Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #175

[zh0r4]

Am just wondering, does anything stop HER from asking for a special judge to rule over the motion to DQ her?

My understanding is the only one who can do anything is SCOIN, but I don’t think they have ever had to remove a judge bc the judge would typically recuse without needing forced removal from a higher court.

 

[zh0r4]

Another update

02/05/2024

Motion to Vacate Hearing Filed Motion to Vacate Hearing Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/05/2024

Are these being backdated then added or am I missing them? I’m confused.

 

[zh0r4]

I'll have to dig through all my files to find what you want. In the meantime:
Becky said the girls asked to go to the bridge around 1:30, give or take a couple of minutes. Kelsi was talking to her bf at the bridge and L called her dad about picking them up around that time, too. I think the time they verified on their phones was 1:37 or 1:38.

Do you know if the FBI gave local LE a report or if local LE and/or ISP provided the data?

 

[Emma Peel]

Are these being backdated then added or am I missing them? I’m confused.

two filings from D today.

one in the AM (motion to Continue the Feb 14th Amended Charges hearing)

one in the PM (motion to Vacate both the Feb 14th hearing on Contempt and the hearing on Amended Charges)

Also this PM one says that the Contempt Motion says the State requested "the Court to issue rule to show cause, set a hearing and order Rozzi and Baldwin to appear and show cause".

At least I think that's what todays motions from the D say. LOL !!!

These same-day filings from Baldwin seem contradictory ... but it seems Baldwin's afternoon motion is pointing out that Gull's has scheduled stuff (a) out of order and without issuing and order to show cause to B & R, and (b) while Gull currently has no jurisdiction to schedule.

At any rate, (unless I've lost count) the D's put forth 3 motions to get rid of that Feb 12 hearing now. Gull might need another paddle ball racket to doublefist the batting of these pesky things the D keeps hurling her way.

 

[steeltowngirl]

Has anyone found a case in Indiana where a DQ motion for the judge was filed and the judge didn’t recuse? Besides the other case JG was on?

Found one where DQ motion was denied.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/indiana/insdce/1:2008cv00029/17013/42/0.pdf?ts=1547690275

 

[steeltowngirl]

While the D keeps hurling and obfuscating, the likelihood of RA receiving a speedy trial is further diminished.

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs.”​

― W.C. Fields

 

[Ward Thisperer]

While the D keeps hurling and obfuscating, the likelihood of RA receiving a speedy trial is further diminished.

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs.”​

― W.C. Fields

...It's hurling and obfuscating to ask the judge to follow the rules? And to request that they check with them before scheduling an extremely important hearing with less than 2 weeks notice?

---

Thanks to this tweet from Shay Hughes I looked up some case law relating to the the prohibition of JG ruling on anything prior to the motion for a special judge, in case you're like me and have been fiending for the specifics on that rule.

"In A.T. v. G.T, 960 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court reversed the trial court’s denial of Mother’s petition for a change of judge in a dissolution custody modification action filed by Father. The Court opined that the trial court should not have held the custody modification hearing because the trial court was deprived of jurisdiction."

https://kidsvoicein.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/A.T.-v.-G.T.-960-N.E.2d-878-Ind.-Ct.-App.-2012.pdf

"As noted above, Judge Boyer had only limited jurisdiction in Bedree's case following his September 5 request for appointment of a special judge.   She could, of course, grant the motion for appointment of a special judge, which she did on January 15.   Judge Fee was appointed the next day.   She also retained jurisdiction to issue orders concerning “emergency matters,” pending the special judge's assumption of jurisdiction. "

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/in-court-of-appeals/1405799.html

"Indeed, we conclude that the trial court did not err by failing to consolidate the two causes in the case at bar because it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the Cummings' motion by virtue of their pending motion for change of judge. [9]"
[footnote 9] "It is well settled that upon the filing of a motion for change of judge under T.R. 76, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction except to grant the change of venue or to act on emergency matters. See, e.g., State ex rel. Wade v. Cass Circuit Court, 447 N.E.2d 1082, 1083 (Ind. 1983). Consequently, absent any question concerning the motion for change of judge or any emergency matter, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider any motions in the Cummings' cause."

