IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #174

[Jurisprudence]

Counsel Mark Leeman said before the SCOIN that it was part of the defense strategy to file for Speedy Trial right before the Nov 1st date when all DISCOVERY had to be in. The tactic was to hold off until the very last minute before springing it on the prosecution to catch them off their guard and …(that way they make sure there wont be anything new in the DISCOVERY that could catch the defense off guard that would make it not in R.A.’s best interest to pursue their speedy trial strategy - MOO).

Speedy trial was mentioned in many filings. The defense made the court aware in October that a ST demand would be filed, and that's when things went completely off the rails imo. The state wasn't ready imo and the defense had to stopped. Imoo, Gull did the honors and gave NM quite the assist, never thinking this would be challenged. jmo

Relator's Brief is easiest to cite because it cites the record.

P. 7 Rick also signed a motion for speedy trial, which Rick’s attorneys planned to file in early November to lock in the January trial date. [R2, 37]. During a telephone conference with the court in early October 2023, Rick’s attorneys informed the court that they were ready to proceed to trial in January. [R2, 37]. [The Frank's motion was filed prior to this disclosure (in September)].

P. 12 The day before a hearing scheduled on October 31, 2023, Attorneys Baldwin and Rozzi entered their appearances as Allen’s retained counsel. [R2, 16-19]. In their appearances, Baldwin and Rozzi reasserted their belief that they were improperly removed as counsel of record, and that they were now entering their appearances as private counsel in order to protect Allen’s constitutional rights to a fair and speedy trial and to honor his Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights. [R2, 16-19].

P. 17 Rick ... intended to file a speedy trial request in early November. [R2, 37]. But the judge kicked them out of the case, rejected their appearance, and struck their pleadings.

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

Interestingly in September, the court and state, if they read it, were under the impression that ST was not an imminent threat. From Franks (above) P. 23, FN 16, "...This is the reason that the Defense tactically decided to keep its knowledge to itself rather than reveal that knowledge in open court at the hearing. Unified Command and the prosecution’s hiding of exculpatory evidence is even more angering because difficult strategic decisions could have been avoided had McCleland offered the exculpatory documents sooner. Perhaps, then, Rick would have filed for speedy trial or would have been removed from Westville as the Defense would have been able to more fully inform the Court about the facts of the case."

 

[photographer4]

I hear you on this. What I would like to know is where RA's actions came from that day, if he's guilty. I know motive doesn't have to be proven and all that, but this guy came out of left field. Where are his priors? If he is guilty, and doesn't at least have a bunch of violent images on his digital devices, I'll be shocked.

But DP or not, he'll be labeled a child murderer in prison, and that might well be worse than death. Jmo.

I also wonder what the heck his priors were if any before these kids!!

 

[Jurisprudence]

I should possibly not have quoted you, but I saw the filing, and someone had posted it here, the State listed "new evidence" as the reason for their upgraded or additional (not sure how to word that) charges. I've linked the post that attaches the document I"m referencing: IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173 (hopefully that works!)

I am curious to see what the new evidence is. More prison conversations? After Scremin and Lebrato said he was being drugged? The removal was structural error and as Leeman stated in his oral argument any trial that moved forward without this Gull error being corrected would be for "practice only". The families would be going through this trial twice. I think NM knew the ruling was probably going this way. I also think his added charges could be his thought of a backdoor way to delay the trial. Give them something more to have to review and oppose. It will be interesting to see what B&R's next move is. Will they move forward with ST demand despite it all? Now, that would be interesting. It is important to note that Richard Allen has not waived this right insofar as we know.

jmo

 

[New Penny]

Realistically, what could they possibly have gotten suddenly that they didn't have until this week? Really curious as to what people think this "new" evidence could be? Did someone come forward with more information? Someone found a link between RA and the kids on a device that was previously not known about? What on earth could this be and why do we only hear about it on the date of the SCION hearing?

Does anyone else here think that Allen’s jailhouse confessions to his wife and mother might have contained incriminating information known only to the killer? Maybe now there are some blanks filled in? Or confirmation?

 

[Jurisprudence]

Does anyone else here think that Allen’s jailhouse confessions to his wife and mother might have contained incriminating information known only to the killer? Maybe now there are some blanks filled in? Or confirmation?

I don't know that this would be a slam dunk in the face of the defense they're presenting. I would think their stance on this will be that he was coerced, and fed the information; told what to say. It will come down to the jury, I think.

jmo

 

[O.Incandenza]

I should possibly not have quoted you, but I saw the filing, and someone had posted it here, the State listed "new evidence" as the reason for their upgraded or additional (not sure how to word that) charges. I've linked the post that attaches the document I"m referencing: IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173 (hopefully that works!)

