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

[Jurisprudence]

It's 6:50 pm
Scremin, Baldwin, Lebrato and Rozzi are still listed on mycase as RA's attys.
The filings by Rozzi on Oct. 25 and 26 are also still listed.

I think she started to put docs back on the docket after the S Ct filing. It seemed like the docket grew when I looked at it yesterday. I think the brief to the Indiana S Ct has screenshots of what it looked like at the time of their filing. It would be interesting to compare.

jmo

 

[pseudo_hum]

I don't think there's much in his appearance. I think he just got bored of eating paper. I mean, I know food in prison is bad, but it's got to be better than A4 Reflex.

MOO

High fiber diets; kinda dry going in - not bad coming out...

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm not sure if they would have been able to make an application to recoup court costs and filing fees or both of those plus expert witness and investigator fees. That certainly seems like it would be the proper and just thing to do. I'm not sure what Indiana law says about this. In the event they were not able to at least recoup those costs and fees they would have been forced to write them off. So they would potentially be in a very deep financial hole. All of these things when taken together lead me to believe that they must truly believe in his innocence, or at least in the fact that the investigation was not followed through to completion. If you think about how huge this trial is, doing this pro bono and taking up so much of their time would have surely impacted their respective law practices in a negative way. They would have to cease retaining new clients in order to work for RA for free. There are many things that have occurred in the past month which now give me great pause with the way this case has been handled. Too much does not add up. I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent. We don't know because we haven't seen all of the evidence. But I am saying that for all involved, including the public at large, we want the right person to be held accountable.

jmo

IMO it’s quite obvious by admitting they’d already withdrew from the case, the ex-D did not expect to work for RA pro bono beyond the hearing yesterday. It was pure and simple grandstanding, nothing else. JMO

 

[TL4S]

I'm not sure if they would have been able to make an application to recoup court costs and filing fees or both of those plus expert witness and investigator fees. That certainly seems like it would be the proper and just thing to do. I'm not sure what Indiana law says about this. In the event they were not able to at least recoup those costs and fees they would have been forced to write them off. So they would potentially be in a very deep financial hole. All of these things when taken together lead me to believe that they must truly believe in his innocence, or at least in the fact that the investigation was not followed through to completion. If you think about how huge this trial is, doing this pro bono and taking up so much of their time would have surely impacted their respective law practices in a negative way. They would have to cease retaining new clients in order to work for RA for free. There are many things that have occurred in the past month which now give me great pause with the way this case has been handled. Too much does not add up. I'm not saying he is guilty or innocent. We don't know because we haven't seen all of the evidence. But I am saying that for all involved, including the public at large, we want the right person to be held accountable.

jmo

I appreciate this post @Jurisprudence. I've been milling this around in my mind since the 19th, that AB and BR seem to be in this for more reasons than just becoming famous, or just because they are jerks. JMO. I think it is reasonable to consider that they believe he is innocent, and/or the rules are not being followed by the other side.

Some of their filings come across as distasteful to a lot of folks (POW, Odinist, etc), and I totally get that (and agree). But I felt like BM from Defense Diaries made a valid point yesterday when he pointed to the fact that at the Oct. 19th hearing, the P had along several members of ISP and other witnesses to testify in regards to the leak, but because JG had not given the D any kind of list of items that would be covered at the hearing, they had no way to prepare with witnesses on their own behalf (I'm not counting H). They likely knew the hearing would revolve around the leak, of course, but that isn't the same as a court record of what would be going on at the hearing. That record, asfaik, does not exist, thus their argument of being "ambushed." RA's guilt/innocence is irrelevant at this point, IMO. I know I'll get put in my place here for saying all of that, but as I've said before, listening to the views of both prosecutors and defense attorneys has me stuck squarely in the middle.

Defense Diaries also said we haven't heard the last from AB and BR, so we shall see...

