IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #173

[zh0r4]

Good news: go to mysite and enter Case #23S-OR-00311; you can read the actual document

12/01/2023	Order Issued Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the "Relators' Motion for Leave to File Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections." The Clerk is instructed to file the "Relator's Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections" as of the date of this order. Judicial Officer:Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 12/01/2023
12/01/2023	Document Transmitted
12/01/2023	Response (Brief in Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/30/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 12/01/2023

For easy viewing and documentation, part 1, page 1-10.

RELATOR'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S AND ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OBJECTIONS
Filed 11/30/2023 by Leeman & Wieneke
(Granted 12/1/2023 by SCOIN)

Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

PDF

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/407082591_1384570639109249_2556380317954005452_n.pdf/Rec-Relators-Response_231130_170705.pdf?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2b0e22&_nc_ohc=uO4uf6ypJEMAX-2IRaQ&_nc_ht=cdn.fbsbx.com&oh=03_AdTXw6F7gNfdGswAopRiKsNwfbFnqBLnRM22SQoXf3XpaQ&oe=656AE6FA&dl=1

 

[zh0r4]

Good news: go to mysite and enter Case #23S-OR-00311; you can read the actual document

12/01/2023	Order Issued Being duly advised, the Court GRANTS the "Relators' Motion for Leave to File Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections." The Clerk is instructed to file the "Relator's Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections" as of the date of this order. Judicial Officer:Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Leeman, Mark Kelly Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 12/01/2023
12/01/2023	Document Transmitted
12/01/2023	Response (Brief in Response to Respondent's and Attorney General's Objections) Certificate of Service- Electronically Served 11/30/23 Attorney: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Attorney: Leeman, Mark Kelly Party: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 12/01/2023

For easy viewing and documentation, part 2, page 11-16

RELATOR'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S AND ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OBJECTIONS
Filed 11/30/2023 by Leeman & Wieneke
(Granted 12/1/2023 by SCOIN)

Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

PDF
https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21...RiKsNwfbFnqBLnRM22SQoXf3XpaQ&oe=656AE6FA&dl=1

 

[zh0r4]

I believe the correspondence was from RB explaining why he refused to come to court. I don't have that letter at my fingertips, though.

06/29/2023 Motion Filed
Motion for Order on Visitation with Inmate
Filed By: Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp: 06/29/2023

07/05/2023 Correspondence to/from Court Filed
Correspondence to/from Court Filed
Westville Correctional Inmate letter.
File Stamp: 07/05/2023
Record of Proceedings
Pg 23

Record of Proceedings.pdf

drive.google.com

The Letter, Sherrif’s Return, etc.

Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

PDF

Second Supplemental Record of Proceedings - Second OA.pdf

drive.google.com

 

[EllaMinnowP]

Thanks so much for doing all of that, @zh0r4!

 

[sunshineray]

More info on AG Rokita situations:

Attorney General Todd Rokita charged with complaint by Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court - 9/18/2023​

Attorney General Todd Rokita charged with complaint by Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court

INDIANAPOLIS — The Disciplinary Commission of the Indiana Supreme Court has filed a disciplinary complaint against Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita in relation to comments he made to medi…

fox59.com

Indiana AG’s ‘irrelevant posturing’ comes back to bite him as judge throws out lawsuit against TikTok for multiple failures - 11/30/2023​

Indiana AG's 'irrelevant posturing' comes back to bite him as judge throws out TikTok lawsuit

A state judge has thrown out the Indiana attorney general's lawsuit against TikTok for multiple failures.

lawandcrime.com

AG Todd Rokita faces professional misconduct charges; legal experts weigh in - 9/22/2023​

AG Todd Rokita faces professional misconduct charges; legal experts weigh in

The Indiana Supreme Court's Disciplinary Commission filed misconduct charges stemming from an interview Rokita gave to a Fox News host and other public statements about Dr. Caitlin Bernard.

www.wrtv.com

Indiana Republican AG faces professional ethics charges related to his efforts to punish doctor who provided abortion services to 10-year-old rape victim - 9/18/2023​

https://www.cnn.com/2023/09/18/politics/indiana-attorney-general-todd-rokita-disciplinary-charges/index.html

​

AG Todd Rokita faces probe by state disciplinary commission. Here's what comes next - Feb 13, 2023​

AG Todd Rokita faces probe by state disciplinary commission. Here's what comes next

Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita is the focus of a probe by the Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission. Here's why and what the process entails.

www.indystar.com

A ‘messy’ question: Who should pay for Rokita’s defense in discipline case? - 10/11/2023​

A ‘messy’ question: Who should pay for Rokita’s defense in discipline case? - The Indiana Lawyer

The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission’s complaint, filed Sept. 18, has created a secondary issue — a question with an unclear answer: Who should pay for Rokita’s defense counsel?

www.theindianalawyer.com

Some of those links are behind paywalls.

