Found Deceased IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #162

Status
Not open for further replies.
Officers of the Court can opine based on fact and interpretation of law upon the facts, but they can't materially misrepresent.

i.e McClelland can't materially misrepresent or deceive the Court as to there being "good reason to believe that Richard Allen is not the only actor in this heinous crime."
It sounds like you think he must be telling the truth.

I think he can easily get around justifying his "opinion" of what he thought was going on in the investigation. He has some kind of statement from ISP and from a prosecutor's office investigator. He can easily say that he based his statement on information from LE. He could even say he can't elaborate due to it being related to other ongoing investigations or compromising a source. I'm not familiar with the wording of court rules/statutes in Indiana.

Also, his giving this reason for sealing the affidavit was only 1 of 6, all of the other points being valid, no decision rested on this one point. A decision was not made that affected the outcome for the defendant and did not result in the loss of or production of false evidence. It will be interesting to see if the defense ever throws this up in the future. MOO I think it was odd/risky for the prosecutor to keep this position at the 2nd hearing. In any case, it's not malicious.
 
Also, the fact that the final outcome was a case gag order requested by prosecution ... suggests (for me) that the prosecution successfully made their case that case information - for now - needed to be protected and held confidential from the public.

MOO

The basis to the gag order may’ve been nothing more than to ensure RA receives a fair trial.

“…..Eaton said he believed McLeland was doing his job, “There’s rules that apply to lawyers.”

And very specific rules for prosecutors. The Indiana Code of Professional Conduct requires prosecutors “exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons” from making statements that may jeopardize the defendant’s right to a fair trial.

A prosecutor failing to obey the conduct rules can face professional discipline.“
 
Officers of the Court can opine based on fact and interpretation of law upon the facts, but they can't materially misrepresent.

i.e McClelland can't materially misrepresent or deceive the Court as to there being "good reason to believe that Richard Allen is not the only actor in this heinous crime."

Material being any representation that influences a Court decision.

Considering that high bar, McClelland would be really pushing it by suggesting there's other actors, when the investigation has determined they have their man, and their only man, for said heinous crime.

MOO

I’m not convinced McLeland stated other actors were involved. It‘s possible that was a sensationalized interpretation of his quoted comments below. It goes without saying, due to RAs sudden arrest, LE would require time to thoroughly investigate tips were coming in, especially any that suggested associations to RA. But considering the gag order we cannot expect to be informed of the status of any “ongoing investigations“.

ETA That‘s the way the justice system should properly work IMO, the public hears all the evidence during trial, the same time as the jurors. I understand, for those of us who have followed this case throughout the years, why we want to be reassured the right guy has been arrested because “trial by media” has become all to common but what the public thinks is never the essence of a strong justice system.

BBM
“In his arguments against unsealing Allen's probable cause affidavit, Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland cited the need to protect the investigation as well as to protect the names of witnesses who might testify against Allen.

This is still a very ongoing investigation,” McLeland said. “Our goal is to find anybody else involved in this heinous crime.

“It is in the best interest of the public to find anybody else involved
.”….”
 
Last edited:
It sounds like you think he must be telling the truth.

I think he can easily get around justifying his "opinion" of what he thought was going on in the investigation. He has some kind of statement from ISP and from a prosecutor's office investigator. He can easily say that he based his statement on information from LE. He could even say he can't elaborate due to it being related to other ongoing investigations or compromising a source. I'm not familiar with the wording of court rules/statutes in Indiana.

Also, his giving this reason for sealing the affidavit was only 1 of 6, all of the other points being valid, no decision rested on this one point. A decision was not made that affected the outcome for the defendant and did not result in the loss of or production of false evidence. It will be interesting to see if the defense ever throws this up in the future. MOO I think it was odd/risky for the prosecutor to keep this position at the 2nd hearing. In any case, it's not malicious.

No, I don't think the gag order decision was about McL "telling the truth".

I think that Prosecution got facts in front of the Court to be considered re: it's request for a gag-order decision under Rule 6 (statutory law re gag orders). Because that's the process.

Prosecution won the request for gag order b/c Court was convinced by the facts presented by Prosecution - that supported their list of 1 thru 6 items meeting Rule 6 statutory standards for the Court to consider (when deciding the gag request).

We know 1-6 reasons Prosecution argued/claimed under Rule 6. We're not privy to the supporting facts for those claims. I do think the Court had to review those facts and find them relevant and compelling in order to make this decision. (Again, because that's the process.)

We can agree we don't know what facts provided played the key role invoking Rule 6 that won the decision.

My feeling is that the Prosecution would not make significant reps in front of the Court that they could not back up w/ facts. Prosecution repped that there's reason to believe there are additional actors and my feeling is he can and did back that up with facts supporting that reasoning. Again, we don't know if that particular reason was one reason the compelled the Court to issue the gag order.
 
No, I don't think the gag order decision was about McL "telling the truth".
There must be a misunderstanding. Your post I responded to said nothing about a gag order, and my post said nothing about a gag order. I've not expressed any opinion about it.

But to be clear, I think the gag order is standard, appropriate, necessary, etc.. Completely different subject than the motion to seal the affidavit, in my opinion.
 
There must be a misunderstanding. Your post I responded to said nothing about a gag order, and my post said nothing about a gag order. I've not expressed any opinion about it.

But to be clear, I think the gag order is standard, appropriate, necessary, etc.. Completely different subject than the motion to seal the affidavit, in my opinion.

