The Delphi Murders: Richard Allen Goes to the Indiana Supreme Court: Response to Objections

[00:00:00] Content Warning

[00:00:02] This episode contains discussion of murder.

[00:00:05] So today is November 30th, 2023, and there has recently been some activity in Richard Allen's Indiana Supreme Court case.

[00:00:17] So we're going to talk about what was filed, what it says, and what it means for the case going forward.

[00:00:23] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:00:26] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:00:28] And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:00:30] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:00:36] We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:00:38] And this is The Delphi Murders. Richard Allen goes to the Indiana Supreme Court. Response to Objections.

[00:00:48] So let's start by doing a very, very quick recap.

[00:01:38] As most of us undoubtedly remember, Richard Allen's defense team of Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rosie were removed from the case or withdrew from the case, depending on who you're talking to.

[00:01:54] And subsequently, they'd been making efforts to get back onto the case and to have Judge Gole removed from the case.

[00:02:02] They filed a writ with the Supreme Court, asking the Indiana Supreme Court to make that happen.

[00:02:08] A few days ago, we got the opportunity to see how the Indiana Attorney General felt about their arguments and how Judge Gole herself felt about those arguments that they made.

[00:02:21] Today, the team that represents Rosie and Baldwin, I guess more accurately the team that represents Richard Allen in this, filed their comeback to the claims and arguments presented earlier in the week by the Indiana Attorney General's office and Judge Gole.

[00:02:43] So as usual, we're going to be going through these filings. It's going to be one side of this because it's coming from the defense side.

[00:02:50] But just keep in mind that we've been covering these things as they come out to contextualize and describe them and get into what they're saying and what that could mean for the case going forward.

[00:03:00] Because obviously, this writ of mandamus really is quite important because it gets into the heart of how this case is going to look going forward.

[00:03:09] Is Judge Gole going to continue? Is the old defense team going to come back and continue on? Is no one going to continue? I mean, what's going to happen?

[00:03:18] So this very much is a very dramatic writ in that sense because it really gets to what's happening here.

[00:03:27] An awful lot is at stake here.

[00:03:30] Absolutely. And just as a side note, there's another writ of mandamus that deals with more of the record keeping issues. That's a separate thing. We've talked about that too.

[00:03:40] I just always like to note that there's two balls in the air right now.

[00:03:44] That is very important to remember. There's an awful lot of detail in the Richard Allen case and the associated cases.

[00:03:53] And sometimes it's hard for anyone to keep it all straight. So I, from one, appreciate many of my induces possible.

[00:03:59] Thank you. So let's get into what was filed tonight.

[00:04:04] One thing I find helpful with documents like this is to start off by looking at how the issues are presented by the people preparing the document.

[00:04:17] Let's see how they see things. And so I'd like to read the summary prepared by the team representing Richard Allen in this.

[00:04:30] In this situation is Mark Lehman and Kara Weinecke.

[00:04:33] This writ is the only remedy.

[00:04:38] Any trial without Baldwin and Rosie, Rick's Council of Choice would be merely for show.

[00:04:44] Only two lawyers can be ready for a speedy trial and carry out Rick's well developed trial strategy.

[00:04:51] And only one court can grant that relief, this court.

[00:04:55] If action is not taken now, Rick's trial will be delayed longer and even more public resources will be spent.

[00:05:02] But more importantly, the public's trust in the judiciary would be permanently undermined while the world watches and appeal is inadequate.

[00:05:12] So those are very dramatic words.

[00:05:16] Yeah. They're using very dramatic extreme language to describe the situation to presumably lie defied or under the Indiana Supreme Court to prompt them to see it their way.

[00:05:29] Yes. So I just want to note that that's very strong language.

[00:05:33] If you recall from the briefs prepared by Judge Gole's team and the Attorney General's team, one of their arguments was there shouldn't be other remedies available.

[00:05:49] And as we can see here, the position they're taking here is no.

[00:05:55] The only way this can be fixed is if Richard Allen's original lawyers come back on the case and execute their well developed trial strategy.

[00:06:05] Anything less than that, robs Rick Allen of his rights.

[00:06:10] Okay.

[00:06:12] So let's see how they made their case.

[00:06:15] Yeah.

[00:06:16] They write that the unlawful disqualification of a lawyer strikes the heart of the public trust in the integrity of the judicial process and requires this court to invoke its inherent authority to supervise the conduct of lower courts.