Ok, if I'm understanding it correctly the AG is subject of a seemingly to me, retaliation investigation because...trying to get down to brass tacks here...a doctor did or didn't violate patient privacy in a news interview. One Indiana overseer saying she did, the other saying she didn't. AG expressed an opinion about it all on a news interview himself, talking about an investigation before "charges" were filed against the doctor, violating lawyerly ethics rules.

IF I got that all fairly right, I still don't understand why JG's situation is affected badly by the AG's support. The AG backed her up in what she responded about AB and BR, by their actions and non-actions, being inadequate council for RA.
AJMO

 

[sunshineray]

For easy viewing and documentation, part 1, page 1-10.

RELATOR'S RESPONSE TO RESPONDENT'S AND ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OBJECTIONS
Filed 11/30/2023 by Leeman & Wieneke
(Granted 12/1/2023 by SCOIN)

Source:

Indiana Courts Case Search - MyCase

Indiana Supreme Court, Public Access

public.courts.in.gov

PDF

https://cdn.fbsbx.com/v/t59.2708-21/407082591_1384570639109249_2556380317954005452_n.pdf/Rec-Relators-Response_231130_170705.pdf?_nc_cat=108&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=2b0e22&_nc_ohc=uO4uf6ypJEMAX-2IRaQ&_nc_ht=cdn.fbsbx.com&oh=03_AdTXw6F7gNfdGswAopRiKsNwfbFnqBLnRM22SQoXf3XpaQ&oe=656AE6FA&dl=1

So is this going to end the responses part of all this mess or are JG and the AG/state going to now get to respond to the response that was a response to a response? How many back and forth does the Indiana SC usually GRANT?

 

[zh0r4]

So is this going to end the responses part of all this mess or are JG and the AG/state going to now get to respond to the response that was a response to a response? How many back and forth does the Indiana SC usually GRANT?

From my understanding, now, the only party who will respond is SCOIN.

 

[mrjitty]

Having listened to all the Attorney analysis/fanfic and read the pleadings I wanted to record my 02c before SCOIN rules, so I can be proved spectacularly wrong. These are my own opinions only. Please note I won't be engaging in defences of any of the Attorney views - they've argued their positions in huge detail which I can't possible do justice to here. I'd also add, I find all of them wildly partisan and off the cuff compared to the law journal style analysis I am used to - but i guess that's the podcaster/live streaming business.

1. Everyone including the AG agrees the process/record is in a mess. That's Gull's job and not great. My guess is SCOIN won't be happy with Gull about that. Big judicial slap incoming.

2. Per AG, one big reason the record is incomplete is "Takesies Backsies". IMO you either do the hearing, or withdraw - not pretend to withdraw / change your mind. I get the complexity, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court is not happy with Rozzi and Baldwin playing the judge in this way.

3. Per Bob Motta, not filing an interlocutory appeal might turn out to be a major fail. The easiest thing for SCOIN to do is just say you should have appealed this. That would be a shame, as the defence has important substantive points that ought to be heard somewhere! I'd like a solution where SCOIN sends this back for a hearing, to fix the record, then Rozzi+Baldwin have appeal rights like normal, if it comes to that.

4. On the substance, much of what Judge Gull relied on is on the record. e.g. the falsities - you can disagree on the Judge's ruling there (god knows i've been mad on websleuths about a judge making incomprehensible decisions from my POV), but she did make that finding. And on the leak(s), she is told again in the chambers it is an ongoing leak. I have sympathy for her view that the investigation into it is the state's business - i don't understand how she is supposed to accept the unknowns here. She can never really know what Baldwin and MW did. In her shoes, I certainly would not be prepared to rely on Baldwin's claims, let alone MW's laughable detail free affidavit. But is it enough? IMO not - there should be a proper hearing

5. I agree with The Prosecutors that defence have played a sharp double game here. They correctly complain about lack of formal process, in respect of a hearing they actually declined to have and do not want. This is legit! They now want to be put back on the case, and Gull removed, and still never have it, IMO. Will it work? Maybe! But per point 2, I agree with AG.

