IANAL but maybe this became more of a thing once COVID hit and people didn't meet in person as much. Just a thought I had.
Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #184
- Thread starter Tricia
- Start date
StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,179
- Reaction score
- 38,364
If the prosecution already knows the subject matter of the statements, then the prosecution and psychologist have already violated the privilege. Interesting indeed.
Jorgensen v. State, 574 NE 2d 915 - Ind: Supreme Court 1991 - Google Scholar
scholar.google.com
Not an attorney, but that seems absurd.
The prosecution requested and was granted access to all RA’s medical and mental health records from prison weeks ago. The defense said that was OK with them.
photographer4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,472
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Delphi double murder trial delayed: Richard Allen’s defense says trial needs to be longer
"This second look occurred after a source said investigators pushed Prosecutor McLeland to consider filing murder charges against a Miami County man who was convicted of child *advertiser censored* and exploitation charges after it was discovered he was in communication with Libby German the night before her death.
Kegan Kline is currently serving a 40-year prison sentence for crimes unrelated to the Delphi case."
I am very interested in this statement! It does sound like police were interested in charging KK with the murders - so why didn't they? What prevented them from doing this and changing course to charge RA exactly? This statement really makes me wonder if KK said something that lead them to RA and they're hiding behind some misfiled document from DD? If I were the Defense counsel, I'd be all over asking LE what happened to make them want to charge KK specifically, and why they did not in the end!
"This second look occurred after a source said investigators pushed Prosecutor McLeland to consider filing murder charges against a Miami County man who was convicted of child *advertiser censored* and exploitation charges after it was discovered he was in communication with Libby German the night before her death.
Kegan Kline is currently serving a 40-year prison sentence for crimes unrelated to the Delphi case."
I am very interested in this statement! It does sound like police were interested in charging KK with the murders - so why didn't they? What prevented them from doing this and changing course to charge RA exactly? This statement really makes me wonder if KK said something that lead them to RA and they're hiding behind some misfiled document from DD? If I were the Defense counsel, I'd be all over asking LE what happened to make them want to charge KK specifically, and why they did not in the end!
photographer4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,472
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Maybe the Defense had already planned to introduce the statements themselves and saw no harm in releasing it to the State knowing they'd have to sooner or later? Curious indeed!
photographer4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,472
- Reaction score
- 20,080
" Defendant's third and fourth Request for Franks Hearing will be ruled upon and not set for hearing unless necessary."
Well, the term "necessary" is subjective! I don't trust this particular judge given the issues I've noted throughout the past few threads. What she finds unnecessary, others are likely to find very necessary. Kinda like when she dismisssed B&R without the hearing and then the SCOIN put them back in! The lack of transparency really makes me think that while RA probably did it or was at a minimum involved in it, no one is listening to the concerns being raised time and time again by his counsel about the legal issues.
Probably the evidence they have on ra at the crime scene is what did it.
TTF14
On Time Out
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 13,924
- Reaction score
- 61,939
Her definition of the word "necessary" and Nick's definition of the word "relevant" definitely need to be called into question.
IMO MOO
StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,179
- Reaction score
- 38,364
The prosecution was granted complete access to RA’s mental records. The defense was fine with that. There was no stipulation that they could look at only things related to homicide.
The prosecution had not seen any of the records up until that permission was granted. They did not know the contents before that. Not one point of anything involving this indicates they already knew the contents. Nothing.
They got permission. They looked at them. They discovered incriminating things.
StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,179
- Reaction score
- 38,364
That’s possible.
TTF14
On Time Out
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 13,924
- Reaction score
- 61,939
Good catch, and interesting indeed. I like Russ McQuaid. He sees what's going on. I checked to make sure that article is in the Wayback Machine because I think it will end up being edited! I liked this part he wrote too:
photographer4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,472
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Probably - but what stopped them from charging KK? Did the Prosecutor tell them that they couldn't due to insufficient evidence? Did he tell them to go review the file and be positively certain it couldn't have been anyone else first? What exactly prompted them to go back to the beginning? Some of the team must have felt pretty sure that KK was the man who killed them, and then they did not charge him for whatever reason. I wonder if we will hear that the Shots profile was actually being used by RA and if so, the rest will easily fall into place....
Willow Knight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,200
- Reaction score
- 6,056
Here is my speculation, MOO.
Anthony Shots = Child Predator
KAK led LE to Anthony Shots. Anthony shots led LE to RA.
TTF14
On Time Out
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2014
- Messages
- 13,924
- Reaction score
- 61,939
It would definitely make some sense. Would love to see the State's witness list.
StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,179
- Reaction score
- 38,364
She’s allowed to make rulings without a hearing, whether they like it or not.
AugustWest
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 6,636
During the March 18th hearing:
Then I will grant the State's motion for leave
3 of Court to subpoena third party records to the Department of Correction, both
4 of the ones that have been filed
5 MR. ROZZI Judge - I'm sorry, may I, Judge?
6 THE COURT Yes
7
8
9
MR. ROZZI: Id like to speak on that issue, if that's okay
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. ROZZI: Actually, Im opposed to the Court granting that at
10 this point, We're still within the 15-day notice period, and what's going on here
Il is, is that I made a new request on the Department of Corrections after we were
2 reinstated in this case and they had just provided that to me, and there's nothing
13 untimely about any of this, but it just happened I want to say in the last - it was
14 last week. Ms. Gallagher from the DOC has been working with me to try to get
15 that information, and so there - it - and when I received it, we were having a
16 difficulty - we were having difficulty, essentially, recovering that from their
17 software program, which has been one of the - frankly, one of the challenges that
18 we faced. You get discovery from one entity and it comes through Dropbox, and
19 you get it from another entity and it comes through a Google account, and you
20 get it from another entity and they've got their own software program, and so my
21 staff member, up until I think this past Friday, was working with the DOC rep,
22 Ms. Bedwell, to try and get that information converted into a format that we
23 could read. And I do believe Mr McLeland's correct, that I do think that there
24 was information available to me that the DOC had about Mr Allen, medical and
25 psychiatric, when I made the first request that I didn't get; because now that I
Volume 1, Page 79
have kind of a refreshed request, I'm seeing additional stuff. So this is a short -
2 along way of saying I would like a chance to review what I just received before
3,just agree to disclose it, 'cause I don't know what it is, and it's quite voluminous,
4 as you might imagine with medical records. I know one of the files I think that I
5 shared with Mr. McLeland was like 900 pages, so I mean, in fairness, there were
6 some blank pages mixed in there, but my request is, is the Court allow me the
7 15 days or whatever time period is left to file my motion to quash. I really do
8 believe that's probably not gonna happen, because I'm trying to be transparent
9 with Mr. McLeland, I already showed him the first two dumps I got, so I'd like
10 some time to look at that before my
11 THE COURT The 15 days is up March 29i, so it needs to be filed
12 on or before that date.
13 MR. ROZZI. Very good. Thank you.
Emphasis mine (underlined)
March 18, 2024 Motion to Dismiss Hearing.pdf
drive.google.com
Thus my concern. Rozzi objected to the information being given to the prosecution. During a hearing that wasn't even about that issue. That doesn't say to me that the defense was ok with that. Just the opposite. Then Gull granted the motion without hearing. Regardless of what either prosecution or defense do right or wrong, she is ultimately the gatekeeper of evidence. If she is handing out privileged information, then that is a problem. It could be a problem down the road.
StarryStarryNight
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 2, 2017
- Messages
- 3,179
- Reaction score
- 38,364
During the March 18th hearing:
Then I will grant the State's motion for leave
3 of Court to subpoena third party records to the Department of Correction, both
4 of the ones that have been filed
5 MR. ROZZI Judge - I'm sorry, may I, Judge?
6 THE COURT Yes
7
8
9
MR. ROZZI: Id like to speak on that issue, if that's okay
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. ROZZI: Actually, Im opposed to the Court granting that at
10 this point, We're still within the 15-day notice period, and what's going on here
Il is, is that I made a new request on the Department of Corrections after we were
2 reinstated in this case and they had just provided that to me, and there's nothing
13 untimely about any of this, but it just happened I want to say in the last - it was
14 last week. Ms. Gallagher from the DOC has been working with me to try to get
15 that information, and so there - it - and when I received it, we were having a
16 difficulty - we were having difficulty, essentially, recovering that from their
17 software program, which has been one of the - frankly, one of the challenges that
18 we faced. You get discovery from one entity and it comes through Dropbox, and
19 you get it from another entity and it comes through a Google account, and you
20 get it from another entity and they've got their own software program, and so my
21 staff member, up until I think this past Friday, was working with the DOC rep,
22 Ms. Bedwell, to try and get that information converted into a format that we
23 could read. And I do believe Mr McLeland's correct, that I do think that there
24 was information available to me that the DOC had about Mr Allen, medical and
25 psychiatric, when I made the first request that I didn't get; because now that I
Volume 1, Page 79
have kind of a refreshed request, I'm seeing additional stuff. So this is a short -
2 along way of saying I would like a chance to review what I just received before
3,just agree to disclose it, 'cause I don't know what it is, and it's quite voluminous,
4 as you might imagine with medical records. I know one of the files I think that I
5 shared with Mr. McLeland was like 900 pages, so I mean, in fairness, there were
6 some blank pages mixed in there, but my request is, is the Court allow me the
7 15 days or whatever time period is left to file my motion to quash. I really do
8 believe that's probably not gonna happen, because I'm trying to be transparent
9 with Mr. McLeland, I already showed him the first two dumps I got, so I'd like
10 some time to look at that before my
11 THE COURT The 15 days is up March 29i, so it needs to be filed
12 on or before that date.
13 MR. ROZZI. Very good. Thank you.
Emphasis mine (underlined)
March 18, 2024 Motion to Dismiss Hearing.pdf
Thus my concern. Rozzi objected to the information being given to the prosecution. During a hearing that wasn't even about that issue. That doesn't say to me that the defense was ok with that. Just the opposite. Then Gull granted the motion without hearing. Regardless of what either prosecution or defense do right or wrong, she is ultimately the gatekeeper of evidence. If she is handing out privileged information, then that is a problem. It could be a problem down the road.
I apologize and will concede that the defense didn’t want the prosecution to get those records. In the State’s filing on Mar 14th the prosecution mentions that.(Although I still think it’s mention in something, I’ll let it go and say sorry)
However, whether the defense like it or nor, the Judge granted the prosecution permission to those records, and in those records they found information they wish to present in court.
AugustWest
Verified Attorney
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2020
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 6,636
FrostedGlass
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2017
- Messages
- 5,745
- Reaction score
- 27,676
IMO it's not whether the D likes it or not.
It's all about making a record.
If RA is convicted, it will surely go to the Indiana Supreme Court.
They like to see a record.
photographer4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,472
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Thanks, but I'm afraid I cannot take credit for the catch! I don't recall who spotted this in an article and posted it yesterday at the end of the last thread somewhere. All credit to them!
photographer4
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2014
- Messages
- 3,472
- Reaction score
- 20,080
She is, but it does not mean that she *should*.