IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #172

[Cyber sleuth]

You mean when Baldwin said that? It could be anything. A client who was convicted lodging a complaint in support of an anticipated appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, something more? We do not know and I would not want to guess because the outcome remains the same. He has no mark on his disciplinary record and she has just given him one without going through the proper process to do so. Where is her referral to the disciplinary committee? This is what she would have and should have done if there was meat on these bones. jmo

She told us. She would have read the statement, kicked them off the case, and then sent RA back to prison. The scene - with media being invited there for that one and only show would have greatly jeopardized RA and would have created a conflict on the record between them and their client and he wanted them to stay on and they were more than happy to stay on after the thousands of hours of time invested so this scenario had to be avoided at all costs.


She told them it wouldn't get to a point to ask for that and even assuming it did, she would have denied it. She was very clear. "I made my decision sua sponte, and I "really don't want to do this in public" but if you don't withdrawal, I am telling you this is what I will do. That is not a choice, and this is not the way this should have played out.

jmo

Thank you

Could you please link me or briefly explain the proper due process for DQ of attorneys for gross negligence while they are still representing the subject client.

 

[Jurisprudence]

Thank you

Could you please link me or briefly explain the proper due process for DQ of attorneys for gross negligence while they are still representing the subject client.

<modsnip> read the relator's brief and the record of proceedings that accompany it as it is referenced multiple times in these sworn filings, and then re-read the in-chambers transcript. The posts on this couched in questions that are not questions is obvious <modsnip>

 

[Cyber sleuth]

You mean when Baldwin said that? It could be anything. A client who was convicted lodging a complaint in support of an anticipated appeal on the grounds of ineffective assistance of counsel, something more? We do not know and I would not want to guess because the outcome remains the same. He has no mark on his disciplinary record and she has just given him one without going through the proper process to do so.
RSBM/BBM

<modsnip: Removed personalized, off topic comment> ... the line in the transcript I referred to was said ROZZI. Page 21 line 5
In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf

I don’t want that incorrect assumption to be left unaddressed.

 

[FrostedGlass]

New filing in 23S-OR-00302

11/21/2023	Motion for Leave to File Reply to Response to Respondent's Objections Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/21/23 Attorney: Smith, Margaret Lee Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Cook, Jessie A. Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 11/21/23 Relator's Response to Respondent's Objections - pending ruling on motion to file. PostmarkDate: 11/21/2023

 

[DeDee]

New filing in 23S-OR-00302

11/21/2023	Motion for Leave to File Reply to Response to Respondent's Objections Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/21/23 Attorney: Smith, Margaret Lee Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Cook, Jessie A. Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 11/21/2023
11/21/2023	Received Document Receive Date: 11/21/23 Relator's Response to Respondent's Objections - pending ruling on motion to file. PostmarkDate: 11/21/2023

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

I see this for case 08C01-2210-MR-000001 :

11/21/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/20/2023 : James David Luttrull
11/21/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/20/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato

 

[FrostedGlass]

In her last response, Judge Gull pretty much said she fixed the CCS and that issue was now a moot point.
This new filing says she did not. This is not the entire document.

2. A Response is needed here because Respondent has represented to this Court that its November 13, 2023 Order purporting to correct the errors raised in the Original Action “resolves most of the public access issues raised in the Petition” and moots this Original Action. (Brief in Opposition, p.14.)
3. This Response is necessary to show that this representation is incorrect and that the November 13th Order at most corrected 20% of the errors Relator has identified.
4. This Response is also necessary because Respondent’s Objections demonstrate a continued misunderstanding and misapplication of the responsibilities and requirements of the ACR Rules.
5. Relator therefore files this Response asking that a Writ of Mandamus and Prohibition be issued to require that all the errors be corrected and to ensure that the same errors do not continue to be made in this case as it progresses forward.
Respectfully submitted,/s/ Maggie L. Smith Maggie L. Smith, #197572-53FROST BROWN TODD LLP111 Monument Circle, Suite 4500Indianapolis, IN [email protected]/s/ Cara S. Wieneke Cara S. Wieneke, #24374-49WIENEKE LAW OFFICE LLC