6. Remedy. Phew.

a) I feel Baldwin should be nowhere near this case, and he clearly moved to withdraw in chambers. IMO the easiest thing to do here is just "chop him off" on that basis. So basically say yes this is all dumb and bad but you can't rely on the errors you created with takesies backsies. So basically just decline to reinstate him. My 02c.

b) Rozzi - I feel like there just isn't enough on the record to remove and he didn't so obviously withdraw (though IMO he did). I also haven't really seen the argument for why the duo have to be regarded as a boxed set when clearly Baldwin is more culpable. IMO reinstate and send back for a DQ hearing, with guidance.

c). Gull. IMO even though she messed up bad, there are no grounds to remove her. Judges mess up all the time. But I do wonder if she shouldn't simply recuse for the sake of appearances going forward.

Lastly - it would obviously be good if SCOIN offered some guidance on removal for "gross negligence/incompetence". I get the feeling the Judge must have some discretion in this area e.g. imagine if Baldwin had intentionally leaked the Crime scene photos in order to try to taint the jury pool about Odinism. Surely that would be removal time? But maybe SCOIN won't think this writ is the right place to do this.

Finally, I believe none of this would ever have happened if Baldwin had done the right thing in the first place.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Shay Hughes comments:

"Why am I so confident in Allen’s 2nd Writ? Let’s think about policy and the ramifications a denial would have…

Difficult to find a criminal defense attorney in Indiana that doesn’t have an indigent defense caseload. Some attorneys even rely on such a caseload to support their practice (even more so in rural areas). It goes w/o saying that a court being able to remove counsel on its own w/o any evidentiary standard in place would certainly chill zealous representation. Counsel would be inherently conflicted having to weigh the client’s interests with the court’s satisfaction. Some counties may experience an even greater shortage of attorneys knowing there is a significant probability of removal by a given judge.

Counties with a shortage would have to look elsewhere for counsel. Distant counsel makes competent representation all the more difficult. Fewer visits, fewer hearings, longer continuances.

Likewise, if the Court rules in favor of Judge Gull, what is to prevent a judge from removing counsel if the judge finds a motion/defense to be meritless on its face? If original counsel was removed on such basis, it is reasonable to expect new counsel would not raise the same issue/defense. Otherwise, new counsel would face the same fate. Similarly, it is reasonable to expect original counsel wouldn’t raise such an issue/defense on a different case before the same judge. Otherwise, original counsel would face the same fate. Simply put, a judge would be crafting the defense.

Evidentiary rules and due process would be severely diminished if not fictional as courts could consider matters outside of the court’s record. A deficient record, along w/ unprecedented discretion, makes it nearly impossible for any reversal by an appellate court. The Indiana Supreme Court would be ‘in name only’ as trial courts will house the State’s most powerful courtroom." #Indiana #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders
9:03 PM · Dec 1, 2023
5,657 Views

https://twitter.com/x/status/1730769627741884646

 

[mrjitty]

Shay Hughes comments:

"Why am I so confident in Allen’s 2nd Writ? Let’s think about policy and the ramifications a denial would have…

Difficult to find a criminal defense attorney in Indiana that doesn’t have an indigent defense caseload. Some attorneys even rely on such a caseload to support their practice (even more so in rural areas). It goes w/o saying that a court being able to remove counsel on its own w/o any evidentiary standard in place would certainly chill zealous representation. Counsel would be inherently conflicted having to weigh the client’s interests with the court’s satisfaction. Some counties may experience an even greater shortage of attorneys knowing there is a significant probability of removal by a given judge.

Counties with a shortage would have to look elsewhere for counsel. Distant counsel makes competent representation all the more difficult. Fewer visits, fewer hearings, longer continuances.

Likewise, if the Court rules in favor of Judge Gull, what is to prevent a judge from removing counsel if the judge finds a motion/defense to be meritless on its face? If original counsel was removed on such basis, it is reasonable to expect new counsel would not raise the same issue/defense. Otherwise, new counsel would face the same fate. Similarly, it is reasonable to expect original counsel wouldn’t raise such an issue/defense on a different case before the same judge. Otherwise, original counsel would face the same fate. Simply put, a judge would be crafting the defense.

Evidentiary rules and due process would be severely diminished if not fictional as courts could consider matters outside of the court’s record. A deficient record, along w/ unprecedented discretion, makes it nearly impossible for any reversal by an appellate court. The Indiana Supreme Court would be ‘in name only’ as trial courts will house the State’s most powerful courtroom." #Indiana #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders
9:03 PM · Dec 1, 2023
5,657 Views

https://twitter.com/x/status/1730769627741884646

I've found Shay Hughes to be the most even handed of the various attorneys we've discussed here.