 

[scapa]

Defense attorney Shay Hughes weighs in; this is just a small portion of his post.

https://x.com/publicdefender_/status/1719483462732685456?s=20

As it relates to the removal of counsel…The Indiana Supreme Court has stated a “trial court is limited in its authority to remove a criminal defendant's court-appointed counsel.” State ex rel. Jones v. Knox Superior Court No. 1, 728 NE2d 133 (Ind. 2000). However, parameters of this authority haven’t really been analyzed.
...
As I mentioned in the post below, I’m not aware of any authority that gives Judge Gull the power to remove counsel based on the facts presented (and they don’t appear to be in dispute). #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders

Interesting -- thanks.

I can't really follow the logic here, though that has been true of this case for a long time now.

We have seen some absolute nutters represent themselves in some very high-profile trials. We have seen knowledgeable judges lecture and caution those defendants about the significant risks of this step and assign advisors -- have we seen a case in which a judge denies this right, however much it might seem to NOT be in the best interests of said defendant?

It would seem to follow then that a judge who believes that a counsel is representing a client poorly, even with "gross negligence," might be very specific in open court with her reservations about them and the degree to which they might impede and even actively harm a case, providing the defendant with a difficult choice, but this falls short of ordering them removed from the case.

I have no particular opinion about B and R, though I was bewildered by the F motion and appalled by the seeming evidence breach. Still, that breach might and should have been handled by the court in-house, without the public fallout all but guaranteed by the revelations of podcasters, YTers, commentators, etc.

At this point, I'd argue that the case itself should be sequestered off from the media circus surrounding it, if at all possible. That likely means new venue, new judge, new counsel, and a strict timeline for discovery and trial prep.

I also wonder how much the various sealings and secrecy about the case going back years has helped to stoke the fires of media interest and exasperation. Perhaps greater transparency -- exlucing of course sensitive materials like CS photos, etc -- makes this a less "live" option for those who might exploit it for profit or out of a conviction that the events need some sunlight.

If this case proceeds as is, whoever the D counsel are, I worry that it will be forever tainted by the last few months. Who is likely to believe now that justice will have been done with ex-counsel and their defenders, interested parties, transparency advocates and maybe the conspiracist fringe casting doubt on every ruling, all the way along?

 

[FrostedGlass]

I think she started to put docs back on the docket after the S Ct filing. It seemed like the docket grew when I looked at it yesterday. I think the brief to the Indiana S Ct has screenshots of what it looked like at the time of their filing. It would be interesting to compare.

jmo

I started to do that this morning and didn't get very far; maybe to Dec.. What I did compare was the same.

What I'd really like to do is go through all the filings and link the PDF's from JG's doc dump to their dates on mycase CCS.

It was a really good thing they did to bring that mess up in the SC filing. I had some crazed fantasy that there was a chance she would enter them into the mycase CCS and make the entry clickable.

 

[Emma Peel]

They keep reporting wrong information.

"Allen's new defense attorneys have asked the Indiana State Supreme Court to reinstate important documents from the original defense team that the judge ordered to be removed from the record, the news outlet reported."

An initial outlet referred to those attorneys as RA's attorneys and every other outlet seems to be picking it up on the wire and repeating it as gospel without checking it. The attorneys who filed the writ to the Indiana Supreme Court do not represent RA and this is patently clear from the face of the document itself. They don't even need to be attorneys to see this yet they keep repeating it. What else are they reporting wrong? I don't understand. It certainly shakes confidence in the press.

jmo

I suppose this type of filing (writ of mandamus) is a new one for the press ... a simple call to a consulting lawyer for the press would have fixed the confusion. I wonder how many defense attorneys the paper thinks RA has?

Would the attorneys filing the writ did need any consent from RA to make this filing?

Any ideas how the appellate attnys put together the brief and exhibits w/o working w/ RA's counsel? How did they get the Gull/P/D emails re the Leak, for example?

Gull's DQ of RA's chosen private lawyers has gained her a great deal of time to get this docket's records under compliance and to deal with the SC appeal ... so at least there's that.

 

[MistyWaters]

I think she started to put docs back on the docket after the S Ct filing. It seemed like the docket grew when I looked at it yesterday. I think the brief to the Indiana S Ct has screenshots of what it looked like at the time of their filing. It would be interesting to compare.

jmo

I don’t think a comparison is possible because all the references in the filing are to the court’s official records known as CCS (Chronological Case Summary - note all the quoted “record numbers”) which is not exactly mirrored on mycase, especially the sealed docs. The judge doesn’t personally manage docket entries as that’s the responsibility of the Clerk of the Court.

https://www.in.gov/courts/iocs/files/pubs-trial-court-court-ccs-entries-rjo.pdf

 

[Emma Peel]

@Jurisprudence
Hi Jurisprudence,
I see you on the thread ... I'm quoting an earlier Question I had this am, and hoping you might have time to weigh in. Thank you!

Because there was no hearing for D's Disqualification, we don't know exactly the Court's investigation/fact-finding that led to the Court's "findings" of gross negligence.

But it's become apparent via the submissions and narrative to the Supreme Court, Exhibit I therein, and in media reporting that the Prosecution was deeply involved in whatever process the Court used to determine those findings.

Question: Are there any conflicts with the Trial Prosecution counsel being tasked by the Trial Court to coordinate the investigation into that Prosecution counsel's trial adversary (the D) in the process laid out in the email chain:
- P charged by Court to be LE intermediary between the Court and LE investigation of the Leak,
- P then invited by Court to make recommendations to the Court wrt disqualifying the P
- P again invited to provide Court counsel with regard to denying RA his chosen private counsel?

 

[Jurisprudence]

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?

From 882, revised for clarity and correct court from appellate division to Indiana Supreme Court:

The attorneys who filed this are representing the people in a way (including us and our access to records) and the state (for violations of statutes by JG). They are doing it/captioning it in his name because it is his case docket and Judge Gull's tampering with it that is at issue. They aren't speaking to the merits of RA's case in any way, or to the issue of Rozzi and Baldwin's removal except to explain how and when this started. The exhibits are replete with RA, Baldwin and Rozzi references and docs bc primarily it is their information which is being stricken. They are speaking solely to a violation of state law by the Judge in the way she is removing things from the docket, moving other documents out of order (detaching them from docs they correspond with), and keeping still other documents she doesn't like hidden from the public without any formal order sealing them or stating the reason(s) why she hiding them from the public.

The attorneys are bringing to the attn of the state Sup Ct that the Judge, by taking it upon herself to mess with the docket and the CCS (chronological case summary), is not only preventing public access but in the process she's also destroying the defendant's record for appeal (a complete record is needed for appeal). They are asking the court to hear them and order this stopped and fixed. They would normally need to make this ask to Gull first. But Gull has refused to accept filings so they tell the court they realize they skipped this step but please find an exception to hear us because she's not acknowledging filings and this is a matter of great public importance.

jmo

ETA: Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

 

[MistyWaters]

I started to do that this morning and didn't get very far; maybe to Dec.. What I did compare was the same.

What I'd really like to do is go through all the filings and link the PDF's from JG's doc dump to their dates on mycase CCS.

It was a really good thing they did to bring that mess up in the SC filing. I had some crazed fantasy that there was a chance she would enter them into the mycase CCS and make the entry clickable.

Clickable documents would be really great, eliminating reliance on MSM to release them.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Interesting -- thanks.

I can't really follow the logic here, though that has been true of this case for a long time now.

We have seen some absolute nutters represent themselves in some very high-profile trials. We have seen knowledgeable judges lecture and caution those defendants about the significant risks of this step and assign advisors -- have we seen a case in which a judge denies this right, however much it might seem to NOT be in the best interests of said defendant?

It would seem to follow then that a judge who believes that a counsel is representing a client poorly, even with "gross negligence," might be very specific in open court with her reservations about them and the degree to which they might impede and even actively harm a case, providing the defendant with a difficult choice, but this falls short of ordering them removed from the case.