Are you basing that off of the docket entry that says "Amended Pleading Filed/Information New"? Because that's not what that means.

'Information' is a legal term sometimes used to describe the charges in a criminal case. You can look back to the start of the case and see the entries for the initial murder charges are also described as Informations: 10/28/2022 Information Filed Count 1: Murder

So this new docket entry just means they're trying to amend the original charges and supplant them with a new Information. It doesn't necessarily mean that the new charges are based on new evidence. The motion to amend also doesn't mention any new evidence, they just say that they're doing it to 'better align' the charges with the facts presented in the original PCA.

 

[Commercens]

You just answered one of my questions! So can I assume all discovery is due X number of days before trial date is to begin?

Not necessarily.
The defense requested for such a deadline and it was granted.

*See attached court doc and/or WTHR web news site.

——————————
WHEREFORE, Defense counsel respectfully requests that the Court set a discovery deadline no later than November 1, 2023 as Defense counsel believes that said deadline is necessary to

(1) promote Defendant Allen's constitutional due process rights to be confronted and presented with all evidence concerning the pending allegations,

(2) to promote the need for judicial economy as the trial in this case draws near, and

(3) to permit Defendant Allen and his Attorneys to be fully informed as they engage in further depositions and pretrial matters in this cause.
————————————

DELPHI, Ind. — Attorneys for Delphi murder defendant Richard Allen said they are not getting to see the state’s evidence against their client in a timely manner, and they now want the judge to set a firm deadline for the Carroll County prosecutor to turn over all evidence to the defense.

Monday afternoon, Allen’s lawyers filed a motion requesting that prosecutor Nick McLeland and the state of Indiana “produce all evidence in its possession immediately and also that the Court set a Nov. 1, 2023, deadline to do so.”

Attorneys for Delphi murders defendant ask judge to stop 'drip, drip, drip' of evidence

 

[twall]

DP doesn't seem to be very popular; I only have these 2 for comparison:
Jason Brown:
08/01/2017 Case opened
09/28/2017 Request for Death Sentence

Orlando Mitchell
07/13/2023 Case opened
07/13/2023 Death Penalty Requested

And Eillahs Dorsey.

Death penalty trial for man accused of killing IMPD Ofc. Breann Leath nears jury selection

The man accused of fatally shooting IMPD Ofc. Breann Leath is scheduled to go to trial Feb. 12, 2024.

www.wthr.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

And Eillahs Dorsey.

Death penalty trial for man accused of killing IMPD Ofc. Breann Leath nears jury selection

The man accused of fatally shooting IMPD Ofc. Breann Leath is scheduled to go to trial Feb. 12, 2024.

www.wthr.com

Thanks. I came across that one here and updated it a little while ago. It has some things similar to this one; I'll bring them up in the case tomorrow.

IN - Police Officer Breann Leath, 24 - Fatally Shot - Indianapolis - 9 April 2020 *arrest*

. * Police Officer Killed * - Officer Breann Leath, 24 - - Indianapolis, Indiana - - 9 April 2020 - 1)) RTV6: Officer makes tribute video to IMPD officer shot and killed in the line of duty 2)) Google™ Supplements & Updates: Officer Breann Leath - IN - بحث Google 3)) United States Line-Of...

www.websleuths.com

 

[steeltowngirl]

IIRC, the FM references LE depositions, where LE acknowledges there is no such digital evidence or other evidence.

Wondering, in a world where there was such evidence ... would the murder suspect also be charged for that history of CSAM as well? Or would the P not charge for CSAM and only bring murder-related charges.

The FM said a lot of stuff.

Are you referring to this part?
“Also, no forensics (such as DNA), no electronic data extracted from his computers or phones or from his social media links Richard Allen to the crime scene.”

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

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

It does not say that there was no link to Libby and Abby. Just not to the crime scene. As expected, defense used the memo to further their position. I’m hoping to see the entire deposition.

 

[Emma Peel]

The FM said a lot of stuff.

Are you referring to this part?
“Also, no forensics (such as DNA), no electronic data extracted from his computers or phones or from his social media links Richard Allen to the crime scene.”

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

DELPHI: Memorandum in Support of Motion.pdf

www.scribd.com

It does not say that there was no link to Libby and Abby. Just not to the crime scene. As expected, defense used the memo to further their position. I’m hoping to see the entire deposition.