[00:06:31] I guess the key word there, of course, is unlawful what constitutes unlawful.

[00:06:37] Right. And I suppose in a way that's going to be determined by what the Indiana Supreme Court says, right?

[00:06:44] Yes.

[00:06:45] And I will be curious if they rule that, no, this is fine.

[00:06:49] The old defense should stay off.

[00:06:51] Is that rendering it lawful or can there be further objections down the road and say, no, it wasn't done right?

[00:06:58] Even though they said it was, here's why.

[00:07:01] So I'll be curious to see whether that makes it a permanent shift.

[00:07:08] I mean, if they, if the Indiana Supreme Court rules against gull and creates a situation where she's removed and the old defense is brought back on different scenario.

[00:07:18] But I'm talking about if they're ruled against, you know, what would be the mechanism for determining where this really weird situation is lawful or not?

[00:07:29] I would suspect that this team seems to be real fighters and I'm, I don't believe that if they lose in the Supreme Court, that would be the end of it.

[00:07:41] Oh no.

[00:07:42] I think they would find some other mechanism.

[00:07:45] I would assume at this point, it's a good bet to bet on what's happened in the past.

[00:07:52] So, you know, repeated attempts, different types of attempts to come back in.

[00:07:57] I think that we're going to see more of that.

[00:07:59] That's just a guess, obviously.

[00:08:01] We don't know.

[00:08:02] But.

[00:08:05] Oh, and then I just wanted to mention, I always find these sorts of things interesting.

[00:08:09] They talk about the case of state Jones versus Nox Superior Court.

[00:08:16] This was a case that was cited in the earlier briefs and those attorneys argue that this supports our position.

[00:08:23] And that they're, in this brief, they're saying no, it's a different type of case.

[00:08:29] And it's interesting.

[00:08:31] Lawyers like to do this.

[00:08:33] They like to find cases and then argue this case is just like my case.

[00:08:39] So therefore you should follow this case.

[00:08:41] And then the team on the other side will say, no, this case isn't like this case for this reason.

[00:08:47] Think of it like if you went to your father and said, well, you brought a car for my brother when he turned 16.

[00:08:58] I'm just like my brother.

[00:09:00] You should buy me a car too.

[00:09:02] And your father might say, well, you got into an accident and drivers add and told it a car.

[00:09:08] So therefore these situations are different.

[00:09:11] Does that make sense?

[00:09:12] Yeah.

[00:09:13] Yeah, that makes that makes a lot of sense.

[00:09:15] So we're there.

[00:09:17] They're they're undermining here some of what gold's team said.

[00:09:20] No, no, no, that that case looks different.

[00:09:25] Shouldn't disregard.

[00:09:27] So ultimately it's going to be up to the court to determine who made the best arguments.

[00:09:32] Does Jones help one side or does it help the other side?

[00:09:36] Or is it completely irrelevant?

[00:09:37] Okay, that makes sense.

[00:09:38] So I just wanted to throw that in there.

[00:09:40] I find those sorts of things interesting.

[00:09:43] Yes.

[00:09:45] And then they stress what we all learned from the transcript of the closed door hearings.

[00:09:52] They stress for instance that Rosie was like offering alternatives.

[00:09:58] Brad Rosie was saying, let me stay on with a new co-counsel so Richard Allen can still get his speedy trial and the judge was refusing.

[00:10:10] So they're they're trying to say they're bringing up these facts to indicate that they tried they tried to reach a reasonable compromise and it wasn't.

[00:10:22] Wasn't taken and they're also indicating that this was done on the motion of the judge herself.

[00:10:33] Right.

[00:10:34] It was your own motion.

[00:10:35] It wasn't based on any formal filing from the prosecutor.

[00:10:39] So these are again some procedural issues.

[00:10:42] So they, you know, they didn't do it right.

[00:10:45] Even, you know, we're certainly in this.

[00:10:48] I don't necessarily think they're saying that it should have been done at all, but certainly that it wasn't done correctly if that and that's because of the level of informality.

[00:10:59] Yes.

[00:11:01] And they're arguing there should have been more of a formal record.

[00:11:05] There should have been motions filed and so on.

[00:11:09] Well, it's interesting because in the in the gull teams response the other day, there was a bit of like.

[00:11:18] Actually, rather I should say in Attorney General Todd Rakita's response, there was almost like the defense is at fault for the lack of record because they quit before one could be established.

[00:11:30] I don't know how compelling a judge.

