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

[FrostedGlass]

Looks like the clerk didn't follow the order?
Do you see an order not to follow the previous order? Or a reversal?

When she didn't remove them last week when JG ordered, I wondered if someone in Carroll Co. said maybe we better wait? There are no orders about following the previous one or a reversal.

I'm watching to see if Allen’s September 18, 2023 Franks Memorandum get's added back in.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I don't know exactly how public accessibility works. I know some the sealed ones no longer show up on mycase CCS; but I don't know if all of those that show up on mycase are available to the public. I've been assuming they are but now I'm wondering if they look like they are public but are really sealed.

 

[Emma Peel]

Although deadly serious business, as a bit of a legal junkie, i had to laugh at all the internet lawyers who felt Rozzi was playing 9 dimensional chess, only to get strung up by Gull after some increasingly meek submissions (according to MS)

I take more seriously than others the allegation that the defence were wildly irresponsible in the drafting of their Franks memo. For instance, only last week Rozzi claims in writing he never agreed to resign from the case, yet in oral arguments yesterday, he agreed with Gull that he had in fact agreed to withdraw in chambers but as it was unfair he was now trying to do Backsies.

Whatever the procedural flaws, IMO you cannot do that as counsel.

It's beyond to obvious to me that the Odinist stuff is a wild conspiracy, and if you actually had a strong franks case, which would almost certainly collapse the trial, why the hell would you be publishing 100 pages of fan fic?

So yeah - not a fan.

Happy you're amused!
Yup I'm still thinking that Rozzi returned to lay a record down in Gull's court and to have a written Gull decision to appeal. So ... more in store? We'll see.

 

[Emma Peel]

Agreed but it feels unconstitutional to me.

That buck stops w/ the Court.

Certainly, the Court's deliberative calculus for "gross negligence" sanctions vs. disqualification vs. actually MANAGING the officers of her Court (like refusing bad memos, providing guidance, demanding they be redrafted) ... must have included the variables of letting RA rot in prison as Libby's and Abby's families hopes are dashed for yet another year. Right?

Of course, we don't actually know her deliberative calculus, or if, RA's attorneys would have asserted for his rights to a trial as soon as possible b/c ...

she refused them a hearing.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Happy you're amused!
Yup I'm still thinking that Rozzi returned to lay a record down in Gull's court and to have a written Gull decision to appeal. So ... more in store? We'll see.

I'm surprised about some of the things I am hearing on here about MS. Isn't at least one of them a lawyer? You would think they would have caught on quickly to the reasons BR, and subsequently AB, made the filings he (they) made. They are creating a record and protecting RA's record for appeal. They should know this. It's pretty alarming if they couldn't connect those dots.
jmo

 

[Emma Peel]

I'm surprised about some of the things I am hearing on here about MS. Isn't at least one of them a lawyer? You would think they would have caught on quickly to the reasons BR, and subsequently AB, made the filings he (they) made. They are creating a record and protecting RA's record for appeal. They should know this. It's pretty alarming if they couldn't connect those dots.
jmo

They're not litigators.

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm surprised about some of the things I am hearing on here about MS. Isn't at least one of them a lawyer? You would think they would have caught on quickly to the reasons BR, and subsequently AB, made the filings he (they) made. They are creating a record and protecting RA's record for appeal. They should know this. It's pretty alarming if they couldn't connect those dots.
jmo

If the ex-Ds are that concerned about RA being convicted in a trial that’s a year or maybe more away, things can’t be looking too good for him.

 

[Emma Peel]

If the ex-Ds are that concerned about RA being convicted in a trial that’s a year or maybe more away, things can’t be looking too good for him.

Just essential housekeeping for a trial litigator; a basic responsibility rather than predictive.

 

[MistyWaters]

Just essential housekeeping for a trial litigator; a basic responsibility rather than predictive.

This case is starting to feel like it’s being played as a game. Call it Distortion.

Remind me where it’s says RA has been provided a trial litigator, and why?

