RICHARD ALLEN
#DelphiMurders LIVE THREAD
Richard Allen is accused of murdering two teenagers in Delphi, Indiana in 2017. Today his case goes before the Indiana Supreme Court to decide if his attorneys should be reinstated, the trial judge removed and a speedy trial enacted.
We have just been allowed into the courtroom. It will be a full house today. There was a limited number of approved media and about 50 members of the general public who showed up early enough to get a ticket. Obviously this case has captured mass national attention.
The court administrator is reminding everyone that this will be a civil hearing. No disruptions, no shouting, no photos or video unless you are the approved pool camera. Earlier, they reminded everyone not to wear buttons or show support for one side over the other.
The Supreme Court of Indiana is now in session.Counsel for Richard Allen will argue first. Oral arguments will be two minutes to begin and then the justices can ask questions. There will be rebuttals.
Allen's counsel is arguing the judicial system is undermined when an entire legal team is removed. The judge took "clearly coercive action" to sever the relationship between Allen and defense, he says. He says the judge exceeded her jurisdiction, crossing the barrier of neutrality and "entered the realm of being an advocate.”
Justices ask counsel to define the difference between authority and jurisdiction. He says the judge is under an absolute duty to act under the wishes of the defendant. In this case, the defendant wants his legal team.
Chief Justice asks why Allen's team didn't file their motion for a speedy trial during the trial phase. Richard Allen signed off on it, but his attorneys didn't file it. Chief Justice questions if she can rule on that motion if it didn't even go through the lower court process.
Defense: The client has the autonomy to choose the direction of his representation...he is allowed to waive any concerns and proceed with his lawyers…
Defense is getting heated, raising his voice at the growing concerns being raised by the justices about the merit of his argument. He is professional, but he is agitated.
Defense argues that Judge Gull never even held a hearing to voice her concerns about alleged negligence and incompetence. She just made the decision without a discussion.Justice Goff questions if this truly is a case for the Indiana Supreme Court: "If we were to agree with you about the arguments you made, why is it that the regular appellate process is wholly insufficient?
Defense: "There is no evidence of incompetence. Certainly no evidence of trial incompetence... This is more than just a choice of counsel case. This is interference of counsel and the right to counsel itself.”
Justice Molter asks a great question. If the Supreme Court reinstates these defense attorneys and Allen is convicted of killing these two girls, could he be entitled to post-conviction relief due to ineffective counsel for all the reasons being discussed today?
The inadvertent disclosure of pre-trial evidence has no impact on the case or the defense trial strategy, defense argues.
Defense: "If the client is fully aware of these proceedings and still wants to proceed with his attorneys, the judge has a duty to act on his wishes.”
Defense's oral argument is over. Now comes the attorney representing Judge Frances Gull.He cites previous case law and says SCOTUS has already ruled on 6th amendment arguments. He says Gull was acting within her rights to protect the constitutional rights of a defendant.
Attorney says by law, a trial judge is to be given broad discretion to make these types of decisions.
Chief Justice acknowledges that Gull did not call a formal hearing to discuss her thinking and potential decision-making about defense counsel, which she says would have been the right process to follow. Wonders aloud if she did act beyond her authority.
Justice asks what exact points of ineffectiveness existed for these defense attorneys to call for them to be removed? Responds with case law which says there does not need to be proof of ineffectiveness, just potential they could be ineffective.
Chief Justice wants to get this case moving again and avoid more delays. Her thoughts: If Richard Allen wants these attorneys and there's no proof of incompetence, then why not just reinstate them and get the show on the road?
Ms. Sanchez, acting on behalf of the Attorney General's Office now takes the stand."There is nothing clear or absolute about this case...the legal issues before the court or the nature of the rights that Mr. Allen's counsel seems to indicate…”
Sanchez argues trial courts are not just tasked with protecting the defendant's rights to counsel but also the integrity of the entire justice system, the reliability of the truth-seeking function.
Sanchez is finished. Now a rebuttal from a defense.Defense corrects the record that Richard Allen was aware and knew what was going on around him, particularly about the leak of crime scene photos. He reads a letter that was filed to the courts, where Allen says he knew about the impact of the leak and says even still, he wants his attorneys to continue to represent him.
He says defense attorney's have an ethical duty to represent their client with zeal, which they have done always. Defense says Judge Gull had an absolute duty to ensure the defendant's needs and wants are met, and Judge Gull did not follow that duty. Based on the letter Allen wrote, the Judge did not follow his direct and clear wishes.
Defense argues Allen could waive a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. That is his right, defense argues. But he says that Judge Gull's arguments don't even meet the criteria for ineffective assistance of counsel."The judge exceeded her jurisdiction and refused to meet Allen's wishes. There is more clarity than we see in records across the state as to what this client's wishes are. They are undisputed. And the Judge had a duty to respect what he wanted..."The justices commend both arguments and says they will issue a ruling as soon as possible. Court is adjourned.
