execute a contract under duress. As a strictly legal question, the contract exists and the terms can be relied upon on its face. However consent was vitiated by duress and that can be argued in the Court's equitable jurisdiction. In layman's terms, "whats the justice here?" So you go to the Court of equity to seek relief.

Taking the best view of DH submission, perhaps BA stood up and said "Judge Gull you cad, i move to withdraw under protest - you have extorted this withdrawal via illegitimate pressure!"

IMO as a formal question, BA has moved to withdraw, but he can challenge the withdrawal as ineffective in another venue (e.g an appeal court).

What he can't do, is un-file the oral motion to withdraw under his own steam.

 

[mrjitty]

I just finished listening to episode 76 of The Prosecutor's "Legal Briefs" podcast. They explain the case law concerning the right to continuity of counsel. Very informative.

I agree - this is excellent and i think a compulsory foundation for discussion.

IMO even if Baldwin + Rozzi succeed on the procedural aspects, it's clear as to substance that Gull can sack them. Especially the standard for overturning Gull's decision is a high barrier. You have to show she was clearly wrong - not just disagree with where she drew the line.

 

[Pitsleuth]

They didn't do "nothing". They buried it. See pages 4-6, 8. It's important to read sworn documents supported by time-stamped evidence before posting false information. There's too much of that going on imo. All of us now have access to a decent amount of materials since the SCION actions were instituted so this should have cooled off by now.

jmo

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion PDF | PDF | Prosecutor | Police

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

DBM

 

[FrostedGlass]

This is another problem. Rozzi filed first. But she dated her order the 19th even though it wasn't posted to the docket until the 26th - after motion to recuse. There's a question as to whether this was backdated or simply not timely place on the docket "by the clerk" and the answer to the question matters because if Rozzi did indeed file first, and it seems he did, once he filed that motion to recuse everything on that case should have stopped. There should have been no further hearing. What is the only way to get around that? Backdate your order to predate his demand. (This even looks a bit different. It will have to be compared to the reproduction in the record submitted by CW in the first original action to see if it's been since altered)

10/26/2023

Order Issued ...Prior to the scheduled hearing this date, Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin advise the Court they will be withdrawing their representation of the defendant. Court accepts their representations and orders them withdrawn from the cause... Court will maintain the hearing currently scheduled for October 31, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. in the Carroll Circuit Court for successor counsel to appear. Clerk of the Carroll Circuit Court ordered to remove Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi as attorneys of record in this cause. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ .... Order Signed: 10/19/2023

jmo


Agree (above)

Agree. Clerk can't remove things from the docket - even with an order. Judge can order them stricken from the official record but not the docket, provided she wasn't noticed with a motion to recuse first imo.

This is what CW action is all about about. Things out of date order, not titled, things on a download, things on CCS, some things just gone. The reason there are strict rules about this is because any appeal of the accused can only be based on the record and this record was becoming a disaster. If not caught and he was convicted think about the problems he'd face. Docs never posted, long gone, out of order, buried with other docs on a separate public zip drive, exhibits detached from their filings. Not good jmo

At the time of this writing (your link) 3 weeks ago I believe this to be true as well. If there is something, show us. jmo

Yes. This is at the top. Yes. This is why that date matters. Know who probably knows the truth here as to whether that order was made on the 19th or the 26th? The Clerk


All jmo

Anyone can go through the CCS and see the clerk is very timely in posting the entries. The one you've pointed out is rare; I think there may be one other that had a similar noticeable lag between the signing date and the entry date.

Had that been any other entry, I might have attributed it to something? but since this was such an unusual conference, I found the lag to be a bit questionable. I do hope someone examines it closely.
**Note: mycase is down temporarily for maintenance.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

While I am not a fan of the fun and games that takes place in discovery, at the end of the day, this stuff was discovered before the deadline so .... ??

except of course for the multiple relevant interviews (some done within the first week of the murders) and police reports they’ve just so happened to have lost

And yet again, what does any of that have to do with a Franks motion?

considering the Franks is arguing TL purposely withheld and lied about witness statements in the SWA, and they need to show proof of bad faith rather than just an accident, how would further evidence of a pattern of withholding potential exculpatory evidence not be relevant to the motion?

 

[mrjitty]

except of course for the multiple relevant interviews (some done within the first week of the murders) and police reports they’ve just so happened to have lost
View attachment 462059

considering the Franks is arguing TL purposely withheld and lied about witness statements in the SWA, and they need to show proof of bad faith rather than just an accident, how would further evidence of a pattern of withholding potential exculpatory evidence not be relevant to the motion?

They don't have to show proof of bad faith. They just need to show that probable cause was not established in the affidavit if you exclude any false or misleading statements.

So specifically you must prove some of the statements were false, and then judged on what is left, probable cause for a search was not established.

Exculpatory evidence would relate to the Arrest Affidavit, not a Franks motion

 

[Jurisprudence]

I can't answer your question but I'm pretty sure the clerk's office was really unhappy when they heard that.

There was a March 23, 2023 council meeting where they were discussing NMcL's request for another secretary and an extra $5,000 for each one. The head of the clerk's office got up and said the work coming down through NMcL's office was trickling down to hers. She said they were getting 12-15 emails a day for news organizations wanting documents and they were doing all of this extra work with no more help and no more money.

36:10 mm

I saw this as well. This hearing was not long after they were provided a $2.1M budget (and this is referenced in this hearing). The hearing in the link reveals NM saying he'd lose his case if he didn't get to keep an extra $5k that was provided to hire another person who did not take the job. At one point, they even invoke the victims' families. The board tells NM to figure out his budget. The clerk advising them that the clerk's office has been stressed with lack of resources, daily public records requests, no extra help to handle those on top of regular duties but yet they still find a way to make it work, and so should he. I think he also stated he had secretaries writing legal filings?

This was months before the Franks Memo. Months before the defense knew of the hidden exculpatory evidence. Months before the state became aware that the defense had uncovered issues that NM knew he would need to provide answers to, and he still discussed losing the case even without any of those obstacles being known at that time. This hearing supports a belief that while the defense was ready to proceed to trial on what they uncovered, the state was not. It was not defense "bluster", and come several months later when faced with all of those defense filings, the state needed a mechanism to halt a constitutional speedy trial problem.

All jmo

 

[Ward Thisperer]

They don't have to show proof of bad faith. They just need to show that probable cause was not established in the affidavit if you exclude any false or misleading statements.

So specifically you must prove some of the statements were false, and then judged on what is left, probable cause for a search was not established.

Exculpatory evidence would relate to the Arrest Affidavit, not a Franks motion

No, they actually do need to show the statements were not even presumed by TL to be true. It couldn’t have been a simple mistake. The wording of “bad faith” is directly discussed in the Franks V Delaware decision (p7,16). The false and misleading statements must be deliberate.

Jerome FRANKS, Petitioner, v. State of DELAWARE.

www.law.cornell.edu

“To mandate an evidentiary hearing, the challenger's attack must be more than conclusory and must be supported by more than a mere desire to cross-examine. The allegation of deliberate falsehood or of reckless disregard must point out specifically with supporting reasons the portion of the warrant affidavit that is claimed to be false. It also must be accompanied by an offer of proof, including affidavits or sworn or otherwise reliable statements of witnesses, or a satisfactory explanation of their absence.”

The withholding of exculpatory evidence in discovery is relevant to the FM in that it substantiates the allegation of deliberation in the misleading and false statements in the SWA by showing they are part of a pattern.

Even if you disagree this was deliberate, it’s clearly relevant and clear why they would include this in the FM.