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

[FrostedGlass]

While we're impatiently waiting for another info drop, let's go back in time to the day the girls were dropped off at the bridge. We imagine the following is true:
A. BP is right about the drop-off time.
B. DG can confirm that time is correct because Libby called him.
C. KG saw a black SUV with decals parked at the drop-off location.
1. 1327 - 1330 hrs: Vehicle appears to match RA's seen on HH
2. 1338- 1340 hrs: Girls were at the bridge entrance, on the trail
3. 1346 hrs: BB passes HH going east, parks and walks (6-8 Min behind L&A)
4. 1349 hrs: Kelsi drove by HH leaving
5. 1414 hrs: BB was seen going west leaving

In summary:
If the girls got there before BB did, how would that change the P's timeline?
When did the SUV leave and why didn't BB see it?
When did RA's car leave?
When was the last sighting of a vehicle at the CPS bldg.?

 

[FrostedGlass]

Finally! 23S-OR-00311

12/11/2023

Order Scheduling Oral Argument The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the Relator's second application for writ of mandamus and prohibition in State ex rel. Allen, 23S-OR-311, on January 18, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. 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: Supreme Court Public Information Officer Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 12/11/2023

 

[twall]

Notice of Hearing from SCOIN

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here is the decision on the other case #23S-OR-00302

12/11/2023

Order Issued The Justices of this Court have reviewed the briefs and other filed materials and conferred with each other. Because Allen bore the burden to persuade this Court to issue a writ and he has not done so, the petition is DENIED. This disposition is final. No petitions for rehearing or motions to reconsider shall be filed in this original action. See Orig. Act. R. 5(C). All Justices concur. Judicial Officer: Rush, Loretta H. Serve: Smith, Margaret Lee Serve: Rokita, Theodore Edward Serve: Wieneke, Cara Schaefer Serve: Cook, Jessie A. Serve: Trial Clerk 08 - Carroll Serve: Sanchez, Angela Serve: Supreme Court Public Information Officer Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Byron, Daniel P Serve: Leisz, Scott Russell Serve: Christensen, Margaret Marie Serve: Meek, Jessica Laurin File Stamp: 12/11/2023

 

[twall]

Order denying

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Finally! 23S-OR-00311

12/11/2023

Order Scheduling Oral Argument The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the Relator's second application for writ of mandamus and prohibition in State ex rel. Allen, 23S-OR-311, on January 18, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. 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: Supreme Court Public Information Officer Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 12/11/2023

Please tell me I’m reading this wrong.
The SCOIN won’t be ruling on anything until Jan 18th?!
Weeks have gone by while these issues just sat there.
RA sits waiting. Libby and Abby’s families‘ torment continues.
C’mon Indiana, this is pathetic.

 

[StarryStarryNight]

Well, it seems I did read some of it wrong.
Sorry.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Well, it seems I did read some of it wrong.
Sorry.

Most weren't surprised by the denial of 23S-OR-00302.

The hearing for the second one is a pleasant surprise. I don't have great expectations for the outcome.

 

[twall]

Hearing Set in Delphi Original Action — Wieneke Law Office, LLC

The Supreme Court of Indiana has set a hearing in the second original action filed by Richard Allen. This action was brought after his counsel of choice, Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi, were removed as counsel over Richard’s objection. I am expecting a lot of questions from media and the public, so I

www.wienekelaw.com

 

[sunshineray]

Finally! 23S-OR-00311

12/11/2023

Order Scheduling Oral Argument The Supreme Court will hear oral argument on the Relator's second application for writ of mandamus and prohibition in State ex rel. Allen, 23S-OR-311, on January 18, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. 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: Supreme Court Public Information Officer Serve: Corley, Bernice Angenett Nickole Serve: Schumm, Joel M. Serve: Stake, Christopher S. Serve: Gutwein, Matthew R Serve: Kobe, Andrew Anton File Stamp: 12/11/2023

Edit: DBM

 

[sunshineray]

Most weren't surprised by the denial of 23S-OR-00302.

The hearing for the second one is a pleasant surprise. I don't have great expectations for the outcome.

Ok so the first was denied. That was the one that AB & BR submitted.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

DH is obviously a skilled advocate so I was more interested in what he didn't say - which was yet again to leave out how exactly MW came to be in the war room - though he did give some scant insight into the office layout and claimed MW "sneaked in". I could be wrong but I don't think he that said in Court?

all SBM - I don't personally interpret 'sneaked in' as different than what has been said by B&R or DH previously. It was always my understanding that the D claim is that he went in while AB was not aware he had arrived at the office. DH was the one who said AB was "snookered and abused" and both AB and BR have said he went in there without AB's knowledge. To me 'snookering' implies sneakiness.