[00:11:32] I mean, the justices are going to find that necessarily.

[00:11:35] I don't really a lot of this procedural stuff is definitely above my pay grade, but it's it's interesting that they're both sides are trying to craft this narrative of what's going to be most compelling for the upper court.

[00:11:47] So it makes sense that they would be delving into procedure.

[00:11:54] They also indicate again, they've made this case in their original filing.

[00:11:59] The other side responded to it.

[00:12:00] They responded to that.

[00:12:02] I like to claim that the only reasons why you can remove an attorney is if they're not licensed by the state of Indiana or if there's a conflict of interest.

[00:12:13] And I want to read a note here that they make.

[00:12:17] No Indiana court has ever tolerated a trial judge removing a lawyer from a case over the client's objection based on anything other than these two reasons.

[00:12:29] They're out there 8000 words in nearly 50 pages of briefing.

[00:12:33] The responding parties fail to present a single Indiana case tolerating this behavior from a trial judge.

[00:12:40] So I find this interesting too because they're talking about a trial judge removing a lawyer from a case and obviously she put pressure on them, but they indicated at least originally that they were withdrawing.

[00:12:56] Yes.

[00:12:59] So if they were withdrawing, if that final decision whether or not to withdraw or be removed was in their hands and they chose to withdraw, does that affect in your mind?

[00:13:13] Well, I don't know.

[00:13:15] You could argue that she put them in a position where it was, you know, what they're arguing is she put them in a position where they're going to in their words damage Richard Allen's case if they stay on and are fired versus quietly withdrawn.

[00:13:32] I don't really know how much that makes a lot of sense to me.

[00:13:39] It kind of almost reminds me of like, you can't fire me. I quit.

[00:13:44] But if you do that in many situations in a workplace setting, then you don't get severance.

[00:13:49] You don't get the benefits of having been laid off necessarily.

[00:13:54] You know, the financial obligation that your former employer potentially has for you in some settings.

[00:13:59] So a lot of situations when you're in that people will tell you essentially make them lay you off, make them fire you.

[00:14:09] You know, if it's an if it's I guess it's in this situation, obviously it's much more complicated and maybe it's bad analogy.

[00:14:16] But I'm surprised why wouldn't they just make her fire them because then couldn't they have appealed that to it would seem that their position would have been a lot stronger.

[00:14:26] Yes.

[00:14:27] They had made her fire them.

[00:14:29] Yes.

[00:14:30] I don't get it.

[00:14:32] I think it almost looks from the outside like they changed their minds at some point that they were walking away and then said, wait a minute.

[00:14:40] That's just because again, we talk about strategy.

[00:14:45] We talk about it's not about in this situation what we're discussing.

[00:14:48] It's not about who's right and who's wrong.

[00:14:50] It's really more about what is going to make you more likely to win.

[00:14:55] Again, beat your adversary and if they're sitting there in chambers, this is not going well.

[00:15:02] She is going to fire us.

[00:15:04] Let's discuss it with our client.

[00:15:06] He wants us to stay on.

[00:15:08] I don't know why you're not necessarily thinking a couple of steps ahead and saying, you know what?

[00:15:13] Let's make her fire us and then we're going to come back swinging because we don't think that's right versus like, oh, well.

[00:15:20] We definitely don't want that going on court TV.

[00:15:23] Bye everybody.

[00:15:24] Oh, now we want to come back.

[00:15:25] It just doesn't seem like they put themselves in a very good position to succeed to prevail.

[00:15:33] I wonder if in hindsight they regret that because also it would seem if their position is that if these allegations against us get aired in the court hearing,

[00:15:45] it might affect our reputation.

[00:15:47] It might affect Richard Allen's case than what's been going on for the last month.

[00:15:54] Instead of having one single hearing where these things were addressed,

[00:15:58] we've heard weeks and weeks of a drip-drip where allegations are being made about these attorneys.

[00:16:07] Yes.

[00:16:08] And from a PR perspective as painful as I think it would have been for them to sit through that court hearing.

[00:16:14] I think that would have been painful.

[00:16:16] That would not have been good.

[00:16:18] But getting it all over with, letting the opposition in this case fire their shot at you and give as good as they can.

[00:16:27] And then coming back to me look stronger.

[00:16:33] And at that point you can portray it as like, oh, well, you know, they ambushed us to a certain extent or we weren't expecting all that.

[00:16:40] But we still don't think we should have been fired.

