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

[Betty P]

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.

JMO, based on observing cases locally and here at WS, this is fairly typical scheduling for courts at this time of year.

 

[TL4S]

At this point, imo, what we are seeing right now is not about L and A, nor is it really about AB, BR, MW, or the leak. And it certainly is not about whether RA is innocent or guilty. This is about constitutional rights and procedures. I think it's freaking fascinating.

 

[Betty P]

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.

Has discovery been completed yet? Any idea of the amount of discovery the new attorneys need to review? Better to proceed carefully than to rush and face risk of mistrial or decades of appeals. JMO

 

[mrjitty]

At this point, imo, what we are seeing right now is not about L and A, nor is it really about AB, BR, MW, or the leak. And it certainly is not about whether RA is innocent or guilty. This is about constitutional rights and procedures. I think it's freaking fascinating.

Agreed. It is really important. But a shame that it derails the trial by at least 3 months even if they are restored. I kind of thought they might hear it on an more expedited basis but perhaps it just isn't possible to schedule a hearing before then.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

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

BBM is how I have pictured it.
In BR's letter to JG he says that MW "took it upon himself to access Andy's conference room"

AB in the 10/31 transcript says MW went in and took the pics without his knowledge. I suppose it's not totally certain whether "without my knowledge" refers to both "went in" and "did this" or just "did this" but my reading is that both were without his knowledge.

I personally never was under the impression that MW was in the conference room with AB's permission or knowledge.

However to your interpretation, in MW's affidavit does characterize it as more openly waiting rather than sneaking:

 

[arielilane]

Posting for those who may not have seen this info, and from the linked article and bbm "The petition also wants the judge to schedule a trial within 70 days of its ruling."


CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The Indiana Supreme Court announced that it will listen to oral arguments next month in the latest development in the Delphi double murders case against Richard Allen.

The oral arguments are set to commence at 11 a.m. on Jan. 18, as the state’s highest court will hear Allen’s request to reinstate his original defense team of Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin and remove Special Judge Fran Gull from his trial. The petition also wants the judge to schedule a trial within 70 days of its ruling.
...


Delphi murders: Indiana Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in January
Updated: Dec 11, 2023 / 09:22 PM EST

 

[TL4S]

Posting for those who may not have seen this info, and from the linked article and bbm "The petition also wants the judge to schedule a trial within 70 days of its ruling."


CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The Indiana Supreme Court announced that it will listen to oral arguments next month in the latest development in the Delphi double murders case against Richard Allen.

The oral arguments are set to commence at 11 a.m. on Jan. 18, as the state’s highest court will hear Allen’s request to reinstate his original defense team of Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin and remove Special Judge Fran Gull from his trial. The petition also wants the judge to schedule a trial within 70 days of its ruling.
...


Delphi murders: Indiana Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in January
Updated: Dec 11, 2023 / 09:22 PM EST

IANAL, but in my layperson perspective, this is an enormous compromise to RA's rights. AFAIK, he never waived this right to a speedy trial with his new lawyers, yet clearly they would not be ready to zealously represent him in 70 days. JG repeatedly used the term, "gross negligence," but then in her SC filings began citing cases and using "gross incompetence." This, IMO, might be harder to prove with her five bullet points against AB and BR. So, might it come down to the SCOIN having to decide between JG's decision to DQ, even after AB and BR filed as pro bono VS RA's right to a speedy trial (even moreso than his right to counsel of choice)? I'm probably not understanding all the legal logistics, but this is something I'm wondering about.

 

[sunshineray]

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.

I get that, I really do but I also think JG was correct in worrying and then finally judging that RA's former defense lawyers were acting with gross negligence. How many times do they have to be warned and admonished before it becomes extremely detrimental to their client? It was just such a build-up of actions and non-actions, then straight up lying to the judge in chambers just cinched it, for me, that she made the correct decision in denying their Pro Bono, even when the client not being served still mistakenly wanted them. That's purely my take on things, AJMO.

I don't see how, with all the legal avenues still to be tapped in this whole defense debacle, the trial could start any sooner that the Oct next year date set. If RA's new attorneys need that. If they request a speedier trial I will be surprised. Maybe they will.

 

[Ward Thisperer]

CW shared that the primary author of the 2nd original action, Mark Leeman, will be the one giving an oral argument.

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

"WHO WILL ARGUE: Mark Leeman will be arguing for Richard Allen. As co-counsel, I will be helping prepare Mark for the oral argument. I will also be there in Court taking notes and providing any help I can to Mark."

In 2022, he also gave multiple oral arguments to the Supreme Court, and in one of them the SC decided in favor of the defendant and remanded for a new trial.