I have no particular opinion about B and R, though I was bewildered by the F motion and appalled by the seeming evidence breach. Still, that breach might and should have been handled by the court in-house, without the public fallout all but guaranteed by the revelations of podcasters, YTers, commentators, etc.

At this point, I'd argue that the case itself should be sequestered off from the media circus surrounding it, if at all possible. That likely means new venue, new judge, new counsel, and a strict timeline for discovery and trial prep.

I also wonder how much the various sealings and secrecy about the case going back years has helped to stoke the fires of media interest and exasperation. Perhaps greater transparency -- exlucing of course sensitive materials like CS photos, etc -- makes this a less "live" option for those who might exploit it for profit or out of a conviction that the events need some sunlight.

If this case proceeds as is, whoever the D counsel are, I worry that it will be forever tainted by the last few months. Who is likely to believe now that justice will have been done with ex-counsel and their defenders, interested parties, transparency advocates and maybe the conspiracist fringe casting doubt on every ruling, all the way along?

Nice post, thanks.
MOO:
The issues with this case began long before these last few months. They go back to the beginning, which we have listed a number of times. There are things that are just off and some folks can hand-wave them away but some cannot.

Really, we knew almost nothing about this case until the D tried to bring the issues out in the open. They had a strange way of doing it. The hated memorandum has much to consider that we have not seen.

At this point, I am adamantly opposed to any more secrecy; there has been way, way too much. Each time something goes on behind closed doors, I become more suspicious. I don't think I'm alone in this.

 

[MistyWaters]

<snipped to reply>They are speaking solely to a violation of state law by the Judge in the way she is removing things from the docket, moving other documents out of order (detaching them from docs they correspond with), and keeping still other documents she doesn't like hidden from the public without any formal order sealing them or stating the reason(s) why she hiding them from the public.

The attorneys are bringing to the attn of the state Sup Ct that the Judge, by taking it upon herself to mess with the docket and the CCS (chronological case summary), is not only preventing public access but in the process she's also destroying the defendant's record for appeal (a complete record is needed for appeal). They are asking the court to hear them and order this stopped and fixed. They would normally need to make this ask to Gull first. But Gull has refused to accept filings so they tell the court they realize they skipped this step but please find an exception to hear us because she's not acknowledging filings and this is a matter of great public importance.

jmo

What page is the accusations of the Judge ’tampering’ and destroying the defendant‘s record for appeal?

Invalid Document Link - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Jurisprudence]

If it was recorded in chambers it is on the record. It's just not been released publically.

We know this from Brad Rozzi's praecipe. He is the one who alerted us to the fact that this was audio recorded when he asked for it. She ignored that filing and removed it from the record. I think it will come out. Under public records request any of us should be able to obtain it but it has to be made part of the record in order for it to even be found so take from that what you will. The audio may prove pivotal. You can't get tone from a written transcript but audio may prove to shed a completely different light on what occurred in there.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

IMO it’s quite obvious by admitting they’d already withdrew from the case, the ex-D did not expect to work for RA pro bono beyond the hearing yesterday. It was pure and simple grandstanding, nothing else. JMO

Interesting post.

 

[Emma Peel]

Interesting -- thanks.

I can't really follow the logic here, though that has been true of this case for a long time now.

We have seen some absolute nutters represent themselves in some very high-profile trials. We have seen knowledgeable judges lecture and caution those defendants about the significant risks of this step and assign advisors -- have we seen a case in which a judge denies this right, however much it might seem to NOT be in the best interests of said defendant?

It would seem to follow then that a judge who believes that a counsel is representing a client poorly, even with "gross negligence," might be very specific in open court with her reservations about them and the degree to which they might impede and even actively harm a case, providing the defendant with a difficult choice, but this falls short of ordering them removed from the case.

I have no particular opinion about B and R, though I was bewildered by the F motion and appalled by the seeming evidence breach. Still, that breach might and should have been handled by the court in-house, without the public fallout all but guaranteed by the revelations of podcasters, YTers, commentators, etc.