[00:16:42] And look, they've already explained what happened.

[00:16:44] But that still doesn't merit it.

[00:16:46] And I don't know.

[00:16:48] You just...

[00:16:50] Yeah, I don't know why they did it this way unless there was maybe not a lot of intentionality to some of the early on decisions that of course then affect things today.

[00:17:00] Because yeah, I just would...

[00:17:04] I mean, if you fight till the last man and force her to kick you off,

[00:17:09] I think she looks more vulnerable then because her finger is on the trigger, so to speak.

[00:17:15] Yeah, in that instance you lose the battle, but maybe you win the war.

[00:17:19] Yes, you do. You lose the battle and that's a brutal battle.

[00:17:22] But you're forcing her to do it.

[00:17:24] And then you can...

[00:17:26] We often talk, Kevin, about, you know, when we're talking about strategy.

[00:17:31] In judo you often say not that either of us know judo at all.

[00:17:36] So let's be clear.

[00:17:37] You say use your opponent's strength as their weakness.

[00:17:40] Yes.

[00:17:41] So using her strength of kicking them off and then turning around and saying like,

[00:17:45] look at what this judge did, isn't this unprecedented?

[00:17:49] Has a lot more weight to me than...

[00:17:53] Well, she kind of implied that she was going to fire us and we didn't want to be embarrassed in front of courtee.

[00:17:58] And now we'd like to come back on.

[00:18:00] Because no one's ever supposed to fire anybody.

[00:18:02] But we did quit. We did lie to the judge.

[00:18:04] But we weren't... We didn't really mean it.

[00:18:06] Maybe there's an inherent problem with the argument.

[00:18:09] Because of circumstances, they're now forced to make the argument that yes, we told her we were withdrawing.

[00:18:14] But when we said that, we didn't mean it.

[00:18:17] We were misrepresenting to the judge for the larger good.

[00:18:20] I think that's a problematic argument to have to make.

[00:18:24] And also at the end of the day, they did quit.

[00:18:27] So you can say that I can certainly understand the coercive environment argument,

[00:18:33] but it's not quite as good as her actually firing them from their perspective. In my opinion.

[00:18:39] I'd be interested if any of the parties in this case have found instances of other cases where attorneys have left the representation of a defendant and then sought to return and how that was handled.

[00:18:54] Yeah, all of this seems like it's very rare and strange situation in this case.

[00:19:00] But I would be curious about that too.

[00:19:03] And to be clear, when we're talking, it's just about strategy.

[00:19:06] It's not about again, who's right? Who's wrong? Who's morally correct in this thing?

[00:19:10] It's just how do you set yourself up for success?

[00:19:15] Let me read something else.

[00:19:17] The judge, if she believed there was a violation of the rules of professional conduct should have reported the violation in accordance with her obligation under rule of judicial conduct 2.15.

[00:19:30] But this never occurred despite respondent claiming there was a violation of the ethical rules nearly a year ago when counsel issued a press release in November 2022 affirming Richard Allen's innocence.

[00:19:44] So she said the argument that's being made here is the judge goal cited the release of a press statement by Baldwin and Rosie as being something she found problematic.

[00:19:58] And they're saying, well, if you really found it problematic, why is the first time you're complaining about it on the record almost a year later?

[00:20:06] Right. You're not establishing a record at the time. That seems like a pretty reasonable argument.

[00:20:10] Seems like a pretty good point to me.

[00:20:12] Yeah. That's a good point for them because if it was such a problem, you don't want to like, we've all been in arguments with people where maybe they've had some stifling resentments for you over time and then they start listing them all out.

[00:20:27] And it's kind of like maybe if we had dealt with these issues in the moment or earlier, it wouldn't have gotten to the point where it turns toxic into a toxic argument.

[00:20:37] So I think, yeah, I see their point there. I know I think one of Gull's filings said something similar like if they had such a problem with how she was handling the record, where were the, you know, why didn't they raise it earlier?

[00:20:49] So this kind of issue in this case of sides, you know, holding ammo and then firing. But I think this point seems to be a resonant one for the defense.

[00:21:03] Yes. Let's get back to this response.

[00:21:09] Respondents primary ground for her subjective belief about counsel's performance was the evidence leak discovered in October.

[00:21:18] Yet attorney Baldwin was a victim of a crime allegedly committed by Mitch Westerman, who surreptitiously took photographs of evidence.

