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

[Ward Thisperer]

No that is not factually correct. When Judge G did speak on the record in open court directly after the in-chambers hearings she said the attorneys for Defendant RA have withdrawn. She said she would be appointing new counsel for the Defendant Allen and said she asked R&B to return Discovery back to the State.
Just because they changed their mind and said AFTERWARDS they only withdrew because they were strong armed by Judge G in chambers is almost comical if not for the damage they have done to this case and for the further pain and confusion to all of the families involved, most importantly for the true victims of this hideous crime, Abby & Libby.

Two lawyers with a combined 50+ years of experience would never have allowed a judge to 'strong arm' or force them to withdraw if they had clean hands with nothing to hide. They did not want their actions of GROSS MISCONDUCT being read into the record in open court. Why? They are ones that demanded media coverage in hearings.

Why not allow there to be a record made and respond to it in open court? They had an attorney (Hennessy) file a memo on AB's behalf. There were LE officials there who I believe were going to testify to the inaccuracy (see also lies) told in regards to the leaks of CS photos and Depositions.

MOO

This is what she said, BBM.
“Earlier this afternoon, the defense attorneys have withdrawn their representation of Mr. Allen. Mr. Baldwin made an oral motion to withdraw, I granted that oral motion to withdraw; and Mr. Rozzi will be submitting a written motion to withdraw, I’m assuming within the next couple of days.”

Per my layperson understanding, JG’s assumptions are not a motion. My statement that he didn't withdraw is accurate and supported by JG's words.

Imo a judge with 2 bids to join the Indiana Supreme Court, with over 25 years of experience, if she had nothing to hide and the meeting was totally above board and non-coercive, would simply hand over the in-chambers transcript and prove it to the world.

Friends don’t let friends appoint them to take cases like this at court appointed rates. Perhaps it is part of his penance for whatever he did lol?

Aside from the former D, I doubt there are many experienced criminal D’s in the area that would be lining up to take over this case. There is plenty of other work out there, I suspect most don’t want or need the stress.

JMO

The Amicus Curiae brief from the Indiana Public Defender Council shares the Carroll County system to ensure that an independent PD can be appointed:
"Carroll County is a member of the Public Defender Commission and has a public defender board and comprehensive plan. The Commissioners of Carroll County adopted an ordinance creating a public defender board in 2000. The county’s plan provides for an “assigned counsel system.”3 Under this appointment system,
(1) The board shall gather and maintain a list of attorneys qualified to represent indigent defendants.
(2) Upon the determination by a court that a person is indigent and entitled to legal representation at public expense, the court shall appoint an attorney to provide the representation from the list maintained by the board.
Ind. Code § 33-40-7-9. Later sections provide for payment and reimbursement of expenses. Id."

Amicus Brief.pdf

drive.google.com

If there isn't a qualified PD in the area who is available to represent RA, the law directs the judge to request the state PD to provide a qualified attorney. This section also clarifies that a court CAN appoint a public defender outside of this plan but it would not be able to be reimbursed by the state public defense fund.
IN Code § 33-40-7-10 (2022)
(b) A judge of a court having criminal jurisdiction may make a written request to the state public defender to provide a qualified attorney for the defense of a person charged in the court with a criminal offense and eligible for representation at public expense if the judge determines:
(1) that an attorney provided under the county public defender board's plan is not qualified or available to represent the person; or
(2) that in the interests of justice an attorney other than the attorney provided for by the county defender board's plan should be appointed.
The judge shall attach to the request a copy of the information or indictment. Expenditures for representation under this subsection shall be paid by the county according to a fee schedule approved by the commission. These expenditures are eligible for reimbursement from the public defense fund.

NAL just sharing what was argued in the brief

 

[Jurisprudence]

I've been intending to post similarly, in that I read frequent attorneys' posts, counting on them to monitor legality. I identify, too, as one who weighs evidence hypothetically here; yet real life jury experience frustrated. Whew,"People think differently."