In re Adoption of I.K.E.W, 724 N.E.2d 245 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read In re Adoption of I.K.E.W, 724 N.E.2d 245, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"When presented with a timely motion for a change of judge, the trial judge is divested of jurisdiction to act in the case on any matter other than the motion for change of judge or emergency matters. Justak v. Bochnowski, (1979) Ind. App., 391 N.E.2d 872."

State ex rel. Wade v. Cass Circuit Court, 447 N.E.2d 1082 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State ex rel. Wade v. Cass Circuit Court, 447 N.E.2d 1082, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

---

A thought on the discussion of timelines:
If the girls asked to be dropped off at the trail at 1:30
And RA, or whoever the killer is, also arrived at the trail at 1:30, as LE seems to believe
I find it very hard to believe that is a coincidence or that the killer jumped on a lucky opportunity. The killer had to have known they were going to be there that day at that time.

 

[photographer4]

...It's hurling and obfuscating to ask the judge to follow the rules? And to request that they check with them before scheduling an extremely important hearing with less than 2 weeks notice?

---

Thanks to this tweet from Shay Hughes I looked up some case law relating to the the prohibition of JG ruling on anything prior to the motion for a special judge, in case you're like me and have been fiending for the specifics on that rule.

"In A.T. v. G.T, 960 N.E.2d 878 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012), the Court reversed the trial court’s denial of Mother’s petition for a change of judge in a dissolution custody modification action filed by Father. The Court opined that the trial court should not have held the custody modification hearing because the trial court was deprived of jurisdiction."

https://kidsvoicein.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/A.T.-v.-G.T.-960-N.E.2d-878-Ind.-Ct.-App.-2012.pdf

"As noted above, Judge Boyer had only limited jurisdiction in Bedree's case following his September 5 request for appointment of a special judge.   She could, of course, grant the motion for appointment of a special judge, which she did on January 15.   Judge Fee was appointed the next day.   She also retained jurisdiction to issue orders concerning “emergency matters,” pending the special judge's assumption of jurisdiction. "

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/in-court-of-appeals/1405799.html

"Indeed, we conclude that the trial court did not err by failing to consolidate the two causes in the case at bar because it did not have jurisdiction to rule on the Cummings' motion by virtue of their pending motion for change of judge. [9]"
[footnote 9] "It is well settled that upon the filing of a motion for change of judge under T.R. 76, the trial court is divested of jurisdiction except to grant the change of venue or to act on emergency matters. See, e.g., State ex rel. Wade v. Cass Circuit Court, 447 N.E.2d 1082, 1083 (Ind. 1983). Consequently, absent any question concerning the motion for change of judge or any emergency matter, the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider any motions in the Cummings' cause."

In re Adoption of I.K.E.W, 724 N.E.2d 245 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read In re Adoption of I.K.E.W, 724 N.E.2d 245, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

"When presented with a timely motion for a change of judge, the trial judge is divested of jurisdiction to act in the case on any matter other than the motion for change of judge or emergency matters. Justak v. Bochnowski, (1979) Ind. App., 391 N.E.2d 872."

State ex rel. Wade v. Cass Circuit Court, 447 N.E.2d 1082 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read State ex rel. Wade v. Cass Circuit Court, 447 N.E.2d 1082, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

---

A thought on the discussion of timelines:
If the girls asked to be dropped off at the trail at 1:30
And RA, or whoever the killer is, also arrived at the trail at 1:30, as LE seems to believe
I find it very hard to believe that is a coincidence or that the killer jumped on a lucky opportunity. The killer had to have known they were going to be there that day at that time.

