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

[sunshineray]

RA's new lawyer commented on the case

Allen County’s chief public defender says his office is prepared to take on Delphi killings case

Allen County Chief Public Defender William “Billy” Lebrato doesn’t believe the trial will impact the daily work of the department.

www.wane.com

bbm. So one of his new lawyers had previously commented on the strength of the evidence against him and the other comes out to basically outright say he believes in RA's guilt.

Isn't this against the gag order?

12/02/2022

Order Issued The Court issues an order granting the State's Motion for Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Members from Disseminating Information or Releasing Any Extra-Judicial Statements by Means of Public Communication in whole, pending hearing which the Court has scheduled for January 13, 2023 at 10:00 am in the Carroll Circuit Court. Violations of this Order are punishable as Contempt of Court and subject the violator to a fine and/or incarceration. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 12/02/2022

01/23/2023

Order Issued Court now grants in whole the State's Motion for Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Members from Disseminating Information or Releasing any Extra-Judicial Statements by Means of Public Communication. Court takes Defendant's Supplemental Motion for Discovery and Request for Rule 404 and 405 Evidence under advisement. Court acknowledges the Defendant's Motion for Change of Venue and agrees a jury could not be obtained in Carroll County. Pursuant to I.C. 35-36-6-11, a jury will be selected from another county and transported to Carroll County for trial. Counsel to notify the Court within a week if they can agree to a specific county. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 01/13/2023

Bbm - is it not an extra judicial statement via public communication to speak to the press about how this is simply an uncomplicated brutal double homicide?

Wow so not a DP or a LWOP case? Are these two child murders not being charged as aggravated murder and also abductions? Why would LWOP be off the table?

L needs to marshall his words some, IMO...it's "only a double murder"? Was that really necessary to say? And although he called it a "double murder" he then goes on to talk about it in the singular.

 

[Batgirl 2.0]

I'd think the case against MW would be cut and dry. With B or R I suppose if they could prove negligence they might have a case?

Just would genuinely like to understand your perspective and how any case against MW would be cut and dry when AB provided access to the leaked material which was his responsibility (AB’s) to protect? The negligence lies with AB, IMO.

 

[sunshineray]

Just would genuinely like to understand your perspective and how any case against MW would be cut and dry when AB provided access to the leaked material which was his responsibility (AB’s) to protect? The negligence lies with AB, IMO.

Because he's the one who allegedly stole and then divulged the photos, IMO. It all though depends on the findings in the ISP investigation into the matter.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Is there a copy of Brad Rozzi's Praecipe for Transcript, Richard Allen on here? I'm seeing conflicting information about there being possible audio in addition to the transcript. If anyone knows and can point me to it I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks!

 

[Batgirl 2.0]

Because he's the one who allegedly stole and then divulged the photos, IMO. It all though depends on the findings in the ISP investigation into the matter.

Agree. We don’t know the specifics and are biased by our own perspectives and experiences. Hopefully, the truth will come to light.

 

[zh0r4]

Is there a copy of Brad Rozzi's Praecipe for Transcript, Richard Allen on here? I'm seeing conflicting information about there being possible audio in addition to the transcript. If anyone knows and can point me to it I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks!

PRAECIPE FOR TRANSCRIPT
Attorney Rozzi, filed 10/25/2023
Allen Praecipepdf.pdf

PRAECIPE
Attorney Hennessy, filed 10/27/2023
Adobe Acrobat

 

[girlhasnoname]

Is there a copy of Brad Rozzi's Praecipe for Transcript, Richard Allen on here? I'm seeing conflicting information about there being possible audio in addition to the transcript. If anyone knows and can point me to it I'd very much appreciate it. Thanks!

Yes, there was audio as well as transcript. Not surprising to me given the scope and nature of the hearing. Maybe that will alleviate some of the rampart feelings of the 'in chambers secret meeting with no records'.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Just would genuinely like to understand your perspective and how any case against MW would be cut and dry when AB provided access to the leaked material which was his responsibility (AB’s) to protect? The negligence lies with AB, IMO.

