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

[Ravenmoon]

In my listening, even one of the SCOIN judges said after reading the transcripts of the in-chambers hearing, that it didn't seem like the attorneys had much choice in withdrawing that day. JMO.

Why???
Why didn't they have a choice?
They were afraid to be called out for the things that they did and the situations they created?

I am not attacking you in any way, I sincerely want to know!

JMO

 

[steeltowngirl]

I liked his assertiveness in this section of his arguments! He was very firm that RA couldn't have been more clear on his wishes and cited each date when RA was clear. I hope RA DOES get his original counsel back! And... I hope that forces the matter to trial sooner than next October. JG in my view should NOT have fired the counsel without a hearing.

I also thought the the argument by the prosecution that RA's right to have the counsel of his choice was extremely limited was an interesting argument, but not compelling enough in my view to ensure that the original defense is not reinstated.

I thought I heard Gutwein say that they didn’t know what RA wanted at the time defense was removed. I will have to watch again.

Really wish RA had attended today, stood up, told SCOIN his side. Would go a ways toward showing his competence.

 

[sunshineray]

I have no idea.
But, I am on board with them continuing and using the Odinism as their defense.
Let them make fools of themselves.

Judge Gull can't shame them anymore than they have shamed themselves.

LET THEM.


JMO

I think there needs to be a hearing if Gull is overturned on her removing old D. Probably has to have RA present too. So she can state everything for the record as to why the old D couldn't represent him and then have him waive that and declare in court on the record, I want them. Again, I'm just guessing, maybe it can all be done by private correspondence?

 

[tlcya]

We would be watching RA's trial for the kidnapping and murder of these two wonderful children right now if not for the Judge ambushing the Defense attorneys. defense attorneys Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin finding ways to purposefully or "accidently" through their own negligence continue being contemptuous of the court and its orders. JMO

 

[TL4S]

Why???
Why didn't they have a choice?
They were afraid to be called out for the things that they did and the situations they created?

I am not attacking you in any way, I sincerely want to know!

JMO

Leeman brought up the points that JG ordered them to cease working on the case before the hearing, that going into the hearing could have further polluted the jury pool and jeopardize RA's right to a fair trial, and that JG had already told them her decision. One of the SCOIN judges brought that point up again, that JG's decision was already made before the hearing, and it was her own finding. This is all just what I picked up on first listening.

 

[LaurelTedytamer]

The trial needs to get back on track and follow guidelines. Whatever SCOIN decide then we all agree to follow and a structured trial will happen.

Then we can argue about evidence and theories etc etc!!!!!!!

 

[arielilane]

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — The Westfield, Indiana, man accused of leaking documents connected to the Delphi murders case is due in court Thursday.

Online court records obtained by News 8 show that 41-year-old Mitchell Westerman will appear before a special judge in Johnson County at 9 a.m. for a pretrial conference.

Westfield man accused of leaking Delphi murders docs due in court Thursday

The Westfield, Indiana, man accused of leaking documents connected to the Delphi murders case is due in court Thursday.

www.wishtv.com

Updated: Jan 18, 2024 / 06:51 AM EST

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Wow, that came off as a major victory for RA's attorneys. It seems fairly certain B&R will be reinstated. It also seems that the SC is very committed to giving us a quick decision and getting this trial back on track. It was very telling that Chief Justice Rush pushed back so hard against JG's attorney.

 

[Ravenmoon]

Leeman brought up the points that JG ordered them to cease working on the case before the hearing, that going into the hearing could have further polluted the jury pool and jeopardize RA's right to a fair trial, and that JG had already told them her decision. One of the SCOIN judges brought that point up again, that JG's decision was already made before the hearing, and it was her own finding. This is all just what I picked up on first listening.

So, let's say that the exD allowed the hearing to take place that day instead of offering their withdrawal.

They may have been removed, but wouldn't that have allowed them to appeal that decision and all of this would now be resolved and moving ahead instead of sitting in limbo?

This feels like theatrics, which from my perspective is putting RA's rights behind their own?

Add to this the fact that they wanted to represent RA pro Bono, because ..they believe in their clients innocence, but today they want to be be paid?

Did they really ever want to do this for free? If the SCOIN agrees to reinstate them as Co Counsel with the understanding that they are ProBono, will they fight that too? Prolonging this case even more?

I feel like this case is all about B&R
.
Even RA has taken a back seat to them. Then, way on the barely visible horizon sit Abby and Libby.


JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

JG's second lawyer did bring up whether RA was even fit to choose his own council which shocked me. Both sides were throwing out anything and everything, IMO. I think it ended, in the eyes of the Supremes, on a we're going to kick this back to Gull, hold your ineffectual council hearing (if you think they are) that the defense averted by withdrawing and then go from there.
AJMO

I'm kinda not surprised at JG's lawyer bringing up RA mental health awareness. The ExD has stated that many times he doesn't have mental presence of mind (like when he called his wife and mom to confess). Good point made by her IMO.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

But it's still on record that the old defense was grossly negligent. Does reinstatement by the Supremes wipe that off the record...and they start back as if nothing happened OR does the trial court have a hearing on the old D's negligence?

I understood (thought I heard one of the SCOIN Judges specifically ask that question) that the trial Judge would hold a hearing on their conduct if the ExD are reinstated. I could be mistaken.

MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm pleased that CJ Rush brought up the motions to move RA out of prison. She mentioned the first one, saying at least some of the points were factual. Then... out of her folder came the latest one, saying it was from the new attys. I believe that one added credibility to the first one in her mind.

At least someone high up is paying attention.

 

[TL4S]

So, let's say that the exD allowed the hearing to take place that day instead of offering their withdrawal.

They may have been removed, but wouldn't that have allowed them to appeal that decision and all of this would now be resolved and moving ahead instead of sitting in limbo?

This feels like theatrics, which from my perspective is putting RA's rights behind their own?

Add to this the fact that they wanted to represent RA pro Bono, because ..they believe in their clients innocence, but today they want to be be paid?

Did they really ever want to do this for free? If the SCOIN agrees to reinstate them as Co Counsel with the understanding that they are ProBono, will they fight that too? Prolonging this case even more?

I feel like this case is all about B&R
.
Even RA has taken a back seat to them. Then, way on the barely visible horizon sit Abby and Libby.


JMO

My personal feeling is that the SCOIN would not have agreed to this hearing had they not felt the issues were reasonable and in need of being addressed. Jmo.

 

[Ravenmoon]

My personal feeling is that the SCOIN would not have agreed to this hearing had they not felt the issues were reasonable and in need of being addressed. Jmo.

I understand.

I just can't help but wonder where we would be today if exD had refused to withdrawal and allowed the hearing to take place that day.


JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Why???
Why didn't they have a choice?
They were afraid to be called out for the things that they did and the situations they created?

I am not attacking you in any way, I sincerely want to know!

JMO

They were afraid of the States witnesses they saw sitting out there of what might be said, oh they and didn't want to be caught on camera in this mess even though they filed a Motion for Media Access in the Courtroom.

MOO

 

[TL4S]

So if the exD are reinstated, and remain even after a potential hearing to have them removed, and if JG is not removed, will she possible recuse herself because of a conflict?

 

[Betty P]

I have no idea.
But, I am on board with them continuing and using the Odinism as their defense.
Let them make fools of themselves.

Judge Gull can't shame them anymore than they have shamed themselves.

LET THEM.


JMO

While a tempting prospect, wouldn't it also guarantee a new trial due to incompetent defense?

 

[Ravenmoon]

So if the exD are reinstated, and remain even after a potential hearing to have them removed, and if JG is not removed, will she possible recuse herself because of a conflict?

Interesting.
I can't see that happening, but who knows?
Would there be a good reason for her to recuse herself?

 

[girlhasnoname]

Okay new odds after the hearing:

70/30 chance on R&B being reinstated (I don't think it's a slam dunk, but they did raise some good arguments)
50/50 on Judge G being back, lower if the ExD are reinstated. She doesn't need the headache and she can move on to her new promotion.

I guess I need to start tenderizing my golf visor, it might hurt going down down.

All Moo

 

[Ward Thisperer]

So if the exD are reinstated, and remain even after a potential hearing to have them removed, and if JG is not removed, will she possible recuse herself because of a conflict?

My guess would be that if B&R are reinstated their first order of business will be to request JG recusal.

Indiana Habeas clinic reaction:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1748035204835340712

"After the argument / hearing, almost confident that we're not going to have an ugly February trying to stop a state trial in fed court. #Delphi #RichardAllen."

Post from Shay Hughes explaining the reference to Strickland during the argument:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1748030729412370470

"Strickland references Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 which created a two part test to determine if counsel was ineffective. A defendant must show 1) performance was deficient; and 2) deficient performance prejudiced the defendant. There is a strong presumption an attorney’s performance was reasonable. Unaware of any caselaw in Indiana where counsel was found to be ineffective for an inadvertent discovery leak (that was later contained). Regardless, the trial court did not use this standard at all and did not rely on it for its argument to deny the writ. You won’t find any reference to “gross negligence” in Strickland. Good for Leeman handling questioning relating to such. Easier to deal w/ questions referencing counter arguments than those not raised by either party. #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders"