IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #170

[photographer4]

New filings

10/31/2023

Document Filed VERIFIED SUPPLEMENTATION OF THE RECORD Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/31/2023

10/31/2023

Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed WITHDRAWAL OF LIMITED APPEARANCE Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/31/2023

Wait, what the heck is that now and what does it mean?

 

[Jurisprudence]

No, I hadn’t noticed that she gave a reason for the disqualification either.

But I’d expect a conflict of interest arises when attorneys offer to defend someone probono even if they’re aware of doing so isn’t in the defendant’s best interest.

That's not a conflict. In the Turner case that was cited, the attorney was a potential witness. Similar to the problem Murdaugh judge Newman may face in the resolution of the Becky Hill issue. In Wheat there was an issue of multiple prosecutions and co-conspirators who would require cross examination. An attorney representing A and B can't call his client A to the stand to testify against his client B (or cross exam) and be ethically said to be looking after the best interest of each client as s/he pits one against another.

 

[Jurisprudence]

A client having a potential malpractice claim against their own lawyer is a conflict of interest. Based on what we have heard about the allegations thus far...I think there is chance that RA may have a potential malpractice claim.

JMO

If they didn't do all they have done they'd be ineffective. Doing what they have done, they have been stellar. Invested. This is what the families need. They need him to have proper representation so they do not live with this until the end of time.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Well iirc RA once again recently confirmed he was indigent so that doesn’t give the court the right to toss him out into the cold (figuratively) especially since the court claims his pro bono attorneys previously committed gross negligence when they were being paid to defend him.

Somebody’s got to look out for him or perhaps D&G are going to have to backtrack on allegations of mental issues. But then there’s the five confessions. JMO

R &B have actually been the only people looking out for him. This will be the argument (and it's pretty well documented by them)

 

[Emma Peel]

Wait, what the heck is that now and what does it mean?

This is the 2nd one today, so I'm guessing it's B & R noticing their withdrawal as attnys of record. (Reversing last night's filings where they announced as attnys of record.)
MOO

 

[MistyWaters]

That's not a conflict. In the Turner case that was cited, the attorney was a potential witness. Similar to the problem Murdaugh judge Newman may face in the resolution of the Becky Hill issue. In Wheat there was an issue of multiple prosecutions and co-conspirators who would require cross examination. An attorney representing A and B can't call his client A to the stand to testify against his client B (or cross exam) and be ethically said to be looking after the best interest of each client as s/he pits one against another.

Okay if it isn’t considered a conflict that still doesn’t make it right, incompetent or negligent come to mind.

 

[photographer4]

Hennessy spoke today even though iirc B&D denied he represented them. I wonder why they didn’t they say anything at all defend themselves today? Might it be because they don’t want the public to know the issues involved in the “gross negligence”? We’ll see what happens next. Maybe Hennessy will step up and argue ‘the Constitution’ on their behalf?

Accused Delphi killer gets new attorneys; motions to block removal pending

Suspected Delphi killer Richard Allen has new court-appointed attorneys over his objection, for the time being.

www.jconline.com

“….David Hennessy, an attorney representing Baldwin, asked to address the court about the order to remove the Baldwin and Rozzi, who were now private counsel, not public defenders.

The court appears to be saying it's protecting Mr. Allen, but the court's finding of gross negligence is arbitrary," Hennessy said.

Hennessy argued that had Baldwin and Rozzi been given advance notice about the nature of the Oct. 19 hearing in Fort Wayne, they would have been prepared to rebut Gull's claims of gross negligence and provide a defense against being removed.

"Your summary ruling violates the Constitution," Hennessy said.…”

I agree with Hennessey here. Her ruling was arbitrary. She could argue it was not had there been a hearing etc, but without that, it was exactly that. Arbitrary. No judge should be without checks and balances such as a hearing in a case so important as this!

 

[photographer4]

A constitutional right to counsel and a fair trial exists for all Americans, not just those who are indigent. His right to choose his own counsel is being usurped by a judge who is supposed to be the neutral party here. <modsnip: No link to support such an allegation>

jmo

I think this Judge is just out of line! <modsnip: Quoted post was modsnipped>

 

[Emma Peel]

Who do you think the Judge has the perception of bias towards? She appointed new attorneys for RA and cleared his crew up by stating she couldn’t allow the ex-D to represent him so he can have a fair trial. I suppose the ex-D could say she’s biased towards them but order in the court is her responsibility, plus we’ve probably seen the last of them. I can’t think she’s shown any bias towards the P, they’ve stayed away from the drama.

Whether the Judge stays or goes doesn’t matter to me. I just hope for no future unnecessary delays.
JMO

Heck, I'd settle for order on the docket, and order in the court process. First things first.
Gull is looooong way from order in her court. She's a mess. IMO.

Sorry if that sounded harsh. I've started eating the candy. The lil' goblins better show up soon if they want any of this stuff.

 

[MistyWaters]

I agree with Hennessey here. Her ruling was arbitrary. She could argue it was not had there been a hearing etc, but without that, it was exactly that. Arbitrary. No judge should be without checks and balances such as a hearing in a case so important as this!

But the missing link is that we don’t know whether or not the judge has the authority to dismiss attorneys under certain conditions including ‘gross negligence’. It’s possible she’s done her due diligence and that’s all that’s necessary for her to do, in order to protect the rights of the defendant. It’s not as if a courtroom is expected to comply with labour laws or checks and balances such as employee relations in a workplace environment.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

But the missing link is that we don’t know whether or not the judge has the authority to dismiss attorneys under certain conditions including ‘gross negligence’. It’s possible she’s done her due diligence and that’s all that’s necessary in order to protect the rights of the defendant. It’s not as if a courtroom is expected to comply with labour laws or checks and balances such as employee relations in a workplace environment.