I guess I'm a little confused about the distinction you're suggesting... I'll share my thoughts:

IMO, The motion says what it means. None of the electronic data described links RA to the crime scene. The victims ARE the primary subject of the crime scene. The reference is an LE deposition under oath recorded and attached in the Exhibits. I see no reason to think the use of the word "crime scene" excludes RA links to the victims at the crime scene or RA links to the victims prior to the crime.

The P is under obligation to share evidence with the D; these parties are working off the same facts. Furthermore, the P filed a response to this motion with no objection to this statement re: digital evidence.

Keep in mind that both P and D have the ethical, professional and practical burden of presenting information presented in a motion to the court that is accurate and truthful; submitting misrepresentations/false statements in motions to the Court have serious consequences.

Reiterating: Possession of CSAM is a crime; would the P sandbag evidence of RA CSAM activity? Not bring that charge? IMO, were this the case, P would bring that charge and share evidence to bring pressure for a plea.

JMHO

 

[mrjitty]

Sorry for any confusion. I suppose my subjective choice of words “off guard” is not really correct.

From Kokomo Tribune:

Leeman responded to Rush’s claim by stating Rozzi and Baldwin essentially believed they would have had time to ultimately file a motion for a speedy trial, but they were “blown out of the water from a judge who exceeded her authority.”

“My client (referring to Allen in this case) was entitled to a jury trial today,” Leeman argued. “My client’s entitled to a jury trial with effective lawyers that he spent a year and three months developing a well-thought-out strategy ... and a speedy trial to catch that prosecutor on their back foot.”

Delphi defense team makes plea to state Supreme Court; gets reinstated

————————————-
When I said “off guard,” I meant if and when the defense actually followed through and filed for the speedy trial…then at that point in time, the Prosecution and JG would be up “against the clock“ - a timeframe that was grounded in reality with very adverse legal consequences for the state’s case if not satisfied vs dealing in the “theoretical.” Once filed, neither side could really afford to have any false sense of “ample time” to complete whatever they had pending on their side of their respective “agendas.”

I guess my subjective choice of words “off guard” is not really correct. But yes, I believe the defense thought it would be to their advantage and to the state’s disadvantage in that they would from now on really have “to scramble.” (MOO - It was my understanding that there still needed to be a Franks Hearing and JG was starting to have to deal with some health issues. So I imagine the defense probably felt the state would be hard pressed once the Speedy Trial was filed.)

Thanks for the clarification

And sure I agree. A defence might rightly believe being up against the clock favoured them. It's a well known tactic

I just don't think either prosecution or Judge could be surprised seeing it's an obvious tactic, and discovery had been ordered to be complete by 1 Nov, given the Jan trial date.

 

[mrjitty]

As you know, court cases often have many trial dates before one is set in stone. Usually there are pre-trial conferences, status conferences... where it's discussed where both sides are in their cases and how long it will be before they are ready for trial. In my experience, it's wrong to assume just because a trial date is set, both sides are ready to go.

The very first jury trial date in this case was this one:

11/02/2022

Hearing Scheduling Activity Jury Trial scheduled for 03/20/2023 at 9:00 AM.

Then they fiddled around with that date for some reason and this was the new one:

02/23/2023

Hearing Scheduling Activity Jury Trial scheduled for 03/21/2023 at 9:00 AM was cancelled. Reason: Judicial Action.

And then this:

06/15/2023

Hearing Scheduling Activity Jury Trial scheduled for 01/08/2024 at 9:00 AM.

And finally this:

10/31/2023

Hearing Scheduling Activity Jury Trial originally scheduled on 01/08/2024 at 9:00 AM was rescheduled to 10/15/2024 at 9:00 AM. Reason: By Request.

I agree one or both sides might not be ready to go. I said the prosecution could hardly be surprised if the trial did in fact go ahead in January. And I agree dates change. The first dates were obviously not realistic., but they have to have something in the calendar.

 

[mrjitty]

Keep in mind that both P and D have the ethical, professional and practical burden of presenting information presented in a motion to the court that is accurate and truthful; submitting misrepresentations/false statements in motions to the Court have serious consequences.

RSBM - like where the defence suggested in the FF the victim might have been hung by her feet from a tree to bleed out?

<modsnip>

One area where I agree with Bob Motta is that it is very difficult to assess the opposing claims until you get into defended proceedings and hear argument on it.

My own advice is to skip the entire pre-trial phase for this exact reason. As you can see, I am not good at following my own advice.

