IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173

[Ward Thisperer]

Post from CW re: RA's charges:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1730610304508182788

"@publicdefender_ is an excellent attorney. Please listen to this episode. But I want to clarify one thing, and if he thinks I'm wrong I hope he will respond.
Richard Allen has been charged with felony murder, NOT knowing/intentional murder. This case is NOT capital or LWOP-eligible, as it is currently charged. The charging information does not allege he knowingly or intentionally killed the girls. And it expressly references Subsection (2) of the murder statute, which is the felony murder provision.
This is important, because IMO it puts the State's comments at the press conference into context that they were still investigating and believed other people may be involved. The charges, as alleged, mean the State does NOT have to show that Allen actually killed the girls, but only that the girls died while Allen (and maybe others) kidnapped the girls.
And to muddy the waters even further, at trial the State can decide to pursue convictions by showing accomplice liability. That means the State could seek a guilty verdict by showing that Allen didn't even participate in the kidnapping; he merely "aided, induced, or caused" others to kidnap and kill the girls.
Law review articles have been written about how squishy the combination of accomplice liability and felony murder can be."

 

[mrjitty]

For anyone that wants to OD on Law Anorak content, the Prosecutors Podcast also have a review of recent filings. I am never quite sure what to make of them, but they present their arguments in a more coherent way than many of the other rambling pods.

tldr; they like the AGs view - they talk about something they call formalism vs realism at around 20m mark.

The defence say they needed say 14 days formal notice of a hearing vs the idea that in substance they had notice, and decided not to do the hearing.

They then go on to discuss remedy - so even assuming the process was formally defective, what is the remedy? They suggest the defence may struggle here because Rozzi and Baldwin said one thing to the judge but then did something else. I have a lot of sympathy for the idea that you can't do with with a judge.

Also they argue at no stage has Rozzi really argued for a formal hearing to take place. I think they get to the heart of the real tussle between judge and defence here. At no time did the defence appear to want a hearing and nor did they ask for a continuance. Especially the way Rozzi said he didn't care about the leak was unlikely to have gone down well.

Make of it what you will. 02c etc

 

[AC4RD]

,,, And of course confessions/admissions in other contexts (hearsay exception etc)

But I don't think i've come across a confession in a recorded prison call. I have seen damaging admissions in such a call. In McStay the killer foolishly discussed some stuff relevant to the case on a prison phone ...

I've been wondering about this very issue. (RSBM BTW) I've seen a fair bit of discussion here about RA's telling his wife on the phone that he "did it," and calling that a confession. I am not a lawyer, but what I've read seems to note a difference between the terms "admission" and "confession." As I read the news, RA to his wife was an admission, and not an actual confession, which is a formal legal matter. All this is FWIW IMO MOOooo, but see:

Admissions vs. Confessions: What You Need to Know - Skokie IL Criminal Defense

What's the difference between an admission and a confession -- and what kind of impact could either have on your case? Find out here.

ildefense.com

What’s an Admission?
Many police interrogations result in an admission rather than a confession. For example, a suspect in a case of auto theft might make a statement saying: “I was in the car—but I didn’t know it was stolen.”

Because the suspect has acknowledged the fact that he was in the car, this would be considered an “admission.” The key principal to bear in mind is that an admission does not accept personal responsibility for committing a crime. It is simply an acknowledgement of a statement or fact.

What’s a Confession?
A confession is a fully corroborated statement during which a suspect accepts personal responsibility for committing a crime. In contrast to admission, a confession admits or acknowledges all of the facts required for the conviction of a particular crime.