I believe the responsibility of the leaked CS photos and other info. comes from the top down. MW was no longer an employee of AB, he isn't even a licensed attorney. What was doing with access to such highly delicate and sensitive information?

I know AB states MW procured the info. by stealing it from his office unknowingly. I don't believe anything AB says personally. I expect charges brought against MW if he did in fact do as AB has suggested, it will be curious to see.

It's technically distribution of CSAM and a punishable offense by law. Maybe that's why we saw a suicide by another person who passed on the images? I find it also curious that in the email chain, it referred to "Andy you have to have my back, protect me" <paraphrasing>. Gross misconduct by the Defense is an understatement and Judge G was right in removing them from the case. How could they ever have been trusted going forward?

JMO

 

[girlhasnoname]

What am I missing?

Why would these lawyers be using Yahoo email accounts and Facebook Messenger to discuss these highly sensitive matters?

Don’t they have secure proper email accounts?

Did they use these “other” means to hide what they were doing?

I’m so done on this.

Because these D lawyers were unprofessional and skirted the line of ethical behavior over and over again.

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Re: one of Judge Gull’s lawyers, Attorney Matthew Gutwein.

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein resigns under pressure (2020)

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein resigns under pressure

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein's resignation follows IndyStar nursing home investigation and mounting deaths at HHC long-term care facilities

www.indystar.com

Announcing New Partner, Matt Gutwein

Announcing New Partner, Matt Gutwein | Delaney & Delaney LLC

www.delaneylaw.net

I'm not sure why this is "one of Judge Gull's lawyers"? He was charged with diverting COVID funds, but before that he was praised as very successful lawyer with a good reputation. What in the world is going on in IN's legal system?

<snipped>
Gutwein studied economics and then law at Indiana University. He worked in California and Washington, D.C., before returning to Indiana. He served as chief legal counsel to Bayh and as a deputy under then-Attorney General Pam Cater. During his time in the AG's office, Gutwein successfully represented the state in thwarting appeals of boxer Mike Tyson's rape conviction.

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein resigns under pressure

MOO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm not sure why this is "one of Judge Gull's lawyers"? He was charged with diverting COVID funds, but before that he was praised as very successful lawyer with a good reputation. What in the world is going on in IN's legal system?

<snipped>
Gutwein studied economics and then law at Indiana University. He worked in California and Washington, D.C., before returning to Indiana. He served as chief legal counsel to Bayh and as a deputy under then-Attorney General Pam Cater. During his time in the AG's office, Gutwein successfully represented the state in thwarting appeals of boxer Mike Tyson's rape conviction.

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein resigns under pressure

MOO

It was a little more than COVID funds... when Indystar digs, they dig deep. I suppose JG is entitled to the attys of her choice, though.
[Snips]
The scrutiny began in March after IndyStar reported that HHC had diverted more than $1 billion in Medicaid funds away from its nursing homes during Gutwein's tenure, using the money on other projects instead, including the crowning achievement of Gutwein's career, the $754 million Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital in Indianapolis.

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein resigns under pressure

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein's resignation follows IndyStar nursing home investigation and mounting deaths at HHC long-term care facilities

www.indystar.com

Link to the secret report mentioned in the above link

5 were prosecuted in American Senior Communities fraud. A secret report accuses 20 more.

A secret document claims 25 people stole $35 million from government nursing homes. Only 5 are prosecuted and $15.5 million recovered.

www.indystar.com

k

 

[girlhasnoname]

It was a little more than COVID funds... when Indystar digs, they dig deep. I suppose JG is entitled to the attys of her choice, though.
[Snips]
The scrutiny began in March after IndyStar reported that HHC had diverted more than $1 billion in Medicaid funds away from its nursing homes during Gutwein's tenure, using the money on other projects instead, including the crowning achievement of Gutwein's career, the $754 million Sidney & Lois Eskenazi Hospital in Indianapolis.