 

[Jurisprudence]

Just essential housekeeping for a trial litigator; a basic responsibility rather than predictive.

Agree. It has nothing to do with whether there will be a conviction. Additionally, those filings were made under the previous trial date, lol so it would be impossible to be in relation to any later scheduled Fall 2024 date.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

Wow, this is interesting. This local attorney says the Supreme Court has a lot of leeway and they could reinstate them as attys of record if they want. Typically there would need to be a filing for this and AB and BR would have to find some form of standing to make the filing. I don't know if part of what he said was cut off by the news broadcast and they would still need to make that filing or not, but if not, this just got a lot more interesting.

jmo

 

[mrjitty]

I'm surprised about some of the things I am hearing on here about MS. Isn't at least one of them a lawyer? You would think they would have caught on quickly to the reasons BR, and subsequently AB, made the filings he (they) made. They are creating a record and protecting RA's record for appeal. They should know this. It's pretty alarming if they couldn't connect those dots.
jmo

They were well aware of that stuff

I only mentioned them because they noted Rozzi's deflated demeanour

 

[Emma Peel]

Wow, this is interesting. This local attorney says the Supreme Court has a lot of leeway and they could reinstate them as attys of record if they want. Typically there would need to be a filing for this and AB and BR would have to find some form of standing to make the filing. I don't know if part of what he said was cut off by the news broadcast and they would still need to make that filing or not, but if not, this just got a lot more interesting.

jmo

It is interesting.
And that is the chess I'm talkin' about.

Also @FrostedGlass showed us the SC docket today and how Old D's and New D's were all noticed.

 

[Emma Peel]

This case is starting to feel like it’s being played as a game. Call it Distortion.

Remind me where it’s says RA has been provided a trial litigator, and why?

the 4 criminal defense team attorneys New D and Old D are each criminal trial litigators here.
(in US lingo court system - litigator = lawyer that reps during actual court trials (civil or criminal). and i'm just saying that b/c I've noticed you spell defense with a "c". (which is nice!)

P.S. Can't we call it chess?

 

[MistyWaters]

the 4 criminal defense team attorneys New D and Old D are each criminal trial litigators here.
(in US lingo court system - litigator = lawyer that reps during actual court trials (civil or criminal). and i'm just saying that b/c I've noticed you spell defense with a "c". (which is nice!)

None of the old or new D’s filed the Supreme court “essential housekeeping” motion so how do you know it’s filed for any other purpose other what’s stated?

Yes defence is how we spell it in Canada although sometime I intentionally cause my spellchecker to object to defense.

 

[MistyWaters]

11/01/2023

Order Granting Order granting withdrawal of counsel Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Noticed: McLeland, Nicholas Charles Noticed: Baldwin, Andrew Joseph Noticed: Rozzi, Bradley Anthony Noticed: Scremin, Robert Cliff Noticed: Lebrato, William Santino Noticed: Luttrull, James David JR Order Signed: 11/01/2023

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Emma Peel]

None of the old or new D’s filed the Supreme court “essential housekeeping” motion so how do you know it’s filed for any other purpose other what’s stated?

Yes defence is how we spell it in Canada although sometime I intentionally cause my spellchecker to object to defense.

I'm sorry ... it's your spellchecker that writes your posts and objects to defense? jk jk jk

I think we're talking about a couple of different topics. (They're a little bit related.)

"Essential Housekeeping", as I meant it - was for Gull's Record. It was about Rozzi returning to Gull's court (w/ Hennessey etc) to get certain things on the record there (in Gull's Court) with regard to his and Baldwin's termination and her refusal to let RA have the private counsel of his choice.

As for the Supreme Court action, several days ago when that filing in SC showed up, it looked/felt to me by the extremely in-depth and descriptive papers submitted that they were creating a record in the lower court to bring to the Supreme Court - and that the papers left the door open for further motions with the SC with regard to Gull tossing the D without due process. At this point the Supreme Court has not been sent in papers the events of Tuesday when RA was denied his pro-bono attorneys as well.

