Two bodies found in Carroll County

[HoughMade]

HoughMade, thank you for your explanations from your experiences. Not to change the subject, but any of the judges on this case also involved in the past Indy experience a few years back?

No.

 

[manifest destiny]

How long before Judge Gull is accosted in a White Castle parking lot at 0300?

 

[JettaKnight]

How long before Judge Gull is accosted in a White Castle parking lot at 0300?

Should be safe - we don't have those here in Fort Wayne.

 

[HoughMade]

I find the whole accusation of making things the defense filed confidential, meaning only the court and parties to the case can access it- weird.

It's like they said the quiet part out loud that being: "we really want to get all this Odinist stuff into the media so they can run with it."

It appears that this issue (public vs. confidential filing) is well on its way to being a non-issue. The Judge has ordered that almost everything be made publicly available on the docket. The majority of the documents at issue were marked confidential right after the case was originally filed. Those were made available to the public months ago on a website, but the clerk never officially put them on the electronic docket. That was ordered to be done. However, the "Franks hearing" filings and most exhibits were deemed "confidential" because they needed to be redacted as to certain information in them according the Indiana Administrative Rules. They will continue to be held as confidential until the current attorneys decide whether to pursue that issue and if so, they need to file redacted versions which comply with the rules.

This ordered was entered yesterday. Obviously, this order is in light of the fact that the Court's response in the Original Action dealing with the confidential vs. public issue is due tomorrow.

We'll see whether the Ind. Sup. Ct. agrees that this order takes care of the issue.

As an aside, I will be arguing before the Ind. Sup. Ct. two weeks from today. No where near as interesting an issue.

 

[HoughMade]

One addition. This is a portion of the Court's order from yesterday:



The "Franks" motion is the motion that deals with the Odinism/ritual killing allegations of the defense.

I did not know that the Court had ordered them to decide whether they were going to pursue this or not. I figured that eventually they would have to make that decision, but it appears this will be sooner rather than later. If I were them, I wouldn't file anything on this issue until the Ind. Sup. Ct. has done whatever it's going to do about who is representing the defendant.

Anyhoo, I've said it before, I'll say it again. If the new defense attorneys abandon the Odinism angle, that will tell us just about everything we need to know about the quality of the evidence on that theory.

If they do not abandon it, that tells us next to nothing as there could be several reasons they do not, most of which have nothing to do with whether they actually believe it.

We will get the Court's response in the SC about the public/confidential filing issue tomorrow, then the Court's response about the defense attorney issue the Monday after Thanksgiving. The SC rules on these things pretty quickly, days or weeks, not months.

 

[injb]

Well here's the transcript: https://fox59.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/21/2023/11/Respondents-Supplemental-Record.pdf

 

[manifest destiny]

The defense has described Judge Gull's actions as an ambush, and forced/coerced their resignation(s). I agree with their description.

 

[bwframe]

‘Don’t think I have a choice’: Docs show judge in Delphi murders case wanted defense removed prior to withdrawal

ALLEN COUNTY, Ind. — Allen Superior Judge Fran Gull, the woman appointed to oversee the trial of Richard Allen in the Delphi double murders case, has released a transcript of a meeting in her chamb…

fox59.com

 

[HoughMade]

They certainly said that they were ambushed...and that they knew disqualification was at issue 2 weeks before due to it being specifically discussed in a phone call.

However, it seems that the disqualification issue was not addressed as we normally see it addressed, that is: motion, response, reply, hearing, decision. When something comes from the judge rather than a party, the normal process doesn't happen and things get weird.

I'm going to play junior, make believe judge, then junior make believe justice.

Not knowing a fraction of what the judge and parties know, I would have leaned towards setting a hearing explicitly on the disqualification issue (made explicit to the parties, not the public) telling the defense attorneys that I was considering disqualifying them, the reasons, and setting a deadline for the parties to file responses at least a week before the hearing. The order, confidential at that stage, would state that at the hearing the Court would be setting forth all of the reasons why disqualification was being considered. If the attorneys wanted to to do something before the hearing to prevent that, that's up to them. I sense that the judge probably believes that she did invite a response to her statement that she was considering or leaning towards disqualification. I also sense that she was ready to go into open court and state the reasons why she believed disqualification was necessary.

If I was a SC Justice, I would probably issue an order directing the Trial Court to have a hearing on disqualification at which time evidence can be heard.

Still the judge's call, just a somewhat more formal process and an opportunity to respond.

 

[manifest destiny]

"But I've seen lawyers disqualified and there is a process for that, and it's not this...."

