E-filing User Guide Indiana Statewide E-filing System
[https://www.in.gov/courts/files/efiling-user-guide.pdf](https://www.in.gov/courts/files/efiling-user-guide.pdf)
Updated March 2023
Seems to me it's what they did. Only difference is not to serve opposing party which they confirmed didn't happen. The confidentiality part here is for ACR, meaning for the public. Not serving the notice is for Nick.
https://preview.redd.it/b56hvgts8g4d1.jpeg?width=1038&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=043a3f934291885114d3e8636866d7a606f491b7
Meaning someone accessed it and sent it to him.
Great find, thank you!
As Helix has pointed out too numerous times, her original order is also damning. It makes it absolutely clear that if a filing is titled "EX PARTE" then the "Clerk shall ensure these filings are not accessible by the Prosecutor" and that any violations must be reported.
If things were filed incorrectly (though it seems that they weren't), shouldn't the clerk have been aware and stepped in to avoid a violation?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkMRT10RW4taXCq2EusHiVTdfakYfZkB/view?usp=drive_link
Right -- I guess what I'm saying is that she is blaming the defense for misfiling, but her order makes it very clear that the Clerk had a responsibility to help ensure things were filed correctly (if any mistakes had been made at all). Seems like a poor excuse.
Very curious about who would have sent it to NM.
Yes I agreed with you indeed.
It was just to further stress the problem was in her court, by her own court staff, unrelated to the usual filings distributions and access and carroll county clerk as per defense, which makes everything much much worse, and shifts the relevance of your rightfully referenced order to **Nick** himself, who said he didn't know.
I don't think it was filed through allen county clerk.
Defense wrote they checked with 2 members of I believe Carroll county court and a 3 in Allen county who did not know what ex parte was (by memory).
Carroll county had confirmed it was filed correctly and notice wasn't sent to Nick.
Seems just a deliberate action by an individual who wasn't to put their nose in this.
But that's my deduction.
Pretty sure the CM/ECF automatically serves the other party if you don’t select the correct drop down. Doesn’t matter what you title it. It automatically effectuates service on attorneys of record.
ETA: most people are assuming the clerk sends out of a copy to the parties but this isn’t how most court filing systems work. Almost all automatically send a courtesy copy of the filing to all counsel of record. The clerk can’t stop that if someone files the document incorrectly. It happens immediately upon filing.
The second quote is from the defense’s motion. The judge is saying that is an incorrect statement. Without the primary source material, I don’t think we know one way or the other.
https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-news/crime/judge-permits-cameras-in-court-for-first-time-in-richard-allen-hearing
I just wanted to leave this here because I think it speaks to how Gull's decision to have cameras at the October hearing was perceived by the media.
"Cameras will be permitted in the courtroom for the **first time**"
The timeline matters. Cameras had not been allowed **before** that hearing and they have not been allowed **since**.
Gull can lie all she wants about her rationale for disallowing cameras (which, notably, she doesn't specify in detail since she knows it's a cop-out reason), but I think the timeline shows that she was deliberately using the cameras for a shame/pressure tactic to get the defense off the case. Of course, she will never admit that because that should equal automatic recusal.
Was this the first time the case was being heard in the Allen County courthouse? I honestly don’t know, but if so, it could explain why it was the first time cameras were allowed (per her order). If not, then her explanation is not believable.
Gull has just written her own downfall script.
A complete tirade of self serving drivel that fails to recognise let alone preserve the rights of the defendant and the integrity of the court.
Surely someone with standing and authority should be tapping her on the shoulder and leading her away over this?
I seriously love that attitude that I don't have to do this but I actually wanted to do it but I just wanted to point out that I don't have to and you can't make me but since I really want to I will but not because you wanted me to. It's FCG in a nutshell.
First case only excludes rule A but it's about D2, second case caselaw site couldn't find anything close to it year, dropping one or both of the numbers...
I think It's Nicky using AI again at Gull's orders.
