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

[TL4S]

On Oct. 12, via email, JG ordered BR and AB to "please cease work on Mr. Allen's case until we meet on the 19th." In my layperson's interpretation, that almost sounds like the judge informally suspending (for lack of a better word) BR and AB from representing RA or preparing for the hearing on the 19th. IOW, it feels like RA was not adequately represented already when he was transported to the courthouse on the 19th, or really for the week prior, which seems a dangerous violation of his rights. Any explanation from the lawyers here would be greatly appreciated?

 

[Jurisprudence]

I think it's awesome that there is audio and transcript of the 'secret in chambers meeting' that Judge G held. So many insinuated and insisted that didn't exist, which was ridiculous to me at the time. Judge G is not an idiot, she would not have held such a monumental decision without a record.

B&R knew and admitted that disqualification was a possibility going into that meeting, and rather than face public announcement of such by Judge G in open court with the media that they filed a Motion in favor of, they decided to withdraw multiple times and sneak out the back Jack.

Typical reaction by these attorneys based on their previous actions. They play fast, loose and underhanded. I think RA is 100% better off without them representing him.

It will now be up to the SCOIN to decide if Judge G failed in her duties or not. I can accept whatever decision they make for a fair trial for Abby & Libby's sake.

JMO

That record has done her no favors imo @girlhasnoname I know you feel differently about this and I respect that but I think it is important to mange expectations. This is not a good look for her. They documented on the record everything they claimed to have said and gone through which is pretty impressive considering how shell-shocked they must have been. If the court is inclined to leave things status quo with Gull remaining in place and S&L as substitutes they will absolutely find a way to do so, be it by saying something like well, the 19th marked the notice, and the follow-up hearing wasn't until the 31st so therefore RA's rights weren't violated he had more than 10 days notice or whatever... There are ways to do this. But, it will not be because what she did in there was right (or even constitutional).

jmo

ETA that she was extremely careful on that record, and it still did her no favors.

 

[MistyWaters]

On Oct. 12, via email, JG ordered BR and AB to "please cease work on Mr. Allen's case until we meet on the 19th." In my layperson's interpretation, that almost sounds like the judge basically suspended (for lack of a better word) BR and AB from representing RA or preparing for the hearing on the 19th. IOW, it feels like RA was not adequately represented already when he was transported to the courthouse on the 19th, or really for the week prior, which seems a dangerous violation of his rights. Any explanation from the lawyers here?

Not a lawyer but only a Status hearing was scheduled for Oct 19th. What rights could’ve been violated? He was taken away prior to the hearing so I don’t think rights can be violated over something that didn’t occur.

 

[Jurisprudence]

JMHO, and obviously IANAL, but I don't think AB and BR going out into the courtroom to face public announcement was really a viable option. They were going to be off the case, either way, and since JG had already ordered them not to do any further work with RA before the hearing, in an email after the suicide, was it really possible for them to soundly represent RA that day? For a hearing that was for the sole purpose of sharing the leak investigation and disqualifying them? And with them knowing DQ was going to possibly be discussed but without notice of her exact reasonings or plans for the day so they could prepare some arguments? I'm just not sure that them going into the hearing would have benefited RA in any way. The due process issue here, as I see it (again IANAL), is less about the lawyers and more about a violation to RA's rights. JMO.

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

 

[Jurisprudence]

I still would like to know if Greenlee is bound by the gag order, as he is named among the involved attorneys on RA’s murder charge docket.

????

 

[MistyWaters]

That record has done her no favors imo @girlhasnoname I know you feel differently about this and I respect that but I think it is important to mange expectations. This is not a good look for her. They documented on the record everything they claimed to have said and gone through which is pretty impressive considering how shell-shocked they must have been. If the court is inclined to leave things status quo with Gull remaining in place and S&L as substitutes they will absolutely find a way to do so, be it by saying something like well, the 19th marked the notice, and the follow-up hearing wasn't until the 31st so therefore RA's rights weren't violated he had more than 10 days notice or whatever... There are ways to do this. But, it will not be because what she did in there was right (or even constitutional).

jmo

ETA that she was extremely careful on that record, and it still did her no favors.

It surprises me you not looking at this situation with more of an open mind considering various allegations and beliefs have already been proven to be false. We yet don’t know if there’s more to the story.
- the ex-Ds we’re not taken by total surprise over gross negligence allegations in chambers on Oct 19th.
- the chambers meeting was recorded.
- both B and R withdrew from the case during that meeting.

 

[Jurisprudence]

These other people that confessed were investigated, not ignored.

We are not privy to this discovery to know this.

jmo

 

[TL4S]

Not a lawyer but only a Status hearing was scheduled for Oct 19th. What rights could’ve been violated? He was taken away prior to the hearing so I don’t think rights can be violated over something that didn’t occur.

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.

 

[TL4S]

As a side note: It's sort of sad to me that a murderer has certain rights both before and after he/she commits the act, but the victim's rights are taken away by the act itself. I know this isn't helpful, and there isn't much we can do about it, nor am I suggesting a change to our judicial system, but it's just something I think about from time to time.

