Beyond The Horizon

The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen's Response To Judge Gull's Order Of The Court (Part 3) (6/21/24)

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 6:57)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source

2024-6-18-Delphi-Case-Defense-Response-to-Order-and-Notice-of-Conflict.pdf

Duration:: 10m
Broadcast on:: 21 Jun 2024
Audio Format:: mp3

What's up everyone and welcome back to the program. In this episode we're going to pick up where we left off with Richard Allen's defense team and their response to Judge Gull and their request to have her as a witness in an upcoming trial. This court offered a tan-picked public defenders an opportunity for a hearing on the Frank's motion but denied the same opportunity for attorney's Baldwin and Rossi 54. In her May 31, 2024 order denying the defense request for disqualification this court maintained that it has no bias against defense counsel 55. On January 22, 2024 this court denied Baldwin and Rossi's request for a Frank's hearing. At that point in time the court had failed to rule on the Frank's request for over four months yet within four days of their re-entering their appearances on the case Judge Gull denied their request without a hearing. 56. However after Baldwin and Rossi were taken off the case in October 2023 Judge Gull informed her new hand-picked public defenders that they should review prior counsel's pleadings and either adopt those pleadings or make their own. In that November 14, 2023 hearing, CCS entry, it was memorialized that Judge Gull informed the new public defenders scremen and librado that if defendants new counsel informed the court they intend to pursue the Frank's motion the court will schedule a hearing 57. Such action demonstrates that this court is punishing Richard Allen due to her bias against attorneys Baldwin and Rossi in that after they reentered their appearance she quickly denied Allen's original counsel a hearing on the Frank's motion while offering the replacement public defenders an opportunity to have a Frank's hearing soon after their appearance on the case. 55. The disparate treatment of attorneys Baldwin and Rossi compared to the court's treatment of the prosecution and even the replacement public defenders provides a rational inference of bias against defense counsel Baldwin and Rossi and therefore against Richard Allen. In its order the court claimed that it is irrational and unreasonable for the defense to assert that as lawyers with 70 years of combined experience they have never had a judge provide a hard end date for a trial calling defense counsel irrational and unreasonable shows bias especially when the court is wrong in its understanding of jury rule 4. 59. This court unfortunately continues to malign defense counsel by calling them irrational and unreasonable for their averments that courts around the state of Indiana never set a rigid day for the trial to end implicitly the court is also avering that defense counsel are lying about their experiences and other courts around the state of Indiana furthermore this court maligns defense counsel concerning its knowledge of the jury rules when it is the court that's incorrect in its assessment of the jury rules 60. At the May 7th 2024 pre-trial hearing the court stated well you understand well maybe you don't understand jury rule 4 requires that I issue summonses to the jury with the dates of the trial jury rule 4 requires that I issue a summon to jurors with the dates transcript May 7th 2024 hearing page 12 line 13 61 the court cited jury rule 4 as a basis for limiting the time of the trial however jury rule 4 does not ever discuss the length or dates of the trial or require courts to place a hard end date for a trial jury rule 4 states that not later than seven days after the date of the drawing of names from the jury pool the jury administrator shall mal each person whose name is drawn a jury qualification form and notice of the period during which any service may be performed 62 jury rule 4 is primarily referring to the time span or term during which citizens need to be on alert that they could be summoned in for jury duty e.g. when they're on call for possible jury duty the prospective juror needs to be aware that over the course of a specified number of months the court may summon them to appear in court as a potential juror at a later date 63 jury rule 4 further states that when summoning a prospective juror in for jury duty that the summons shall include the following information directions to the court parking public transportation compensation court policies regarding the use of electronic communication devices i.e. cell phones pda smartphones etc. attire meals and how to obtain auxiliary aids and services required by the american with disabilities act 64 note that jury rule four does not require the court to provide the dates of the actual trial or the length of the actual trial nor does jury rule four require the prospective juror to be advised of the beginning date or end date of a trial 65 jury rule nine term of jury service states a person who appears for service as a petite juror serves until the conclusion of the first trial in which the juror is sworn regardless of the length of the trial or the manner in which the trial is disposed 66 once summoned in and selected as a jur jury rule nine is the jury rule that comes the closest to referring to the length of the actual trial 67 note that jury rule nine places no limit to the length of actual trial once a juror is selected nor does jury rule nine place a hard end on the conclusion of any trial indeed by stating that the juror serves until the end of the first trial regardless of the length of the trial the authors of the jury rules and nately understand that courts will not have foresight to include an actual end date to a trial as proof in larger counties jurors are summoned for a particular day and could be chosen to serve on any number of trials of varying lengths 68 in spite of judge goals proclamation at the may seventh 2024 hearing Indiana jury rules do not provide or require a mechanism to limit the length of the trial whatsoever including as it relates to the information contained in the jury summons that the court sends to citizens pursuant to jury rule four 69 judge goals errant interpretation of indiana jury rules created a situation in which mr allen was required to seek a continuance of his speedy trial in order to assure for himself a trial where he could thoroughly present his defense without time restrictions 70 judge goals bungling of mr allen speedy trial right due to her misunderstanding of what the jury rules require in the summons only negatively affected the defendant and his constitutional rights not the prosecution and thus provides a rational inference of bias against the defense and mr allen 71 additionally at the may seventh 2024 hearing judge goal cited several cases over which she has presided that lasted less time than the defense is requesting on this case essentially chastising the defense for the amount of time it was seeking for trial the length of a trial is determined by the number of witnesses the amount of evidence the length of the investigation and the complexity of the issues involved 72 this is the case of state of indiana versus richard allen with its own set of facts challenges and potential pitfalls that could cause the trial to last beyond what the parties expect for example several witnesses reside 125 plus miles away if those witnesses fell to appear in spite of being properly subpoenaed the trial may be delayed while the parties try to determine how to deal with the witness whose car may have broken down or who may have simply ignored a valid subpoena these situations arise at trial especially in a factually complex trial with approximately 185 witnesses identified by both parties 73 additionally of the approximately 185 witnesses identified by the parties a dozen or more are expert witnesses whose testimony will generally take longer and will be more complex than fact witnesses 74 for this court to call defense counsel a rational and unreasonable for stating the truth that they have never had a judge set a hard end date to a trial provides a rational inference bias against the defense 75 additionally a shocking and disconcerting that the court refused to place a limit on the time allotted to the prosecution but absolutely limited the time for the trial thereby limiting mr. allen's time to present his defense 76 under the court's prior order the trial was to last from may 13th 2024 through may 31st 2024 thereby allowing approximately 13 days for opening statement testimony evidence rebuttal evidence sir rebuttal evidence arguing of final instructions and closing arguments of both parties if the prosecution took all eight days to present their case this would only leave five days for mr. allen to present his witnesses which include at least five expert witnesses without even factoring in rebuttal evidence arguing of final instructions and closing arguments 77 the hard limit on the end of the trial denies mr. allen his sixth amendment right to confront witnesses his sixth amendment rights to the compulsory process for witnesses and his 14th amendment due process right to present the defense 78 in the context of its request for judge gall to disqualify herself this court's maligning of the defense counsel as irrational and unreasonable when in fact it was the court that was wrong in its understanding of jury rules and also wrong in its claim that the court statewide provide a hard end date to a trial offers a rational inference of bias against the defense all right we're going to wrap up this episode right here and in the next episode we're going to pick up with judge goals may 31st 2024 explanation for her denial of defense motions without a hearing provides a rational inference of bias all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description