Beyond The Horizon
The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen's Response To Judge Gull's Order Of The Court (Part 4) (6/22/24)
An order of the judgment of the court is a formal decision issued by a court at the end of a legal proceeding. It represents the court's final determination on the matters presented during the trial or hearing. Here's a summary of its key elements:
- Formal Decision: It is the official, written determination by the court on the issues presented in the case.
- Binding: The order is legally binding on the parties involved in the case, meaning they must comply with its terms.
- Content: It typically includes:
- The findings of fact: the court's conclusions about the facts of the case.
- The conclusions of law: the court's interpretation and application of the relevant laws to those facts.
- The final ruling: the court's decision on the relief or penalties, such as awarding damages, issuing injunctions, or imposing sentences.
- Implementation: It may direct specific actions to be taken by the parties, such as payment of money, transfer of property, or compliance with certain conditions.
- Appeal: Parties who are dissatisfied with the judgment may have the right to appeal to a higher court, seeking a review and possible reversal of the order.
The circus down in Delphi continues in this episode as we take a look at the scathing response by Richard Allen's legal team, letting Judge Gull know that they plan to call her as a witness.
(commercial at 8:07)
to contact me:
bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
source
2024-6-18-Delphi-Case-Defense-Response-to-Order-and-Notice-of-Conflict.p
- Duration:
- 10m
- Broadcast on:
- 23 Jun 2024
- Audio Format:
- mp3
What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're getting right back to The Response to Judge Gull by Richard Allen and his defense team. Judge Gull's May 31, 2024 explanation for her denial of defense motions without a hearing provides a rational inference of bias, 79. In its May 31, 2024 order when explaining why the court denied several defense motions without hearing, the court stated if pleadings on their face are not supported by the law or admissible evidence judicial economy does not require a hearing, 80. This court knows very little about this case, especially compared to the lawyers litigating the matter. Therefore how could this court determine what evidence would be admissible or inadmissible until a hearing takes place and the defense moves to admit the evidence subject to possible objection by the prosecution, 81. Judge Gull's claim that the defense evidence is inadmissible before conducting a hearing and before listening to the defense's contextualization of the evidence surrounding their legal arguments provides a rational inference of bias against the defense, 82. The court's denial of defense motions without a hearing based upon the reasons this court cites in its May 31, 2024 order establishes that this court is prejudging defense evidence as inadmissible. So this court claiming that the law does not support the defense pleadings before this court even hears any evidence is additional proof that this court is prejudging the evidence. This court's denying the defense request contained in its pleadings without a hearing based upon her prejudging evidence provides a rational inference of bias, 83. In the future of this court denies defense motions based upon the court's belief that the defense pleading is not supported by law or admissible evidence, the defense then requests this court to identify the evidence cited in the defense pleadings that this court believes is inadmissible and then to explain why the court believes the evidence is inadmissible. Also, instead of simply stating denied without hearing, the defense will request the court to explain why the pleading is not supported by law. Even concerning something as basic as a request for recess, Judge Gull shows favoritism to the prosecution, 84. In her May 31, 2024 order Judge Gull expressed that she does not show favoritism to the prosecution. However, Judge Gull has shown a differential treatment between the prosecution and defense in a variety of ways. Some are easily identified and some are less perceptible, 85. For example, because cameras have not been allowed in the courtroom, it's difficult to hear Judge Gull's angry tone when addressing the defense versus how she speaks to the prosecution and also to visualize the court's disdainful facial expressions she makes towards the defense versus the prosecution, 86. Although it may seem petty or trivial to the court, the defense offers an example of her disparate treatment concerning something as mundane as how the court handles a simple request for a recess during a hearing. 87. At the June 15, 2023 hearing prosecutor McLeeland requested a recess and the following transpired. McLeeland, Judge I do, I have two witnesses. Could I ask the court for a short recess just so I could use the restroom? Judge Gull, Wood Council approach, sidebar conference conducted, Judge Gull, I just want to know, kind of where we're at, you've got two witnesses. McLeeland, Tony Liggett, and the Westville Warden. Judge Gull, do you want to break for lunch? Rosie, I don't, but um, Judge Gull, okay, McLeeland so I don't care, I can, then Judge Gull goes, yeah, we could take a quick break, McLeeland, I don't mean to be a pain, but Judge Gull, no, no, that's alright, how long do you think you'll be? McLeeland, downstairs and right back up. Judge Gull, no, I mean your witnesses, with your evidence, McLeeland, oh. Judge Gull, Ding Dong, I don't care how long it takes you to go there, no, I don't care about that. McLeeland, I don't really think too long, Tony about the transportation resources and then Gallup you about to address allegations they made in their safekeeping, Gull, so like another hour and a half, McLeeland, I guess I just couldn't, Gull, let's break for lunch, I know you don't want to, but too bad, Rosie, I'm fine with whatever, Judge Gull, okay let's just break for lunch, Rosie, I don't have anywhere else I need to be, Judge Gull, well I know you don't, because you were supposed to be here for two days. 88. However, at the May 7th, 2024 hearing, the court treated the defense much differently when the defense sought a short recess to confer with their client on urgent matters concerning the positive and negatives of continuing Mr. Allen's speedy trial due to Judge Gull's hard end date of May 31st, 2024. Following a back and forth exchange between Judge Gull and Defense Council concerning the defense needing more time for trial, then Judge Gull was allowing this occurred. 