b/c they have identified all POIs.
There's been no arrests.
Baldwin is dancing around like he's got nothing to do with the leak.
If he was under investigation it would be a conflict and another one of Gull's' reasons to DQ Baldwin.
And sorry, I should have said, "it seems to me ... "
b/c they have identified all POIs.
There's been no arrests.
Baldwin is dancing around like he's got nothing to do with the leak.
If he was under investigation it would be a conflict and another one of Gull's' reasons to DQ Baldwin.
And sorry, I should have said, "it seems to me ... "
I'll point out (and disagree a tiny bit with others perhaps) that Gull made a very serious decision, that is now been publicized.
Gull accused Rozzi/Baldwin for "gross negligence".
If Gull thought a sanction would solve the issue, she'd have sanctioned them and not dismissed them.
Just b/c Rozzi/Balswin change the way they are compensated, does not erase the "gross negligence".
If Gull believes this is the quality of their representation, she won't permit them as "appearing" back in her court representing RA.
She might be amenable, that they attend Court as consultants (and not RA counsel) and consult with the New Defense team until the New D is on its feet and running. But of course, the New Defense team would have to hire them as consultants.
pp 9-10 of the brief:
These purported acts of “gross negligence” included:
efforts by the defense to level the playing field with a press release after the prosecution filed multiple releases;
filing motions to protect Allen’s basic human rights— motions that the trial court either granted or that remain pending;
filing the Franks memorandum that the trial court believed contained “improper statements”;
filing a tort claim notice to preserve Allen’s rights to seek redress from conditions and treatment related to his incarceration; and
a third-party’s unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of nor participated in.
It's a leap for a judge to summarily state that these actions, many of which are their duty, amounted to gross negligence to a degree that warrants violating a criminal defendant's 6th Amed right to counsel, in defiance of a written letter to her, and without him even being consulted, without him being allowed to be present for this in-chambers meeting (even though he was in the courthouse), and not have him on the record, after a year of his being represented by them, without the required 10-day notice, and not provide counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard
I'll point out (and disagree a tiny bit with others perhaps) that Gull made a very serious decision, that is now been publicized.
Gull accused Rozzi/Baldwin for "gross negligence".
If Gull thought a sanction would solve the issue, she'd have sanctioned them and not dismissed them.
Just b/c Rozzi/Balswin change the way they are compensated, does not erase the "gross negligence".
If Gull believes this is the quality of their representation, she won't permit them as "appearing" back in her court representing RA.
She might be amenable, that they attend Court as consultants (and not RA counsel) and consult with the New Defense team until the New D is on its feet and running. But of course, the New Defense team would have to hire them as consultants.
It is much, much harder to dismiss private attorneys who a defendant has chosen than it is to change court-appointed attorneys. When you're relying on the court to provide (and pay) your lawyers for you, you give up most of the ability to choose who they are.
But if Baldwin & Rozzi are really determined to represent Allen pro bono, and he wants them to, then they become his private attorneys, just as if he was paying them. Dismissing them at that point has major 6th Amendment implications. It would create an absolutely huge and appealable issue IMO. Which doesn't mean Gull won't do it, but it's not at all the same as dismissing them when they were court-appointed attorneys.
The information McLeland gave to the judge about RF in his email dated 10/12 (Exhibit I) needs to be vetted and investigated imo. I found that one little line to be one of the most disturbing pieces of information that none of us knew until this filing. It requires further investigation. What a weird/odd thing to say, if true.
It is much, much harder to dismiss private attorneys who a defendant has chosen than it is to change court-appointed attorneys. When you're relying on the court to provide (and pay) your lawyers for you, you give up most of the ability to choose who they are.
But if Baldwin & Rozzi are really determined to represent Allen pro bono, and he wants them to, then they become his private attorneys, just as if he was paying them. Dismissing them at that point has major 6th Amendment implications. It would create an absolutely huge and appealable issue IMO. Which doesn't mean Gull won't do it, but it's not at all the same as dismissing them when they were court-appointed attorneys.
Agree. And, I also think Gull has already created a huge 6A appealable issue (for the reasons stated in post above). She's also destroying the record to such a degree that other attorneys in the legal community are stepping up to bring it to the attention of the Indiana Sup Ct. What a mess.
jmo
The information McLeland gave to the judge about RF in his email dated 10/12 (Exhibit I) needs to be vetted and investigated imo. I found that one little line to be one of the most disturbing pieces of information that none of us knew until this filing. It requires further investigation. What a weird/odd thing to say, if true.
Agree. And, I also think Gull has already created a huge 6A appealable issue (for the reasons stated in post above). She's also destroying the record to such a degree that other attorneys in the legal community are stepping up to bring it to the attention of the Indiana Sup Ct. What a mess.
jmo
pp 9-10 of the brief:
These purported acts of “gross negligence” included:
efforts by the defense to level the playing field with a press release after the prosecution filed multiple releases;
filing motions to protect Allen’s basic human rights— motions that the trial court either granted or that remain pending;
filing the Franks memorandum that the trial court believed contained “improper statements”;
filing a tort claim notice to preserve Allen’s rights to seek redress from conditions and treatment related to his incarceration; and
a third-party’s unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of nor participated in.
It's a leap for a judge to summarily state that these actions, many of which are their duty, amounted to gross negligence to a degree that warrants violating a criminal defendant's 6th Amed right to counsel, in defiance of a written letter to her, and without him even being consulted, without him being allowed to be present for this in-chambers meeting (even though he was in the courthouse), and not have him on the record, after a year of his being represented by them, without the required 10-day notice, and not provide counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard
It does seem a bit overkill.
I just think she's backed herself in to a corner ... can she change her mind?
recuse?
or just let them appear as RA's counsel and say "oops my bad last week, nevermind"
We saw papers today, where the P asked her to get rid of the D. And she did.
INDIANAPOLIS — The original defense attorneys in the Delphi murders case, who claim they were forced to step down as Richard Allen’s lawyers, have filed paperwork to represent Allen pro bono …
INDIANAPOLIS — The original defense attorneys in the Delphi murders case, who claim they were forced to step down as Richard Allen’s lawyers, have filed paperwork to represent Allen pro bono …
It is much, much harder to dismiss private attorneys who a defendant has chosen than it is to change court-appointed attorneys. When you're relying on the court to provide (and pay) your lawyers for you, you give up most of the ability to choose who they are.
But if Baldwin & Rozzi are really determined to represent Allen pro bono, and he wants them to, then they become his private attorneys, just as if he was paying them. Dismissing them at that point has major 6th Amendment implications. It would create an absolutely huge and appealable issue IMO. Which doesn't mean Gull won't do it, but it's not at all the same as dismissing them when they were court-appointed attorneys.
pp 9-10 of the brief:
These purported acts of “gross negligence” included:
efforts by the defense to level the playing field with a press release after the prosecution filed multiple releases;
filing motions to protect Allen’s basic human rights— motions that the trial court either granted or that remain pending;
filing the Franks memorandum that the trial court believed contained “improper statements”;
filing a tort claim notice to preserve Allen’s rights to seek redress from conditions and treatment related to his incarceration; and
a third-party’s unauthorized photographing of crime scene evidence, which neither attorney had knowledge of nor participated in.
It's a leap for a judge to summarily state that these actions, many of which are their duty, amounted to gross negligence to a degree that warrants violating a criminal defendant's 6th Amed right to counsel, in defiance of a written letter to her, and without him even being consulted, without him being allowed to be present for this in-chambers meeting (even though he was in the courthouse), and not have him on the record, after a year of his being represented by them, without the required 10-day notice, and not provide counsel notice and an opportunity to be heard
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.