 

[TL4S]

I've found Shay Hughes to be the most even handed of the various attorneys we've discussed here.

I agree. The latest Defense Diaries podcast with SH had some new insight I hadn't heard coming from anyone else. I wish BM had maybe let SH do more of the talking, because it was fascinating. It's also interesting because SH was a prosecutor before he was a defense attorney, so his perspective is unique. Jmo.

Before Delphi, I would admit that I was one with a natural bias toward the prosecution. I would have listened to The Prosecutors without questioning. But now, I've been introduced to the Defense Diaries, SH, etc, and I realize there really are different, valid interpretations of these laws. Obviously, it's polarized, and I listen to both sides with that in mind. My hope is SCOIN is somewhere in the middle.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Having listened to all the Attorney analysis/fanfic and read the pleadings I wanted to record my 02c before SCOIN rules, so I can be proved spectacularly wrong. These are my own opinions only. Please note I won't be engaging in defences of any of the Attorney views - they've argued their positions in huge detail which I can't possible do justice to here. I'd also add, I find all of them wildly partisan and off the cuff compared to the law journal style analysis I am used to - but i guess that's the podcaster/live streaming business.

1. Everyone including the AG agrees the process/record is in a mess. That's Gull's job and not great. My guess is SCOIN won't be happy with Gull about that. Big judicial slap incoming.

2. Per AG, one big reason the record is incomplete is "Takesies Backsies". IMO you either do the hearing, or withdraw - not pretend to withdraw / change your mind. I get the complexity, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court is not happy with Rozzi and Baldwin playing the judge in this way.

3. Per Bob Motta, not filing an interlocutory appeal might turn out to be a major fail. The easiest thing for SCOIN to do is just say you should have appealed this. That would be a shame, as the defence has important substantive points that ought to be heard somewhere! I'd like a solution where SCOIN sends this back for a hearing, to fix the record, then Rozzi+Baldwin have appeal rights like normal, if it comes to that.

4. On the substance, much of what Judge Gull relied on is on the record. e.g. the falsities - you can disagree on the Judge's ruling there (god knows i've been mad on websleuths about a judge making incomprehensible decisions from my POV), but she did make that finding. And on the leak(s), she is told again in the chambers it is an ongoing leak. I have sympathy for her view that the investigation into it is the state's business - i don't understand how she is supposed to accept the unknowns here. She can never really know what Baldwin and MW did. In her shoes, I certainly would not be prepared to rely on Baldwin's claims, let alone MW's laughable detail free affidavit. But is it enough? IMO not - there should be a proper hearing

5. I agree with The Prosecutors that defence have played a sharp double game here. They correctly complain about lack of formal process, in respect of a hearing they actually declined to have and do not want. This is legit! They now want to be put back on the case, and Gull removed, and still never have it, IMO. Will it work? Maybe! But per point 2, I agree with AG.

6. Remedy. Phew.

a) I feel Baldwin should be nowhere near this case, and he clearly moved to withdraw in chambers. IMO the easiest thing to do here is just "chop him off" on that basis. So basically say yes this is all dumb and bad but you can't rely on the errors you created with takesies backsies. So basically just decline to reinstate him. My 02c.

b) Rozzi - I feel like there just isn't enough on the record to remove and he didn't so obviously withdraw (though IMO he did). I also haven't really seen the argument for why the duo have to be regarded as a boxed set when clearly Baldwin is more culpable. IMO reinstate and send back for a DQ hearing, with guidance.

c). Gull. IMO even though she messed up bad, there are no grounds to remove her. Judges mess up all the time. But I do wonder if she shouldn't simply recuse for the sake of appearances going forward.

Lastly - it would obviously be good if SCOIN offered some guidance on removal for "gross negligence/incompetence". I get the feeling the Judge must have some discretion in this area e.g. imagine if Baldwin had intentionally leaked the Crime scene photos in order to try to taint the jury pool about Odinism. Surely that would be removal time? But maybe SCOIN won't think this writ is the right place to do this.

Finally, I believe none of this would ever have happened if Baldwin had done the right thing in the first place.

I agree with your well stated points, except 6.B

Rozzi should be off the case as well IMO. Even though the photo leaks came from AB's office, Rozzi knew and participated in the other key offenses Judge Gull cited for their DQ. They jointly put out the first "Press Release" that was laughable and poorly executed revealing info. about the case then that shouldn't have been released to the public when they first were assigned.