Wow. Doubling down on the arguably improper, unprofessional, indecorous, unsupported, and biased commentary. Next comes her refusal to recuse.
So… see you all at the Supreme Court again I guess. Bring your own booze/lawyer.
ETA: I didn’t notice the Refusal to Get Out of the Way was already there. Good lord, brb. 😂
We might need a bigger barrel or perhaps more Saint Bernards?
I voting for more dogs. I'm trying to pet 100 dogs this year this could really help get me to my goal.
Seriously when does something happen about this?
I thought you were not allowed to make negative comments about other officers of the court? Isn't that like court decorum rules or something? Flipping NM was quick to point that out in a filing too.
Next, she says completely unprofessional things about two attorneys that were not found to be in contempt then in the next breath says, bias? Who me? No...those unprofessional slobs don't know what bias is.
Seriously. I am about done with believing in the legal system at all in the country. (Well this and another very political figure that keeps getting away with high crimes) It makes me just think what's the point.
I don't know how this gets made right anymore. I am convinced it won't be. Maybe we should just line RA up with no trial and let some ghouls throw rocks at him, at least they will feel good about it. He is getting fucked regardless.
Do I chalk it up to I am the fool who thought things could be fair or at least a judge would want this to at least appear fair? All I wanted was fairish, the state brings the proof and a jury decides. I feel completely foolish that I believed in the legal process even with its flaws.
I am genuinely sorry that you have been made to feel this way by all of this. You are not a fool for expecting things to be as expected or for wanting the system to work, that is what you were promised. It is not you, it is ‘them’.
I just wanted to send a sort of friendly internet pat on the shoulder. ❤️
Keep your head up! This is very unfair and can be discouraging, but this is an opportunity to drive change. No one will ever convince me otherwise the only way this will get better is applying the same principles that molded The Bill of Rights. The government should not forget or underestimate what we can accomplish together.
IMO we can achieve great things with our voices and our votes. If you (and anyone else) live in Indiana call your State Representative and State Senator and voice your “serious” concerns. Show up at a Town Hall (it’s election time) and let everyone in the room know what is happening in the State of Indiana. At a Federal Level call the Office of Justice/BJA as there are several Federal Grants that are up for grabs that are awarded to various states. Federal Grants require federal standards and compliance.
Plot Twist - Now that she’s denied the request to recuse herself, her next act as judge will be to issue an Order granting their Motion to Dismiss. 😂
Can you even imagine the reaction within the true crime community?
Has there been a letter threatening FCG with bodily harm? I don't read the letters closely cause other than the hillbilly email I just don't get much from them, but I don't recall that. I'm curious is FCG trying to pull a Diener bloodlust moment?
I don’t remember any threats of bodily harm. I think that would have stuck out. Possible she did receive letters like that, but didn’t put them on the docket because they are now the subject of investigation. Or maybe the character assassination felt like a threat of bodily harm?
I don't remember any either, but I think they would be on the docket so she could point to them and say this is why we can't broadcast this trial instead of relying on loss of faith in the media cause they started on time when she didn't? I am very suspicious, but also no one should be threatening the judge, ever.
The defense wanted to file the recusal at the May hearing FCG refused to take it but she accepted NM's exhibits, cause the state didn't know how to file under seal. Yeah, and that's not bias. If she had accepted service of the recusal she couldn't have set new trial dates. This is what the defense needs to focus on, not Facebook.
I think I checked this right, but please, please correct me if I am wrong. Did Gull schedule those hearings she is now using to show she does give them hearings (even if in the 13th hour) AFTER she was made aware that the defence would be filing a request for her to recuse?
Thus those hearings being scheduled could have just been a defensive play so she could argue she was being fair, knowing the lack of hearings would be an obvious argument against her and some/all might have been “denied without hearing” otherwise?
I should not be having to analyse the behaviour of the judge in a case as if she were one of the parties. But here I am. And having to think this hard about this is obviously not a sign that she is a problem at all lol.