 

[Jurisprudence]

SBM
I found in the transcripts page 21 line 5 very interesting wording that BR says “I’ve never had a disciplinary complaint, in my life that been confirmed, if you will.”
This immediately raised a yellow flag for me because it appears he is skirting around a possible complaint that was not confirmed. I don’t know how this process works so could there have been a complaint(s) dismissed or not confirmed?

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

Also one more question if you would indulge me.
What would have happened if AB/BR had elected to not withdraw orally and go on into court?

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.

Could this defense team immediately ask for a continuance to prepare, to allow for due process in regards to DQ proceedings?

Ok it was more like two questions. I appreciate your expert input.

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

 

[FrostedGlass]

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

 

[susiQ]

As a side note: It's sort of sad to me that a murderer has certain rights both before and after he/she commits the act, but the victim's rights are taken away by the act itself. I know this isn't helpful, and there isn't much we can do about it, nor am I suggesting a change to our judicial system, but it's just something I think about from time to time.

True. It’s frustrating when we feel someone is guilty without a doubt, in our opinion, that they have all these “rights.” However, it must be so, so that if someone has been falsely accused they have rights to prove their innocence. We wouldn’t have it any other way, would we? JMO

ed:gr

 

[StarryStarryNight]

I will let the SCOIN decide whether the Judge needs to be chastised or disciplined on the technical legal issues. The ex-defense team, no matter what happens with the judge, needs to remain off this case.
I have not seen one thing the judge has said or done that indicates bias against the ex-defense. She has real reasons not to be happy with them, which she addresses on Oct 19th. That is not bias. The fact that she ruled against them In the spring is not bias. Judges do that every day, it’s their job.
The only people, in my opinion, that have jeopardized RA are B and R. They are the one and only reason we are where we are today. Nothing that is going on right now benefits RA. This is only about the ex-defense, and they’re hurt feelings. They caused this with their poor behavior and now are afforded saint-like status….for what?
Just my opinion, I don’t think the judge has done anything that would warrant her being dismissed. Perhaps called on the carpet, but not dismissEd. But if the SCOIN sees it differently, so be it. The ex-defense team should not be allowed back on the case.


edit: removing strange capital E’s that invaded my text

 

[AugustWest]

Not a lawyer but only a Status hearing was scheduled for Oct 19th. What rights could’ve been violated? He was taken away prior to the hearing so I don’t think rights can be violated over something that didn’t occur.

Other than his rights guaranteed to all U.S. citizens by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments? Assistance of counsel? Due process? Equal protection of laws? These issues are what we have been discussing for the better part of a month now.

 

[TL4S]

True. It’s frustrating when we feel someone is guilty without a doubt, in our opinion, that they have all these “rights.” However, it must be so that if someone has been falsely accused they have rights to prove their innocence. We wouldn’t have it any other way, would we? JMO

I agree. All of these "rights" are necessary and there to protect us all. It also makes us, as a society, more humane than the murderer was in his/her crime.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

They moved him to White Co. with no apparent forehand thought and planning. I'm pretty sure they could have found a safe place to keep him other than Westville until he got an atty. Maybe he could have gone back to wherever ISP had him for 2 days or he could have stayed in White Co.

RA's letter to Carroll Co. was sent from White Co jail so it was written by Nov. 3. If they hadn't transferred him to Westville, he could have had his atty within a few days and they could have done this properly.

It’s kinda a moot point now, over a year later. He is still alive.

 

[Jurisprudence]

As a side note: It's sort of sad to me that a murderer has certain rights both before and after he/she commits the act, but the victim's rights are taken away by the act itself. I know this isn't helpful, and there isn't much we can do about it, nor am I suggesting a change to our judicial system, but it's just something I think about from time to time.

I understand your pov. But, I think we need to remember that the revelations we recently came to learn of from the Franks filing were predominantly from the state's discovery production and depositions under oath. Any speculative theory they put forward aside, the facts in the memo aren't made up facts.

And it is for this reason that they never should have stopped this investigation, and after the FM they should have actually re-opened it imo instead of formulating a plan to have the counsel kicked off so they could buy themselves a trial delay - a delay which at worst would provide them with an opportunity to come up with some answers or a delay which at best, depending on "who" was chosen as substitute counsel, would not only put significant distance between the filing and trial, but might also cause it go *poof* altogether, making any answers to these questions unnecessary.

jmo

 

[Jurisprudence]

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

And yet she confirms for us in that transcript that this was not going to happen. She instead planned to DQ them.

 

[FrostedGlass]

True. It’s frustrating when we feel someone is guilty without a doubt, in our opinion, that they have all these “rights.” However, it must be so, so that if someone has been falsely accused they have rights to prove their innocence. We wouldn’t have it any other way, would we? JMO

ed:gr

A person can sure get all twisted up in these murder cases, can't they?

Here's what I keep reminding myself:
Many of us know or will know of a family who has sat on both sides of the courtroom at some point in their lives. When they are on the D side, they want justice for their accused loved one. Then when they must sit on the prosecution side, they still want just for their victimized loved one.

 

[DeDee]

Richard Allen's attorneys tell Indiana Supreme Court Delphi judge still 'wrong' in handling of case​