Rozzi knew full well of the 'finger misdial' where AB sent sensitive case info to the wrong Brad. Plus, they didn't notify the Judge or anyone of that for months. But most of all he was part of the most unprofessional, disingenuous, and exploitive Memo in support of a Franks Hearing I've ever read in my life.

No, Rizzo gets no pass from me. He was involved in all the questionable behavior (my opinion that photo & depo leak was intentional) and can never be trusted on this case again.

Start with a new Defense and a new Judge (although I'm not sure this will happen) and get this trial back on track.

All MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I agree. The latest Defense Diaries podcast with SH had some new insight I hadn't heard coming from anyone else. I wish BM had maybe let SH do more of the talking, because it was fascinating. It's also interesting because SH was a prosecutor before he was a defense attorney, so his perspective is unique. Jmo.

Agreed. SH is more what I am used to. Rather than jumping to one conclusion or another, he tends to present the different ways it could play out depending on what the facts end up being. Motta often assumes things that haven't actually been proven yet e.g. he keeps saying that MW stole the photos without AB knowing, but it is certainly not clear to me at least that Gull ever made that finding. Indeed I think she does not accept that is proven, but rather saw it as the best case. But this is mostly a format thing IMO. They are doing a livestream so man is going to talk!

Before Delphi, I would admit that I was one with a natural bias toward the prosecution. I would have listened to The Prosecutors without questioning. But now, I've been introduced to the Defense Diaries, SH, etc, and I realize there really are different, valid interpretations of these laws. Obviously, it's polarized, and I listen to both sides with that in mind. My hope is SCOIN is somewhere in the middle.

I totally understand why this is a 5 alarm fire for the public defender community. i think they need to bang heads together

 

[sunshineray]

Having listened to all the Attorney analysis/fanfic and read the pleadings I wanted to record my 02c before SCOIN rules, so I can be proved spectacularly wrong. These are my own opinions only. Please note I won't be engaging in defences of any of the Attorney views - they've argued their positions in huge detail which I can't possible do justice to here. I'd also add, I find all of them wildly partisan and off the cuff compared to the law journal style analysis I am used to - but i guess that's the podcaster/live streaming business.

1. Everyone including the AG agrees the process/record is in a mess. That's Gull's job and not great. My guess is SCOIN won't be happy with Gull about that. Big judicial slap incoming.

2. Per AG, one big reason the record is incomplete is "Takesies Backsies". IMO you either do the hearing, or withdraw - not pretend to withdraw / change your mind. I get the complexity, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court is not happy with Rozzi and Baldwin playing the judge in this way.

3. Per Bob Motta, not filing an interlocutory appeal might turn out to be a major fail. The easiest thing for SCOIN to do is just say you should have appealed this. That would be a shame, as the defence has important substantive points that ought to be heard somewhere! I'd like a solution where SCOIN sends this back for a hearing, to fix the record, then Rozzi+Baldwin have appeal rights like normal, if it comes to that.

4. On the substance, much of what Judge Gull relied on is on the record. e.g. the falsities - you can disagree on the Judge's ruling there (god knows i've been mad on websleuths about a judge making incomprehensible decisions from my POV), but she did make that finding. And on the leak(s), she is told again in the chambers it is an ongoing leak. I have sympathy for her view that the investigation into it is the state's business - i don't understand how she is supposed to accept the unknowns here. She can never really know what Baldwin and MW did. In her shoes, I certainly would not be prepared to rely on Baldwin's claims, let alone MW's laughable detail free affidavit. But is it enough? IMO not - there should be a proper hearing

5. I agree with The Prosecutors that defence have played a sharp double game here. They correctly complain about lack of formal process, in respect of a hearing they actually declined to have and do not want. This is legit! They now want to be put back on the case, and Gull removed, and still never have it, IMO. Will it work? Maybe! But per point 2, I agree with AG.

6. Remedy. Phew.

a) I feel Baldwin should be nowhere near this case, and he clearly moved to withdraw in chambers. IMO the easiest thing to do here is just "chop him off" on that basis. So basically say yes this is all dumb and bad but you can't rely on the errors you created with takesies backsies. So basically just decline to reinstate him. My 02c.

b) Rozzi - I feel like there just isn't enough on the record to remove and he didn't so obviously withdraw (though IMO he did). I also haven't really seen the argument for why the duo have to be regarded as a boxed set when clearly Baldwin is more culpable. IMO reinstate and send back for a DQ hearing, with guidance.

c). Gull. IMO even though she messed up bad, there are no grounds to remove her. Judges mess up all the time. But I do wonder if she shouldn't simply recuse for the sake of appearances going forward.