 

[FrostedGlass]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

I see this for case 08C01-2210-MR-000001 :

11/21/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/20/2023 : James David Luttrull
11/21/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/20/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato

You have to go to mycase and enter the case number: 23S-OR-00302

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[MistyWaters]

It didn't occur, but nobody knew that would be the outcome leading up to that day. For those seven days prior, did RA know his representation was about to be removed? Did he know what the hearing was going to cover? Was he prepared for any of it? Were his attorneys allowed to communicate with him after being told to cease working on his case? If they were ordered to cease working on his case, were they even truly representing him? These are some of my questions, because I honestly don't know how any of it works.

Everyone has the right to an attorney but is that right 24/7? According to the 6th amendment that right pertains mostly to assistance of council pertaining to the criminal trial.

JMO

Sixth Amendment

www.law.cornell.edu

Amendment VI​

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

 

[zh0r4]

They were indeed ambushed imo and it's not because they didn't know there had been these DQ rumblings, it is because what happened in there never should have happened. They knew at worst she would set a hearing for their DQ because that is what she was legally required to do. But, she skipped that step altogether. That's an ambush and it's a violation of RA's constitutional rights.

jmo

I felt like on page 11 of the transcript, Rozzi was trying to clarify that regardless of what was going to happen there would be a hearing. She said it would be happening on a hearing-by-hearing basis right before DQing them without a hearing in the transcript.



Source:

In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf -

pdfhost.io

 

[Jurisprudence]

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

I see this for case 08C01-2210-MR-000001 :

11/21/2023	Automated Paper Notice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/20/2023 : James David Luttrull
11/21/2023	Automated ENotice Issued to Parties Order Granting ---- 11/20/2023 : Nicholas Charles McLeland;Robert Cliff Scremin;William Santino Lebrato

Or you can use the name and change the court to the supreme court. That should work.

jmo

 

[zh0r4]

Here is the docket entry for the status hearing that wasn't.

10/12/2023

Order Issued On the Courts motion, this cause is ordered set for status hearing on October 19, 2023 at 2:00 p.m. in the Allen Superior Court. Counsel ordered to arrange their schedules to appear. The purpose of the hearing is to discuss the up coming hearing on October 31, 2023 and other matters which have recently arisen. Court will prepare a transport order to have Defendant appear. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 10/12/2023

Also it appears the Prosecution had a heads up this ambush would happen, and brought “witnesses”; meanwhile the defense had zero heads up and no way to prepare. Totally uncool & bias. JMO.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Just for clarification, there are 3 cases connected to things involving RA's case.
You can find all three of these in mycase; just enter the case number. OR use Jurisprudence's method.
08C01-2210-MR-000001 His murder case
23S-OR-00302 Supreme Court case relating to the Gull dump/CCS
23S-OR-00311 Supreme Court case relating to the transcript (and I forgot what all else)

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

 

[Jurisprudence]

I felt like on page 11 of the transcript, Rozzi was trying to clarify that regardless of what was going to happen there would be a hearing. She said it would be happening on a hearing-by-hearing basis right before DQing them without a hearing in the transcript.

View attachment 462765

Source:

In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf -

pdfhost.io

I agree. The docket had a hearing scheduled. And then she proceeded to discuss with them in chambers all of these various filings "You need a hearing on this? on that"? etc. Slick. Because she later disclosed that in actuality, there was no intention to have a hearing on those matters. She had made her decision before that in-chambers hearing and what would really happen was a DQ on television with their client unaware unless of course they withdrew. Prosecution had notice though. Jury box was full of LE. It's a stain on the system imo and the fact that one side was prepared raises the question of improper ex parte communications.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

23S-OR-00311 Supreme Court case relating to the transcript (and I forgot what all else)

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

[SBBM]

Removing Defense Counsel (and see the record Relator's brief) on how gross negligence is not a ground, due process aside
RA 6th Amendments Rights
Assigning new counsel from the wrong county (her own) as opposed to mandated Carroll County
Ceasing work on this case until her recusal motion is heard

jmo

 

[MistyWaters]

I felt like on page 11 of the transcript, Rozzi was trying to clarify that regardless of what was going to happen there would be a hearing. She said it would be happening on a hearing-by-hearing basis right before DQing them without a hearing in the transcript.

