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

[MistyWaters]

No but in their capacity for RA they have to be inquiring as to why his attorneys of choice were withdrawn, no? Somebody has to ask for the reason(s) in all this mess about his attorneys or are the actual reasons going to be pussyfooted around and only contested procedures will be examined? Why doesn't the courts seem to want to go to the heart of this mess? It's like a big run around the root cause of what happened and was the judge correct in her actions?

I think only the sloppy record keeping by the Clerk of the Court, the main issue of the motion, will be addressed. We don’t know if it will be contested by the Judge, maybe it drives her crazy too?

For other uninvolved attorneys to insert themselves on RA’s behalf and expect the Supreme Court to rule on what happened to his attorneys, I‘d expect that infringes on B&R’s right to privacy. If not otherwise, RA was in court today and heard some of the reasons and he’s already been provided with new attorneys so it’s not as if he doesn’t have legal representation. Plus the story has moved on from Oct 19th when the question was ”did Rozzi withdraw or not” to they both were formally dismissed today.

Tomorrow, who knows what’s next…..

 

[sunshineray]

@sunshineray I'll take a crack at answering your question!

The portion of the 6th at the heart of this is the "...to have the assistance of counsel for his defense" portion of the amendment, which we shorthand call the "Assistance of Counsel Clause."

The wording of the amendment in and of itself is really not that informative of the requirements of this clause. It doesn't specifically state what this actually means. Therefore, we have to look at what the courts have said in the past as it pertains to what exactly this is.

There is a long line of caselaw on the 6th: Powell v. Alabama, Gideon v. Wainwright, Brewer v. Williams, among many others. These all deal with the 6th, and through the long line of this caselaw has developed a test that judges use to determine whether the requirements of the Amendment have been met. I normally wouldn't link a wiki article, but this one is actually well enough done: Assistance of Counsel Clause - Wikipedia. It spells out what this test requires:
The assistance of counsel clause includes five distinct rights: the right to counsel of choice, the right to appointed counsel, the right to conflict-free counsel, the effective assistance of counsel, and the right to represent oneself pro se. In order to satisfy the rules propogated by the courts' decisions, all five of these have to be met.

As you can see, several prongs of the test are now at issue: (1) Allen wants his old counsel, so we have a problem with the first element; (2) Judge Gull feels the old counsel is "grossly incompetent," so (a) does this cause counsel to no longer be conflict free; and (b) would allowing them to continue be considered (in)effective assistance; and (3) tangentially, does Gull have the power to appoint counsel without Allen's consent.

What you are asking, to me, most closely follows (2)(a) and (2)(b) above. As far as the answer to these questions, I think Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988) best covers what constitutes conflict free counsel. I think questions regarding effective assistance are best answered in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984). I'm not a Supreme Court justice, so those guys are your best bet to find the probable answer. Sounds like a cop out by me. Don't care! Those guys are smart!

Here's Wheat: Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988)

Here's Strickland: Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984)

Hope this helps!

Thank you very much AugustWest! So yes it would seem whatever the reason(s) JG decided that RA's council was grossly negligent would translate to whether or not they could be considered "conflict-free" and effective...or not.

As far as JG telling RA today that she could not allow him to chose to continue with those two lawyers, even pro bono...are defendants who cannot monitarily provide their own council allowed then to choose council that has been withdrawn by the judge for cause? Why is that then considered to be against his 6th amendment right to choose? If judge has reason(s) and the power to bar him his choice, that's a point of law too, is it not?

Not arguing at all, just trying to understand that part and thanks in advance if you can futher help.

 

[sunshineray]

I still stand by the comment that the original post was incorrect. I'm not sure who wrote up the above but imo it's not on point and/or not being interpreted correctly. There's no conflict in this case. The case cited does not stand for the proposition that an ethical violation (of which there is none on the part of B or R anyway) would be tantamount to a conflict of interest warranting a court to take it upon itself to remove the accused's choice of counsel in the face of his protest that it not.

jmo



#882
The attorneys who filed that are not RA's attorneys and they are not the attorneys for either BR or AB.

jmo

But who the heck are they then? Who hired them and why are they doing it in RA's name? RA's name is on the filing with those three attorneys.
What is the catalyst for those three attorneys to file to the SC? I keep hearing they're nobody's attorneys. and that makes no sense. Did the judge hire them? The prosecutor? The state court?

 

[Emma Peel]

JMO if B&D want the supreme court to review the situation involving the ex-D‘s dismissal, I think the filing is going to have to come directly from both of them or their appointed counsel. This recent SC motion was filed by three civil attorneys reportedly representing RA, who cannot possibly become the spokesperson for his prior attorneys.