Lastly - it would obviously be good if SCOIN offered some guidance on removal for "gross negligence/incompetence". I get the feeling the Judge must have some discretion in this area e.g. imagine if Baldwin had intentionally leaked the Crime scene photos in order to try to taint the jury pool about Odinism. Surely that would be removal time? But maybe SCOIN won't think this writ is the right place to do this.

Finally, I believe none of this would ever have happened if Baldwin had done the right thing in the first place.

Good post. I've got one question...was AB's conference room/war room also used by his co-council for planning strategy and sifting through mounds of discovery? I mean he's in this as much as AB, as far as not sufficiently protecting confidential materials entrusted to them both. He didn't copy every bit of discovery a second time for himself to view at a different location, did he? He also ok'd the FM and talked to media last year right after assuring the judge they didn't want to try this case in the media. They were a team, he knew how things were being handled.
AJMO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

Some of those links are behind paywalls.

Ok, if I'm understanding it correctly the AG is subject of a seemingly to me, retaliation investigation because...trying to get down to brass tacks here...a doctor did or didn't violate patient privacy in a news interview. One Indiana overseer saying she did, the other saying she didn't. AG expressed an opinion about it all on a news interview himself, talking about an investigation before "charges" were filed against the doctor, violating lawyerly ethics rules.

IF I got that all fairly right, I still don't understand why JG's situation is affected badly by the AG's support. The AG backed her up in what she responded about AB and BR, by their actions and non-actions, being inadequate council for RA.
AJMO

Bbm
Well I guess if the AG’s support stains JG’s case then one can understand how the ex-defense actions stain RA’s case.

 

[Cyber sleuth]

From thread #172


RSBB to offer a possible explanation, if I may

In the mind of the accused, he is innocent of the charges. He'd already self-reported being at MHB that day. Should we expect him to go to the police once a month to self-report over & over again? Start a letter writing campaign? Perhaps in his mind, they were informed and he knows it's not him they're looking for. Give police his DNA? Should all of the male residents in the small town give theirs? Didn't they all wish to prove their innocence?

24,000 tips up to Feb 2019 were received because the suspect pool is fascinatingly great. Do we know how many tips pertained to RA? How many of the 24k tips included the men listed in the Memo? How many were for RL? After all, the final CS was on his land; however, his property was not searched by authorities for 30 days or on MAR 17.

The FB photo also garners my attention where RA's at the bar with the police sketch of the Young BG in the background that was introduced in 2019. Why leave that FB photo on public display if you are guilty of murdering young, local children? Perhaps it is a way to be braggadocious about getting away with a horrific crime while hiding in plain sight.

Why keep an incriminating firearm after fumbling around and losing a bullet at the CS? I don't know the chain of command on the unfired bullet but one doesn't walk across that scary, high, rickety bridge with a loaded gun if one doesn't intend to use it.

Not everything at a CS can be appropriately explained, especially psychological motivators and components; think Runes. L's phone deliberately placed in a shoe so it could be easily found? Why not smartly put the iphone in airplane mode and remove it from the CS?

Why flee the scene of double homicides with bloody pants and muddy boots to plug along the open road to a vehicle parked over near the interstate? Was he dressed in bleu or black? We may not win this case on eyewitness testimony.

How does the police explain the disparity from a tall suspect like RL to a guy a foot shorter like RA? If they can both sound similar to the audio of BG, then aren't the odds others in the area sound like BG, too? Can the DTeam convince a jury the confessions were made while under severe duress and threats of physical torture and harm?

During the 5 years it took to obtain this arrest, didn't LE get KK to say 'ok, if you want me to say I did it, then I did' after hours that became days of harsh interrogations? EF told his sister that he was present at the CS and placed horns in a victim's hair. RL's phone was pinging outside of his home near the CS. Can a jury cast away all of the other possible suspects and focus on the accused? Tough job for the PTeam.

Did the P office staff double in size this year? NMc was busy seeking funds for $5000 per month raises, for himself and former mayor SE, as he rubs the $100 hourly fee earned by the PDs, plus funds were approved for a private secretary, a raise for the current secretary, hired another prosecutor and added another investigator in FEB 2023?

If all the PTeam has to prove is that RA made the action of kidnapping the girls, can the PT do that with an unspent bullet, dirty jeans and opportunity?