Okay. Thank you.
I was addressing this:

It sounds like you think he must be telling the truth.
 
Carter on 10/31/22:

“While I know you are all expecting final details today concerning this arrest — today is not that day.” said ISP Superintendent Doug Carter, before repeating, “Today is not that day.”

Carter continued, “This investigation is far from complete, and we will not jeopardize its integrity by releasing or discussing documents or information before the appropriate time.”

 
We know 1-6 reasons Prosecution argued/claimed under Rule 6. We're not privy to the supporting facts for those claims. I do think the Court had to review those facts and find them relevant and compelling in order to make this decision. (Again, because that's the process.)

We can agree we don't know what facts provided played the key role invoking Rule 6 that won the decision.
RSBM
But, IMO, we should have been privy to the supporting facts because that's what this motion is all about. Access to the actual Verified Request, not a parroted version of Rule 6.

02/21/2023Order Issued
Order Granting Media Intervenor's Renewed Motion to Intervene and Motion To Grant Public Access to the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access
Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Order Signed: 02/17/2023
 
RSBM
But, IMO, we should have been privy to the supporting facts because that's what this motion is all about. Access to the actual Verified Request, not a parroted version of Rule 6.

02/21/2023Order Issued
Order Granting Media Intervenor's Renewed Motion to Intervene and Motion To Grant Public Access to the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access
Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Order Signed: 02/17/2023
yeah that would be nice - having nothing left to conjecture up to trial.
but then, what fun would it be to have nothing to nip at each other with? :)
 
RSBM
But, IMO, we should have been privy to the supporting facts because that's what this motion is all about. Access to the actual Verified Request, not a parroted version of Rule 6.

02/21/2023Order Issued
Order Granting Media Intervenor's Renewed Motion to Intervene and Motion To Grant Public Access to the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access
Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ
Order Signed: 02/17/2023

I'm wondering if the prosecutor never in fact articulated in detail what the supporting facts were. It is very strange that at least something is not in the filed docs IMO

Murder Sheet mentioned the possibility maybe they got it suppressed via the small town judge in the early heat of the arrest and then the prosecutor never really made a serious argument before the new Judge beyond what was reported from the hearing. so e.g they say it effects other investigations but didn't tell the judge how.

I also wonder to what extent this was hashed out in chambers?
 
yeah that would be nice - having nothing left to conjecture up to trial.
but then, what fun would it be to have nothing to nip at each other with? :)
Nipping is fine with me as long as it's done respectfully, which it generally is.

As far as what's going on with the legal side of this case, IMO we should examine issues as closely as we've examined every other detail over the years.

It bothers me a lot that ISP was told by the judge and the prosecutor to NOT give reporter Ron Wilkins RA's booking info. We have rules and we should question when they are broken.
 
When was this?
It happened when RA was first arrested but it just came to light very recently

Quote from the article:

"ISP argued the denial was “under the direction” of the county prosecutor and judge, who’d sealed court records related to the case. But Britt said the daily arrest log is not a judicial record and would not be governed by a court order."

 
Last edited:
Nipping is fine with me as long as it's done respectfully, which it generally is.

As far as what's going on with the legal side of this case, IMO we should examine issues as closely as we've examined every other detail over the years.

It bothers me a lot that ISP was told by the judge and the prosecutor to NOT give reporter Ron Wilkins RA's booking info. We have rules and we should question when they are broken.

Thanks for this article you're referencing.
Public access counselor says authorities shouldn’t have kept public ‘in the dark’ about arrest in Delphi murders

I could be missing something, but I don't see any confirmation that the Judge/Prosecutor withheld the arrest record report.

FWIW, in this article, I see Counselor Luke Britt criticizing ISP for holding RA arrest reporting until it was convenient for them (via presser a few days later).

Upon being called out on a failure to timely report the RA arrest, LE suggested that the Judge's sealing the related PCA extended to the arrest record.

But Britt's not buying that LE excuse, and he points out there is no judicial authority over LE arrest reporting.

At the end there's more from Britt in quotes; where Britt takes the law enforcement agencies (and not the Court) to task.

"This office remains convinced that much of the consternation regarding public access in this case is much of the government’s own doing. Simply put, the law enforcement agencies at play could have anticipated an onslaught of requests for the arrest information and prepared accordingly instead of keeping the public in the dark for several days until they arranged a more convenient method of disseminating information."

PUBLIC ACCESS COUNSELOR LUKE BRITT


Also from the article:
"ISP argued the denial was “under the direction” of the county prosecutor and judge, who’d sealed court records related to the case."
"But Britt said the daily arrest log is not a judicial record would not be governed by a court order."


JMO
 
Most criminal cases in Indiana end in a plea agreement, less than 5 percent of cases end up going to trial.

...
is this going to be in the 5 %

What's statistic for capital murder cases (rather than criminal cases)?
 
Soooooo….this was the first case that I followed all the way to the end (of the trial) on here and can I just say that this has been highly addicting.
Has that ever happened to anyone else?
A lot of us were on here for Jacob Wetterling’s 1987 abduction (turned out to be murder) from the time this site got started (or when we found it) through to the 2016 confession and the killer revealing the location of the child’s body. Yep, when you get so invested and especially with child victims, it’s hard to leave the case alone until everyone gets answers. But when it gets too addicting and the case I follow the most wraps up, I like to take a good long break.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
203
Guests online
2,269
Total visitors
2,472

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,238
Members
228,016
Latest member
ignoreme123
Back
Top