BM I struggle with compared to straight legal analysis. I get why the defence community is upset about this issue, and advocacy in that direction is fully understandable.

But he keeps saying we know nothing about this case until evidence gets presented yet then pushes the defence side without questioning their contentions and claims the attorneys believe RA is innocent. That’s advocacy IMO. Which is fine but we shouldn’t pretend that isn’t where he’s landed.

I think that BM is very emotionally invested because he did go through a case himself where he believed the person he was defending was innocent and lost. That is something that really weighs on him as he's related in his coverage of RA fairly often.

As to the gag order perhaps it doesn’t apply to the attorneys in these side proceedings so long as they don’t discuss the main case?

Gag order states:
"Counsel for the State of Indiana and the Defendant, as well as their professional staff and other personnel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and all family members are prohibited from commenting on this case to the public and to the media, directly or indirectly, by themselves or through any intermediary, in any form, including any social media platforms."
BBM - in my lay interpretation of this, DH is not bound by the order because he wasn't counsel for RA, and CW would be bound from discussing the murder case but not the appellate cases.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

Please tell me I’m reading this wrong.
The SCOIN won’t be ruling on anything until Jan 18th?!
Weeks have gone by while these issues just sat there.
RA sits waiting. Libby and Abby’s families‘ torment continues.
C’mon Indiana, this is pathetic.

well, it could be even longer than Jan 18th for the ruling. NAL but my understanding is the SC can take as long as they need to put together a decision after hearing the arguments and could even request the parties file more info before deciding.

Ok so the first was denied. That was the one that AB & BR submitted.

AB & BR didn't submit any of them. The first was headed by Maggie Smith.
--
It looks like oral arguments for the SC are webcast on this site here:

Indiana Appellate Clerk's Portal

 

[sunshineray]

well, it could be even longer than Jan 18th for the ruling. NAL but my understanding is the SC can take as long as they need to put together a decision after hearing the arguments and could even request the parties file more info before deciding.


AB & BR didn't submit any of them. The first was headed by Maggie Smith.
--
It looks like oral arguments for the SC are webcast on this site here:

Indiana Appellate Clerk's Portal

So why was Maggie Smith's application denied? I know she's not Professor McGonagall, who is she associated with, the firm? I'm not recalling seeing her name. TIA

 

[Ward Thisperer]

So why was Maggie Smith's application denied? I know she's not Professor McGonagall, who is she associated with, the firm? I'm not recalling seeing her name. TIA

She is another appellate attorney who likely was interested in the case because she has specialized in Indiana's public access laws. I posted about her background here here:

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

Yes, he admitted to the crime, but under what circumstances? That really is the question, isn’t it? We do know that he was not being held and questioned by LE or Prison Officials at the time. He was talking freely on a recorded phone line. None of us has the complete answer at this time, but...

www.websleuths.com

It seems to me like the denial of the writ was pretty fair and displayed a compromise. JMO and still NAL:

The SC agreed with JG that her Nov 14th order had "mooted" most of RA's concerns and that that order showed "the court’s intention to comply with the A.C.R. Rules going forward," admitting that JG had not been complying with the rules initially.

In the response to JG, MS had implored the SC: "This original action provides this court with a unique and much needed opportunity to educate the bench, the bar, the media, and the public as to the mandates of the ACR Rules."
SC does take this opportunity to educate in the 2nd half of their decision, "We now take this opportunity to clarify the requirements in our A.C.R. Rules, which recognize the “strong societal reasons for allowing public access to court records.”..."

So basically SC does validate the public access concerns but it doesn't rise to the level of a writ which I think is something many people expected.

---

Now regarding the 2nd petition for writ, here is the rule which shows what we can be looking at after the oral arguments.

Rule 5. Disposition of Petitions
(A) Petition Granted--Issuance of Writ--Filing With Clerk--Disposition. If the application for writ of mandamus or prohibition is granted, either an alternative or permanent writ will be issued. If the alternative writ is issued, the respondent court shall be given 20 days to file a return. See Rule 3(E)(2). The return shall show compliance with the writ or state reasons why the writ should not be made permanent.
If the return shows compliance with the alternative writ, the Supreme Court will enter an order dismissing the original action as moot.
If the return contests the alternative writ, the Relator shall have five (5) days after service of the return to file a brief in opposition to the return. Any parties opposing the alternative writ other than the respondents also may file a further brief no later than five (5) days after service of the return.
The Supreme Court thereafter will dispose of the original action by written order or opinion without further hearing or the filing of any further papers, unless requested by the Court.
The Supreme Court may alter, by order, any time limit established by this Rule.

