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

[sunshineray]

Agreed but it feels unconstitutional to me.

It's definitely extreme for him. He was going to trial in a few months, now it's reset for almost a year. I'm sure it was devastating. It's also devastating to the families of Libby and Abby who have been and are in an emotional prison.

 

[Batgirl 2.0]

IMO there is now a significant issue, that through no fault of his own, the accused has to spend an extra year in jail awaiting trial. That feels Kafka to me

I hope his new attorneys act on that point.

Just curious what you would suggest?

 

[katydid23]

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?

We have not seen a case though, where a negligent attorney allowed a series of death photos of young girls to be leaked to a couple of you tube channels. And said circumstances triggered the tragic suicide of a young father.

So this judge felt that the circumstances required her to make a decision to shut this out of control situation down. It was not a normal, routine situation.

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.

The judge does have a record of very specific events which were grossly negligent or she would have never made this bold ruling. JMO

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.

But whose fault is it that there is public fallout due to social media and the media circus. I am going to lay it at the feet of B and R. They knew exactly what they were doing. It was all orchestrated by them.

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.

The dealings and secrecy was because of the jarring, shocking crime scene and wanting to protect the ongoing case and
the surviving family members. If the DT didn't file that shocking misleading info there wouldn't have been such a crazy backlash. JMO

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?

 

[MistyWaters]

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

Who doesn’t have a choice is B & G. The recorded pretrial meeting is the proof they withdrew. End of “didn’t withdraw, we’re staying on, RA wants us”, end of allegations the Judge wrongfully dismissed them without a hearing - they withdrew. End of!

JMO

 

[Emma Peel]

Wienekelo is the law firm bringing the Alan case to the Supreme Court

"[O]ften the most important decision a defendant makes in shaping his defense is the selection of an attorney. In situations where a defendant is able to retain counsel privately, 'the choice of counsel rests in HIS hands, not in the hands of the State.'"

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719834314462908871?s=20

"Although not an absolute right, the right to counsel of one's choice is not one with which courts should be eager to interfere . . . ." Latta v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1121, 1131 (Ind. 2001).

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719767436432412711?s=20

The error is "structural," meaning it affects the entire trial proceeding. And the violation occurs at the moment a defendant's choice of counsel is wrongfully denied. Id.

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719847661669355827?s=20

"Deprivation of the right [to counsel of one's choice] is 'complete' when the defendant is erroneously prevented from being represented by the lawyer he wants, regardless of the quality of the representation he received." U.S. v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140 (2006).

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719846880085991667?s=20


wthr.com/delphi

 

[MistyWaters]

Wienekelo is the law firm bringing the Alan case to the Supreme Court


https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719834314462908871?s=20



https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719767436432412711?s=20



https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719847661669355827?s=20

https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719846880085991667?s=20


wthr.com/delphi

This law firm wants the SC to force gross negligent attorneys on RA? I say good luck with that.

 

[sunshineray]

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

I believe her actually words were, "You withdrew. What's changed"? It was desrcribed that way by another reporter in the courtroom.

"Today in Delphi, the attorneys told the court they wanted back on the job.

“You withdrew,” said the judge. “What’s changed?”

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…

www.google.com

 

[Emma Peel]

based on the SC attny's twitter, it does appear that they are repping RA via his Old D's behest. MOO
https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719328031263564072?s=20

 

[Emma Peel]

This law firm wants the SC to force gross negligent attorneys on RA? I say good luck with that.

Structural error is the holy grail of standards of review.
i.e. the Supreme Court, should they be asked to review Gull's decision on RA's OLD D, will be obliged to immediately review it. moo

 

[sunshineray]

based on the SC attny's twitter, it does appear that they are repping RA via his Old D's behest. MOO
https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719328031263564072?s=20

Well that mystery is solved.

 

[Emma Peel]

I believe her actually words were, "You withdrew. What's changed"? It was desrcribed that way by another reporter in the courtroom.

"Today in Delphi, the attorneys told the court they wanted back on the job.

“You withdrew,” said the judge. “What’s changed?”

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…

www.google.com

Thanks!
Since they had no cameras ... we take what we can get from those in the room.