At this point, I'd argue that the case itself should be sequestered off from the media circus surrounding it, if at all possible. That likely means new venue, new judge, new counsel, and a strict timeline for discovery and trial prep.

I also wonder how much the various sealings and secrecy about the case going back years has helped to stoke the fires of media interest and exasperation. Perhaps greater transparency -- exlucing of course sensitive materials like CS photos, etc -- makes this a less "live" option for those who might exploit it for profit or out of a conviction that the events need some sunlight.

If this case proceeds as is, whoever the D counsel are, I worry that it will be forever tainted by the last few months. Who is likely to believe now that justice will have been done with ex-counsel and their defenders, interested parties, transparency advocates and maybe the conspiracist fringe casting doubt on every ruling, all the way along?

I really appreciate your taking time to share these thoughts; I agree with your views.

If LE could summarize their 5 (?) years of investigation lines and their professional conclusions (redacted as appropriate), perhaps the Defense (and social media) would have had less room to speculate.

What's preventing such a reconciliation? Active investigations? Or Ego?

Whatever it is, it's literally the Defense's job to mine it for reasonable doubt.

JMHO.

 

[Emma Peel]

IMO it’s quite obvious by admitting they’d already withdrew from the case, the ex-D did not expect to work for RA pro bono beyond the hearing yesterday. It was pure and simple grandstanding, nothing else. JMO

grandstanding ... or ... creation of a public record?

 

[Jurisprudence]

I appreciate this post @Jurisprudence. I've been milling this around in my mind since the 19th, that AB and BR seem to be in this for more reasons than just becoming famous, or just because they are jerks. JMO. I think it is reasonable to consider that they believe he is innocent, and/or the rules are not being followed by the other side.

Some of their filings come across as distasteful to a lot of folks (POW, Odinist, etc), and I totally get that (and agree). But I felt like BM from Defense Diaries made a valid point yesterday when he pointed to the fact that at the Oct. 19th hearing, the P had along several members of ISP and other witnesses to testify in regards to the leak, but because JG had not given the D any kind of list of items that would be covered at the hearing, they had no way to prepare with witnesses on their own behalf (I'm not counting H). They likely knew the hearing would revolve around the leak, of course, but that isn't the same as a court record of what would be going on at the hearing. That record, asfaik, does not exist, thus their argument of being "ambushed." RA's guilt/innocence is irrelevant at this point, IMO. I know I'll get put in my place here for saying all of that, but as I've said before, listening to the views of both prosecutors and defense attorneys has me stuck squarely in the middle.

Defense Diaries also said we haven't heard the last from AB and BR, so we shall see...

I agree with this (all of it) but like you and BM, it's only my opinion too. The BBM part above is spot on imo. They had no notice or opportunity to be heard. Them getting rumblings that the prosecution wanted them off and the judge seemed unhappy is irrelevant actually, because there was no motion made by the state and there was no notice for hearing to the defense. So, whatever they expected to occur on the 19th doesn't matter because what actually did happen was not supposed to happen. It is not permitted by law. So, even assuming they knew it would be coming to this, they did not expect it to occur on the spot because by law, it shouldn't have. And, RA was not even present. I was wondering what if anything they would do now after yesterday. But then David Hennessy made the supplemental record filing (again, to preserve the record of no notice or opportunity to be heard a second time now), and that is a big indication that it's probably not over.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Just a little trivia: I usually don't post the automated notices; this one is interesting because JL's is different from the others. There have only been 2 automated paper notices; all the rest have been ENotices. The other one is to the Carroll Co. Sheriff's Dept. on 11/04/2022.

11/01/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 10/31/2023 : James David Luttrull
11/01/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Received from the Indiana Supreme Court ---- 10/31/2023 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato

Interesting that they are noticing Baldwin and Rossi.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Absolutely, there's much more to this story than this poor little Defense team would have us believe.

[sbm]

This post captures perfectly why there should have been a hearing.
jmo