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein resigns under pressure

HHC leader Matthew Gutwein's resignation follows IndyStar nursing home investigation and mounting deaths at HHC long-term care facilities

www.indystar.com

Link to the secret report mentioned in the above link

5 were prosecuted in American Senior Communities fraud. A secret report accuses 20 more.

A secret document claims 25 people stole $35 million from government nursing homes. Only 5 are prosecuted and $15.5 million recovered.

www.indystar.com

k

I'm completely confused as to who Gutwein is representing here or how he is the attorney of JG's choice? Help....

It could be totally me and I've missed something posted, I wasn't on much yesterday.

JMO

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm completely confused as to who Gutwein is representing here or how he is the attorney of JG's choice? Help....

It could be totally me and I've missed something posted, I wasn't on much yesterday.

JMO

It's connected to the Supreme Court case. Here is a copy/paste of the motion. The part I put in red is relevant to your question. She names Gutwein and Stake at the end.
23S-OR-00302

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPONDTO PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
The Honorable Frances C. Gull, by counsel, respectfully moves the Court for an extensionof five business days to respond to the Relator’s Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition.In support of this Motion, Respondent states:1. Respondent is a Special Judge appointed to the pending Carroll Circuit Courtmatter, State v. Richard Allen.2. The Relator’s Petition was filed October 30, 2023, and served by electronic methodto Respondent on the same date.3. On October 30, 2023, the Court issued an Order setting a briefing schedule in whichall Briefs opposing the issuance of a writ must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court byNovember 9, 2023.
4. The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has declined to represent Respondent in this matter, causing Respondent to need to engage counsel.
5. On November 2, 2023, Respondent asked the undersigned counsel to represent her in this matter. Respondent’s engagement of the undersigned counsel was finalized on November3, 2023.
6. Due to the time required for Respondent to engage counsel to represent her,Respondent’s brief in opposition to Relator’s Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition isdue in four business days.7. Respondent’s counsel requires additional time of five business days to respondadequately to the issues presented in Relator’s Petition.8. Counsel for Relator does not oppose this request for an extension of time to respondto Relator’s Petition.9. Respondent respectfully moves that this Court grant Respondent an additional fivebusiness days, up to and including November 16, 2023, to respond to the Petition for Writs ofMandamus and Prohibition.

Verification
I declare under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing representations are true.Dated: November 3, 2023 By: /s/ Frances C. GullFrances C. Gull, Special JudgeRespectfully submitted,/s/ Matthew R. Gutwein Matthew R. Gutwein (#16414-49)Christopher S. Stake (#27356-53)DELANEY & DELANEY LLC3646 N. Washington Blvd.Indianapolis, IN 46205Tel: (317) [email protected]@delaneylaw.netAttorneys for Respondent, Frances C. Gull

 

[girlhasnoname]

It's connected to the Supreme Court case. Here is a copy/paste of the motion. The part I put in red is relevant to your question. She names Gutwein and Stake at the end.
23S-OR-00302

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO RESPONDTO PETITION FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION
The Honorable Frances C. Gull, by counsel, respectfully moves the Court for an extensionof five business days to respond to the Relator’s Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition.In support of this Motion, Respondent states:1. Respondent is a Special Judge appointed to the pending Carroll Circuit Courtmatter, State v. Richard Allen.2. The Relator’s Petition was filed October 30, 2023, and served by electronic methodto Respondent on the same date.3. On October 30, 2023, the Court issued an Order setting a briefing schedule in whichall Briefs opposing the issuance of a writ must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court byNovember 9, 2023.
4. The Office of the Indiana Attorney General has declined to represent Respondent in this matter, causing Respondent to need to engage counsel.
5. On November 2, 2023, Respondent asked the undersigned counsel to represent her in this matter. Respondent’s engagement of the undersigned counsel was finalized on November3, 2023.
6. Due to the time required for Respondent to engage counsel to represent her,Respondent’s brief in opposition to Relator’s Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition isdue in four business days.7. Respondent’s counsel requires additional time of five business days to respondadequately to the issues presented in Relator’s Petition.8. Counsel for Relator does not oppose this request for an extension of time to respondto Relator’s Petition.9. Respondent respectfully moves that this Court grant Respondent an additional fivebusiness days, up to and including November 16, 2023, to respond to the Petition for Writs ofMandamus and Prohibition.