Cass County oral argument heard by Indiana Supreme Court

Jul. 1—LEBANON — Indiana Supreme Court justices traveled to Lebanon on Thursday to hear oral arguments for a Cass County court case. The case, James E. McCoy v. State of Indiana, centers around Miranda and Pirtle rights. Miranda rights refer to a suspect's right not to incriminate themselves...

finance.yahoo.com

Case #: 22S-CR-00294

He did lose an appeal to the SC in 2022 after oral argument, but won a different one that I don't believe had oral argument. In this one they remanded to trial court for new sentencing hearing.

https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=NpuIdeZ-Iu5h5sVYW6v9iMsOwy5_C9XQJCqfLF15OXTJLdQXXOJ6ZKmIp10nCACk0

Case # 22S-CR-00046

JG's attorney Matthew Gutwein was an attorney in two cases that also went to oral argument in 2022 and his client won, but he is listed as 2nd or 3rd lawyers in these cases so I am not sure if he conducted the oral argument.
Case # 22S-PL-00305
Case # 23S-CP-00115

Also re: the discussion of timeframes, CW is working on another appeal that was scheduled for an oral argument. The case was transferred to SC at the end of October and the hearing date is set for January 25th. So, at least RA got in ahead of this other case despite RA's being filed later and scheduled later than this other case. Perhaps SC is trying to keep the case moving as quickly as they can.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1733241665865818381

Case #: 23A-CR-00656

Edit: adding some stats on timeframes to look at how long we can be waiting for the decision after the argument
22S-PL-00305: oral argument 11/3/2022, opinion issued 3/21/2023
23S-CP-00115: oral argument 6/29/2023, opinion issued 10/24/2023
22S-CR-00294: oral argument 6/30/2022, opinion issued 8/29/2022
22S-CR-00046: oral argument 1/20/2022, opinion issued 1/31/2022

These range from as long as 4+ months to as short as 11 days.

 

[FromGermany1]

BBM is how I have pictured it.
In BR's letter to JG he says that MW "took it upon himself to access Andy's conference room"
View attachment 467561
AB in the 10/31 transcript says MW went in and took the pics without his knowledge. I suppose it's not totally certain whether "without my knowledge" refers to both "went in" and "did this" or just "did this" but my reading is that both were without his knowledge.
View attachment 467562
I personally never was under the impression that MW was in the conference room with AB's permission or knowledge.

However to your interpretation, in MW's affidavit does characterize it as more openly waiting rather than sneaking:
View attachment 467565

Who did give him access to the conference room? I am sorry, but this person made a mistake, if there were at all nice young ladies/guys to care for waiting "clients (friends)".

 

[tlcya]

as someone who has spent 30 years working in law offices, nobody who isn't employed there should have had access to ANY client or file materials. I don't care if those materials were on a conference room table or a desk or a PC.

Even the lowliest receptionist is trained (or should have been) that you do not allow visitors (not even other clients) to see file materials that relate to another's case. you have a screen protector in place to protect even the most basic client info on your PC, you do not allow anyone to go back or stay back in areas unaccompanied and supervised beyond the waiting area for even one minute. non attorney support staff in every office I have ever been employed are taught not to leave ANYTHING lying around within view of outsiders. Not documents, not exhibits, not photos, zip.

I think the problem came when MW was allowed access to inner areas of the firm's office space as if he were still an insider (former consultant or whatever they want to term him). The minute he left the employ of that firm he should have been treated as an outsider. But he wasn't.

IME MOO

 

[Cyber sleuth]

A

as someone who has spent 30 years working in law offices, nobody who isn't employed there should have had access to ANY client or file materials. I don't care if those materials were on a conference room table or a desk or a PC.

Even the lowliest receptionist is trained (or should have been) that you do not allow visitors (not even other clients) to see file materials that relate to another's case. you have a screen protector in place to protect even the most basic client info on your PC, you do not allow anyone to go back or stay back in areas unaccompanied and supervised beyond the waiting area for even one minute. non attorney support staff in every office I have ever been employed are taught not to leave ANYTHING lying around within view of outsiders. Not documents, not exhibits, not photos, zip.

I think the problem came when MW was allowed access to inner areas of the firm's office space as if he were still an insider (former consultant or whatever they want to term him). The minute he left the employ of that firm he should have been treated as an outsider. But he wasn't.

IME MOO

IMO MW visited AB after normal office hours. One would presume all of the above if he had come during business hours but I’m guessing this social visit may have been for drinks or after drinks and when even the “loose, casual” vibe of the office was even more so. Just a wild guess since he had a job in the Indianapolis area that would presumably hold normal office hours.

 

[mrjitty]

I think the problem came when MW was allowed access to inner areas of the firm's office space as if he were still an insider (former consultant or whatever they want to term him). The minute he left the employ of that firm he should have been treated as an outsider. But he wasn't.

IME MOO

RSBM - I also speculate it was something like your bolded text. AB had every incentive to hammer the point if MW really did sneak in, and especially DH in his submissions. The fact that DH did not, leads me to believe that the facts are more like your version.

Especially it seems odd to me that MW would be sneaking in to the conference room when AB could walk in any minute? The whole theme of betrayal seems to admit he was somehow trusted in the first place. i.e as the former chief of operations he was trusted to be back there

My 02c is the judge did not believe the explanations, but unfortunately she did not get that on the record.