I apologize for the delay in response. I appreciate your perspective. I also want to add I have enjoyed seeing your comments from the early threads as I go back through them.
To answer some your questions. Obviously this is all my opinion
Yes I do think if RA was innocent he would have made persistent attempts at clearing the error. He was a local that lived in the community with a wife and daughter, if LE was going down the wrong path by naming him Main suspect I think he had a duty to correct it. This really bothers me.
The fact that he didn’t made him shady.
I think he made mistakes in the execution of his crime. He dropped evidence, he got muddy and parents showed up and police got involved earlier than he anticipated IMO. Maybe the phone died. Maybe he couldn’t remove his gloves to manipulate the phone without leaving prints.
Ripping down the photo behind him at the bar sure would have directed attention his way. I think RA did a very good job at being unnoticed. I think it was allowed him 5 years of freedom. In fact I think it’s part of the reason behind the shocking crime scene, he felt invisible in his own life.
Getting rid of the gun, clothing, etc may have also raised suspicions with his wife. I wonder if she ever questioned him on his involvement. I wonder where she was that day when he returned home.
I think RL had to be investigated. The crime happened on his property and he lied about his alibi. LE were doing their job. They already had access to his property due to crime scene but needed the SW to finish the job. I think phone pings are going to be tricky due to the lack of towers in 2017. More so since the crime scene was behind his residence.
The other stuff about prosecution and budgets I have no answer for. I think if we want to say it’s a money making opportunity then it can also be applied to defense. Either way I don’t think either parties planned the crime to make money off its trial.
I think there is far more evidence than what has been revealed. I look forward to trial.

 

[scapa]

SBBM. This seems to be flatly false IMO and this isn't the first time I've noticed The Prosecutors omitting or misrepresenting facts of this case.

10/19 in-chambers transcript
- Rozzi calling for formality
View attachment 465150
- calling for due process
View attachment 465151

10/25 Rozzi Notice of Continuing Representation
- portraying an effort to bring formality and due notice to proceedings
View attachment 465165

10/31 transcript
- Rozzi calling for due process
View attachment 465160
- calling for due process
View attachment 465161
- Hennessey speaking on behalf of B&R explicitly stating the actions they would take in a formal hearing and their willingness to participate in such a hearing.
View attachment 465162

Rozzi's position is clearly that there shouldn't be a hearing in the first place about the leaks as it is an ancillary matter but if the judge or state are seeking DQ or sanctions it should involve due process.

Due process is clearly referring to formality and the right to present evidence of their defense, as would occur at a formal hearing.

due process

www.law.cornell.edu

"While there is no definitive list of the "required procedures" that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance."

Useful, thanks.

There has been enough recent controversy about that podcast that I won't dredge it up here. These days I tend to find written rather than podcasted explanations of legal minutiae easier to make sense of -- though not always even then -- and Indiana PD is generally a good source of clear explanations.

But in a case where nothing makes sense and there are 18148 different versions of what might or might not have happened in any given aspect of it I've decided to wait on the court case proper. Until then, it seems to be a question of pick yer chaos.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here's a court update for anyone interested in MW's case:

11/29/2023	Judicial Notice of Media Request for Cameras in the Court Johnson County, Indiana Camera in Court Request Form entered.cd Notice Date: 11/29/2023
12/07/2023	Initial Hearing Session:12/07/2023 9:00 AM, Judicial Officer: Cummins, Douglas B.

 

[O.Incandenza]

Having listened to all the Attorney analysis/fanfic and read the pleadings I wanted to record my 02c before SCOIN rules, so I can be proved spectacularly wrong. These are my own opinions only. Please note I won't be engaging in defences of any of the Attorney views - they've argued their positions in huge detail which I can't possible do justice to here. I'd also add, I find all of them wildly partisan and off the cuff compared to the law journal style analysis I am used to - but i guess that's the podcaster/live streaming business.

1. Everyone including the AG agrees the process/record is in a mess. That's Gull's job and not great. My guess is SCOIN won't be happy with Gull about that. Big judicial slap incoming.

2. Per AG, one big reason the record is incomplete is "Takesies Backsies". IMO you either do the hearing, or withdraw - not pretend to withdraw / change your mind. I get the complexity, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Supreme Court is not happy with Rozzi and Baldwin playing the judge in this way.

3. Per Bob Motta, not filing an interlocutory appeal might turn out to be a major fail. The easiest thing for SCOIN to do is just say you should have appealed this. That would be a shame, as the defence has important substantive points that ought to be heard somewhere! I'd like a solution where SCOIN sends this back for a hearing, to fix the record, then Rozzi+Baldwin have appeal rights like normal, if it comes to that.