It was and it is still is just a hunch. I know nothing, actually.

I'll edit to add:
If there is no record of evidence or papers or an order or DECISION in the record of the lower court, the or DECISION cannot be brought for review to a higher court. (So ... when we saw the Rozzi filing fury last week it looked like he was getting his withdrawal objections on the record as well a motion for Gull to recuse on the record. She did not bite on either motion; she BLOCKED them by ordering the clerk to remove them as "filing errors".)

all jhmo

 

[MistyWaters]

I'm sorry ... it's your spellchecker that writes your posts and objects to defense? jk jk jk

I think we're talking about a couple of different topics. (They're a little bit related.)

"Essential Housekeeping", as I meant it - was for Gull's Record. It was about Rozzi returning to Gull's court (w/ Hennessey etc) to get certain things on the record there (in Gull's Court) with regard to his and Baldwin's termination and her refusal to let RA have the private counsel of his choice.

As for the Supreme Court action, several days ago when that filing in SC showed up, it looked/felt to me by the extremely in-depth and descriptive papers submitted that they were creating a record in the Supreme Court that left the door open for further motions with the SC with regard to Gull tossing the D without due process. At this point the Supreme Court has not been sent in papers the events of Tuesday when RA was denied his pro-bono attorneys as well.

It was and it is still is just a hunch. I know nothing, actually.

Yes you got it lol!

But if the recent Order Granting is what I think it’s about, it’s on record that the old D withdrew indicating they weren’t tossed without due process.

Did someone forget to ask if the judge plays chess?

 

[sunshineray]

The filings that JG is accused of disappearing are these:
Pg 220 Those pleadings include: Franks motion filed 9/18/23, Franks memorandum filed 9/18/23, three affidavits (Warden Galipeau, sgt Jones, sgt Robinson) filed 10/10/23 and the affidavit of the leaker, Mitch Westerman.
Record of Proceedings.pdf

The ones that JG ordered to be removed from the record are still there. Unless there were more on that specific date that she removed, these are the ones I believe she was referring to:

10/26/2023	Notice to Court Filed Verified Notice of Continuing Representation Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/25/2023
10/26/2023	Motion Filed Motion to Disqualify Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/25/2023
10/26/2023	Praecipe for Transcript Filed Praecipe for Transcript Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/25/2023
10/26/2023	Motion for Continuance Filed Motion for Continuance Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/26/2023

Well I understand that the Franks motion never should have been released because of the gag order? Sealing it then makes perfect sense to me. It included many many things that were part of discovery and considered confidential.

Those three affidavits...two are specific to things discussed in the Franks motion and discuss the defense's theory and people, who are not charged, were being publically accused and harrassed (the 5 men named as possible alternative murderers) because of the release. The other affidavit is from an ongoing ISP investigation into the release of two minor's crime scene death photos being into the public realm...also at the moment confidential material.

These files haven't disappeared, they're under seal at this time because of what they contain. The defense was attempting to try the case in the public's eye before it got to trial. Don't the victim's also deserve to have their case's integrity protected by the courts?

It's to RA's benefit that his proceedings judge protects his rights to representation as well. "Gross negligence" is a serious judgement. It was, I must believe until shown otherwise, pronounced to make sure the defendant had competent council.
AJMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Yes you got it lol!

But if the recent Order Granting is what I think it’s about, it’s on record that the old D withdrew indicating they weren’t tossed without due process.

Did someone forget to ask if the judge plays chess?

Well sure. She doesn't have a choice.

Remember Gull to Rozzi: "So what's happened in the last 12 days"?

adding: I got that quote from MS (as many have). MS gave a Tuesday report, play by play, and Aine described a 2 minute stare down w/ Rozzi at the Defense table w/ RA, and then Gull said "so what's happened ..." Aine made it sound quite dramatic. Said Gull was like steel. Rozzi a bit rattled.

mmm hmm. Gull knew what happened. She was sitting on the notice from the Supreme Court.

JMHO