Verification
I declare under the penalties for perjury that the foregoing representations are true.Dated: November 3, 2023 By: /s/ Frances C. GullFrances C. Gull, Special JudgeRespectfully submitted,/s/ Matthew R. Gutwein Matthew R. Gutwein (#16414-49)Christopher S. Stake (#27356-53)DELANEY & DELANEY LLC3646 N. Washington Blvd.Indianapolis, IN 46205Tel: (317) [email protected]@delaneylaw.netAttorneys for Respondent, Frances C. Gull

Thank you so much Frosted, I could not make the connection until now. Need more coffee obvs.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Thank you so much Frosted, I could not make the connection until now. Need more coffee obvs.

Here's the Supreme Court case from the beginning. I don't usually included all of those "served" notices because they are a nuisance to scroll through. With this case, I think all the details are important.

Note: for whatever reason, the blue links won't open as posted. They do work if you use the mycase link and case number I posted.

State of Indiana ex rel. Richard M. Allen v. Carroll Circuit Court, et al.​

Case Number	23S-OR-00302
Court	Supreme Court
Type	OR - Original Actions
Filed	10/30/2023
Status	10/30/2023 , Pending (active)
Reference	Case cross references Original County Cause Number 08C012210MR1
Related	Lower Trial Court Case 08C01-2210-MR-000001

Parties to the Case​

Show all party details

	Respondent	Carroll Circuit Court
	Relator	Allen, Richard M.
	Respondent	Gull, Frances M. Cutino
	Relator	State of Indiana

Chronological Case Summary​

10/30/2023	Petition for Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition(Original Action) Certificate of Service-Electronic 10/30/23 Attorney: Smith, Margaret Lee Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Cook, Jessie A. Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Brief - Relator Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23 Attorney: Smith, Margaret Lee Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Cook, Jessie A. Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Record of Proceedings (Original Action) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23 Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 10/30/23 Permanent Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition PostmarkDate: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Original Action Documents Transmitted
10/30/2023	Order Issued Any briefs opposing issuance of the writ or any supplemental records must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, November 9, 2023. Any supplemental record must be submitted in the same format required for the record under Original Action Rule 3(C) and (G). Once briefing is completed, the Court will take the matter under advisement. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Gull, Frances M. Cutino Serve: Smith, Margaret Lee Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Cook, Jessie A. Serve: Trial Clerk 02 - Allen Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Supreme Court Public Information Officer File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Document Transmitted
11/03/2023	Appearance Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/03/23 Attorney: Stake, Christopher S. Attorney: Gutwein, Matthew R Party: Gull, Frances M. Cutino File Stamp: 11/03/2023
11/03/2023	Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writs of Mandamus & Prohibition Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/03/23 Attorney: Stake, Christopher S. Attorney: Gutwein, Matthew R Party: Gull, Frances M. Cutino File Stamp: 11/03/2023
11/03/2023	Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS Respondents' "Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition." Any briefs opposing issuance of the writ or any supplemental records must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, November 16, 2023. Any supplemental record must be submitted in the same format required for the record under Original Action Rule 3(C) and (G). Once briefing is completed, the Court will take the matter under advisement. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Party: Carroll Circuit Court Party: Gull, Frances M. Cutino Serve: Smith, Margaret Lee Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Cook, Jessie A. Serve: Trial Clerk 02 - Allen Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Supreme Court Public Information Officer Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R File Stamp: 11/03/2023
11/03/2023	Document Transmitted

 

[girlhasnoname]

Here's the Supreme Court case from the beginning. I don't usually included all of those "served" notices because they are a nuisance to scroll through. With this case, I think all the details are important.