This is the unfortunate part. The trial that was set to start in just a short time after the holidays has now been delayed if it even happens at all. I have no idea what his new attorneys plan to do (persuade him to plead out or go to trial) and I don't even want to guess. My only point is that there is now a chance we will not see or hear any of this evidence at all apart from what we have now, a scenario that did not exist as of October 2023.

jmo

 

[zh0r4]

2023 10 25 Allen Motion To Disqualify Judge | PDF

How about a sworn statement, signed by BR that states that both parties withdrew in chambers?
They elected to sidestep the due process of a formal DQ by withdrawing.
I am not an attorney nor play one on tv. But this is ridiculous- they withdrew, the judge stated in court they withdrew and all signed statements have supported this.
While I am looking forward to seeing the in chambers transcript for context. I do not expect them to prove the judge lied.
I suspect we will see that old D didn’t want to face the music and then later figured out a back-door way to save face/play victim.
But I have been wrong before.

I am looking where the xD officially withdrew-according to protocol/what typically occurs in the rare instances attorneys are DQ’d-I.e., a hearing/due process-and I cannot find any official documentation of this so-called withdraw. They say they were given a Hobson’s choice (not really a choice at all).

These are the pages in the document you linked that mentions the withdraw specifically: p. 3, 6, 7, 8

p. 3
“6. On October 19, 2023 Judge Gull conducted critical stage proceedings in chambers outside the presence of the Accused even though she had ordered him transported and he was available. She then did the same after placing his attorneys in an ethical dilemma and again, creating a public record outside of the presence of the Accused. This ignored clear precedent.

7. On October 19, 2023 Judge Gull ambushed appointed counsel with a planned Hobson's choice designed to coerce withdrawals. The choice presented was to suffer a public shaming AND be removed from the case or to voluntarily withdraw. Despite defense counsel requesting clarification as to the topics and/or motions to be addressed at the October 19, 2023 hearing, she gave defense counsel no notice of her plan to force withdrawals or remove them, thus, denying counsel the opportunity to adequately refute her accusations.

8. That same day Judge Gull had a prepared statement that she threatened to read to the public alleging defense counsel was grossly negligent in their representation of Defendant Allen.

p. 6

13. On October 19, 2023 Judge Gull coerced an oral request to withdraw from Attorney Rozzi, that did that did not comply with Rule 3.8(H), Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, and further coerced an oral request from Attorney Baldwin to withdraw as co-counsel in this cause.

16. Counsel for the Defendant are appointed pauper counsel and upon appointment judicial control and oversight of the appointed counsel is inappropriate. The Court cannot and should not dictate the process of representation or improvidently curtail the representation of counsel. It has done so without notice to the defendant his counsel affording them an opportunity to be heard. It has also done so of its own accord without any precipitating motion or request. No due process has been afforded.

p. 7

17. Rule 2.11 of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself when the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Such is the case in this cause of action for the reasons described below.

19. As previously stated, Judge Gull strong-armed Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin, with a prepared statement that she intended to read into the record had either attorney resisted her efforts to remove them from the Defense. Within minutes Judge Gull took the bench, started the record, and informed those present and the viewing public, that there existed "an unexpected turn of events" with the defense team withdrawing from the case. Judge Gull further stated that these circumstances were "clearly... outside of our control." The only clarity offered up by these statements is that they were entirely inconsistent with her actions in chambers, just minutes earlier, that forced the attorneys to consider withdrawal in this matter. These words run afoul of Rule 2.1 as they demonstrate the tribunal's lack of integrity and impartiality toward the public and usurp Defendant Allen's right to competent legal representation.

p. 8

21. Rule 2.15 of the Indiana code of Judicial Conduct, in pertinent part, states:

(B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.

It does not indicate that any such opinion of the court allows removal of appointed counsel without due process and against the wishes of the Accused.

22. Judge Gull has violated Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, and 2.11 of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.”

If there is somewhere the lawyers officially, through proper documentation, withdrew, please lmk and I will go look. They do not say in this document you linked they withdrew in the manner I interpret you are saying they did? Remember they filed motions before this and Hennessy filed, via the docket there was no sign they intended to withdraw. From my understanding, even if there was legitimate reason to DQ, procedure was not followed in this case.

AJMO.

Source:

Allen Motionpdf.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[MistyWaters]

I am looking where the xD officially withdrew-according to protocol/what typically occurs in the rare instances attorneys are DQ’d-I.e., a hearing/due process-and I cannot find any official documentation of this so-called withdraw. They say they were given a Hobson’s choice (not really a choice at all).