 

[FromGermany1]

Post from CW re: RA's charges:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1730610304508182788

"@publicdefender_ is an excellent attorney. Please listen to this episode. But I want to clarify one thing, and if he thinks I'm wrong I hope he will respond.
Richard Allen has been charged with felony murder, NOT knowing/intentional murder. This case is NOT capital or LWOP-eligible, as it is currently charged. The charging information does not allege he knowingly or intentionally killed the girls. And it expressly references Subsection (2) of the murder statute, which is the felony murder provision.
This is important, because IMO it puts the State's comments at the press conference into context that they were still investigating and believed other people may be involved. The charges, as alleged, mean the State does NOT have to show that Allen actually killed the girls, but only that the girls died while Allen (and maybe others) kidnapped the girls.
And to muddy the waters even further, at trial the State can decide to pursue convictions by showing accomplice liability. That means the State could seek a guilty verdict by showing that Allen didn't even participate in the kidnapping; he merely "aided, induced, or caused" others to kidnap and kill the girls.
Law review articles have been written about how squishy the combination of accomplice liability and felony murder can be."

So, RA confessed to kidnapping only or does anyone know much better than himself, what he has done? You see me confused again.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I've been wondering about this very issue. (RSBM BTW) I've seen a fair bit of discussion here about RA's telling his wife on the phone that he "did it," and calling that a confession. I am not a lawyer, but what I've read seems to note a difference between the terms "admission" and "confession." As I read the news, RA to his wife was an admission, and not an actual confession, which is a formal legal matter. All this is FWIW IMO MOOooo, but see:

Admissions vs. Confessions: What You Need to Know - Skokie IL Criminal Defense

What's the difference between an admission and a confession -- and what kind of impact could either have on your case? Find out here.

ildefense.com

What’s an Admission?
Many police interrogations result in an admission rather than a confession. For example, a suspect in a case of auto theft might make a statement saying: “I was in the car—but I didn’t know it was stolen.”

Because the suspect has acknowledged the fact that he was in the car, this would be considered an “admission.” The key principal to bear in mind is that an admission does not accept personal responsibility for committing a crime. It is simply an acknowledgement of a statement or fact.

What’s a Confession?
A confession is a fully corroborated statement during which a suspect accepts personal responsibility for committing a crime. In contrast to admission, a confession admits or acknowledges all of the facts required for the conviction of a particular crime.

I think the issue is less about definitions and more about the difference in what the prosecution called RA’s utterances in that hearing…”multiple confessions”, and what the ex-defense referred to them as…”admissions”.
A trial will settle it.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

So, RA confessed to kidnapping only or does anyone know much better than himself, what he has done? You see me confused again.

RA is charged with felony murder which means he kidnapped the girls and that resulted in their being murdered.
In his telephone conversations with his wife, according to the prosecution, RA confessed to killing Abby and Libby.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Also they argue at no stage has Rozzi really argued for a formal hearing to take place. I think they get to the heart of the real tussle between judge and defence here. At no time did the defence appear to want a hearing and nor did they ask for a continuance. Especially the way Rozzi said he didn't care about the leak was unlikely to have gone down well.

SBBM. This seems to be flatly false IMO and this isn't the first time I've noticed The Prosecutors omitting or misrepresenting facts of this case.

10/19 in-chambers transcript
- Rozzi calling for formality

- calling for due process


10/25 Rozzi Notice of Continuing Representation
- portraying an effort to bring formality and due notice to proceedings


10/31 transcript
- Rozzi calling for due process

- calling for due process

- Hennessey speaking on behalf of B&R explicitly stating the actions they would take in a formal hearing and their willingness to participate in such a hearing.


Rozzi's position is clearly that there shouldn't be a hearing in the first place about the leaks as it is an ancillary matter but if the judge or state are seeking DQ or sanctions it should involve due process.

Due process is clearly referring to formality and the right to present evidence of their defense, as would occur at a formal hearing.

due process

www.law.cornell.edu

"While there is no definitive list of the "required procedures" that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance."

 

[DeDee]

From thread #172

Not to mention he was caught on video by one of the brave victims just moments before they were taken by force.
I’ve been re-reading earlier threads and the video stills were released on 2/15 as a person of interest. Then he was moved up to main suspect in 2/19 with a description of what he was wearing and he did not feel inclined to walk into a police station and answer questions, allow a DNA swab or take a polygraph. All things that could have easily cleared his name if he was innocent. Did his TV break? Did he cancel internet? Did he stop getting the paper? For 5 years?
No, what we know is he knew about it because there were interviews after his arrest where people said they talked to him about it. There is a picture with him sitting under a sketch of himself!

