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

[Emma Peel]

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

Agreed.
Gull's move here (last second media invitation to up the withdrawal ante) was very passive aggressive.
So are her emails. MOO

 

[katydid23]

How can a judge deny a defendant pro bono representation?

If the judge has reason to believe the pro bono attorneys had been negligent, irresponsible and unfit to represent the defendant it would be her duty to have them booted. Especially in a double murder case possibly DP case.JMO

 

[MistyWaters]

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.

All things considered, it seems the hearing today proceeded very well.

 

[MistyWaters]

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

Very funny, love his writing style!

 

[zh0r4]

You really think RA's former D's don't have a conflict of interest problem?

JMO

No but I think JG, McLe, and the “new D” do. JMO.

 

[zh0r4]

It is a fact and a matter of record:

>>

Allen first talked to investigators about the case in 2017, when he told a conservation officer he’d been on the trail on the day of the murders. That information resurfaced in October 2022, when investigators took a second look at Allen and interviewed him.

>>

Delphi documents: Richard Allen told wife he killed girls; investigators believe knife used in murders

Where is the audio and transcript?

 

[PrairieWind]

@PrairieWind

Do you have any opinions on what has happened today?

I haven't been paying attention to this case for a while. What has happened?

 

[zh0r4]

I just read the 6th and am having trouble understand which part of the representation clauses would disagree with someone explaining to a defendant that when the judge rules his lawyers have acted with gross negligence, it would not be in his favor to want to continue with them and instead continue with newly appointed council? Is that not making sure a defendant has strong council?

Because there is no official record of gross negligence besides some bullet point list which is not official. The judge can’t just say “coz I said so”. She’s violating due process.

Furthermore, there is more than enough to disqualify her. In the 1970s bias was included. One of the 2 new D have already gone to do news interviews in 2022 favorable to the P about this case.

AJMO

 

[Sillybilly]

If the judge has reason to believe the pro bono attorneys had been negligent, irresponsible and unfit to represent the defendant it would be her duty to have them booted. Especially in a double murder case possibly DP case.JMO

ITA. It is absolutely critical that a defendant has sufficiently qualified representation in a death penalty case and I suspect that is Judge Gull's reason. Regardless of RA's expressed wish to continue with them, there are times when a judge has to even protect a client from his/her own self to ensure they get a fair trial, and also to offset any possible cause for appeal down the road.

 

[AugustWest]

I haven't been paying attention to this case for a while. What has happened?

@PrairieWind

Judge 'obliterated' accused Delphi murderer's rights by kicking lawyers off case: Expert

The judge overseeing the Delphi murders case formally removed the two defense attorneys representing accused murderer Richard Allen for "gross negligence."

lawandcrime.com

 

[M. Kay]

This is what's puzzling to me. He WANTS this circus? So maybe he likes the circus and thinks this helps him? I have to wonder if he's guilty, then this circus likely "helps"

I must have missed reporting that he "likes" or "wants" a circus,
yet do not wonder if he's guilty since he confessed on the phone to his wife more than once during recorded calls from jail. It may appear the legal teams become a three-ring circus?
I agree with other posts about the length of time he is "doing" for a crime not yet judged by jury; delays are overlong before justice is served in our system.

 

[katydid23]

Yes, agreed.
Old D has a lot of confidence in their client's case.
(And some excellent appellate attnys confidently cleared their schedules last week in support of the Old D.)

Maybe they do, but I don't. There is no way that a cult of prison guards killed the girls on a ritual sacrifice that day, and then framed poor ol RA. Forcing him to confess 5 times to his wife, otherwise the guards were going to kill his wife and daughter.

Why didn't any of the witnesses see this cult of prison guards on the bridge that day? Or on the trail? Wouldn't RA have seen them himself and reported them to the CO?

Old D does not have confidence in their client's innocence, IMO----but they do have confidence in their 'case' ----and their case consists of creating chaos, flooding the public with misdirection, pointing the blame to various others, BY NAME, and attacking the police investigation and the DA and the judge.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Agreed but I am sure the judge views them as a boxed set. It is of course possible Rozzi knew nothing about this and had nothing to do with it. But the Judge obviously believes otherwise.

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.

100% agree with all of this. Failure to put any of this on the record in a defended hearing is a shocker.

In my opinion, Rozzi and Baldwin ought to have move to resign with some grace in the circumstances. But if they were not going to do so, then there needed to be a hearing.