[00:21:28] Law enforcement, a prosecutor and the Johnson Superior Court have viewed this matter and found probable cause to believe attorney Baldwin was a victim of a crime.

[00:21:39] It's interesting they are citing that the belief on this side is that Westerman did commit a crime. They're not defending Westerman's actions here. They're not saying it helps their case.

[00:21:52] It certainly helps their case because if it wasn't being treated as a crime, you might I think the lines would be more blurry.

[00:22:00] But let me just ask you a hypothetical. Let's say I take our life savings and I mortgage the house and with a big wad of money I go and I buy a really fancy Cadillac car.

[00:22:21] And I go into the worst neighborhood in town.

[00:22:27] I leave the car running. I leave the door open and then I catch an Uber back to the house.

[00:22:36] If per chance, the Cadillac which I've left in such a precarious situation gets stolen, I would certainly be the victim of a crime.

[00:22:49] But I'd be curious what you would have to say about my standard of care for our Cadillac.

[00:22:53] Kevin, are you victim blaming yourself here?

[00:22:56] Yeah, no, it's a fair point. You can still be negligent even if something bad happened to you, even if someone else perpetrated that.

[00:23:11] So I still think it helps them that it's a crime and that it's being treated as one.

[00:23:18] And that they're like citing it like, look, but I see what you mean that it's not necessarily the end all be all as far as the court as well as far as the trial court is concerned.

[00:23:30] I think one thing that complicates this is that there's an admission that Baldwin was passing on strategy to Westerman by Rosie in that letter.

[00:23:39] To me, it would be a lot more clear cut if Westerman's maybe hanging around, tell me about Delphi.

[00:23:51] No, no, I'm not going to tell you about Delphi and then he goes in and gets this stuff and unilaterally does that.

[00:23:56] And that's like the one aspect of this because then it is like, well, yeah, that's just some guy doing that.

[00:24:03] But when it's somebody who's like being consulted on some level, the optics are not great on that.

[00:24:10] That looks a little bit different in my view.

[00:24:14] I'm going to read another line here.

[00:24:17] What happened to attorney Baldwin in October and the other instances cited by respondent in no way affected the quality of representation attorneys Baldwin and Rosie provided Rick and did not disrupt their trial strategy.

[00:24:34] So that gets to what you were saying.

[00:24:38] Does the disclosure of trial strategy by Andy Baldwin to Mitch Westerman and Mitch Westerman then passes it on to his friend who then passes it on to others?

[00:24:52] Does that affect the quality of representation and I don't know how I mean, I don't know how you could definitively say it doesn't.

[00:25:01] I don't know how you can be definitive on that at this point.

[00:25:06] Generally speaking, I'm sure everyone listening to this is heard of attorney client privilege and that is based on the premise that it is very important for there to be a certain level of confidentiality in terms of what a lawyer is deciding and formulating for his client and his clients strategy.

[00:25:29] And so the fact that so much of this got out there.

[00:25:35] Because of Andy Baldwin's choices to share it with Mitch Westerman.

[00:25:42] It seems to me that likely did affect the quality of his representation.

[00:25:47] I don't yeah, I mean at the very even if I'm just trying to really give the benefit of the doubt here.

[00:25:52] I don't know how this team.

[00:25:54] I don't know where they they're getting that.

[00:25:56] No, we can we can we did the test measurements and there's there's absolutely no harm done.

[00:26:02] To it to a degree there is a subjective.

[00:26:05] Is an element of subjectivity here?

[00:26:08] How do you determine what's been harmed?

[00:26:10] Well, we haven't had a trial yet so I don't know.

[00:26:14] Generally though the defense one of the defenses we've talked about discovery and we've talked about how the prosecution has the power and the wealth of the state on its side and how as a result of that the defense has a few privileges under our system.

[00:26:32] Such as not having to give over everything they have to the prosecution at all times they can they can play strategy.

[00:26:39] They can keep their cards close to the vest for a while and that's that's to give them a little bit of a leg up because the other side is so advantaged.

[00:26:48] So when when stuff is just hemorrhaging out onto the Internet where you have a very highly connected ecosystem of people who are obsessed with this case.

[00:27:01] Who are highly connected and who are frankly gossips at heart.

[00:27:06] Then yeah you're you're creating a that's a bad situation to begin.

[00:27:11] Been a lot of minimization in some of this discussion I think.

[00:27:15] Yes, certainly.