RSBB to offer a possible explanation, if I may

In the mind of the accused, he is innocent of the charges. He'd already self-reported being at MHB that day. Should we expect him to go to the police once a month to self-report over & over again? Start a letter writing campaign? Perhaps in his mind, they were informed and he knows it's not him they're looking for. Give police his DNA? Should all of the male residents in the small town give theirs? Didn't they all wish to prove their innocence?

24,000 tips up to Feb 2019 were received because the suspect pool is fascinatingly great. Do we know how many tips pertained to RA? How many of the 24k tips included the men listed in the Memo? How many were for RL? After all, the final CS was on his land; however, his property was not searched by authorities for 30 days or on MAR 17.

The FB photo also garners my attention where RA's at the bar with the police sketch of the Young BG in the background that was introduced in 2019. Why leave that FB photo on public display if you are guilty of murdering young, local children? Perhaps it is a way to be braggadocious about getting away with a horrific crime while hiding in plain sight.

Why keep an incriminating firearm after fumbling around and losing a bullet at the CS? I don't know the chain of command on the unfired bullet but one doesn't walk across that scary, high, rickety bridge with a loaded gun if one doesn't intend to use it.

Not everything at a CS can be appropriately explained, especially psychological motivators and components; think Runes. L's phone deliberately placed in a shoe so it could be easily found? Why not smartly put the iphone in airplane mode and remove it from the CS?

Why flee the scene of double homicides with bloody pants and muddy boots to plug along the open road to a vehicle parked over near the interstate? Was he dressed in bleu or black? We may not win this case on eyewitness testimony.

How does the police explain the disparity from a tall suspect like RL to a guy a foot shorter like RA? If they can both sound similar to the audio of BG, then aren't the odds others in the area sound like BG, too? Can the DTeam convince a jury the confessions were made while under severe duress and threats of physical torture and harm?

During the 5 years it took to obtain this arrest, didn't LE get KK to say 'ok, if you want me to say I did it, then I did' after hours that became days of harsh interrogations? EF told his sister that he was present at the CS and placed horns in a victim's hair. RL's phone was pinging outside of his home near the CS. Can a jury cast away all of the other possible suspects and focus on the accused? Tough job for the PTeam.

Did the P office staff double in size this year? NMc was busy seeking funds for $5000 per month raises, for himself and former mayor SE, as he rubs the $100 hourly fee earned by the PDs, plus funds were approved for a private secretary, a raise for the current secretary, hired another prosecutor and added another investigator in FEB 2023?

If all the PTeam has to prove is that RA made the action of kidnapping the girls, can the PT do that with an unspent bullet, dirty jeans and opportunity?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Good news: go to mysite and enter Case #23S-OR-00311; you can read the actual document

12/01/2023	Order Issued Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the "Relators' Motion for Leave to File Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections." The Clerk is instructed to file the "Relator's Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections" as of the date of this order. Judicial Officer:Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 12/01/2023
12/01/2023	Document Transmitted
12/01/2023	Response (Brief in Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/30/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 12/01/2023

 

[Jurisprudence]

B&R had every intention of pushing forward with the trial on that date. Now, if reinstated, it'll have to be moved again but it won't be moved out until October.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

A snip from the above document that irritated me a bit:

"The judge declined to hear from Rick directly because it would make the DOC uncomfortable and because she “would not be comfortable having him in [her] office."

 

[Jurisprudence]

From the Relator's new motion; I don't recall ever seeing that in red.
It's likely the one filed on 06/20:
[snip]
4. Finally, since Relator filed his petition, Respondent has produced a transcript of the October 19 in camera proceeding and ordered the trial court clerk to make several filings publicly accessible. Relator had not had access to the in camera transcript and one of those filings until it was made publicly available. The new filing was a report filed by the Carroll County Sheriff in June 2023, which is relevant to Respondent’s objection and is included in a supplemental record of proceedings Relator is filing contemporaneously with this motion.