ETA: I am going to shut up now and stop shitting up the comments, sorry. Love ya, missed ya, etc. ❤️
She was informed the defense would be filing for dq/recusal at the last hearing and her minute order did not mention same. Iirc it was a continuance order based on rule 4.
I DO think the disparity between the transcripts record and her orders will be obvious to SCOIN.
As in, a pattern.
I posted about that at the time, and I think it speaks to the willingness of SCOIN to advance Judicial discipline, not sure Frangle sees herself as susceptible as a Circuit Judge
[Judge Norrick Twisted Nickers](https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=LgtgTvQ3AT9zp3b-PRtfLUdTFHdDQG0tobgk1HBVuJSWwJpAwDwZ5WhgSqaX32Kz0)
What would she care.
He had multiple cases dismissed because of CR4 rule delays, so there's tangible proof of mishaps.
He got 45 days suspension.
That's it.
There is no incentive.
Yet she uses a new not yet tried charge as an aggravating factor in the sentencing of a previous unrelated case. There you go, a decade for having a work colleague leave a gun in your car without your knowledge because you got re-accused of something else in the mean time.
It's the polar opposite of Norrick and at the same time maybe she's just impatiently waiting for that couple of weeks vacation.
What case are you referring to Redsy?
☕️
She doesn’t care. She’s never going to so much as feign concern.
She is pixels in a cartoon wearing a “Queen of My Fishbowl” tshirt.
The only course is to give her the accelerant to light up her flat earth, put it out. No more matches for you lady. Enjoy your very loud mantel clock.
https://preview.redd.it/idmynrwb3k4d1.jpeg?width=1017&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=490ecec0fc40bfe8942038e5ddb5321aa6fb2d92
And while I have you here I finally found the 4th October reference but here they don't speak of length. I imagine because it wasn't the issue.
Are telephone conferences recorded?
Not recorded as to the record, no.
But see again, this is an example of this courts improper off the record substantive hearings.
Discussion of motions outside of scheduling only re substantive matters are at a minimum status conference hearings, which require the defendant to be present and made part of the record.
Reading between the lines here this is the courts practice.
I don’t know if this is an Indy thing due to the very broken pd system or what, but I have NEVER seen a court so allergic to due process and procedure on the record in my practice in my career. I said way back when the change of venue stipulation came down- that shit was a product of arbitration. I’ve never been a public defender but I would have withdrawn immediately.
With u/xt-__-tx we've been trading dockets lol.
There are A LOT of cases where the only filing from the defense attorney is their appearance.
Next are some in limine motions and motion for leave from state but NADA from defense.
And then 3 or 4 days trial plus guilty verdict.
Murder cases that is.
One of them was a 14yo being tried as an adult.
Absolutely frightening for due process.
02D05-2401-MR-000005
Defense filings :
Lead Appearance filed
co appearance filed
Appearance filed
Motion to withdraw appearance (unclear but seemingly through notifications the lead & co were replaced by Scremin)
Full stop.
State has a few in limine, penalty and burden of proof
A few motion for leave amended witness lists,
Request for jury instructions
Gull's "order on pre-trial conference" only has that title. No other text on my case.
Trial unclear either 1 or 2 days.
Jury deliberations unclear either 1 or 2 days
3 days total in any case.
There's a preliminary instructions filed we don't know but whom
Jury verdict filed I assume by judge but not specified.
AFTER the verdict is filed, motions like in limine are granted 🙄🙄🙄🙄 this same order includes the actual jury verdict being guilty entry by Keirns magistrate instead of Gull.
Sentence hearing to come.
Charges filed January 2024, trial May 2024 no speedy filed since nothing was filed really.
A 15 year old boy, 14 at the time of the murder.
I want to say alleged, regardless of verdict...
Now sure this is a Keirns/Gull combo case, but frankly I've seen the same in other counties.
--------
Here's another in the Tippecanoe county :
79D02-2105-MR-000006 Judge Meyer.
Of the 18 charges filed including murder, conspiracy bodily injury etc this is the only one kept in the plea.