These are the pages in the document you linked that mentions the withdraw specifically: p. 3, 6, 7, 8

p. 3
“6. On October 19, 2023 Judge Gull conducted critical stage proceedings in chambers outside the presence of the Accused even though she had ordered him transported and he was available. She then did the same after placing his attorneys in an ethical dilemma and again, creating a public record outside of the presence of the Accused. This ignored clear precedent.

7. On October 19, 2023 Judge Gull ambushed appointed counsel with a planned Hobson's choice designed to coerce withdrawals. The choice presented was to suffer a public shaming AND be removed from the case or to voluntarily withdraw. Despite defense counsel requesting clarification as to the topics and/or motions to be addressed at the October 19, 2023 hearing, she gave defense counsel no notice of her plan to force withdrawals or remove them, thus, denying counsel the opportunity to adequately refute her accusations.

8. That same day Judge Gull had a prepared statement that she threatened to read to the public alleging defense counsel was grossly negligent in their representation of Defendant Allen.

p. 6

13. On October 19, 2023 Judge Gull coerced an oral request to withdraw from Attorney Rozzi, that did that did not comply with Rule 3.8(H), Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, and further coerced an oral request from Attorney Baldwin to withdraw as co-counsel in this cause.

16. Counsel for the Defendant are appointed pauper counsel and upon appointment judicial control and oversight of the appointed counsel is inappropriate. The Court cannot and should not dictate the process of representation or improvidently curtail the representation of counsel. It has done so without notice to the defendant his counsel affording them an opportunity to be heard. It has also done so of its own accord without any precipitating motion or request. No due process has been afforded.

p. 7

17. Rule 2.11 of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to disqualify himself or herself when the judge's impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Such is the case in this cause of action for the reasons described below.

19. As previously stated, Judge Gull strong-armed Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin, with a prepared statement that she intended to read into the record had either attorney resisted her efforts to remove them from the Defense. Within minutes Judge Gull took the bench, started the record, and informed those present and the viewing public, that there existed "an unexpected turn of events" with the defense team withdrawing from the case. Judge Gull further stated that these circumstances were "clearly... outside of our control." The only clarity offered up by these statements is that they were entirely inconsistent with her actions in chambers, just minutes earlier, that forced the attorneys to consider withdrawal in this matter. These words run afoul of Rule 2.1 as they demonstrate the tribunal's lack of integrity and impartiality toward the public and usurp Defendant Allen's right to competent legal representation.

p. 8

21. Rule 2.15 of the Indiana code of Judicial Conduct, in pertinent part, states:

(B) A judge having knowledge that a lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question regarding the lawyer's honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer in other respects shall inform the appropriate authority.

It does not indicate that any such opinion of the court allows removal of appointed counsel without due process and against the wishes of the Accused.

22. Judge Gull has violated Rules 1.2, 2.2, 2.3, 2.6, 2.8, and 2.11 of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct.”

If there is somewhere the lawyers officially, through proper documentation, withdrew, please lmk and I will go look. They do not say in this document you linked they withdrew in the manner I interpret you are saying they did? Remember they filed motions before this and Hennessy filed, via the docket there was no sign they intended to withdraw. From my understanding, even if there was legitimate reason to DQ, procedure was not followed in this case.

AJMO.

Source:

Allen Motionpdf.pdf

drive.google.com

If they did not withdraw why do you think neither was present at the defense table when the Oct 19th status hearing commenced @ 2pm? And what should Judge Gull have said considering the defendant was almost immediately escorted away and both D had fled the courthouse?

 

[Cyber sleuth]

I am looking where the xD officially withdrew-

13. On October 19, 2023 Judge Gull coerced an oral request to withdraw from Attorney Rozzi, that did that did not comply with Rule 3.8(H), Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, and further coerced an oral request from Attorney Baldwin to withdraw as co-counsel in this cause.

RSBM/BBM

She received oral requests to withdraw from both attorneys. Coercion is subjective

The fact that they didn’t follow through with the written (required) motion to withdraw falls on them/ not her.

Below proper withdrawal of representation 3.1(H)
https://casetext.com/rule/indiana-court-rules/indiana-rules-of-trial-procedure/commencement-of-action-service-of-process-pleadings-motions-and-orders/rule-31-appearance#:~:text=An%20attorney%20representing%20a%20party,and%20conditions%20of%20the%20attorney's

 

[FrostedGlass]

I haven't been able to find what time RA was interviewed before his arrest, his booking in time or how long ISP kept him until he was transferred to somewhere. He was arrested on Wed., Oct 26.