Note: for whatever reason, the blue links won't open as posted. They do work if you use the mycase link and case number I posted.

State of Indiana ex rel. Richard M. Allen v. Carroll Circuit Court, et al.​

Case Number	23S-OR-00302
Court	Supreme Court
Type	OR - Original Actions
Filed	10/30/2023
Status	10/30/2023 , Pending (active)
Reference	Case cross references Original County Cause Number 08C012210MR1
Related	Lower Trial Court Case 08C01-2210-MR-000001

Parties to the Case​

Show all party details

	Respondent	Carroll Circuit Court
	Relator	Allen, Richard M.
	Respondent	Gull, Frances M. Cutino
	Relator	State of Indiana

Chronological Case Summary​

10/30/2023	Petition for Writ of Mandamus & Prohibition(Original Action) Certificate of Service-Electronic 10/30/23 Attorney: Smith, Margaret Lee Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Cook, Jessie A. Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Brief - Relator Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23 Attorney: Smith, Margaret Lee Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Cook, Jessie A. Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Record of Proceedings (Original Action) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 10/30/23 Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 10/30/23 Permanent Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition PostmarkDate: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Original Action Documents Transmitted
10/30/2023	Order Issued Any briefs opposing issuance of the writ or any supplemental records must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, November 9, 2023. Any supplemental record must be submitted in the same format required for the record under Original Action Rule 3(C) and (G). Once briefing is completed, the Court will take the matter under advisement. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Gull, Frances M. Cutino Serve: Smith, Margaret Lee Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Cook, Jessie A. Serve: Trial Clerk 02 - Allen Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Supreme Court Public Information Officer File Stamp: 10/30/2023
10/30/2023	Document Transmitted
11/03/2023	Appearance Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/03/23 Attorney: Stake, Christopher S. Attorney: Gutwein, Matthew R Party: Gull, Frances M. Cutino File Stamp: 11/03/2023
11/03/2023	Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writs of Mandamus & Prohibition Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/03/23 Attorney: Stake, Christopher S. Attorney: Gutwein, Matthew R Party: Gull, Frances M. Cutino File Stamp: 11/03/2023
11/03/2023	Order Granting Motion for Extension of Time Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS Respondents' "Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Petition for Writs of Mandamus and Prohibition." Any briefs opposing issuance of the writ or any supplemental records must be filed directly with the Clerk of the Supreme Court on or before Thursday, November 16, 2023. Any supplemental record must be submitted in the same format required for the record under Original Action Rule 3(C) and (G). Once briefing is completed, the Court will take the matter under advisement. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Party: Carroll Circuit Court Party: Gull, Frances M. Cutino Serve: Smith, Margaret Lee Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Cook, Jessie A. Serve: Trial Clerk 02 - Allen Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Supreme Court Public Information Officer Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R File Stamp: 11/03/2023
11/03/2023	Document Transmitted

Thanks TL, it's like lawyer whack-a-mole these days.

 

[iamshadow21]

Thanks TL, it's like lawyer whack-a-mole these days.

Called it.

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

Are we still playing chess? Old D can file an emergency appeal, methinks. And ... they can file to have Gull DQ'd. moo I just can’t see the Ex-D staying even if Gull is disqualified. If that happens I think they all go and new D stay.

www.websleuths.com

 

[Emma Peel]

Dave Bangert was a reporter for the Journal & Courier for a good number of years. You can see his byline in many articles. He retired and now continues his work in Based in LaFayette, Indiana.

He attended the last hearing and did a nice write-up about the proceedings. He also took a picture of RA being escorted down the stairs at the courthouse. The picture is included in the article.

I was pretty surprised to see RA with long shoestrings in his white shoes. I hope his keepers remembered to take them away from him when he got back to prison...him being on suicide watch and all.

Judge: ‘Cannot … will not’ reinstate defense attorneys. Delphi murder trial pushed back

Very nice reporting and writing - but one must subscribe to read?