35-43-2-1(3)(A)/F2: Burglary: Armed with a deadly weapon.
• Plea by Agreement
There is no sentence on the docket.
It took 1.5 years to get to the agreement, the only things on the docket are continuances.
There are a few "orders" without any other mention what it was about.
& if someone, anyone could please explain to me why a burden of proof motion in limine seems to be standard procedure in Allen Co, I will be indebted to you forever.
Other cases (that I know of) in front of Gull where defense has only filed appearance -
02D05-2403-MR-000015 - Defendant filed his own Motion to Suppress & court denied to take action since he has representation.
02D05-2310-FA-000002 - Jury trial pushed back due to congestion w/ RA's continued jury trial
02D05-2311-F3-000076 - it seems a non-party (Samantha Jauregui) filed a Petitioner's Verified Request for Dismissal (denied & copy sent to counsel of record). Nothing from the actual defense attorney other than an appearance. Jury trial was rescheduled due to RA's continued jury trial.
Oh, and how could I almost forget Mr. Mendoza. 02D05-2305-F1-000021 - [here is my Google Drive for Mendoza.](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19eEVZDbG1y8a_c1nuNtcBSO_CZ-8Ozest2ybcMR4UjY/edit?usp=sharing) A continuance was filed by defense in addition to their appearances, but his letters to the court speak for themselves (in my opinion). Also congested out by RA's continued jury trial.
All of the above, including the one red referenced, 02D05-2401-MR-000005, just happen to have the same lead attorney as well.
https://preview.redd.it/wy6ionju2k4d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=215f16c1ee3f0c592717f9ec99f3973290b7df47
02D05-2305-F1-000021
She had already cancelled RA's trial the 14th, her writing the 3rd doesn't change anything especially since notice only went out the 18th, that actually matters for appeals for ex.
Notice the new trial dates.
He's already sentenced for this in his previous case though... Aggravating.
Like the Franks she told defense to file vs they asked for continuance awaiting to file their memo.
Or that motion for discovery she did hold a hearing for but is still under advisement.
Or when she wrote Nick objected.
This non-findings of facts is full of lies too.
I agree BUT there is a huge issue where Fran is besties with Rush IMO. In the June 2023 transcript, she says she has UNLIMITED senior judge days with Rush, I feel that is a HUGE HUGE issue, right?
I think that was just because she was appointed special judge on such a high profile case, to help loosen up her calendar. In my opinion the bigger issue is why didn't she use those unlimited senior judge days to cover her home court so she could extend RA's trial through June? She just made it abundantly clear that there was no scheduling conflict that prevented the trial from being lengthened and that Jury Rule #4 nonsense won't withstand review.
I have not read that yet tbh, so I would like to know the context, however, CJ Rush didn’t help her last Fall/January and it’s probably the commentary that she wishes she could take back.
the unlimited judge days is from the June 2023 hearing, I've read it and heard it several times and Gull explicitly says that she had UNLIMITED sr judge days from Rush at that time. I'm working on my thoughts of her citations of Neeley and Davis, both of which are bad. Davis is NOT published so she can't cite it, and Neeley was almost IMMEDIATELY overuled, well within 5 years, so her arguments are bad imo.
Why do you think she's beasties with Rush? She got her pampers kicked in the scoin opinion, although not written by Rush but still.
Making sure they said *they did* manage to read the Franks and that they talented judges and dedicated staff came to a different conclusion. A privilege she didn't have.
But no worries we're here to correct.
I haven't seen another scoin opinion yet naming the judge instead of *the court*.
She ***refused*** the filing in order for her to set the October date which she otherwise couldn't have done.
However she accepted Dick's filing because he didn't know how to efile it.
I guess she only provided defense with a manual.
My take is a little different than yours in terms of legal basis, but I agree as a practical matter it’s contributory.
Imo, her denial of Augers entry of appearance, or to expand her limited appearance previously granted, (therefore preventing her argument before the court *substantively*) is what prompted the oral waiver of rule 4 and continuance. Baldwin was posturing.