JMO

The decision to deny RA his right to his chosen attorneys ...was Gull's.
RA has the standing to bring Gull's decision to a higher court for review.
Any qualified attorney can do this for him, with his consent.
Including a pro-bono civil rights outfit.
There might already be top-notch attys queueing in line at Westerville ready to rep RA on this one.
Gull's gaffes are makin' RA famous.

JHMO

 

[MistyWaters]

The decision to deny RA his right to his chosen attorneys ...was Gull's.
RA has the standing to bring Gull's decision to a higher court for review.
Any qualified attorney can do this for him, with his consent.
Including a pro-bono civil rights outfit.
There might already be top-notch attys queueing in line at Westerville ready to rep RA on this one.
Gull's gaffes are makin' RA famous.

JHMO

Did you read the full account of what transpired in court today according to Fox59? No wonder RA was denied his right to his chosen attorneys by the Judge. By the time the smoke clears they could be barred from practising.

I hope they may get their wish for a hearing…..before the Bar Association.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

How do you know he is 100% innocent of this crime? Are you going by the 'innocent until proven guilty' premise?

When someone is charged with a Capitol crime after Probable Cause is shown, one will often be incarcerated for public safety concerns.

If he is not 100% innocent then he is right where he needs to be. IMO


I don't know if that should be totally his choice. Sometimes a defendant needs to be protected from himself. If the judge sees things that really concern her about the defense teams actions and deficiencies then maybe she feels the responsibility to act upon those concerns?


If Baldwin had refused to withdraw then there would have been a hearing. She would have done the public statement in public court and kicked them off the case and they could have filed for emergency hearing and it would have continued that way.


I think she intended to protect them from a public on camera harsh review of their negligence.

Did you read that 140 page document they put out into the public? They publicly accused by name, various people of being involved in the ritual cult murders. That was disgusting behaviour, imo. It created a clown show. It also devolved into a tragic suicide because of incompetence on Baldwin's part.

Why wouldn't the judge want to pull the plug on their representation?

I did. And what I find interesting is that if she had such major concerns about the lawyers, why didn’t she report them to the Bar? Ethics? She would have done well to have had the actual hearing with notice to all parties to ensure everything was on the books. What we have now is speculation and he said / she said.

No one has been arrested to date for sharing evidence in contravention of the publication ban? Not the original leaker? Not the social media people who stated they had it (did any of them go to police?). Why did murder sheets get the evidence before police were notified?

When did B&R learn of the leak? What was their response? Who did they notify and when? What actions did they take if any?

We don’t know. We have the word of the judge but no hearing. That’s not transparency. That’s not official record. That’s nonsense. Would you put up with waiting another year to go to court if you were innocent?

 

[sunshineray]

Did you read the full account of what transpired in court today according to Fox59? No wonder RA was denied his right to his chosen attorneys by the Judge. By the time the smoke clears they could be barred from practising.

I hope they may get their wish for a hearing…..before the Bar Association.

MistyWaters can you link it please, TIA

 

[photographer4]

That’s a good point, that ridiculous dramatic Frank’s memo was when everything began going off the rails IMO. It would’ve far simpler to stick to business at hand and file alleging an invalid search warrant rather than laying out their entire defense strategy accusing everyone of either incompetence, deception or corruption or all three in a massive coverup of evil Odinists.

I recall when we first heard the names of the appointed defense it was mentioned B successfully had the evidence from another SW thrown out in a different case, so obviously he knows how to go about it.

BBM

What experience do court-appointed lawyers in Delphi murders case bring to the table?

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — After learning this week that the judge in the Delphi murders case appointed two public defenders for suspect Richard Allen, I-Team 8 started looking into the cases that Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi have handled. Richard Allen, 50, was arrested on Oct. 28 and the...

www.wishtv.com

• Baldwin is representing 16-year-old Caden Smith who was charged last year as an adult in a triple murder in Indianapolis. I-Team 8 brought this story as breaking news on Oct. 12, 2021, when the bodies of Michael James, Abdullah Mubarak, and Joseph Thomas were found along a walking path near the 4400 block of South Meridian Street. Smith was arrested in December. Baldwin, convinced the judge that some of the evidence was collected with an invalid search warrant. The judge released Smith from jail with a GPS monitor. The state is appealing the judge’s decision, and a status hearing on the case is set for early next year.

But that has nothing to do with the case against RA.

 

[katydid23]

I hope we see Westerman's affidavit eventually.
If he states in it that Baldwin had no knowledge of the leak, would that still fall under gross negligence on Baldwin's part?

I think it could if Baldwin left the pictures in a vulnerable place where they could be easily taken. In other words, why weren't they locked up in his office since others seemed to have access to his office when he was not present?

