Since the information of the attorney's grievances was made public a month ago, and already thoroughly discussed in this thread beginning April 6, MOO, I think the intent of the article was to announce the prosecutor's subpoenas, as is in the headline, and the inclusion of the old information is for reference. Is this a preemptive step? Is the prosecutor concerned that the defense will pursue this issue and impact the trial?
I can see why the prosecutor would want to subpoena his former employer's records, as they should be scoured for any possible evidence. The prosecutor is doing the right thing to get ahead of any possible claims by the defense. I'm sure no one wants to have the Delphi case become a precautionary tale. The last two items are no laughing matter and I think it's good that RA has already been moved. Apparently, the court decided it was appropriate, which of course, does not mean that all of the attorney's statements were accepted as indications of unfair treatment or circumstances. The path to the end goal here is to get RA convicted and sentenced.
- Information Allen's attorneys provided to him to review as part of his defense on March 24 are yet to be provided to him, as of April 3.
- It is difficult for his attorneys to meet with him given his segregation and isolation, which keeps him from being able to assist in his defense."