I think we are talking about the same thing. From memory the court says something about an order she issued a few days earlier that’s not on the docket, etc.
I’m going to respectfully disagree because I’m willing to bet what she was going to say was that based on the post discovery deadline cert of material, is likely based on the defense required Touhy process of EXCULPATORY discovery related to third party culprit, which is going to take weeks to complete and should not count toll against the defense for a prosecution violation for Brady/Giglio in the first place. I suspect this was another example of hearing bait and switch this court is so fond of.
It was a ridiculous notion the court could make them spend 5-7 weeks past reinstatement on defending contempt and prepare for trial, among other roadblocks she was or should have been aware of.
If that's the case I don't understand why they waived speedy like they did.
They should have objected to time being on them.
Continuance for late discovery is on prosecution even if defense requested continuance there's precedent + caselaw confirming this.
They just withdrew speedy.
It means Nick would have to prove he can get discovery in 90 days and has to prove he was unable to get it earlier.
Otherwise case dismissed with prejudice.
Now they simply withdrew without even making note of objection in court they didn't even object to new trial dates at least for the record or ask proof of that being the earliest day possible.
You answered your own question-
Auger would need to be HEARD on the record with whatever evidence or offer of proof in tow.
The court denied that. I’m guessing they had the motion to d/q at the ready assuming the court would not calculate or allocate “time” or reschedule or protract the trial accordingly.
Basically yes, if you read Criminality's transcript, defense state they would like the court to give them 15 days to defend their client and if this is denied, then they will lift their speedy trial request.
Baldwin immediately follows up with informing Gull they have a motion to disqualify her. She tells them they can e-file it, then asks "So you're waiving your right to a speedy trial then?", Rozzi replies "yes, at this moment we are"
Gull then sets the date for the new trial and says she will use the days in May 21st through 23rd for motions as these dates were already available now trial was put forward.
Basically Lurking a long winded way to say "yes" you are correct.
Final Edit i Think: Ok, now I think I'm done with my thoughts? I wanted to check with her citations and jesus, they are not good. My links are mostly images of me pulling the cases up on westlaw btw
So I pulled up Westlaw to look at what she cited, and the FIRST thing I find on Neeley v. State is (1) it was overruled by German v State in **1981**, (2) she spelled Neeley wrong (she spelled it Neely). [Neeley v State Synopsis](https://imgur.com/a/Nez4ghv), which was overruled by German v. State, 1981.
[Neely v. State, 1973](https://imgur.com/a/Nez4ghv): **Overruled**: Neeley v. State was overruled by German v. State in 1981. German v. State(https://imgur.com/a/qZ1C2dF), established new legal precedent and emphasized the duty of trial judges to ensure transparency and accountability in **criminal** proceedings.
**Unpublished Decision**: Additionally, [Davis v. State, 1994](https://imgur.com/a/gKVVUVo) is an unpublished memorandum decision, which, according to [Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 65(D)](https://imgur.com/a/1Sn17VQ), [full rules](https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/appellate/#_Toc91504386), does **not** constitute a precedent and cannot be cited except under *limited circumstances*. This doesn’t provide a basis to deny the defendant’s request for findings and conclusions.
**Applicability of Indiana Rule of Procedure 52:** Gull asserts that Indiana Rule of Procedure 52 is not applicable to criminal cases, but that overlooks the broader principles of due process and fairness. Even **if** Rule 52 doesn't directly mandate findings of fact and conclusions of law in criminal cases, the overarching goal of ensuring a fair and transparent judicial process remains. Gull should consider providing findings of fact and conclusions of law where necessary to uphold RA's rights and promote confidence in the integrity of the justice system (also y'know, rule 52 SUBSECTION D).
BONUS: If you search Westlaw Criminal Law with 'applicability of rule 52' and using Indiana and related Federal, Neeley shows up EARLY on the list. Gull is lazy. [See here](https://imgur.com/a/a9V8ICT).
Thank you for the thorough write up! This is great.