I've thought this too - they were in contact with KA per LE, so either they were being lured there by someone, OR they were the unluckiest kids in the state that day to have randomly encountered a killer.

 

[photographer4]

While the D keeps hurling and obfuscating, the likelihood of RA receiving a speedy trial is further diminished.

“If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bs.”​

― W.C. Fields

They can’t do more than they have to advocate for one - asked her to recuse days ago and still waiting. Funny how the only one holding up a speedy trial now is the judge! Wouldn’t it move things along if she recused? If she won’t do this, and it’s clear she won’t - why doesn’t she provide a summary judgement against the DQ and grant continuance on the contempt? Instead, she takes her sweet time. What would ya have defence do here? They’re not impeding his trial. She is.

 

[mrjitty]

They can’t do more than they have to advocate for one - asked her to recuse days ago and still waiting. Funny how the only one holding up a speedy trial now is the judge! Wouldn’t it move things along if she recused? If she won’t do this, and it’s clear she won’t - why doesn’t she provide a summary judgement against the DQ and grant continuance on the contempt? Instead, she takes her sweet time. What would ya have defence do here? They’re not impeding his trial. She is.

She is most likely waiting for the SCOIN reasons on this exact issue which is the correct thing to do. The defence really should have waited as well because they have filed a motion that is almost identical to the SCOIN argument without waiting to see why SCOIN refused relief.

In the end the defence motion is now holding up the trial while we wait for SCOIN.

 

[photographer4]

She is most likely waiting for the SCOIN reasons on this exact issue which is the correct thing to do. The defence really should have waited as well because they have filed a motion that is almost identical to the SCOIN argument without waiting to see why SCOIN refused relief.

In the end the defence motion is now holding up the trial while we wait for SCOIN.

The prosecution is also not helping by asking for contempt for B&R. I don’t recall which came first their contempt motion or the motion to DQ by the defence.

 

[mrjitty]

Found one where DQ motion was denied.

https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/indiana/insdce/1:2008cv00029/17013/42/0.pdf?ts=1547690275

Judge Gull's response to the writ includes discussion of a body of Indiana law including appeals court decisions at pages 17 and 18 if people are interested - included cases where recusal was correctly refused.

I hope SCOIN do delve into this, if only to put some kind of cork in this discourse one way or other other.

The interesting wrinkles from my POV

1. Can adverse decisions/judicial error ever amount to a perception of bias? This is a bit of a dangerous road to go down for obvious reasons. You don't want to open the door to a situation where any time a judge gets overturned on appeal, you can claim bias.

2. Is this removal some sort of special case where as argued by Wieneke, a new Judge is required to restore public trust because the public may question impartiality from here on out? This is an interesting argument which feels like a self fulfilling prophecy because the defence itself will obviously promote this narrative from here on out. I don't know what to make of it, as this situation is really quite unique.

3. Does it matter that there is no external factor here? e.g the cases cited by Gull turned on some kind of relationship the Judge had outside of the case - e.g parties who used to work together, re-election campaigns, fundraising, some statement made out of court.

In any event, if you want to go down the rabbit hole on all of this, first port of call are the cases cited by Gull in her response. Interestingly Wieneke did not cite any case law in her writ on the recusal issue (page 18).

It's all a bit esoteric so I am taking the lazy option of hoping SCOIN set this all out for us and gave Judge Gull a big hint. I guess I lean towards the belief that they wouldn't have just kicked this back downstairs if they really though Gull needed to recuse and thus risk it all going off the rails again.

 

[mrjitty]

The prosecution is also not helping by asking for contempt for B&R. I don’t recall which came first their contempt motion or the motion to DQ by the defence.

I agree. This is why i would prefer a fresh Judge to come in and put an end to all the clowning about.

The sanctions can be kicked to another judge, or left till after the trial.

 

[mrjitty]

I've thought this too - they were in contact with KA per LE, so either they were being lured there by someone, OR they were the unluckiest kids in the state that day to have randomly encountered a killer.