 

[Vern]

Just would genuinely like to understand your perspective and how any case against MW would be cut and dry when AB provided access to the leaked material which was his responsibility (AB’s) to protect? The negligence lies with AB, IMO.

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf (begins at Page 212 & 213)

17 Feb 2023

ORDER

Comes now the Court, the Sate of Indiana, by Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attorney, having fled its’ Motion Requesting Protective Order Governing Discovery, and the Court being duly advised in the premises, now grants sid Motion and the State, the Defendant and Counsel for the Defendant, are now instructed and ORDERED as follows:

1. That one copy of the discovery material shall be provided to Counsel forthe Defendant.
2. That no additional copies of the discovery material shall be made by the Defendant, Defendant's Counsel, investigator, expert or any other representative or agent of the Defendant for any reason.
3. That the discovery material shall not be used for any purpose other than to prepare for the defense in the above referenced cause number.
4. That the discovery material shall not be publicly exhibited, displayed, shown, used for educational, research or demonstrative purposes or used in any other manner, except in judicial proceedings in the above referenced action.
5. That the discovery material may be viewed only by parties, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts.
6. That if copies of the discovery material are made and provided to the Defendant, investigators or experts for the Defense, that sensitive and private information contained in the discovery shall be redacted, including any social security numbers, IDAC information or NCIC information, any information related fo the personal information of juveniles, including social security numbers, names and date of birth and any FBI sentinel information.
7. That none of the discovery material shall be divulged to any person not authorized to view the discovery material; this includes other witnesses, family members, relatives and friends of the Defendant.
8. That no person other than the Defendant, Counsel for the Defendant and those persons listed in paragraph 5 shall be granted access to said discovery material, or the substance of any portion thereof unless that person has signed an agreement in writing that he or she has received a copy of this Order and that he or she submits to the Court’s jurisdiction and authority with respect to the discovery; agrees to be subject to the Court's contempt powers for any violation of this Order; and is‘ granted prior permission by this Court to access said discovery.
9. That upon final disposition of the case, the discovery material referred to in paragraph 1 and any and all transcripts shall be returned to the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office or maintained by Defense Counsel pursuant to the terms herein.
10. That Counsel for the Defendant shall be responsible to ensure that all persons involved in the defense of this case comply with this Order.
11. That the written documents/records provided by the State with the discovery material fall under the same rules as described above.

IT IS SO ORDERED this.17th day of February, 2023.

Frances Gull, Special Judge

Carroll Circuit CourtCopy:
State
Rozzi
Baldwin

I'm thinking that as this was AB's second (minimum) abysmal failure to comply with JG's Order of 17 Feb 23, that the families have a very good chance of showing negligence on his part IMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

I'm not sure I understand the Q but maybe this will help? The subpoena was served on the prison. The state is in charge of the prison system so that's why your'e seeing the motion to quash being authored by the AG's office. They aren't parties. They were served a subpoena and the state's attorneys (the AG's office) made a motion to get rid of it (quash it) so they wouldn't have to comply. Is that what you were wondering?

Thank you. I really got tangled in the weeds with this part. Your answer takes care of these

06/20/2023	Appearance Filed Appearance by Attorneys - Aaron M. Ridlen; Hannah M. Deters
06/20/2023	Motion to Quash Filed

And then it looks like JG ordered on the motion here but I don't see anything on May 19 in the CCS that looks like it could relate to that date.

07/19/2023

Order Issued The Court, having reviewed the Indiana Department of Correction's Motion to Quash Subpoena or Enter Protective Order, now finds that Defendant's request is unreasonable and oppressive, and beyond the scope of discovery. The Court, therefore, quashes the Subpoena and Request for Production to Non-Party issued by Counsel in May 19, 2023.

So that leaves me wondering about the motion to withdraw now and how it seemingly coincided with the Attorney General declining to represent JG.

11/03/2023

Motion to Withdraw Appearance Filed Filed By: Indiana Department of Correction

ETA: I did find that May 19 date in the Gull doc dump on pg 3

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/23863585/delphidocs.pdf