 

[girlhasnoname]

I have a question for anyone who knows the answer please.

If the defendant signed documents to assure a speedy trial way back in August how come they never filed them?

Thank you.

EBM include the month.

RA signed a Motion for Speedy Trial in August, but it was never dated. The Defense was holding on to it for when they 'needed' it. They have said they were ready for trial on the original January date.

I keep coming back to let's see how long if/when they date it and file it since their Appellate Attorney said they were ready to go in the SOCIN hearing the other day.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

How does that work I wonder? Is the P required to turn over all their evidence as they find it, or do they have X amount of days to work with their evidence before turning it over to the D?

Hope I worded that clearly. Also, does all evidence need to be presented prior to trial for said evidence to be brought up at trial. This would include the witness list?

Never really thought this deeply before, I simply remember the day these two girls were found. I was so ANGRY. I'm still angry. Nothing can give Libby and Abby their life back, we can only demand justice for them. I don't remember what SM platform Libby and/or Abby utilized.

For example, for LE to start with Libby's SM accounts, is it possible to trace all other accounts that interacted with Libby's account? And for each account that had connection to Libby's, then go down the line to see what account those accounts lead to. That would take a long time, if even possible. However that web could lead to new evidence. Which I so hope happens.

Justice for Abby and Libby.

The Prosecution has to turn over any Discovery as soon as possible to the Defense. They can't hold it in their back pocket and then give it 2 days before trial. Judge Gull had already ordered all Discovery by the State to be turned over to the Defense with a November 1st deadline. This was before the crap hit the fan.

If the State has new information, I would bet they have/will provide shorty to the Defense now that we know who the Defense is going to be.

moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Does anyone else here think that Allen’s jailhouse confessions to his wife and mother might have contained incriminating information known only to the killer? Maybe now there are some blanks filled in? Or confirmation?

I think the confessions are key, some believe the Evil Odins forced RA to make those statements 5 times even though he was not in an interrogation situation and they were freely spoken on a recorded jail house telephone.

Oh, and this also happened right after the State shared the majority of Discovery on the Defense Team and RA just days before. RA's response was to begin eating those documents, refusing to shower, eat meals, drool, and basically walk around like a zombie. This was when his Defense team stated he was suffering from mental conditions.

My theory, I would think that seeing in printed black and white exactly what the State has against him, RA knew he done and then came the confessions.

JMO

 

[zh0r4]

RSBM - like where the defence suggested in the FF the victim might have been hung by her feet from a tree to bleed out?

While I agree with your comment in theory - my experience of cases is the defence frequently misrepresent the evidence or even intentionally mislead the court - and nothing ever happens about it.

One area where I agree with Bob Motta is that it is very difficult to assess the opposing claims until you get into defended proceedings and hear argument on it.

My own advice is to skip the entire pre-trial phase for this exact reason. As you can see, I am not good at following my own advice.

I feel it is inaccurate to assume any lawyer is misleading the court or frequently misrepresenting evidence in a court of law with zero evidence. It is insulting to defense lawyers and the U.S. court system-implying “nothing ever happens about it”, as if our courts wouldn’t even take these matters seriously.

<modsnip - discuss the case, not other members>

 

[mrjitty]

I feel it is inaccurate to assume any lawyer is misleading the court or frequently misrepresenting evidence in a court of law with zero evidence. It is insulting to defense lawyers and the U.S. court system-implying “nothing ever happens about it”, as if our courts wouldn’t even take these matters seriously.

It's been my experience in the McStay, Morphew and Pistorius trials that the defence misled or even deceived the Court on multiple occasions. One of the most obvious (see Morphew) is how common it is for the defence to insinuate that the accused has been fitted up in bad faith or corruptly, without evidence.

I could give many more examples but it would be off topic here, so i state it as my opinion based on years of observation. In any event defence counsel appear to be given a long leash - especially i have never seen consequences for misrepresentations by counsel.

<modsnip - quoted post was snipped>

 

[mrjitty]

If anyone is interested Cara Wienke has given her opinion on the next steps on Defense Diaries following her SCOIN win

1. The defense unfortunately had to show their hand via the SCOIN proceedings
2. Trying to remove the Judge may delay the trial (e.g if Gull refuses then you have to appeal)
3. She suggests they take some time to consider - and perhaps focus on getting the case in front of the Jury is best. AM seems to think maybe that strategy is blown up now.

Lots to appreciate - Wienke is very impressive IMO

- YouTube

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.

www.youtube.com