Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184

[vinayd]

“Demeaning” misspelled. 10 points off up front.

I was gonna correct it but nope that's what they submitted

 

[mrjitty]

I am laughing so hard at this five-alarm dumpster fire. She should have made an in-camera review of the records before just handing them over to the prosecution. Sigh.

I could be mixing up what records it is exactly but my understanding was the defence had consented to this .... see also Rozzis comments on p 79. It seems to deal with both the medical and mental health records that had already been handed over by the defence to the state. Then for some reason the state wanted to get them direct.

YMMV



March 18, 2024 Motion to Dismiss Hearing.pdf

IMO

 

[photographer4]

Maybe there was an issue with the hotel?

Do you think that the Defense possibly would have asked for more time if she had been able to secure the housing for 2 or 3 more weeks? I kinda do.

The trial had been scheduled for October previously, and that seems to be the best fit for timing, for preparation, etc.

JMO

He literally *did* ask for more time before asking cancel the speedy trial. She declined. Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longer

 

[Megnut]

When a jury is brought in from another county, besides making them drive back and forth every day, what other choice is there besides sequestration?

When the Court has to weigh the cost (to the jurors) of sequestration against other considerations, it begins to feel like jury considerations become paramount.

This jury hasn't been seated so there's not a seated jury to consider, just a potential one.

Lifting sequestration should be an option. Bus them from one courthouse to the other so their personal lives aren't completely obliterated for the duration. Practical? Probably not. Cheaper than hotels, probably.

But the real issue here is that the Defense waited until the 10th hour to insist they need more time to present, even though they have been aware of the schedule and the fixed nature of it from the outset. That was the time to object.

Moreover, when the judge asked the defense why they needed more time, defense counsel snarked at the judge with a quip about her knowing nothing of their defense. No one is withholding that from her but THEM. And they held firm, just days ahead of scheduled trial, they couldn't or wouldn't provide her an accounting. For whom they'd call and for how long they anticipate eliciting testimony from them. Why the secrecy? They're supposed to be ready for trial.

It's the Judge's job to oversee her courtroom. If she has the motions and witness lists and stipulated evidence before her, she ought to be able to manage the clock. Hold the Prosecution to task, reserve adequate time for the Defense, sanction as needed to keep it flowing.

The Defense represented this essentially -- we need more time to present, we're just not going to tell you why.

And showing deference to the Defense, she granted them a longer trial, sight (of reason) unseen. Being that the Defense failed IMO both to object (to the length of the trial) at an appropriate time and to delineate a real need for fifteen days, I think she was well within her latitude to deny it and proceed forward with the May dates, as is. She granted the extension

Come October, let's see if they're ready. Come October, let's see if they use 15 days.

As for the ruling on RA's medical/mental health records, not every ruling requires a hearing. As I posted above, granting the State's motion was IMO uncomplicated. It met the criterion for exclusion of protected patient information because it is pertinent to a homicide trial. There's really no room for debate there IMO. The law is straightforward. Tge State isn't asking to see it, they're asking to include it at trial.

The Defense opened the door, the judge granted the State entry and the law supports it.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

I am laughing so hard at this five-alarm dumpster fire. She should have made an in-camera review of the records before just handing them over to the prosecution. Sigh.

I really dislike how JG manages (or fails to manage!) her courtroom but was wondering if you have a moment, do judges normally review medical records such as these before just handing them over to the State? Just curious. Ty in advance.

 

[AugustWest]

I could be mixing up what records it is exactly but my understanding was the defence had consented to this .... see also Rozzis comments on p 79. It seems to deal with both the medical and mental health records that had already been handed over by the defence to the state. Then for some reason the state wanted to get them direct.

YMMV

View attachment 502287

March 18, 2024 Motion to Dismiss Hearing.pdf

IMO

The very next colloquy in that selection is the prosecutor stating he doesn't have the full record. Then, on pg. 79, Rozzi explicitly objects to full disclosure of all DOC records on the issue.

 

[mrjitty]

She granted him access to RA's records without a hearing. (I think)
From mycase:
03/14/2024 Motion Filed
3rd Request for Medical Health Records.pdf
Filed By:State of Indiana
File Stamp:03/14/2024

03/14/2024 Motion Filed
4th Request for Mental Health Records.pdf
Filed By:State of Indiana
File Stamp:03/14/2024

04/03/2024 Order Issued
State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (mental health records) filed March 14, 2024 granted without hearing. State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (medical records) filed March 14, 2024, granted without hearing.
Judicial Officer:Gull, Frances -SJ
Order Signed:04/02/2024

This makes sense to me - Rozzi had until 29 March 2024 to file a motion to quash

see page 80

He obviously decided not to oppose this (he reviewed all the material and had already discovered a lot of it. Why Rozzi decided to open all this up I don't know.

Or maybe i've misunderstood.