 

[sunshineray]

Wienekelo is the law firm bringing the Alan case to the Supreme Court


https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719834314462908871?s=20



https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719767436432412711?s=20



https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719847661669355827?s=20




https://x.com/Wienekelo/status/1719846880085991667?s=20


wthr.com/delphi

Key words there, IMO , "wrongfully denied". It will all come out in the wash, in the SC. Will be interesting how long they will take to give a ruling after Nov 9th. Are they known to be expeditious?

 

[Emma Peel]

Key words there, IMO , "wrongfully denied". It will all come out in the wash, in the SC. Will be interesting how long they will take to give a ruling after Nov 9th. Are they known to be expeditious?

I have no experience with such things, but ... they chose to take the original petition filing up (could have denied it) in 4 hours. So I imagine their decision will not be delayed.

I'm not sure if more stuff will be submitted b/c the original filing did not include the October 31 decision of Gull to deny the pro-bono.

jhmo

 

[Emma Peel]

This law firm wants the SC to force gross negligent attorneys on RA? I say good luck with that.

IMO the law firm wants process reviewed so that moving forward, the trial is not at risk of having the verdict tossed. If the Gull process was adequate, no problem.

Denying defendant their chosen counsel, or removing the counsel of their choice with no due process ... creates a structural problem for the case. (i.e If you build your case on top of a structural problem it will collapse upon review.)

 

[sunshineray]

IMO the law firm wants process reviewed so that moving forward, the trial is not at risk of having the verdict tossed. If the Gull process was adequate, no problem.

Denying defendant their chosen counsel, or removing the counsel of their choice with no due process ... creates a structural problem for the case. (i.e If you build your case on top of a structural problem it will collapse upon review.)

They could also find that the structure was sound...and rule the attorneys both verbally withdrew in the judge's chambers and hold then to their word. I do hope the SC can get to the root of all this mess, be it whatever outcome. Gotta put faith in the highest court to weed away the theatrics from the lawfully sound bottom line. Wishing good luck and prayers they can get this settled and back on track soon.

 

[FrostedGlass]

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

It's my understanding that the gag order has nothing to do with the Franks motion. The gag order refers to extra-judicial statements. See pg 44 in the link.

I'd have to dig through a bunch of filings to show you the rules of sealing documents or you can look them up. We do have them and we need to be sure those rules are followed. Do you have any idea of how long records can be sealed and what it sometimes takes to get them unsealed?

After months of reading peoples' feelings about RA sitting in prison, it's good to suddenly see a little concern about his constitutional rights as an innocent man in the eyes of the law until proven guilty.

I have great concern for the girls' families, now and in the future.

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[FrostedGlass]

I've been wondering if The Innocence Project is following this case, for the oddities, if nothing else. Here they weigh in on tool mark analysis. This is from Dec, 2022
(Snips)
Tania Brief, a senior staff attorney with The Innocence Project, is talking about a type of commonly used forensic examination accepted by law enforcement and courts for decades: tool mark analysis.
...
To understand how such a match is determined, we talked with Chris Monturo who has 26 years of experience and a forensic consulting and testing company in the Cincinnati area.
... Monturo responded that he’s “absolutely confident” because of his training and experience.

(more at the link)

Linking of Richard Allen’s gun to Delphi crime scene ‘not science’ says The Innocence Project

The Innocence Project is pressing on against tool mark evidence, claiming it’s “not settled science.”

fox59.com

 

[gremlin444]

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

Yes, Kevin of MS is an attorney. And yes, in their recent episodes, he/they have definitely mentioned those reasons.

 

[Justice101]

Who doesn’t have a choice is B & G. The recorded pretrial meeting is the proof they withdrew. End of “didn’t withdraw, we’re staying on, RA wants us”, end of allegations the Judge wrongfully dismissed them without a hearing - they withdrew. End of!

JMO

Ding, ding, ding.

It was decided at the time... no time for second thoughts.

IMO, Judge is just moving the case on after the decisions were made

 

[FrostedGlass]

New entries. It's a guess as which this granting refers to.
I'm getting a bit lost now; I thought the representation issue was settled at the hearing on the Oct 19th according to JG.

11/02/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/1/2023 : Andrew Joseph Baldwin;Bradley Anthony Rozzi;Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato
11/02/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/1/2023 : James David Luttrull

It was probably in relation to this:

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