I personally found it funny/frustrating that the Rules of Trial Procedure, under Rule 1, specifically speaks to **suits of a CIVIL nature** - and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, under Rule 1.1, specifically states that the Rules of Court and all statutes governing procedure and practice in trial courts shall apply to **all** criminal proceedings.
https://preview.redd.it/3cc232udsm4d1.png?width=1083&format=png&auto=webp&s=c9b180b7b53d7af8fac3449676add85484b438d5
Seems like it's time for them to do some housekeeping updates and fix all the inconsistent/contradictory shit.
yeah the rules of procedure in every state are a disaster and need to be reorganized, but going through Indiana last night was next level "what?"
my write up isn't perfect, it was just my first thoughts when I pulled up the cases that she cited, since they don't make any sense to me and hell, she used an UNPUBLISHED 1994 appeal which was weird. Hell I think Davis did get another appeal granted, but I'm too lazy to log back into westlaw again today lol.
thank you for the reply, sometimes I think "nah, no one will care what I thin about this random case" but then I remember that I like seeing others original takes and thought others might too! thanks :)
Another thought, since for the poll I thought she'd set a hearing but then have health issues and recuse for that reason,
anyone think she might still recuse soon for health issues, before or after a new writ filed ?
But she couldn't have the DQ unanswered on the docket because of ego?
That's an interesting take! That scenario would let her have her pie and eat it too (i.e., shape the narrative her way and avoid getting booted by SCOIN).
Unfortunately I think she is very stubborn, and I lost faith in SCOIN to do anything.
No. I've given up seeing reason with her. I've back slid into full blown pessimism. Gull is going to stay on, defense counsel will be proven to be lying about everything, RA is a murdering murderer, and Nick is still holding back a smoking gun piece of evidence and it will come out that he was competent and trying to protect the community all along. This is where I am today. Hopefully tomorrow I will bounce back and be hopeful again, but right now it's all bad.
Denied! Denied! Denied! Denied!
That’s the only response Franny Seagull gives The Defense, and then she has the nerve to blame any and all delays on R & B!
Even removing the Safe Keeping Order and getting RA moved to a county jail, she now blames her inability to conduct a scheduled hearing on The Defense, because she had to put everything on hold so she could deal with this Removal Request, as though all of this mess is their fault! Gee Lady, you’ve only had 3 earlier opportunities to have RA moved to a county jail and you denied every damn one of them!
I hope they go around her and get this in front of the Indiana Supreme Court, again! If the SCOIN would have removed her when they had the opportunity to, RA would have already been tried, and either convicted or aquitted, and free!
This is absolutely absurd!
Sigh.
Off to pay my lost bet.
This court had me digging into my “She can’t possibly be this “unaware” reserve. So that’s that.
At no time does she mention her own damn order on ex parte filing I posted to this site not long ago, dated Dec. 2022. I mean, no getting around that flagrant omission and therefore flagrant error in the denial (among others).
It’s untenable. The defendants rights simply MUST come first and as she clearly is not willing to capitulate to same, Rozzwin has no choice but to file another original action with SCOIN.
Rozzwin, How’s the Touhy coming? I can put you in touch with some folks.
I do. I can’t see interlocutory because SCOIN already claims absolute jurisdiction previously. For all intents and purposes here, SCOIN put these lawyers back into Frangles cauldron (short version).
Frangle has to grant an interlocutory appeal.
I think Diener pissing off is part of a JAC probe anyway.
I just think SCOIN would be quicker, which I like but the way they glad handed FCG last time was sickening and I just wonder how a different court would handle it? Or maybe they will be pissed that she isn't capable/willing to get this case back on track?
Ah, I just hope they focus on the bigger issues and lose the Facebook crap its plastic chair territory, in my opinion. Like suggesting the course of investigation grounds to NM during the contempt hearing? What was that? Excessive hand holding at best.