I think this article linked below is really interesting.
NOTE they were aware of a move/pending move to IN DOC as early as Sun., Oct 30.
The same day they said RA was not cooperating.

It's almost laughable that after cooperating with LE to the point of complete stupidity *MOO* they, then, decided he was uncooperative. They really wanted the confession they finally got.

From the link below:
Posted: Oct 28, 2022 / 11:08 AM EDT
Updated: Oct 30, 2022 / 07:51 PM EDT

UPDATE: Police confirmed on Sunday that Richard Allen is not cooperating with their investigation into the murders after being taken into jail. Original story below.

DELPHI, Ind. — Multiple sources indicate that a man named Richard Allen was booked into the Carroll County Jail Friday (Oct 28) in connection with the Delphi murder investigation.
Allen, 50, has been moved to a state facility for his safety, sources said.

Man booked into Carroll County Jail in connection with Delphi murders not cooperating with investigation

UPDATE: Police confirmed on Sunday that Richard Allen is not cooperating with their investigation into the murders after being taken into jail. Original story below. DELPHI, Ind. — Multiple s…

fox59.com

 

[Justice101]

Question:

Was anything other than the gun matching the ejection pattern listed on PCA that came from the actual search warrant?

In other words, what did the PCA say about the search warrant?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Some YouTuber is planning a protest on the Indiana Statehouse steps next Monday for the Hearing. (I won't name them obvs).

Clicks and likes = $$$$$$$ -

#Justice4Abby&Libby

MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

Question:

Was anything other than the gun matching the ejection pattern listed on PCA that came from the actual search warrant?

In other words, what did the PCA say about the search warrant?

Among other items, jackets, boots, knives, firearms, Sig Sauer

https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2022/11/Probable-Cause-Affidavit-Richard-Allen.pdf

 

[FrostedGlass]

New entry into RA's case

11/20/2023

Order Granting Order granting Motion to Withdraw Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Scremin, Robert Cliff Noticed: Lebrato, William Santino Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Order Signed: 11/17/2023

 

[steeltowngirl]

Greenlee is noted under attorneys. Is this Kevin Greenlee / Murder Sheet? Why is he listed?

Attorneys
McLeland, Christensen, Byron, Meek, Greenlee, Ridlen, Scremin, Lebrato, Luttrull

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[FrostedGlass]

Greenlee is noted under attorneys. Is this Kevin Greenlee / Murder Sheet? Why is he listed?

Attorneys
McLeland, Christensen, Byron, Meek, Greenlee, Ridlen, Scremin, Lebrato, Luttrull

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

I'm not seeing it. Is that from one of the SC cases?

 

[sunshineray]

No, Rozzi did not offer his withdrawal. He affirms as such in his pro bono appearance filing.
View attachment 462261
There is no statement of withdrawal from Rozzi on the record. He apparently indicated in the in-chambers meeting that he would file a written motion but did not do so.

Yes he lied to the judge, plain and simple, AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

This is the unfortunate part. The trial that was set to start in just a short time after the holidays has now been delayed if it even happens at all. I have no idea what his new attorneys plan to do (persuade him to plead out or go to trial) and I don't even want to guess. My only point is that there is now a chance we will not see or hear any of this evidence at all apart from what we have now, a scenario that did not exist as of October 2023.

jmo

I agree that what you've stated is one way of looking at the situation. IMO, it was planned. Only I believe it was all the defense's doing. It was their plan, their strategy after hearing in court, admitting in court and then considering RA's multiple confessions of killing the girls. Their remedy was to become quite the overzealous defense team, JMO. As of now they've been removed and hopefully will not be reinstated.

However RA's new attorneys decide to continue is up to their consul and their client. The prosecution will not end it's justice seeking because of two grossly negligent attorneys. They will adjust.
AJMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Didn't BR actually say (paraphrasing) that he agreed in chambers but knew he didn't mean it? So basically saying, IMO, yeah I just lied to the judge in chambers, I didn't really withdraw. Isn't that what he admitted in his filing?

Today in Delphi, the attorneys told the court they wanted back on the job.

“You withdrew,” said the judge. “What’s changed?”