4. On the substance, much of what Judge Gull relied on is on the record. e.g. the falsities - you can disagree on the Judge's ruling there (god knows i've been mad on websleuths about a judge making incomprehensible decisions from my POV), but she did make that finding. And on the leak(s), she is told again in the chambers it is an ongoing leak. I have sympathy for her view that the investigation into it is the state's business - i don't understand how she is supposed to accept the unknowns here. She can never really know what Baldwin and MW did. In her shoes, I certainly would not be prepared to rely on Baldwin's claims, let alone MW's laughable detail free affidavit. But is it enough? IMO not - there should be a proper hearing

5. I agree with The Prosecutors that defence have played a sharp double game here. They correctly complain about lack of formal process, in respect of a hearing they actually declined to have and do not want. This is legit! They now want to be put back on the case, and Gull removed, and still never have it, IMO. Will it work? Maybe! But per point 2, I agree with AG.

6. Remedy. Phew.

a) I feel Baldwin should be nowhere near this case, and he clearly moved to withdraw in chambers. IMO the easiest thing to do here is just "chop him off" on that basis. So basically say yes this is all dumb and bad but you can't rely on the errors you created with takesies backsies. So basically just decline to reinstate him. My 02c.

b) Rozzi - I feel like there just isn't enough on the record to remove and he didn't so obviously withdraw (though IMO he did). I also haven't really seen the argument for why the duo have to be regarded as a boxed set when clearly Baldwin is more culpable. IMO reinstate and send back for a DQ hearing, with guidance.

c). Gull. IMO even though she messed up bad, there are no grounds to remove her. Judges mess up all the time. But I do wonder if she shouldn't simply recuse for the sake of appearances going forward.

Lastly - it would obviously be good if SCOIN offered some guidance on removal for "gross negligence/incompetence". I get the feeling the Judge must have some discretion in this area e.g. imagine if Baldwin had intentionally leaked the Crime scene photos in order to try to taint the jury pool about Odinism. Surely that would be removal time? But maybe SCOIN won't think this writ is the right place to do this.

Finally, I believe none of this would ever have happened if Baldwin had done the right thing in the first place.

I haven't had much time to keep up with this lately, but I just skimmed all of the recent briefs. Like you, I hope SCOIN actually rule on the merits. Seems to me like there's a decent procedural argument from the respondents, but it would be a shame to rule on that ground and not take the opportunity to clarify what the required removal procedure & standards are in Indiana. Deciding it on the lack of an IA would also just leave the whole substantive issue hanging over the trial until the inevitable appeal (assuming a guilty verdict).

 

[missslaurenlady]

SBBM. This seems to be flatly false IMO and this isn't the first time I've noticed The Prosecutors omitting or misrepresenting facts of this case.

10/19 in-chambers transcript
- Rozzi calling for formality
View attachment 465150
- calling for due process
View attachment 465151

10/25 Rozzi Notice of Continuing Representation
- portraying an effort to bring formality and due notice to proceedings
View attachment 465165

10/31 transcript
- Rozzi calling for due process
View attachment 465160
- calling for due process
View attachment 465161
- Hennessey speaking on behalf of B&R explicitly stating the actions they would take in a formal hearing and their willingness to participate in such a hearing.
View attachment 465162

Rozzi's position is clearly that there shouldn't be a hearing in the first place about the leaks as it is an ancillary matter but if the judge or state are seeking DQ or sanctions it should involve due process.

Due process is clearly referring to formality and the right to present evidence of their defense, as would occur at a formal hearing.

due process

www.law.cornell.edu

"While there is no definitive list of the "required procedures" that due process requires, Judge Henry Friendly generated a list that remains highly influential, as to both content and relative priority:

1. An unbiased tribunal.
2. Notice of the proposed action and the grounds asserted for it.
3. Opportunity to present reasons why the proposed action should not be taken.
4. The right to present evidence, including the right to call witnesses.
5. The right to know opposing evidence.
6. The right to cross-examine adverse witnesses.
7. A decision based exclusively on the evidence presented.
8. Opportunity to be represented by counsel.
9. Requirement that the tribunal prepare a record of the evidence presented.
10. Requirement that the tribunal prepare written findings of fact and reasons for its decision.

This is not a list of procedures which are required to prove due process, but rather a list of the kinds of procedures that might be claimed in a "due process" argument, roughly in order of their perceived importance."

I appreciate you pointing out this isn’t the first time you have heard the prosecutors misrepresenting. This is an HUGE ongoing issue with their podcast in general.