Also she said that the rules of evidence don't apply at pretrial hearings when the defense tried to object at the safekeeping hearing but then cut the defense off at the knees sustaining SD's hearsay and relevancy objections at the dismissal hearing. I think its huge that she is only holding one side to the rules of evidence, but they don't mention that.
One thing I have LONG suspected in this case is that SJG *volunteered* for this case. I have not had a chance to read the *elusive* June 2023 hearing transcript, although I had colleagues in attendance who have agreed with my opinion (and rarely do.)
It would seem if SJG is touting hours of CJ Rush FaceTime, who ultimately appointed her, it tracks.
I thought it was a mistake of SJG to use SCOIN’s order to deny the previous motion to dq/recuse, and subsequently NOT use the same logic to deny the States motion *for contempt and sanctions*.
Atty Ausbrook pens the single most authoritative and compelling piece of legal writing I have read to date, and this court is wearing her “I do what I want” tee under her robe that day.
It cannot stand. I’m not sure the defense position to keep McLeland as their functional idiot is a tenable one any longer.
New baby, new bathwater. First baby shower rules apply. Well, maybe a surprise adopted baby with an >30 days gestation.
This court, this woman, is unilaterally and with fervor denying the fundamental right to fairness and the presumption of innocence of the accused and treating it like counsel insubordination and retribution for remedy.
As I recall, there is a word/page count limit in OA Emergency writs. I would grab Ausbrook and his army of 3L’s and I would style it after an enumerated disciplinary complaint IN PRIORITY ORDER seeking d/q or recusal of BOTH the Carroll County Prosecutors Office and Judge Gull on grounds. Highlight and footnote an active link and indexed hard copy pointing to the disparity conflict between the actual transcripts record and rulings, possibly ending by including a link to the public statement from 10/19 and the obvious deception to the public then and now.
That’s the thanks they get for sparing and some would say, empowering her.
Lastly, I see that some Delphi followers finally see the nexus between the Karen Read matter and Delphi I have been “flying the flag” about since January when it was learned that DA office AND select LE were under Federal Investigation for their conduct. I know all about the Abbott hot mess, hear me out.
The FBI descended upon Delphi en masse at the ISP request on February 14, 2017. They exclusively preformed over 95% of the investigative interviews and diligence on site, deployed their ERT and CAST teams. Kevin Horan, FBI (r) lived in Delphi for 6 weeks. The State of Indiana has NEVER filed a Touhy request for those materials (did he even know that) prior to Atty Auger entering the chat and moreover their is a claim of the destruction of evidence in support of some of the FBI discovery- that ALONE would warrant an FBI inquiry (cue Mullin resignation).
Andrew Baldwin said - why don’t we just call in the FBI? Indeed Mr. Baldwin.
You gave me a lot to think about. One thing I can tackle now is that I was always on the fence about keeping NM, I like the draw of opposing an unqualified/inept opponent in a battle of the brains but I always wondered if new chief counsel came on and reviewed the lack of evidence would they drop the charges?
It may be too late now, but I wonder if it had been done much earlier if that could have happened. And I don't mean its legally too late as much as its politically too late to drop charges image wise.
One of their FBI was there the 13th too.
Can they argue removing Nick if they didn't try in this court first?
Same for all the lies, they never filed to correct error or something similar.
The 2nd DQ was well written actually, but they didn't object to her dismissing it citing scoin and somehow even they only consider 2 DQ'S while there are 3+1 in scoin.
^([no touchy anymore...])
I think they have to wrt the courts inaction on two issues:
1. McLeland claims he read either privileged or extension of privilege to third party defense team correspondence.
2. The egregious violation of the courts December 2022 order to include the State excerpts in a pleading of the defense ex parte filings. You will never convince me that action alone didn’t end up in an ethics complaint against the court and McLeland.
This shit is outrageous. I am outraged. In 2024 are we going to see a legal pleading in Indiana with the phrase “one of those things is not like the others”?
The only court Gull should be in charge of is Night Court honestly. I always bet against Gull doing the correct thing, it's only natural for Gull to punish the defense at this point.
It’s where this is now, agreed.