[00:27:19] They go on to argue that judge goal herself has been responsible for delaying the administration of justice.

[00:27:29] In this case.

[00:27:32] I like to read some of what they had to say.

[00:27:37] The Franks memo would sought to suppress the warrant search that uncovered a firearm has been pending since September 18 2023 as of October 31 2023 responded had not finished reading the motion.

[00:27:54] Citation I haven't finished even reading it.

[00:27:59] It's jumped out at me because I don't know if it's entirely fair when you go back and look at the the line they are citing.

[00:28:16] Judge gold does indicate I'm going to I'm going to read it.

[00:28:21] There's a pending motion to suppress.

[00:28:23] There is the Franks that is not yet I haven't finished even reading it or going through all of the hours of interviews that were provided on a flash drive.

[00:28:32] So you need a hearing date for that.

[00:28:35] So it doesn't appear as if she's saying she well let me read something else in an earlier.

[00:28:44] Transcript the judge says the Franks motion clearly needs a ruling and I'm working on that.

[00:28:51] The motion and exhibits are about 1500 pages and there are hours and hours and hours of interviews that have been made available that my IT staff has now cleaned to make sure they're OK.

[00:29:03] So when she says she hasn't read this motion, she likely is not referring to the 136 page memorandum which all of us probably read within hours of the time it's released.

[00:29:18] She's likely referring to the accompanying exhibits which total 1500 pages and she's also referring to the hours and hours and hours of interviews that she probably wants to listen to in conjunction with reading certain things.

[00:29:35] OK, OK, that does add a little bit more nuance in context to the situation so I appreciate you pulling that out.

[00:29:42] And I think it's also worth noting sometimes if something in an exhibit is for instance a deposition.

[00:29:51] If you've ever had the experience of reading the transcript of a deposition or even if you've had the experience of just reading a text from a friend or something.

[00:30:01] Sometimes when you read a text or when you read a transcript, there is some tone there that's missing and so it's easy to misinterpret things.

[00:30:12] Perhaps you've read texts from people and thought oh they sound really angry and then you find out no they were just joking or something.

[00:30:20] So it's also entirely possible that when Judge Gull wants to read some of these exhibits and deposition transcripts she wants to listen to the recording at the same time.

[00:30:30] One element that's related to this that I wanted to ask you about because it's interesting to me is the element of speedy trial that has been introduced through this mandamus,

[00:30:41] through this writ of mandamus rather.

[00:30:44] And given that that was not so you have the old defense team essentially saying we were gonna file this.

[00:30:51] OK.

[00:30:53] So you're talking literally about the motion they had Richard Allen sign it August saying I want to trial in 70 days which they then had not filed during the rest of their representation.

[00:31:04] Yes because it seems like the criticism of Gull for not getting through the Franks is kind of tied into a larger theme of like we need to hurry up and do this.

[00:31:15] And I guess my question for you is if that's not filed.

[00:31:19] How relevant is that as far as the Supreme Court is considered.

[00:31:25] I think emotion isn't likely to be considered until it's filed.

[00:31:30] Yeah, it kind of strikes me if you're if you're in college and like well you know, you know, are you gonna grade my term paper well on you you haven't turned it in.

[00:31:41] Well I was going to.

[00:31:43] I was gonna make some really good points.

[00:31:46] So I was just yeah, that's just interesting to me.

[00:31:51] Kind of like adding a level of urgency which makes for very good writing and reading in terms of like wow okay we we got to go but I just don't know how much relevance that has.

[00:32:02] Yeah what I don't I don't fully understand is they're asking Judge Goldaby removed they're asking for Baldwin and Rosie to come back they're asking for the Supreme Court to grant a speedy trial.

[00:32:13] If perchance Baldwin and Rosie are put back on the case and a new judge is put on the case.

[00:32:22] Why does the Supreme Court then need to say okay speedy trial motion granted why couldn't Baldwin and Rosie on their first day back on the case just file it themselves with the trial court.

[00:32:36] That's a good question.

[00:32:38] I almost feel like maybe there's a strategic benefit in having it because it creates a level of urgency like.

[00:32:48] They can keep reminding us how he's in you know Alan's in prison and he needs to be released and acquitted and whatnot and you know get a move on basically.

[00:33:00] They also of course in this response talk about six amendment issues.

[00:33:07] Let's hear what they have to say.

[00:33:11] The sixth amendment issue will permeate every aspect of this case rendering a fair trial impossible and a tremendous waste of resources trial will be for practice only.