“You left us no choice,” Rozzi argued, calling their professed intention to withdraw a “strategic move to protect Richard Allen’s rights” to counsel while attempting to intervene in what it viewed as the court’s violation of their client’s due process. Once he and Baldwin were back on the case, the replacement public defenders, “should tap out,” and let the original team proceed with its defense, maintained Rozzi.

“Nothing’s changed,” said the judge.

Judge confirms defense attorney dismissals in Delphi double murder case

It’s quoted here that they withdrew in chambers as strategy. If they had not withdrawn then they would have answered differently to JG’s proclamation that they withdrew.

 

[sunshineray]

I haven't been able to find what time RA was interviewed before his arrest, his booking in time or how long ISP kept him until he was transferred to somewhere. He was arrested on Wed., Oct 26.

I think this article linked below is really interesting.
NOTE they were aware of a move/pending move to IN DOC as early as Sun., Oct 30.
The same day they said RA was not cooperating.

It's almost laughable that after cooperating with LE to the point of complete stupidity *MOO* they, then, decided he was uncooperative. They really wanted the confession they finally got.

From the link below:
Posted: Oct 28, 2022 / 11:08 AM EDT
Updated: Oct 30, 2022 / 07:51 PM EDT

UPDATE: Police confirmed on Sunday that Richard Allen is not cooperating with their investigation into the murders after being taken into jail. Original story below.

DELPHI, Ind. — Multiple sources indicate that a man named Richard Allen was booked into the Carroll County Jail Friday (Oct 28) in connection with the Delphi murder investigation.
Allen, 50, has been moved to a state facility for his safety, sources said.

Man booked into Carroll County Jail in connection with Delphi murders not cooperating with investigation

UPDATE: Police confirmed on Sunday that Richard Allen is not cooperating with their investigation into the murders after being taken into jail. Original story below. DELPHI, Ind. — Multiple s…

fox59.com

That's nothing unusual. IMO. People interview all the time with LE of their own free will and then stop when they lawyer up. Not cooperating with LE after arrest and then asking for council is I'm sure fairly common. Do you think RA's Miranda rights were violated? That's never been stated by the defense, as far as I'm aware?

 

[Justice101]

Yes he lied to the judge, plain and simple, AJMO

Today in Delphi, the attorneys told the court they wanted back on the job.

“You withdrew,” said the judge. “What’s changed?”

“You left us no choice,” Rozzi argued, calling their professed intention to withdraw a “strategic move to protect Richard Allen’s rights” to counsel while attempting to intervene in what it viewed as the court’s violation of their client’s due process. Once he and Baldwin were back on the case, the replacement public defenders, “should tap out,” and let the original team proceed with its defense, maintained Rozzi.

“Nothing’s changed,” said the judge.

Judge confirms defense attorney dismissals in Delphi double murder case

It’s quoted here that they withdrew in chambers as strategy. If they had not withdrawn then they would have answered differently to JG’s proclamation that they withdrew.

Yes, why not verbally withdraw when the other defense attorney did. Why then say "I'll send it in later in writing".. Reason: He never really intended to resign.

 

[sunshineray]

Today in Delphi, the attorneys told the court they wanted back on the job.

“You withdrew,” said the judge. “What’s changed?”

“You left us no choice,” Rozzi argued, calling their professed intention to withdraw a “strategic move to protect Richard Allen’s rights” to counsel while attempting to intervene in what it viewed as the court’s violation of their client’s due process. Once he and Baldwin were back on the case, the replacement public defenders, “should tap out,” and let the original team proceed with its defense, maintained Rozzi.

“Nothing’s changed,” said the judge.

Judge confirms defense attorney dismissals in Delphi double murder case

It’s quoted here that they withdrew in chambers as strategy. If they had not withdrawn then they would have answered differently to JG’s proclamation that they withdrew.

So they lied to the judge as their strategy. I wonder how that will play with the SC?

 

[sunshineray]

Yes, why not verbally withdraw when the other defense attorney did. Why then say "I'll send it in later in writing".. Reason: He never really intended to resign.

Exactly and instead of stating that intent to the judge, he lied to the judge.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Yes, why not verbally withdraw when the other defense attorney did. Why then say "I'll send it in later in writing".. Reason: He never really intended to resign.

Yes it seems shady. Defense counsel that filed a very “zealous” 136 page Franks memorandum lost all their zeal in a mere 90 minutes in chambers.