Second Supplemental Record of Proceedings - Second OA.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

From the Second Supplemental just posted. Here's the order from Carroll Co that I was asking about:
Baston, NOT Boston
*****
[Alb OF INDIANA IN THE CAR110LL CIRCUIT COURT
)ss: COUNTY or CARROLI. CAUSE N0. 08001-2210-MR-000001
STATE OF INDIANA TERE
vs. June 12, 2023 CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN KA

TRANSPORT ORDER

Comes now the Court and having reviewed Defendant Allen's Motion for
Transport Order, now grants said Motion and directs the Carroll County Sheriffs Department
to facilitate the transfer of Inmate, Robert P. Boston (DOC# 209210) from
the Westville Correctional Facility to the Carroll Circuit Court on Thursday, June 15,
2023, at 7:30 am. and thereafter return inmate Boston to the Westville Correctional
Facility at the conclusion of the proceedings on June 15, 2023. Defendant Allen's
Attorneys, Bradley A. Rozzi and Andrew J. Baldwin, shall have access to Inmate
Baston for purposes of questioning said Inmate.
All of which is ordered
NCBS c. GULL, STP'ECIAL JUDGE CA ROLL crucur'r COURT
{ROLL COUNTY, INDIANA

 

[Jurisprudence]

SBBM. This seems to be flatly false IMO and this isn't the first time I've noticed The Prosecutors omitting or misrepresenting facts of this case.

10/19 in-chambers transcript
- Rozzi calling for formality
View attachment 465150
- calling for due process
View attachment 465151

10/25 Rozzi Notice of Continuing Representation
- portraying an effort to bring formality and due notice to proceedings
View attachment 465165

10/31 transcript
- Rozzi calling for due process
View attachment 465160
- calling for due process
View attachment 465161
- Hennessey speaking on behalf of B&R explicitly stating the actions they would take in a formal hearing and their willingness to participate in such a hearing.
View attachment 465162

Rozzi's position is clearly that there shouldn't be a hearing in the first place about the leaks as it is an ancillary matter but if the judge or state are seeking DQ or sanctions it should involve due process.

Due process is clearly referring to formality and the right to present evidence of their defense, as would occur at a formal hearing.

due process

www.law.cornell.edu

"While there is no definitive list of the "required procedures" that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance."

Agree. They did it many times throughout, and no matter how careful the other parties in that room thought they were being for the benefit of that transcript, the justices will see it for what it is.

jmo

 

[FrostedGlass]

Then comes this right after the above transport order:

Sheriff's Return
This writ came to hand the 12'" day of June 2023. Attempted service of said writ was made on the 14'" day of June 2023. The Sheriff of Carroll County Indiana reports the
following to the Court. On the 14'" day of June 2023, at the direction of the Sheriff of Carroll County, Carroll County Sheriff's Special transport Deputy Brian Wysocki reported to the Indiana Department of Corrections-Westville, Indiana, for purposes of taking custody of and
transporting inmate Robert P. Baston (DOC #209210) back to Carroll County, for purposes related to this cause. On the 14'" day of June 2023, upon arrival at the Westville facility, Special transport Deputy Wysocki was informed by on site DOC personnel that Inmate Baston was
refusing to exit his cell and was also refusing to be transported to Carroll County Indiana
to testify in this cause. On the 14'" day of June 2023, communication with the Court was established by Sheriff's Major/Chief Deputy Tobe H. Leazenby, wherein Major Leazenby was advised
by the Court to disregard any further efforts to retrieve inmate Baston from the Westville
facility. Documentation related to this incident by Sheriff's Special/Transport Deputy Wysocki and the Indiana Department of Corrections-Westville, Indiana, is attached to this return.

now return this writ as served unsuccessfully.
Done the 14'" day of June 2023.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I believe the correspondence was from RB explaining why he refused to come to court. I don't have that letter at my fingertips, though.