[00:33:22] Furthermore remedy on appeal will be retrial not retrial with attorneys Baldwin and Rosie Richard Allen wants to trial with attorneys Baldwin and Rosie and only this court can grant that relief.

[00:33:36] So six amendment is right to counsel they're saying if you don't give Richard Allen these two particular attorneys then nothing counts nothing else is good enough.

[00:33:49] Okay, I guess it depends on the reading of six amendment whether or not that is right to competent effective counsel or write to the effective counsel of your choice in this situation.

[00:34:03] So that's going to come down to how the Indiana Supreme Court sees that I suppose.

[00:34:07] I wonder what this next paragraph is well.

[00:34:11] Even if Richard Allen is acquitted at a trial in October 2024 or months thereafter, his rights will still be violated because justice will have been long delayed while his 50 year old health continues to deteriorate in prison.

[00:34:28] Quote justice too long delayed is justice denied Martin Luther King Jr. letter from Birmingham jail.

[00:34:37] I just I just found it interesting and perhaps worth noting that in this legal brief.

[00:34:43] They were citing Martin Luther King Jr.

[00:34:46] It is fascinating.

[00:34:48] In the conclusion they are saying the judge goal is biased and then they bring up circumstances related to the June hearing, which was about the safekeeping order.

[00:35:07] You all remember that this was when Brad Rosie and Andrew Baldwin prepared a document alleging that Richard Allen was being mistreated in Westville prison and need to be moved for his safety.

[00:35:25] And goal judge goal claimed that there were a lot of inaccuracies in that motion.

[00:35:34] Right.

[00:35:36] So we're going back to Robert Bestown. In other words, yeah, let me let me read this.

[00:35:42] Respondent based that on the state's evidence presented it a hearing on the motion but failed to acknowledge that respondent relieved the sheriff of his burden to transport Rick's primary witness to the hearing so that he could testify in support of Rick's motion.

[00:35:58] So they're saying the witness who would have come through and proven all of our allegations was Robert Bestown and judge goals said I don't have to bring him because it because since he was incarcerated you needed the sheriff to bring him.

[00:36:14] And I think it's worth going back to the record and noting that best own basically refused to leave a cell.

[00:36:22] Yes, he refused to leave a cell because he said he was scared.

[00:36:26] So it wasn't judge goal, you know, laterally coming to the decision. Let's not include this witness.

[00:36:35] We've also talked a lot about best on on the show. I don't think it's worth going into all that in depth again.

[00:36:43] But he's a person who was convicted with very strong evidence of an awful crime against a six year old girl.

[00:36:52] He tried to victim blame this six year old girl. He's also made all sorts of utterly ridiculous jailhouse lawyer suit since he's been incarcerated.

[00:37:04] He made these claims about Richard Allen being mistreated and then was afforded the opportunity to come and present them to a judge or in front of a judge and he refused.

[00:37:16] We actually, as we've mentioned, we've reached out to Mr. Bestown and exchanged some messages with him.

[00:37:23] And he seemed to suggest in those messages that he did have some information about Richard Allen, but he was really interested in seeing what people could do to help his case.

[00:37:34] So I think at the very least it's fair to say that this man has extreme credibility issues and would have been unlikely to be a star witness.

[00:37:44] No, yeah. That Jesus Christ. I'm sorry. I'm just I can't I'm gonna.

[00:37:49] If Robert Bestown is your last best hope as a witness, then God help you.

[00:37:56] That's all I'm going to say.

[00:37:59] I also want to note that it appears as if the motion for safekeeping was filed by Attorney Rosie prior to them becoming aware of Bestown and his testimony.

[00:38:15] So his witness testimony wasn't crucial to whatever evidence they needed to support that motion.

[00:38:23] Furthermore, I would want to note that in September of 2023 they filed by they I mean attorneys Baldwin and Rosie filed a verified motion for immediate transfer of custody against saying Richard Allen should not be at Westvale.

[00:38:46] So this was three months after the hearing and there's no indication in there that they sought any affidavit or anything from Robert Bestown to further support his claims.

[00:39:02] Bestown is mentioned in this motion. Let me get to that paragraph and I will read it.

[00:39:13] On April 28 2023 DOC inmate Robert P. Bestown while housed in the maximum security unit at Westville Correctional Facility filed a letter with the court within this correspondence inmate Bestown claimed in pertinent part the following.