88. Rosie, can we have a five minute recess, Judge Gull, why? Rosie, I would like to speak with my co-counsel and have a discussion about the business issues such as scheduling, not here in a courtroom where everybody's listening to us. We've got, you know, 50 staff members in this courtroom, people sitting behind, there's no privacy, and I'd like to talk to him in the hallway about some of the logistics of this so we can solve this problem so that Mr. Allen can put on a defense. Judge Gull, does the state of Indiana have any objection to a recess? McLean, know your honor, Judge Gull, alright, Jodi, you can go off record. 89. Judge Gull did not playfully call Brad Rizzi Dingdong but instead questioned Rosie's reasons for his seeking a recess. Then Judge Gull, surprisingly, asked the prosecutor if he, the prosecutor, had an objection to seeking a five minute recess so that defense counsel could talk to their client about the important matters concerning seeking a continuance of a speedy trial due to the trial court's unwillingness to provide more time to the defense at trial. 90. When a defense attorney requests a five minute recess to talk to their client on such weighty matters as their constitutional rights related to continuing a speedy trial, it should be met with a simple of course and should not be required approval of the prosecutor. 91. The fact that Judge Gull treats the defense differently on such a basic matter as requests for a recess provides a rational inference of bias. This court failed to address the appearance of bias which exists in this case. 92. Judge Gull claims in her order as counsel should know criminal cases or tried in a court of law, not in the court of public opinion. 93. However, the standard for recusal is not just whether actual bias exists but also whether the appearance of bias exists. The judge must consider both actual bias and the appearance of bias when determining whether to disqualify herself. 94. Judge Gull appears to conflate the general concept that on occasion the public will criticize a judge with the defense specific intention that many in the public are particularly criticizing her for what the public perceives is actual bias against the defense. 95. The emails which the defense attached to the motion and the memes the defense referenced in the motion detail how the public believes that Judge Gull is a biased against the defense. 96. The defense agrees with this court that the general complaints by the public concerning the court's rulings should not cause her to disqualify herself. However, that is not what the defense is discussing in this motion. 97. Although the defense believes actual bias exists, it's the appearance of bias against the defense about which the public has complained. It's the appearance of bias against the defense about which the public is written to the Indiana Supreme Court, it's the appearance of bias against the defense about which the public is written Judge Gull, and it's the appearance of bias against the defense, the existence of which Judge Gull should recognize, and for which Judge Gull should voluntarily recuse herself. 98. This court addressed a few other defense issues contained in her second motion to have Judge Gull disqualify herself. The defense stands by those reasons, as well as does not waive those issues for purpose of appeal. 99. However, in its May 31st order, this court failed to address all issues contained in the defense first motion to have Judge Gull disqualified, which the defense incorporated into its second motion, 100. The defense requests that Judge Gull review the first and second motion to disqualify and consider whether she feels obligated to disqualify herself from this case, based upon the itemized reasons contained in those motions, as well as in this response. Conclusion, 101. The defense wishes to move forward and have this court conduct hearings most immediately. The request to have Richard Allen removed from the DOC to either cast or tip in canoe, county jails while awaiting trial. 102. This motion is intended to respond to Judge Gull's order for purposes of preserving the issues for the record, and so that Judge Gull may consider whether or not she feels obligated on her own to recuse herself from this case, which remains an ongoing obligation, whether or not the defense is seeking her recusal. Wherefore, the defense files its response to Judge Gull's May 31st, 2024 order of judgment of the court concerning her denial of the defense request for disqualification, respectfully submitted, Andrew Baldwin, and Bradley Rossi. Alright, so that's going to do it for the response to Judge Gull, and as you can see, it was a relatively fiery response. And I think that it's going to continue down here, right? The back and forth, the arguing, and the jockeying for position. And I think that the right option probably would be to remove Judge Gull. Now the state of Indiana seems to have other ideas, but if you want to get rid of all this nonsense, and you want to not have to deal with this sort of thing, then having Judge Gull be recused is probably the right way to go. But so far the state of Indiana has not shown any desire to make that happen, so it's looking like it's going to be Rosie and Baldwin and Judge Gull facing off when we get to the actual trial portion. And my guess is we could all expect some fireworks. Alright folks, that's going to do it for this one and this document, and all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.