I lean towards the later.

Bridge guy could quite easily have been there to abduct whomever fell into his web. As the evidence shows, there were different groups of girls on the trails at the relevant time, e.g the 3 juvenile girls. They were just fortunate in numbers, and where they encountered him.

We also don't know how often Bridge Guy lurked in his web. I suspect he knew the area quite well.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Yes - my belief is his ill advised police interview is what will sink him. He needed to preserve space to hear the witness testimony, then reverse engineer a timeline around it. e.g maybe he left the trail at a crucial time and thus missed the girls

Instead he has given an inconsistent version which is likely impossible. e.g who were the other 3 girls he met? Who else was on the trials at the earlier times who didn't see him?

Where are his phone connections to the tower for the stock ticker? Notice how the defence never claimed in the Franks that there is any digital evidence to support RA's version. Nor did the prosecution say in the AA that there is digital evidence that puts him on the trails at the key times. My opinion is this evidence does not exist at all, because his phone was switched off - a blunder that is a theme in multiple cases over the last 10-15 years

I agree RA's interview in Oct 22 will indeed help sink him along with other evidence the State has that we don't know of yet.

I also don't think RA's phone records/activity definitely does not exist. It's amazing what the experts can do now with CAST data, even from seven years ago. If RA was known to use his phone and keep it on prior to the murders consistently, and all the sudden shows he did 'switch it off" during the timeframe of the murders, that in and of itself is going to be damning IMO. It will show a deviation from his typical pattern of phone use during the murders.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

RSBM - don't know the specific law here, but i guess as a general principle, Judge Gull has oversight over the detention of the defendant by the state (separation of powers), and the prosecutor is the representative of the state in all matters before the Court.

I'd tend to agree that the judge should want to hear from the agencies responsible for those decisions and actions though - as the prosecutor's office is clearly not the branch of government involved

The Prosecution has said on record that they are not opposed to moving RA to another facility that has the resources to house him safely, offer mental health treatment and are able to transport him safely to/from Court.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Another Motion for Continuance has been filed today by the Defense.

Adobe Acrobat

acrobat.adobe.com

Isn't it ironic that Rozzi is going to be out of town on the 12th for personal reasons?

For 2 Defense attorneys who were asking for STM in Oct/Nov and represented that they would be ready to go in January, things sure have changed. Yes, I understand the delay over the SCOIN ruling, but even then they were still claiming they were ready to go in Jan. Now they're saying several weeks just to receive Discovery back from S&L (why?) and more time to review the voluminous amount of Discovery associated with the updated charges against RA by the State.

They were never ready IMO for trial on Jan 14th, especially once the information of the leaks was made public knowledge.

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Great question. Who would benefit from keeping him from being moved from a potentially better environment before his trial? Who would benefit from him being in a constant state of distress and trauma that results from the physical violence and mental abuse of general pop?

He's been moved from Westville to Wabash. Now he wants to be moved from Wabash. What are the odds that the next place they move RA (if they do) he will also be unhappy and people will be picking on him and mistreating him according to him?

RA is going to have it rough no matter where he is; he is a Defendant in a high profile, vicious child murder case. I believe the State is just trying to keep him alive and protected from others and himself until trial time rolls around.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

Do you know if the FBI gave local LE a report or if local LE and/or ISP provided the data?

I never read anything about the report. What I've read came from the family. Becky noting the time of day they left, Kelsi talking to her bf and Libby calling Derrick = all from their phone records.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I know some people like to see the case entries and there are some who probably do not. Going back takes up a lot of space. So I'm trying something new =in this case only= to see if this comprise is a good thing. Just click on the spoiler if you want to see the case history back to Jan. 22.