MOO

 

[Ravenmoon]

He literally *did* ask for more time before asking cancel the speedy trial. She declined. Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longer

"Rozzi asked for either a 15-day defense presentation of evidence after the prosecution would rest or a dismissal of the Speedy Trial order."

I understand that. It still doesn't answer whether or not there may have been an issue with securing accommodations for the jury.

I don't think that it was right for the judge to try to limit the amount of time that the defense had to present their case. That doesn't feel right.


JMO

EBM to add link

Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longer

 

[TTF14]

But the real issue here is that the Defense waited until the 10th hour to insist they need more time to present, even though they have been aware of the schedule and the fixed nature of it from the outset. That was the time to object.

Moreover, when the judge asked the defense why they needed more time, defense counsel snarked at the judge with a quip about her knowing nothing of their defense.

RSBM

The State continues to hand over evidence. How could the defense have known they'd need more time when the State hadn't even handed over everything? (Hello phone ping/geofence stuff)

As far as bussing vs. sequestration....giving them an option sounds like a good idea to me. I'd rather escape my life and be sequestered for a few weeks, but I realize some would hate that and would probably choose a long daily commute.

 

[Megnut]

If the Defense hadn't raised mental decline as basis for throwing out confessions, the State might never have been granted access to review those reports. Thst a confession may be embedded there becomes the new issue, supported by law.

But to privacy and confidentiality, of course there's an inherent right attached. Until one's own Defense intends to use it. Then IMO it becomes discovery and the State has a right to it. No different than if the State was granted a mental health evaluation, whatever the results, it's discovery to share with the Defense.

If the Defense were saying that RA couldn't have commit the crime because he had a broken leg at the time or that later confessions were unreliable because of heavy pain meds, the State would have a right to see those records
Defense can't have it both ways.

The facts as I see them. If the Defense needs more time to present, earlier was better for saying so and this late in the game, they should have been able to supply a succinct argument for why, with names, dates and times. They're either ready. Or they're not.

And if they're going to present RA's medical/mental health as a defense, they have to provide the discovery, and I don't see why that should require a dedicated hearing.

JMO and understanding from following similar trials. I'm not an attorney nor claim to be!

 

[AugustWest]

I really dislike how JG manages (or fails to manage!) her courtroom but was wondering if you have a moment, do judges normally review medical records such as these before just handing them over to the State? Just curious. Ty in advance.

Yes. Judges review privilege before allowing a subpoena of confidential information. That was one of the reasons I included Jorgensen v. State above:

Jorgensen v. State, 574 NE 2d 915 - Ind: Supreme Court 1991 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

"Therefore, we remand this matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether the information sought from Dr. Greenburg, information which might ordinarily be privileged, was made discoverable by IND. CODE § 25-33-1-17(1). Similarly, the trial court should determine whether information possessed by Ball was privileged. The trial court must then determine whether nonprivileged information possessed by Ball and Dr. Greenburg is material to Jorgensen's defense. If the trial court determines that neither Ball nor Dr. Greenburg have material information, then the convictions shall stand. If their testimony reveals that they do have nonprivileged information which would have been material to Jorgensen's defense, then the trial court must determine whether to grant a new trial by viewing such information as newly-discovered evidence and applying the law as it relates to newly discovered evidence."

 

[Ravenmoon]

RSBM

The State continues to hand over evidence. How could the defense have known they'd need more time when the State hadn't even handed over everything? (Hello phone ping/geofence stuff)

As far as bussing vs. sequestration....giving them an option sounds like a good idea to me. I'd rather escape my life and be sequestered for a few weeks, but I realize some would hate that and would probably choose a long daily commute.

Isn't sequestering the jury a way to keep jurors safe from the general public while also keeping them apart from hearing news reports and public opinion?

 

[photographer4]

Not at all supported by law. The prosecution is allowed the statements if they relate to homicide. However, they shouldn't already know the content of the reports.

If the prosecution already knows the contents of the reports, then the psychologist-patient privilege has already been breached. Which is not how these matters should go down.

If they don't know, then they should ask for an in-camera review by the judge. Only then should they be granted the information.

RA should really just outright *refuse* to speak to literally *anyone* I guess.

 

[TTF14]

Isn't sequestering the jury a way to keep jurors safe from the general public while also keeping them apart from hearing news reports and public opinion?

Yes, but you just don't see it much anymore. It seems like because of the Internet it's nearly impossible to keep all "news" away from jurors so they have had to shift more to trusting them/honor system rather than removing the temptation altogether like in the old days (sequester them without TV or newspapers, period.) This is just my lay observation.