 

[AugustWest]

Thank you very much AugustWest! So yes it would seem whatever the reason(s) JG decided that RA's council was grossly negligent would translate to whether or not they could be considered "conflict-free" and effective...or not.

As far as JG telling RA today that she could not allow him to chose to continue with those two lawyers, even pro bono...are defendants who cannot monitarily provide their own council allowed then to choose council that has been withdrawn by the judge for cause? Why is that then considered to be against his 6th amendment right to choose? If judge has reason(s) and the power to bar him his choice, that's a point of law too, is it not?

Not arguing at all, just trying to understand that part and thanks in advance if you can futher help.

You bet and I don't feel like you are arguing at all!

As you can see, I am not verified as a professional here (although I have applied, I goofed and missed an email from Tricia regarding). So I really have to defer to Jurisprudence in this instance. I know I have laid out analysis above; it is hard to turn off the professional and play layman sometimes. Just know that those cases I have mentioned address most of the questions you have.

I will just say now that I don't feel at all this constitutes conflict of interest, and I agree with Jurisprudence on that in full. Regarding the other questions you have, I can't give you a concrete answer; it would be a violation of the rules here. I will say that it is my opinion as a layman reading the law that an effective counsel issue hasn't ripened yet.

I haven't found any caselaw directly on point just yet. I will keep looking. Should I be verified in the future, maybe I'll go back through the analysis and see if a better answer comes.

 

[MistyWaters]

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/professional_responsibility/publications/model_rules_of_professional_conduct/rule_8_4_misconduct/

Rule 8.4

Maintaining The Integrity Of The Profession​

It is professional misconduct for a lawyer to:

(a) violate or attempt to violate the Rules of Professional Conduct, knowingly assist or induce another to do so, or do so through the acts of another;

<>

(c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation;

(d) engage in conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;

<>

 

[sunshineray]

You bet and I don't feel like you are arguing at all!

As you can see, I am not verified as a professional here (although I have applied, I goofed and missed an email from Tricia regarding). So I really have to defer to Jurisprudence in this instance. I know I have laid out analysis above; it is hard to turn off the professional and play layman sometimes. Just know that those cases I have mentioned address most of the questions you have.

I will just say now that I don't feel at all this constitutes conflict of interest, and I agree with Jurisprudence on that in full. Regarding the other questions you have, I can't give you a concrete answer; it would be a violation of the rules here. I will say that it is my opinion as a layman reading the law that an effective counsel issue hasn't ripened yet.

I haven't found any caselaw directly on point just yet. I will keep looking. Should I be verified in the future, maybe I'll go back through the analysis and see if a better answer comes.

Thank you again! It makes me feel a bit better, calmer, that things are not so cut and dry...yet. Hopefully it will get clarity in time.

 

[photographer4]

What I find interesting is that everyone swears that Baldwin must believe in RA's innocence because of the way he is fighting for him, etc.

But in 2021 he fought just as hard for his 16 yr old client, accused of a triple murder. Even got him released with an ankle bracelet. Not long after, police searched his home after he violated probation---and they found weapons, ammo and drugs in his home again.

He had been arrested initially for possession of the automatic weapon which shot and killed 3 people. Baldwin fought hard to have him released on bond and it kind of backfired. He is now back in jail, no bond allowed.

Maybe it is not a belief in innocence that inspires AB to fight for his clients?

A defence attorney. Doing his job. Defending an accused. I see no issue with this. He did what he’s meant to do. Vigorously defended his client. It’s not his responsibility whatever happened as a result of his defence strategy. That may trouble many members but it’s fact. His job is to defend only the client. And to do so regardless of his belief in their guilt or innocence.

 

[Emma Peel]

But who the heck are they then? Who hired them and why are they doing it in RA's name? RA's name is on the filing with those three attorneys.
What is the catalyst for those three attorneys to file to the SC? I keep hearing they're nobody's attorneys. and that makes no sense. Did the judge hire them? The prosecutor? The state cour

Good question.
I'm going to take a WAG:

A writ of mandamus is a legal remedy that can be sought in court to compel a government official or agency to perform a specific duty or take a particular action. It is a form of legal action used to address situations where an official or agency is alleged to have a legal obligation to act but has not done so.

Writ of Mandamus - Legal Dictionary

My understanding is that ... it's RA who has the standing to make this very specific case.
And it is RA that is bringing it on behalf of the PEOPLE of the State of Indiana as it's a matter of the public access to and the integrity of the records of the lower case (in Gull's court).

RA's certainly consented that these 3 appellate lawyers can bring his case.
This is an interlocutory action (appeal), which means, RA is asking for a higher court review of mini-decision in the middle of the longer ongoing lower court case. (interlocutory - basically meaning, a review in the middle of a case)

I'm pretty sure it was arranged, and the attnys selected via Rozzi & Baldwin. We don't know who's paying for it. It could be pro-bono?