 

[mrjitty]

A

IMO MW visited AB after normal office hours. One would presume all of the above if he had come during business hours but I’m guessing this social visit may have been for drinks or after drinks and when even the “loose, casual” vibe of the office was even more so. Just a wild guess since he had a job in the Indianapolis area that would presumably hold normal office hours.

Even then though - how did he get in? Any place I had experience with, big or small, after the support staff are done, the door is locked.

And if all these details were exculpatory for AB - why on earth did they not get them on the record?

 

[girlhasnoname]

RSBM - I also speculate it was something like your bolded text. AB had every incentive to hammer the point if MW really did sneak in, and especially DH in his submissions. The fact that DH did not, leads me to believe that the facts are more like your version.

Especially it seems odd to me that MW would be sneaking in to the conference room when AB could walk in any minute? The whole theme of betrayal seems to admit he was somehow trusted in the first place. i.e as the former chief of operations he was trusted to be back there

My 02c is the judge did not believe the explanations, but unfortunately she did not get that on the record.

But will they be able to argue that point in the next SCOIN hearing? I believe the State will have a very clear outline of how B&R's actions led to DQ.

moo

 

[girlhasnoname]

Posting for those who may not have seen this info, and from the linked article and bbm "The petition also wants the judge to schedule a trial within 70 days of its ruling."


CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The Indiana Supreme Court announced that it will listen to oral arguments next month in the latest development in the Delphi double murders case against Richard Allen.

The oral arguments are set to commence at 11 a.m. on Jan. 18, as the state’s highest court will hear Allen’s request to reinstate his original defense team of Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin and remove Special Judge Fran Gull from his trial. The petition also wants the judge to schedule a trial within 70 days of its ruling.
...


Delphi murders: Indiana Supreme Court set to hear oral arguments in January
Updated: Dec 11, 2023 / 09:22 PM EST

I don't believe there is any chance that R&B will be reinstated and ready for trial in 70 days. Talk about a huge appellate issue for RA if this were to happen and he is found guilty.

This case if a legal nightmare at this point, IMO, thanks to the unethical tactics of B&R. Maybe that was their intentions all along??

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

IANAL, but in my layperson perspective, this is an enormous compromise to RA's rights. AFAIK, he never waived this right to a speedy trial with his new lawyers, yet clearly they would not be ready to zealously represent him in 70 days. JG repeatedly used the term, "gross negligence," but then in her SC filings began citing cases and using "gross incompetence." This, IMO, might be harder to prove with her five bullet points against AB and BR. So, might it come down to the SCOIN having to decide between JG's decision to DQ, even after AB and BR filed as pro bono VS RA's right to a speedy trial (even moreso than his right to counsel of choice)? I'm probably not understanding all the legal logistics, but this is something I'm wondering about.

I thought this was an interesting explanation of the legal definitions of both gross negligence and gross incompetence:

Define Incompetence​

Incompetence is the lack of ability or skill to perform a task or duty adequately. It refers to a person’s inability to meet the required standard of performance in a particular area. Incompetence can be a result of a lack of knowledge, experience, or training. It can also be due to a lack of effort or motivation to improve one’s skills.

Define Negligence​

Negligence refers to the failure to exercise reasonable care or caution in performing a task or duty. It is the act of not taking appropriate action or precautions that a reasonable person would have taken in a similar situation. Negligence can result in harm or damage to others, and it is often associated with legal liability. Negligence can be intentional or unintentional, but it is always a breach of the duty of care owed to others.

https://thecontentauthority.com/blog/incompetence-vs-negligence

MOO

 

[katydid23]

A

IMO MW visited AB after normal office hours. One would presume all of the above if he had come during business hours but I’m guessing this social visit may have been for drinks or after drinks and when even the “loose, casual” vibe of the office was even more so. Just a wild guess since he had a job in the Indianapolis area that would presumably hold normal office hours.

That makes it even worse---they are going to have an after hours, casual drink, while crime scene photos of teen girls are left strewn about the table, unsupervised, unlocked?

 

[katydid23]

dbm

 

[katydid23]

RSBM - I also speculate it was something like your bolded text. AB had every incentive to hammer the point if MW really did sneak in, and especially DH in his submissions. The fact that DH did not, leads me to believe that the facts are more like your version.

Especially it seems odd to me that MW would be sneaking in to the conference room when AB could walk in any minute? The whole theme of betrayal seems to admit he was somehow trusted in the first place. i.e as the former chief of operations he was trusted to be back there

My 02c is the judge did not believe the explanations, but unfortunately she did not get that on the record.

Are we going to see this issue, surrounding the leak, delved into more deeply during the upcoming hearing? I assume that Judge G is going to make her presentation concerning the negligence and her decision to remove the defense team.

Will that force the D team to put forth their version more fully? Will anyone be able to question their version? Like how MW ended up in that conference room while all those 'classified' documents were left out, unattended?

In some ways, this hearing may be a difficult one for the original defense duo, if everything is investigated publicly and thoroughly. JMO