06/29/2023 Motion Filed
Motion for Order on Visitation with Inmate
Filed By: Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp: 06/29/2023

07/05/2023 Correspondence to/from Court Filed
Correspondence to/from Court Filed
Westville Correctional Inmate letter.
File Stamp: 07/05/2023
Record of Proceedings
Pg 23

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[StarryStarryNight]

SCOIN needs to stop accepting motions from both sides and rule on these issues. This is ridiculous, like most everything else in this case.

 

[zh0r4]

Thanks for the info
So what exactly are those two lawyers saying the AG did? That article dances around what their actual grievances are? He broke two rules of ethics by supposedly lying about what on an affidavit?

More info on AG Rokita situations:

Attorney General Todd Rokita charged with complaint by Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court - 9/18/2023​

Attorney General Todd Rokita charged with complaint by Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court

INDIANAPOLIS — The Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court has filed a disciplinary complaint against Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita in relation to comments he made to medi…

fox59.com

Indiana AG’s ‘irrelevant posturing’ comes back to bite him as judge throws out lawsuit against TikTok for multiple failures - 11/30/2023​

Indiana AG's 'irrelevant posturing' comes back to bite him as judge throws out TikTok lawsuit

A state judge has thrown out the Indiana attorney general's lawsuit against TikTok for multiple failures.

lawandcrime.com

AG Todd Rokita faces professional misconduct charges; legal experts weigh in - 9/22/2023​

AG Todd Rokita faces professional misconduct charges; legal experts weigh in

The Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission filed misconduct charges stemming from an interview Rokita gave to a Fox News host and other public statements about Dr. Caitlin Bernard.

www.wrtv.com

Indiana Republican AG faces professional ethics charges related to his efforts to punish doctor who provided abortion services to 10-year-old rape victim - 9/18/2023​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/18/politics/indiana-attorney-general-todd-rokita-disciplinary-charges/index.html

​

AG Todd Rokita faces probe by state disciplinary commission. Here's what comes next - Feb 13, 2023​

AG Todd Rokita faces probe by state disciplinary commission. Here's what comes next

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is the focus of a probe by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Here's why and what the process entails.

www.indystar.com

A ‘messy’ question: Who should pay for Rokita’s defense in discipline case? - 10/11/2023​

A ‘messy’ question: Who should pay for Rokita’s defense in discipline case? - The Indiana Lawyer

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s complaint, filed Sept. 18, has created a secondary issue — a question with an unclear answer: Who should pay for Rokita’s defense counsel?

www.theindianalawyer.com

 

[zh0r4]

SCOIN needs to stop accepting motions from both sides and rule on these issues. This is ridiculous, like most everything else in this case.

I’m sure SCOIN knows what they are doing. Their job is to uphold the integrity of the judicial system.

 

[zh0r4]

Good news: go to mysite and enter Case #23S-OR-00311; you can read the actual document

12/01/2023	Order Issued Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the "Relators' Motion for Leave to File Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections." The Clerk is instructed to file the "Relator's Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections" as of the date of this order. Judicial Officer:Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 12/01/2023
12/01/2023	Document Transmitted
12/01/2023	Response (Brief in Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/30/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 12/01/2023

“On November 6, 2023, the relator, by counsel, petitioned for a writ of mandamus and prohibition, seeking relief under the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions. On November 27, 2023, Respondents, by counsel, filed a brief opposing the petition. The relator has moved to file a brief replying to the respondents' brief.

Although the Rules of Procedure for Original Actions do not afford a relator the right to file a reply after the respondents have opposed issuance of a writ, the Court retains the authority to permit deviation from the rules and chooses to do so here.

Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the "Relators' Motion for Leave to File Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objection." The Clerk is instructed to file the
"Relator's Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections" as of the date of this order. Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on 12/1/2023.”

Loretta H. Rush

Chief Justice of Indiana


Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov