IN - Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #163

[girlhasnoname]

I think, if they didn't find something during there thoroughly river-search, it doesn't mean at all, that KAK had lied to them. Maybe, I am too naive?

I don't think that's naive. I believe KAK had some type of relationship or acquaintance with RA even if it was only interaction online. Perhaps RA purchased some material from KAK? Who knows, it could be anything at this point.

MOO

 

[TL4S]

I might have missed this being posted already, but what does it mean?

05/22/2023	Notice to Court Filed Notice of Discovery Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
05/22/2023	Motion to Suppress Filed Motion to Suppress Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
05/22/2023	Motion Filed Motion to Convert Let Bail Hearing into Suppression Hearing Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
06/15/2023	Hearing Session: 06/15/2023 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 06/16/2023 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

 

[FrostedGlass]

I might have missed this being posted already, but what does it mean?

05/22/2023	Notice to Court Filed Notice of Discovery Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
05/22/2023	Motion to Suppress Filed Motion to Suppress Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
05/22/2023	Motion Filed Motion to Convert Let Bail Hearing into Suppression Hearing Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
06/15/2023	Hearing Session: 06/15/2023 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 06/16/2023 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

You did; no one seems to know.

I'll take an uneducated guess. It might be something like RA's atty came across his trip to the hospital one drunk night and the atty didn't think that should be brought into evidence, hence the motion to suppress.
OR something entirely different. Someone who is STI can chime in, please.

A "suppression hearing" sounds like there's a lot of things to hash over.

 

[O.Incandenza]

You did; no one seems to know.

I'll take an uneducated guess. It might be something like RA's atty came across his trip to the hospital one drunk night and the atty didn't think that should be brought into evidence, hence the motion to suppress.
OR something entirely different. Someone who is STI can chime in, please.

A "suppression hearing" sounds like there's a lot of things to hash over.

Since they're asking for the suppression hearing to take the place of the bond hearing, my assumption is that the evidence they want suppressed is central to the prosecution's case. So if they're successful, the eventual bond hearing will be much different.

From the AA, the two pieces of evidence that meet that criteria are the gun and RA's statements to LE. So I would guess they're trying to suppress one or both of those. Of course, there could be other important evidence that we don't know of.

 

[Justice101]

Since they're asking for the suppression hearing to take the place of the bond hearing, my assumption is that the evidence they want suppressed is central to the prosecution's case. So if they're successful, the eventual bond hearing will be much different.

From the AA, the two pieces of evidence that meet that criteria are the gun and RA's statements to LE. So I would guess they're trying to suppress one or both of those. Of course, there could be other important evidence that we don't know of.

I am guessing it is the gun evidence since it "can" be discredited but it could also be something found in the search of his home that eventually led directly to his arrest.

 

[FrostedGlass]

Since they're asking for the suppression hearing to take the place of the bond hearing, my assumption is that the evidence they want suppressed is central to the prosecution's case. So if they're successful, the eventual bond hearing will be much different.

From the AA, the two pieces of evidence that meet that criteria are the gun and RA's statements to LE. So I would guess they're trying to suppress one or both of those. Of course, there could be other important evidence that we don't know of.

Thanks for the reply.
RA's atty had the notice of discovery in that group of 3 filings on May 22. Can a discovery notice be for either old discovery or new discovery?

There were so many filings by RA in May:
05/04:
2 Requests to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record
4 Motions to Quash Subpoenas
1 Motion to Reconsider and Request for Due Process Hearing
05/17:
Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction
05/22:
1 Notice of Discovery
1 Motion to Suppress
1 Motion to Convert Let Bail Hearing into Suppression Hearing

 

[twall]

There are some new entries to the docket dated 5/30. The judge has ruled on some motions.

 

[FrostedGlass]

There are some new entries to the docket dated 5/30. The judge has ruled on some motions.

05/30/2023

Order Issued The Court, having had the defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena under advisement, now grants the Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility relating to defendant's mental health records, mental health evaluations and/or exams, medical documentation and/or medical evaluations. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility regarding audio/video recordings, written observations, recordings, phone calls, written requests, or other documentation is denied. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to CVS Headquarters is denied. The defense Motion to Reconsider and Request for Due Process Hearing ordered set for hearing June 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing currently set on defendant's request for bail is ordered converted to a hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 05/25/2023

 

[girlhasnoname]

I might have missed this being posted already, but what does it mean?

05/22/2023	Notice to Court Filed Notice of Discovery Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
05/22/2023	Motion to Suppress Filed Motion to Suppress Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
05/22/2023	Motion Filed Motion to Convert Let Bail Hearing into Suppression Hearing Filed By: Allen, Richard M. File Stamp: 05/19/2023
06/15/2023	Hearing Session: 06/15/2023 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Session: 06/16/2023 8:30 AM, Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ

These look pretty standard, but I wonder what all the motion to suppress is about?

MOO

 

[girlhasnoname]

Since they're asking for the suppression hearing to take the place of the bond hearing, my assumption is that the evidence they want suppressed is central to the prosecution's case. So if they're successful, the eventual bond hearing will be much different.

From the AA, the two pieces of evidence that meet that criteria are the gun and RA's statements to LE. So I would guess they're trying to suppress one or both of those. Of course, there could be other important evidence that we don't know of.

I should have read your post before responding hah.

 

[girlhasnoname]

There are some new entries to the docket dated 5/30. The judge has ruled on some motions.

Can someone post a link to these please? Thanks

 

[katydid23]

Can someone post a link to these please? Thanks

05/30/2023

Order Issued The Court, having had the defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena under advisement, now grants the Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility relating to defendant's mental health records, mental health evaluations and/or exams, medical documentation and/or medical evaluations. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility regarding audio/video recordings, written observations, recordings, phone calls, written requests, or other documentation is denied. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to CVS Headquarters is denied. The defense Motion to Reconsider and Request for Due Process Hearing ordered set for hearing June 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing currently set on defendant's request for bail is ordered converted to a hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 05/25/2023

 

[girlhasnoname]

05/30/2023

Order Issued The Court, having had the defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena under advisement, now grants the Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility relating to defendant's mental health records, mental health evaluations and/or exams, medical documentation and/or medical evaluations. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility regarding audio/video recordings, written observations, recordings, phone calls, written requests, or other documentation is denied. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to CVS Headquarters is denied. The defense Motion to Reconsider and Request for Due Process Hearing ordered set for hearing June 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing currently set on defendant's request for bail is ordered converted to a hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 05/25/2023

Thanks, so RA's meant health records and medical evals were quashed, not surprising. The Duces Tecum for Westville and CVS were denied. Good news on that at least.

MOO

 

[steeltowngirl]

05/30/2023

Order Issued The Court, having had the defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena under advisement, now grants the Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility relating to defendant's mental health records, mental health evaluations and/or exams, medical documentation and/or medical evaluations. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility regarding audio/video recordings, written observations, recordings, phone calls, written requests, or other documentation is denied. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to CVS Headquarters is denied. The defense Motion to Reconsider and Request for Due Process Hearing ordered set for hearing June 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing currently set on defendant's request for bail is ordered converted to a hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 05/25/2023

Hmmmm. Did RA say something to medical staff at Westville that his defense team does not want to be brought into his trial case file?

 

[TL4S]

05/30/2023

Order Issued The Court, having had the defendant's Motion to Quash Subpoena under advisement, now grants the Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility relating to defendant's mental health records, mental health evaluations and/or exams, medical documentation and/or medical evaluations. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility regarding audio/video recordings, written observations, recordings, phone calls, written requests, or other documentation is denied. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to CVS Headquarters is denied. The defense Motion to Reconsider and Request for Due Process Hearing ordered set for hearing June 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing currently set on defendant's request for bail is ordered converted to a hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress. Judicial Officer: Gull, Frances -SJ Order Signed: 05/25/2023

So, does this mean RA's medical evaluations and records will be off limits forever, or can this ruling be overturned before trial? Can prosecution see the records at all, or does the suppression mean they never get to see them?

 

[FrostedGlass]

So, does this mean RA's medical evaluations and records will be off limits forever, or can this ruling be overturned before trial? Can prosecution see the records at all, or does the suppression mean they never get to see them?

Attorney Shay Hughes weighed in on this in his Twitter feed; I think this can be viewed by anybody. Here's part of what he said, for anyone who can't view it:
Subpoenaing such records is not proper. Indiana law states mental health records are confidential unless 1) patient gives consent or 2) an exception applies.
IC 16-39-3 (only exception applicable in this case). It requires a petition be filed. A hearing must be conducted to determine if the moving party (in this case the State) has proven by… a preponderance of the evid that 1) other reasonable methods to obtain info are not available or effective and 2) disclosure outweighs potential harm to patient. Other than this, there is no other avenue to access such records.
In this instance, it appears by looking at the docket the State failed to comply w/ Indiana law as no petition was ever filed.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1663810798408409088

 

[FrostedGlass]

Here is Indiana's HIPAA Medical Release form which patients sign. As naïve as the Allens have been so far, IMO, someone should be checking to make sure he didn't consent to the release of his medical records.

With SH's comment in mind, I have to ask: Does the State not know Indiana law in this matter?

https://www.highlandretina.com/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=1038579

 

[girlhasnoname]

So, does this mean RA's medical evaluations and records will be off limits forever, or can this ruling be overturned before trial? Can prosecution see the records at all, or does the suppression mean they never get to see them?

Perhaps the State can file a motion challenging the ruling since it was just made? IDK

ETA: IN LAW
16-39-3-3 Petition for release of patient's records

Currentness

Sec. 3. A person:

1. seeking access to a patient's mental health record without the patient's written consent in an investigation or prosecution resulting from a report filed under IC 16-39-2-6(a)(10); or
2. who has filed or is a party to a legal proceeding and who seeks access to a patient's mental health record without the patient's written consent;

may file a petition in a circuit or superior court requesting a release of the patient's mental health record.

 

[girlhasnoname]

Here is Indiana's HIPAA Medical Release form which patients sign. As naïve as the Allens have been so far, IMO, someone should be checking to make sure he didn't consent to the release of his medical records.

With SH's comment in mind, I have to ask: Does the State not know Indiana law in this matter?

https://www.highlandretina.com/common/pages/UserFile.aspx?fileId=1038579

Genuinely curious as to what you think the Allens have been naive about so far?

Speaking with LE without an attorney before his home was searched and he was subsequently arrested? RA's denying council at his first hearing?

I believe both of these were done out of arrogance not naivety.

ALL MOO

 

[BethAnn777]

BBM for emphasis

Agree 100%. How many other men have placed themselves at that bridge, on that day, at that time? Zero to my knowledge.
Self-reporting to a conservation officer is suspect to me! MOO

EBM clarification

Could this be any different than a false confession? I don’t know.