I would love to know what Gulls reasons for not holding the hearing are. Protecting the Rozzi and Baldwin surely can't be valid reasons.

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.

Again I agree one set has to go. But to my mind it cannot be the case that disqualified attorneys can simply return pro bono. What if Baldwin had hypothetically deliberately leaked? He can't then sidestep his disqualification?

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe they do, but I don't. There is no way that a cult of prison guards killed the girls on a ritual sacrifice that day, and then framed poor ol RA. Forcing him to confess 5 times to his wife, otherwise the guards were going to kill his wife and daughter.

And yet that is what the bumbling duo submitted in an actual filing

I have some sympathy that the judge simply had had enough of these guys.

If they'd filed a professional Franks memo, focussing on the 2 key issues they raised, they might have had the hearing and booted the warrant and the client could be free by now???

I have a certain amazement for the part of the legal community who sees them as great heroes in this.

 

[justtrish]

I must have missed reporting that he "likes" or "wants" a circus,
yet do not wonder if he's guilty since he confessed on the phone to his wife more than once during recorded calls from jail. It may appear the legal teams become a three-ring circus?
I agree with other posts about the length of time he is "doing" for a crime not yet judged by jury; delays are overlong before justice is served in our system.

The "likes" and "wants" was more my thoughts on what he must think because he wants to keep the lawyers that have created the circus. If it were me, and I was innocent, I'd be thinking get me away from that asap and get me a lawyer that isn't creating so much chaos. I'd want to stick to the facts and prove my innocence. I can only come up with this being okay with him because it's the only way he sees himself getting "off" with committing a double murder.

 

[O.Incandenza]

Agreed but I am sure the judge views them as a boxed set. It is of course possible Rozzi knew nothing about this and had nothing to do with it. But the Judge obviously believes otherwise.



100% agree with all of this. Failure to put any of this on the record in a defended hearing is a shocker.

In my opinion, Rozzi and Baldwin ought to have move to resign with some grace in the circumstances. But if they were not going to do so, then there needed to be a hearing.

I would love to know what Gulls reasons for not holding the hearing are. Protecting the Rozzi and Baldwin surely can't be valid reasons.


Again I agree one set has to go. But to my mind it cannot be the case that disqualified attorneys can simply return pro bono. What if Baldwin had hypothetically deliberately leaked? He can't then sidestep his disqualification?

They weren't ever technically disqualified were they? The judge's order on the docket says that they withdrew (though it's not at all clear to me that Rozzi ever actually withdrew). I'm not sure what would stop a lawyer who voluntarily withdrew from reappearing as pro bono counsel if that's what the defendant wanted. Admittedly I've never seen anything like this situation.

 

[katydid23]

I haven't been paying attention to this case for a while. What has happened?

Where can we start? The state Supreme Court is about to review matters---specifically whether to remove the defense team as judge demanded or to recuse the judge amidst a vicious battle between them all with accusations of malfeasance and blocking the defendants constitutionals rights...to put it in a nutshell

 

[mrjitty]

Honestly if you file a franks memorandum where you accuse other people of the murder and say the prison guards are in on it, together with 1000s of pages of irrelevant supporting content, can you complain when the Judge doesn't hold your hearing yet?

She should have chewed them out for that and made them file it properly without the 100 pages of wild conspiracy theories.

 

[mrjitty]

They weren't ever technically disqualified were they? The judge's order on the docket says that they withdrew (though it's not at all clear to me that Rozzi ever actually withdrew). I'm not sure what would stop a lawyer who voluntarily withdrew from reappearing as pro bono counsel if that's what the defendant wanted. Admittedly I've never seen anything like this situation.

I agree on this as well. IMO Gull's order of the 19th removing counsel is invalid at least in respect of Rozzi.

All parties seem to agree that only Baldwin had in fact withdrawn on that day.

In short this is a hot mess.

 

[PrairieWind]

@PrairieWind

Judge 'obliterated' accused Delphi murderer's rights by kicking lawyers off case: Expert

The judge overseeing the Delphi murders case formally removed the two defense attorneys representing accused murderer Richard Allen for "gross negligence."

lawandcrime.com

Good Grief! I'm not sure what is going on here. I had heard about the leak, but not much after that. Certainly this is something that needs to get sorted out quickly. Who does RA want as his attorneys? I can't imagine an attorney taking a murder trial pro bono. And I am sure the victims' families are not happy about any of this either. Now another year (at least) before trial.