JMO

And that is the problem - we don't have proof of gross negligence. We did not have a hearing to lay out what the issues were. She issued a judgement against the former counsel based on what exactly? Her ruling was by appearances, arbitrary.

 

[Ravenmoon]

I'm mad that a man who has YET to be found guilty at all will now continue to rot in prison for another year. If YOU were RA - AND you were 100% innocent, would YOU be ok with hearing JG say, "I'm sorry this has happened" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...80be80c-781b-11ee-97dd-7a173b1bd730_story.html) as she sets your new trial date a full YEAR down the road when you have already waited a FULL year?

I don't care where he is housed - he could be on house arrest for all I care, or in a hospital. The fact is, his freedom has been taken from him for a year, and he must now wait another YEAR before he possibly has his day in court? That is not even almost a speedy trial. That's ridiculous and we SHOULD be outraged - especially if the state fails to prove their case against him.

I see NO reason why this trial needed to be set for a year from now vs 6 months from now (which would still be an outrage, but an understandable one). And I believe at this point, Justice Gull is covering her own legal behind more than she is looking out for RA or his rights.

But doesn't that apply to ALL that wait for trial?
It isn't exclusive to RA and from all that I have seen 1 to 3 years is pretty standard.

Since he has new representation, hopefully more competent representation, I would think that it would be to his advantage for them to have the proper amount of time to be prepared.


JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

I'll disagree with one thing here. What exactly are the grounds for removing Rozzi? None of the leaks originated from his office. He's not part of Baldwin's firm. They're not partners. Their offices are hours apart. They're just court appointed co-counsel.

Maybe it exists, but it's not readily apparent to me. Which is why the rest of your points are so important. If grounds really exist for removing Rozzi as counsel and barring him from representing Allen pro bono, they need to be documented extensively on the record in a hearing with due process. According to the US Supreme Court, denial of counsel of choice is by itself grounds for a new trial regardless of how effectively his new court-appointed attorneys represent him. So going forward without resolving this issue really jeopardizes any eventual verdict that is reached.

Also, just to clarify point #4, if Baldwin & Rozzi were allowed to represent Allen pro bono, then the court appointed attorneys would be dismissed since he would now have private counsel. There wouldn't be two teams of lawyers representing him.

Structural error. We may be passed the point of him getting handed an appeal or conviction set aside. Today she might have handed him an acquittal.
jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

And that is the problem - we don't have proof of gross negligence. We did not have a hearing to lay out what the issues were. She issued a judgement against the former counsel based on what exactly? Her ruling was by appearances, arbitrary.

Yes but it’s not up to us to decide if they committed gross negligence, public opinion isn’t the authority of the courtroom. The ex-D have the right to elevate the dismissal if they chose to do so.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Yes it appears any bias is being viewed by their counterparts as if D&B have been somehow wronged. But I think one of 2 things will happen that will settle it - the ex-D will take it to a higher court, hoping to have the Judge recused in retaliation; or they just go quietly away, nothing more is said because B&D want to avoid the public shaming of the reasons they were dismissed and by the time the trial occurs this current kerfuffle will only be a distant memory.

JMO

Moo, from a legal standpoint "B&D want[ed] to avoid the public shaming..." in open court bc they knew the risk that Gull's "reading" of her prepared statement without notice and opportunity to be heard on national television the one and only day she authorized cameras to be there, would have been imputed to him (RA), and could have wrongfully convicted their client before any trial takes place. That's why they did it if I had to speculate. It's not that they have something to hide. As we can see from their filings, they've put it all out there with no attempt to hide the facts. They did what they did faced with that impossible choice so they could protect RA.

jmo

 

[Ravenmoon]

@PrairieWind

Do you have any opinions on what has happened today?

 

[twall]

Trial for Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen pushed back to October 2024

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. – An evidence leak, legal filings and the removal of the original court-appointed defense team spelled another delay in the Delphi murder case. Attorneys for Richard Allen file…

fox59.com

https://www.facebook.com/russ.mcquaid/posts/10223199208149036

 

[Jurisprudence]

Wait, what the heck is that now and what does it mean?

I guess she didn't let them speak much. Hennessy filed a sworn supplement to the record that if they had been permitted they would have introduced a, b, c, and d as evidence. This part is most interesting

"4. There would also be testimony that an unnecessary continuance forced by a judge would not be in the best interests of the Accused.
5. There would also be testimony that a person that has never practiced criminal defense is not competent to judge the effectiveness and necessities and quality of criminal defense representation; nor what representation is in the best interests of an Accused."
jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

<snipped for reply>
It's not that they have something to hide. As we can see from their filings, they've put it all out there with no attempt to hide the facts. They did what they did faced with that impossible choice so they could protect RA.

jmo

We don’t know anything from their filings except their side of the story. I know one thing, I sure wouldn’t want such wimpy attorneys representing me if that’s the ‘public shaming’ by the judge which they were so fearful of on Oct19th hearing. Nor do I buy that they’re protecting RA or they would’ve have wasted an entire year already.

JMO

 

[Jurisprudence]

We don’t know anything from their filings except their side of the story. I know one thing, I sure wouldn’t want such wimpy attorneys representing me if that’s the ‘public shaming’ by the judge which they were so fearful of on Oct19th hearing. Nor do I buy that they’re protecting RA or they would’ve have wasted an entire year already.

JMO

I think there's a disconnect here between what I'm trying to convey and how you're interpreting it so let's leave it.