*************

 

[Ward Thisperer]

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.

The prosecutors also supported withdrawing the defense. I find it hard to believe the P would want to remove B&R if they thought B&R were providing an incompetent defense. Why would P want to face a better opponent when trying to put the person they believe killed A&L behind bars?

By the time the smoke clears they could be barred from practising.

On what basis?

Someone asked for the document submitted by the attorney for B&R, I attached it here.

Verified Supplementation of the Record.pdf

drive.google.com

Also, correct me if I'm wrong and these are not comparable, but based on the fact that defendants accused of murder have the right to defend themselves if they so choose, despite the fact that it is almost ensuring an incompetent defense, I find it very hard to imagine justification that B&R can be dismissed for providing an incompetent defense despite the protestations of RA himself, when there are less harsh options that can be pursued to get them in line. It isn't up to the judge or the prosecutor how dramatic the D can be in defending their client or what defense will be effective.

 

[MistyWaters]

But that has nothing to do with the case against RA.

It was just an example of a different way to attempt to have a SW tossed instead of a motion for Frank’s Hearing.

 

[katydid23]

I did. And what I find interesting is that if she had such major concerns about the lawyers, why didn’t she report them to the Bar? Ethics? She would have done well to have had the actual hearing with notice to all parties to ensure everything was on the books. What we have now is speculation and he said / she said.

According to the emails between them all, ISP and LE and the DA were quickly investigating the leaks. So the J had no reason to report them for that issue as it was already under investigation.

I think we will have more than 'he said/she said' because there is probably a transcript that has not been released. JMO

There would have been a hearing if AB refused to with draw. The judge seemed to want to side step the public part and just move on quietly.

No one has been arrested to date for sharing evidence in contravention of the publication ban? Not the original leaker? Not the social media people who stated they had it (did any of them go to police?).

Yes, the social media people immediately went to LE and reported it to the DA as well.

No one has been arrested yet but I think it will eventually happen.

Why did murder sheets get the evidence before police were notified?

The police were immediately notified by MS. Who would have notified the police before them? The leaker? The defense team?

When did B&R learn of the leak? What was their response? Who did they notify and when? What actions did they take if any?

ALL of that is made clear in the emails between them and the judge and the DA. I will try and find the link for you. It's floating around here somewhere.

We don’t know.

We do know the answers to all of the above from the emails in the document dump.

We have the word of the judge but no hearing. That’s not transparency. That’s not official record. That’s nonsense. Would you put up with waiting another year to go to court if you were innocent?

If there was sufficient evidence against me to put me in jail, I'd have to wait until trial to clear it all up.

 

[Jade]

If only I had known to watch Court TV instead of all those 8am Crimes lectures!

Poor thing and don't even carry any more weight in the discussions than the rest of us with our opinions!

I respect the Professional Verification by Websleuths.

It honors the achievement and shows value of the professionals time with the status of their posting as authorities.



All imo

 

[MistyWaters]

On what basis?

Specifically alleged lies contained in the motion requesting a Frank’s Hearing

Judge confirms defense attorney dismissals in Delphi double murder case

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The latest hearing in the case against accused killer Richard Allen was due to start at 9 a.m. in the third-floor courtroom of Carroll Circuit Court in Delphi today. Al…

fox59.com

“….list several alleged defense transgressions including two separate leaks of evidence, an aggressive statement arguing their client’s innocence, “lies” in the form of a motion to dismiss the search warrant used to search Allen’s house for incriminating evidence in the fall of last year and espousing a theory that cult worshippers may have played a role in the deaths of the girls….”

 

[photographer4]

According to the emails between them all, ISP and LE and the DA were quickly investigating the leaks. So the J had no reason to report them for that issue as it was already under investigation.

I think we will have more than 'he said/she said' because there is probably a transcript that has not been released. JMO

There would have been a hearing if AB refused to with draw. The judge seemed to want to side step the public part and just move on quietly.

Yes, the social media people immediately went to LE and reported it to the DA as well.

No one has been arrested yet but I think it will eventually happen.



The police were immediately notified by MS. Who would have notified the police before them? The leaker? The defense team?


ALL of that is made clear in the emails between them and the judge and the DA. I will try and find the link for you. It's floating around here somewhere.

We do know the answers to all of the above from the emails in the document dump.


If there was sufficient evidence against me to put me in jail, I'd have to wait until trial to clear it all up.

I’d appreciate seeing emails - sounds like I’ve missed a major doc dump! Thanks. Always love a good discussion. <3