I didn't see J. Gull respond to that (in the released transcript). If the process for her actions are routine court processes, why deviate? Why hesitate to explain her deviation?

Look, maybe the defense attorny(s) are complete loons, pushing the legal evelope past its limit. If so, she should state such, plainly with specifics. A vague off-record phone call two weeks prior to what can best be described as a threatening ambush, puts her in a bad light at best.

 

[HoughMade]

"But I've seen lawyers disqualified and there is a process for that, and it's not this...."

I didn't see J. Gull respond to that (in the released transcript). If the process for her actions are routine court processes, why deviate? Why hesitate to explain her deviation?

Look, maybe the defense attorny(s) are complete loons, pushing the legal evelope past its limit. If so, she should state such, plainly with specifics. A vague off-record phone call two weeks prior to what can best be described as a threatening ambush, puts her in a bad light at best.

There is not a "routine" process for attorney disqualification.

That being said, I would have had more process.

 

[injb]

sidering disqualifying them, the reasons, and setting a deadline for the parties to file responses at least a week before the hearing. The order, confidential at that stage, would state that at the hearing the Court would be setting forth all of the reasons why disqualification was being considered.

So no opportunity for the defence to hear the reasons in advance, and prepare? If someone accused me of doing something wrong last November, I would need time to go back through emails, documents etc. I've seen this happen in non-legal work settings before, where someone confronts a subordinate with a long list of grievances, and maintains that this is their opportunity to respond, right now, or else they must accept judgement. I've always considered that "ambushing" and this looks exactly the same to me. Maybe it works differently in legal settings but I can definitely relate to what Rozzi is saying here.

 

[manifest destiny]

There is not a "routine" process for attorney disqualification.

That being said, I would have had more process.

I must have misunderstood. I thought your motion, response, reply, hearing, decision was the procedural norm for disqualification. I always look forward to your input on this thread. Since you studied all of the latin and know the inside baseball, your input is valued by me.

I'll admit the defense claiming that ritualistic, racists viking overlords killed the children is, well, rather fantastical. And if they could muster that with a straight face, who knows what else they may have been willing to do? So, maybe J. Gull has legit issues with the attorneys. But, from my armchair, J. Gull doesn't appear as unbiased as I would hope a judge to be. I guess we'll see in time, 'cause this case isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[HoughMade]

So no opportunity for the defence to hear the reasons in advance, and prepare? If someone accused me of doing something wrong last November, I would need time to go back through emails, documents etc. I've seen this happen in non-legal work settings before, where someone confronts a subordinate with a long list of grievances, and maintains that this is their opportunity to respond, right now, or else they must accept judgement. I've always considered that "ambushing" and this looks exactly the same to me. Maybe it works differently in legal settings but I can definitely relate to what Rozzi is saying here.

Ahem:

"I would have leaned towards setting a hearing explicitly on the disqualification issue (made explicit to the parties, not the public) telling the defense attorneys that I was considering disqualifying them, the reasons, and setting a deadline for the parties to file responses at least a week before the hearing. "

Also, as I said, the Judge and both defense attorneys acknowledged that 2 weeks prior to the chambers conversation they discussed disqualification. I would have set a deadline to file responses, but clearly they were at least on notice of the issue.

 

[KellyinAvon]

And the hits just keep on coming!

Judge overseeing Delphi murders case against Richard Allen suffers ‘urgent medical condition’​

​

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/judg...chard-allen-suffers-urgent-medical-condition/ ​

 

[injb]

Ahem:

"I would have leaned towards setting a hearing explicitly on the disqualification issue (made explicit to the parties, not the public) telling the defense attorneys that I was considering disqualifying them, the reasons, and setting a deadline for the parties to file responses at least a week before the hearing. "

Also, as I said, the Judge and both defense attorneys acknowledged that 2 weeks prior to the chambers conversation they discussed disqualification. I would have set a deadline to file responses, but clearly they were at least on notice of the issue.

Sorry, I misread and thought you said they would only get the reasons at the hearing. My mistake!

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Westfield man charged in Delphi murders evidence leak

Mitchell Thomas Westerman is accused of taking photos of evidence in the office of a former attorney for Richard Allen.

www.wthr.com

 

[printcraft]

And the hits just keep on coming!

Judge overseeing Delphi murders case against Richard Allen suffers ‘urgent medical condition’​

https://fox59.com/indiana-news/judg...chard-allen-suffers-urgent-medical-condition/ ​

Last know whereabouts of odin???

 

[KellyinAvon]

Last know whereabouts of odin???

Could've been Loki.

 

[Hawkeye]

Could've been Loki.

Yeah, I think that's more of a Loki thing.