(B) Petition Denied. If the petition is denied, an order of denial shall be entered expeditiously. The denial of the petition will end the proceedings, regardless of whether the Court has conducted a hearing.

(C) Petitions for Rehearing. No petitions for rehearing or motions to reconsider shall be filed after final disposition of the original action.

Redirecting...

If I'm understanding correctly, the SC can either:
- deny RA's petition for a writ
- or, issue an alternative writ demanding action from JG
- - in which case JG will have 20 days to comply with or contest the writ.
- - - if JG complies, RA's petition will be dismissed as moot.
- - - if JG contests, RA can respond opposing the contestation within 5 days
- - - - then SC will make a final ruling (unless they feel the need to request more hearings or filings to help them decide.)
- or, grant the permanent writ as requested by RA

 

[sunshineray]

She is another appellate attorney who likely was interested in the case because she has specialized in Indiana's public access laws. I posted about her background here here:

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

Yes, he admitted to the crime, but under what circumstances? That really is the question, isn’t it? We do know that he was not being held and questioned by LE or Prison Officials at the time. He was talking freely on a recorded phone line. None of us has the complete answer at this time, but...

www.websleuths.com

It seems to me like the denial of the writ was pretty fair and displayed a compromise. JMO and still NAL:

The SC agreed with JG that her Nov 14th order had "mooted" most of RA's concerns and that that order showed "the court’s intention to comply with the A.C.R. Rules going forward," admitting that JG had not been complying with the rules initially.

In the response to JG, MS had implored the SC: "This original action provides this court with a unique and much needed opportunity to educate the bench, the bar, the media, and the public as to the mandates of the ACR Rules."
SC does take this opportunity to educate in the 2nd half of their decision, "We now take this opportunity to clarify the requirements in our A.C.R. Rules, which recognize the “strong societal reasons for allowing public access to court records.”..."

So basically SC does validate the public access concerns but it doesn't rise to the level of a writ which I think is something many people expected.

---

Now regarding the 2nd petition for writ, here is the rule which shows what we can be looking at after the oral arguments.

Redirecting...

If I'm understanding correctly, the SC can either:
- deny RA's petition for a writ
- or, issue an alternative writ demanding action from JG
- - in which case JG will have 20 days to comply with or contest the writ.
- - - if JG complies, RA's petition will be dismissed as moot.
- - - if JG contests, RA can respond opposing the contestation within 5 days
- - - - then SC will make a final ruling (unless they feel the need to request more hearings or filings to help them decide.)
- or, grant the permanent writ as requested by RA

This is just going on and on and on

 

[mrjitty]

Order denying

Interesting

Slap on the wrist for Judge Gull, and also saying appeal is the correct route for these issues.

But they haven't said that for the second writ so my guess is the AG isn't going to be successful on the appeal vs writ argument (a good thing IMO)

 

[mrjitty]

all SBM - I don't personally interpret 'sneaked in' as different than what has been said by B&R or DH previously. It was always my understanding that the D claim is that he went in while AB was not aware he had arrived at the office. DH was the one who said AB was "snookered and abused" and both AB and BR have said he went in there without AB's knowledge. To me 'snookering' implies sneakiness.

RSBM - have they said he was in there without ABs knowledge? IIRC they only said he took the photos without knowledge. MW doesn't say he was in the conference room without knowledge - i read it that he was openly waiting for AB there which would not be sneaking. This is what I was meaning by missing info. If he slipped in to the conference room, took the photos, then when AB comes out of his office, MW is waiting in reception - that is quite different IMO. I guess just being cynical about how lawyers answer things, IMO DH intentionally circumvented that aspect - but then went further on the podcast.

I suspect we never get the answer to this question

 

[mrjitty]

This is just going on and on and on

I get that it's frustrating but there are some really important legal issues here so it is good SCOIN will take oral arguments and then clarify this hot mess! It's not just this trial. I agree with Shay Hughes that it could get dangerous if Trial Judges began to overextend their powers of removal.

But on any view I guess we now would not see a trial before end of April at the earliest?? (Say a ruling end of January, then speedy trial notice). Personally I suspect that even if Rozzi and Baldwin get back on, once the dust settles it will be longer than that.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Notice of Hearing from SCOIN

Not surprised at this decision at all, based on procedural issues alone. I AM curious that they are having a hearing on the DQ of AB and BR, that could get very interesting.

It's a shame it will take another month, but the wheels of justice move slowly at this level. At the end of the day, R&B will not be RA's attorneys IMO, nor should they be. Their actions have tanked this case from the moment they were appointed to represent him. I do wonder if/how they will be sanctioned when the dust settles. Regardless of the outcome, they have done their professional careers and reputations no favors.

EBM: No testimony will be given

ALL MOO