[00:39:30] There are corrupt officers and ranking officers calling Richard Allen a kid killer teasing him that he has a visit from his family.

[00:39:38] On Friday August 4 2023 Attorney Rosie and Assistant Baker visited with inmate Bestown at the Westville Correctional Facility.

[00:39:45] During said visit inmate Bestown told both Rosie and Baker. The Sergeant Joshua Robinson is one of the guards that was playing a prank on defendant Allen.

[00:39:55] At the time of this meeting inmate Bestown was unaware of any concerns that the defense team had regarding sons of Odin in their involvement in this case.

[00:40:06] So there doesn't appear to be a formal affidavit or statement from Bestown but there is this thing here saying that in the words that they themselves use in this.

[00:40:22] Bestown told them that one of the guards played a prank on defendant Allen and so even if you took that testimony at face value I'm not sure how helpful it would have been in the June hearing to have Bestown stand up and say one of the guards was pranking Allen.

[00:40:39] Here's what I just can't.

[00:40:42] Okay, so there's cameras at Westville.

[00:40:46] This is a prison, there's cameras.

[00:40:49] And if there was what they're claiming is he's being tortured, he's being harassed, he's being hassled.

[00:40:58] I would think that having a footage to speak to that or even footage that's maybe borderline but concerning.

[00:41:07] That is a lot more powerful for the defense to have than a person who victim blames the six year old girl who he molested whose DNA was found all over her swimsuit after he abducted and molested her.

[00:41:22] And who the six year old pointed out, you know I mean I guess there's just the cameras not going to lie but people do.

[00:41:32] And I'm not saying you shouldn't trust Bestown because he's an inmate.

[00:41:36] Inmates are going to be the ones who experience and see prison abuse.

[00:41:40] They're going to be the ones that you should believe when there's credible accusations but this is a guy who I believe is telling people whatever they want to hear so that they pay attention to him.

[00:41:53] And his case.

[00:41:54] And his case because you know he's been wrongfully convicted.

[00:41:59] According to him.

[00:42:01] But not according to anyone who's seen the evidence in his case.

[00:42:04] No.

[00:42:05] And so I guess I just went there's other options there and I don't understand why they wouldn't be fighting tooth if they were concerned by tooth and nail to get the footage or maybe here's here's what I'll say.

[00:42:19] Maybe reaching out to a group of inmates who would be in a position to see or hear something.

[00:42:25] And then it's like a benefit of having a number of people saying similar things and it's like maybe one person could be dismissed but they can't all be dismissed or not all lying.

[00:42:35] That would be a lot more powerful than like wow Bestown is really going to blow this whole thing wide open.

[00:42:44] Yeah I found it to be interesting that they ended this by citing Bestown and how much help Bestown could have been to them into the case.

[00:42:56] Also I don't really understand like I don't would it wouldn't that be a bit of a violation of his rights if he didn't force to testify or force it forcibly brought out to Carroll County.

[00:43:08] Yeah, I mean I would argue yes interesting what exactly they expected to have happened there.

[00:43:18] Yeah I don't like you know just drag him bodily out of his cell and then put him on the stand and he either caves and starts talking really against his will in a coercive setting or doesn't and it's just a waste of time.

[00:43:33] But that doesn't seem to be the way to handle it.

[00:43:35] The way to handle that I would think would be for the defense attorneys over time to establish a rapport and a communication with him and convince him that it would be helpful and good for him to testify.

[00:43:50] Not forcing him.

[00:43:55] And that wraps it up.

[00:43:57] Looks like there's anything more you wanted to say.

[00:43:59] Nope that just about does it.

[00:44:01] So it'll be very interesting to see what happens going forward.

[00:44:05] And we have no idea when there's going to be results in this or what's going to happen next but we'll certainly be watching it out.

[00:44:13] We'll certainly be watching out for whatever happens.

[00:44:16] Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet.

[00:44:23] If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover please email us at murder sheet at gmail.com.

[00:44:32] If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:44:41] If you're interested in joining our Patreon that's available at www.patreon.com.

[00:44:51] If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com.

[00:45:01] We very much appreciate any support.

[00:45:04] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee who composed the music for the murder sheet and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:45:14] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered you can join the murder sheet discussion group on Facebook.

[00:45:22] We mostly focus our time on research and reporting so we're not on social media much.

[00:45:28] We do try to check our email account but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.

[00:45:34] Thanks again for listening.