IMO MOO

 

[photographer4]

Yes. Judges review privilege before allowing a subpoena of confidential information. That was one of the reasons I included Jorgensen v. State above:

Jorgensen v. State, 574 NE 2d 915 - Ind: Supreme Court 1991 - Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

"Therefore, we remand this matter to the trial court for the purpose of determining whether the information sought from Dr. Greenburg, information which might ordinarily be privileged, was made discoverable by IND. CODE § 25-33-1-17(1). Similarly, the trial court should determine whether information possessed by Ball was privileged. The trial court must then determine whether nonprivileged information possessed by Ball and Dr. Greenburg is material to Jorgensen's defense. If the trial court determines that neither Ball nor Dr. Greenburg have material information, then the convictions shall stand. If their testimony reveals that they do have nonprivileged information which would have been material to Jorgensen's defense, then the trial court must determine whether to grant a new trial by viewing such information as newly-discovered evidence and applying the law as it relates to newly discovered evidence."

Ty!

 

[Megnut]

"Rozzi asked for either a 15-day defense presentation of evidence after the prosecution would rest or a dismissal of the Speedy Trial order."

I understand that. It still doesn't answer whether or not there may have been an issue with securing accommodations for the jury.

I don't think that it was right for the judge to try to limit the amount of time that the defense had to present their case. That doesn't feel right.


JMO

EBM to add link

Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longer

It was well within the Defense's right to object to the length of trial when it was being decided!

But she did grant it, just had to make an unfortunate adjustment to the Court schedule which counted it to October and granted it without forcing them to justify why they need it. If they don't know who they were going to call, how can they pretend they were ready for trial?

I'm not even hammering this defense counsel, I've seen it in many trials. The load insistence on their client's right to a speedy trial and a much quieter push to push it forward or a still loud push to blame the judge, the State, anything at all for needing more time.

It's nothing new.

JMO

 

[photographer4]

RSBM

The State continues to hand over evidence. How could the defense have known they'd need more time when the State hadn't even handed over everything? (Hello phone ping/geofence stuff)

As far as bussing vs. sequestration....giving them an option sounds like a good idea to me. I'd rather escape my life and be sequestered for a few weeks, but I realize some would hate that and would probably choose a long daily commute.

I guess the long daily commute means possible issues though: traffic, jurors maybe hearing the radio news / podcasts about the case... possibly encountering protesters as they attempt to exit / enter daily.....

I wouldn't be able to serve on a sequestered jury for the simple fact that I'm glued to my devices and rather unwilling to be detached from them. I imagine many prospective jurors would also not like this idea....

 

[Emma Peel]

Weineke, RA's appellate counsel, explains the Court's proper (and improper) use of email and why.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1787942687263371462

 

[FrostedGlass]

Weineke, RA's appellate counsel, explains the Court's proper (and improper) use of email and why.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1787942687263371462

The D using a round-about way of forcing her to make records of things?

 

[Willow Knight]

Have been skimming through all the posts on the now closed thread (whoa, a lot) and I see P supposedly has damning evidence against RA under seal. This is what it's looked like for a long time. And this undoubtedly has to be true, that there are potential undisclosed bombshells because of the seals & gag order. If I wanted any proof that it were the case, it would be in the back-and-forth in the motions to suppress RA's statements. Obviously, we don't know everything he said. I'd love to know what else is at this point undisclosed. Might be wrong, but MOO, that's the reason behind a lot of the D's theatrics. And there's no way this trial could've happened on the projected date, I think that was part of D's show, too.

I can't quote @photographer4's post because thread's closed, but @photographer4 noted that RA's aggression during meetings/interviews at certain points showed he was caught and panicked. Totally agreed on this, when it took all those years for LE to come after him, he figured he was home free. I don't think he was just caught and panicked, he was furious. I've been back and forth on whether multiple parties involved, I started out way back when thinking single actor, moved to "group," have returned to single actor. Still think the dropbox is in some way a factor, but have returned to the original "no collusion" idea because if RA actually did stage that bizarre scene to mislead LE, RA is so wacked out that he'd be unable to find company for his deeds. This killer-- if he did that staging, for that reason-- is just too unique (in a bad, warped way) to find "like minds," which are already hard enough to find when you're talking about having other parties hop on board for something as ghastly as murder. My guess is that the damning evidence against RA does indeed exist, and his goose is probably cooked but good, but only time will tell, and I know we've got months more now of it, till October.

Love the logic in this post. In the last thread a poster gave us a link to a Doug Carter interview, first time I saw that one. I will try to find post which included this link: ISP Superintendent Doug Carter - Hammer + Nigel Show Podcast

It is short but heart felt interview. I feel RA knew in advance the girls were going to be there because witness said he walked with a purpose, then I feel he came 'equipped', and it appears RA went straight to the location of the crime. Now when reviewing all this in my mind, I changed the name KAK to Anthony Shots. I think of AS as several people at differing times. Doug Carter, IMO, did not attempt to clear Anthony Shots connection.

Then when the prosecutor asked to have KAK and TK name disallowed from the trial unless relevance can be shown, wow. That right there, IMO, put the D in the position to show a connection between their client and Anthony Shots! I feel in my heart the prosecutor has solid evidence (under seal) and truly want the correct killer accounted for.

I am here for one reason, Libby and Abby. Not here to win an argument or contribute to an innocent man falsely charged. I want the truth and accountability.