Spoiler: Case Summary 1/22/2024

01/22/2024	Order Issued The Court, having had defendant's Motion for Franks Hearing (filed September 18, 2023), the Memorandum in Support of the Accused's Motion for Franks Hearing (filed September 18, 2023), defendant's Supplemental Motion for Franks Hearing (filed October 2, 2023), Defendant's Additional Franks Notice (filed October 3, 2023), the State's Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (filed June 13, 2023), and the State's Second Objection to Defendant's Motion to Suppress (filed September 25, 2023) under advisement, now denies the Defendant's Motion for a Franks Hearing. The Court finds the Affidavit submitted in support of the issuance of the search warrant contained information that a reasonable belief existed that evidence of the murders would be found in the defendant's home and vehicles. The Court does not find that the Affidavit submitted false statements or that the Affiant omitted statements with reckless disregard, nor does the Court find that the Affiant intended to mislead the Judge by failing to present information. As the Court has found the Affidavit for issuance of the search warrant was valid, the search itself was reasonable and legal under Indiana law and Fourth Amendment case law. Defendant's Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, IN (filed May 19, 2023) is also denied based upon all the pleadings, memorandums, and exhibits previously submitted in support of the request for a Franks hearing. Defendant's Motion in Limine Regarding Ballistics (filed June 13, 2023) is reviewed and denied without hearing. The Court finds the evidence contained in Defendant's Exhibits A and B attached to the Motion is relevant and admissible. The Court further finds the probative value of such evidence is not substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact, and that the evidence will not confuse or mislead the jury. Defendant's Motion to Transfer (filed January 12, 2024) taken under advisement pending the State's response, if any, and a hearing to be set. State's Motion to Amend Information (filed January 18, 2024) will be set for a remote hearing. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 01/22/2024
01/23/2024	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 1/22/2024 : James David Luttrull
01/23/2024	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 1/22/2024 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
01/24/2024	Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 01/24/2024
01/29/2024	Motion to Compel Discovery Filed Motion to Compel Discovery.pdf Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 01/27/2024
01/29/2024	Motion Filed Verified Motion to Disqualify Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 01/28/2024
01/29/2024	Response to a Petition Filed State's Response to Defense's Mtn for Transfer.pdf Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 01/29/2024
01/29/2024	Motion Filed Allen Verified Info of Contempt. Conduct.pdf Filed By: State of Indiana File Stamp: 01/29/2024
02/01/2024	Order Issued Court orders the State's Motion to Amend Information, filed January 18, 2024, and the State's Verified Information of Contemptuous Conduct, filed January 29, 2024, set for hearing on February 12, 2024, at 9:00 a.m. in the Allen Superior Court. Court will issue a Transport Order to have the defendant present. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 02/01/2024
02/01/2024	Transport Order Entered Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 02/01/2024
02/02/2024	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 2/1/2024 : James David Luttrull Transport Order Entered ---- 2/1/2024 : James David Luttrull
02/02/2024	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 2/1/2024 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato Transport Order Entered ---- 2/1/2024 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
02/02/2024	Order Issued Order granting Motin to Withdraw Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 01/29/2024
02/02/2024	Motion for Continuance Filed Motion for Continuance Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/02/2024
02/02/2024	Notice of Exclusion of Confidential Information Notice of Exclusion Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/02/2024
02/02/2024	Motion Filed Motion to Transfer - Redacted Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/02/2024
02/03/2024	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 2/2/2024 : James David Luttrull
02/03/2024	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Issued ---- 2/2/2024 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
02/05/2024	Motion for Continuance Filed Motion for Continuance Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/05/2024
02/05/2024	Hearing Scheduling Activity Hearing scheduled for 02/12/2024 at 9:00 AM.
02/05/2024	Motion to Vacate Hearing Filed Motion to Vacate Hearing Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 02/05/2024
02/12/2024	Hearing Session: 02/12/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Comment: To be held in the Allen Superior Court 5
10/15/2024	Jury Trial Session: 10/15/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/16/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/17/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/18/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/21/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/22/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/23/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/24/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/25/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/28/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/29/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/30/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 10/31/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 11/01/2024 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