View attachment 462765

Source:

In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf | PDF Host

PDF Host read free online - In Camera Hearing Transcript.pdf -

pdfhost.io

That section is referring to the P getting access to RA’s health, not about DQing.

 

[TL4S]

Also it appears the Prosecution had a heads up this ambush would happen, and brought “witnesses”; meanwhile the defense had zero heads up and no way to prepare. Totally uncool & bias. JMO.

This is my concern with it. Even if the ex-D knew the potential of getting DQ'd, that doesn't negate the need for due process. This isn't a "poor me" defense. Personal feelings about the ex-D are a separate matter altogether, IMO.

The P had time to prepare witnesses before the 19th, to talk about the leak investigation, but in the meantime, the ex-D was told to cease working on the case a week before the hearing, via an email by JG. So not only were they not given proper notice as to what would be covered in the hearing, they were basically restricted from doing anything to prepare for the hearing in the seven days prior to it. I'm not seeing how that is appropriate, nor fair, and that has nothing to do with me supporting the ex-D.

 

[Jurisprudence]

...So not only were they not given proper notice as to what would be covered in the hearing, they were basically restricted from doing anything to prepare for the hearing in the seven days prior to it. I'm not seeing how that is appropriate, nor fair, and that has nothing to do with me supporting the ex-D.

[sbbm]

This is such an excellent point. Thank you.

jmo

 

[sunshineray]

We are not privy to this discovery to know this.

jmo

The defense stated that in the Franks Memo.

 

[MistyWaters]

This is my concern with it. Even if the ex-D knew the potential of getting DQ'd, that doesn't negate the need for due process. This isn't a "poor me" defense. Personal feelings about the ex-D are a separate matter altogether, IMO.

The P had time to prepare witnesses before the 19th, to talk about the leak investigation, but in the meantime, the ex-D was told to cease working on the case a week before the hearing, via an email by JG. So not only were they not given proper notice as to what would be covered in the hearing, they were basically restricted from doing anything to prepare for the hearing in the seven days prior to it. I'm not seeing how that is appropriate, nor fair, and that has nothing to do with me supporting the ex-D.

I really doubt anyone was going to talk specifically about the investigation of the leak at the status hearing as it was presently ongoing. Aside from that, how might’ve the D prepared their “defense” of gross negligence?

I can’t think of even one possible way especially as they’d already acknowledged their responsibility for each of the four or five issues that had been identified in the past year. Instead they chose not to be ‘shamed‘ and in saying so, to me that says they considered the totality of their track record on this case to be shameful.

I admit I don’t understand why the guns are blazing at the judge. She wasn’t hiding disclosure of D discovery leaks from Dec to May. How many screwups on the part of the D are too many? On the topic of defendants rights, it seems to me RA has the right to be represented by competent council, and so she acted to ensure that occurred.

JMO

 

[Salah11]

I really doubt anyone was going to talk specifically about the investigation of the leak at the status hearing as it was presently ongoing. Aside from that, how might’ve the D prepared their “defense” of gross negligence?

I can’t think of even one possible way especially as they’d already acknowledged their responsibility for each of the four or five issues that had been identified in the past year. Instead they chose not to be ‘shamed‘ and in saying so, to me that says they considered the totality of their track record on this case to be shameful.

I admit I don’t understand why the guns are blazing at the judge. She wasn’t hiding disclosure of D discovery leaks from Dec to May. How many screwups on the part of the D are too many? On the topic of defendants rights, it seems to me RA has the right to be represented by competent council, and so she acted to ensure that occurred.

JMO

Well said , it’s not the judge who let confidential photos of minors dead bodies be shared around.

As if the families have not suffered enough without these clowns letting their happen on their watch.

Moooooo