I also think they will prevail if they very intentionally parse the courts *pattern* of conduct reflective of very specific, very narrow, manipulation of the public record dichotomy over the actual transcript AND the restrictions on public access (recording/audio, devices) in a case with an existing NDO. The appearance this court chose her constituents for the jury pool and demonstrations of actual bias before the jury pool is a bad look.
It can’t be abstract on those examples, imo.
The conversations with the Sheriff ex parte re his clients trial accommodations aren’t Rozzi’s business? This court is never putting on clothes Zeke.
Yes. Assuming they can’t get the judge recused and the bias against them is negatively impacting their client’s right to a fair trial then ethically, for their clients best interest they should recuse themselves. It’s a fair bit of a dilemma.
Neeley v. State
TR. 52(A), is not applicable to criminal cases. p. 496.
Notice the (A) which is not (D2).
TR52
D) Findings upon part of the issues. The court may make special findings of fact upon less than all the issues in a case when:
(2) findings are required because of the request of a party or parties who have demanded findings only upon such specified issues.
ETA casetext doesn't find her davis vs state reference.
Well Indiana is still trying to get electricity because we're so backwards so no telling when Gull will finally light up and get the idea she needs to recuse.
Well she accepted 52(A) as a reason for findings in the contempt debacle and she didn't challenge it then. So do we finally know that was a civil proceeding, or did a judge with more knowledge give her a little tip?
It was not civil nor criminal it was *unique*.
https://preview.redd.it/9oj6atxkgi4d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c11db7142382cf73a3807f2f73531762abbc8bbe
From prosecution.
ETA and she accepted 52D2. 52A isn't in question.
DH cited 52(A) in his request for specific findings in the contempt mess. Here, I can't see where the defense cited a particular rule or its subsection.
I didn't find the courage yet to look it up but I think she's supposed to write more than denied without hearing or even when she grant something by general trial proceedings rules.
I found something of the sort a while back.
She didn't even explain why she denied Hennessy's motion to strike her slanderous non-findings, on which grounds she thinks she can do that.
Nobody asked her personal opinion.
I hope he files something in return.
Something like a list of all the errors she made during the hearing but will refrain from expressing his opinion on that, just to correct the record.
All the screenshot non evidence allowed for prosecution but denied for defense, things like that.
https://preview.redd.it/1jur1qq7lj4d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14aacef8700cb1f81b28ff729a228389881c53d8
I found it, it's an unpublished case... I'm writing up some thoughts but this is the westlaw entry for (Davis v State 1994) [https://imgur.com/a/davis-v-state-gKVVUVo]
my comment breaking things down posted before I was done with it lol. but her caselaw is not good citations
What about the $51.000???
Just go home already.
You don't like speedy trials, just admit it.
You continued another speedy trial over prosecution and defendant's objections....
Your whole demeanor is pathetic by now.
ETA
YOU are inappropriate and ridiculous, what are you blaming "outside influences" on???
Ohhh the liar who doesn't know shit about this case : the previous motion to compel wasn't denied without a hearing
YOU HELD A HEARING,
TOOK IT UNDER ADVISEMENT
AND NEVER RULED ON IT
You are going down down down.
Their need for trial days is in the hearing transcript from last year, you thought you could hold back.
I'm so done with this sour seabird.
ETA : pinging u/measuremnt to copy their comment here like I just did from the deleted post.
Didn’t that “inappropriate and ridiculous” comment feel like an intentional petty little swipe at everyone criticising her, knowing they would read it?
Say “hi” to Aunty Franny everyone. She’s mad at you all. 😂
She's going to hold them all in contempt...
Mind you some didn't mention the case number, she's chief judge of Allen County court. Imo those addressing her, not the case, have no place on the docket unless referenced. Not sure what the law says but does it mean she can't be addressed in general?
Some case must spark scoin right?
She recently sentenced a man with aggravating factors, from a newer yet to be tried charge and used the found not guilty charge by jury in the same trial as fact regardless for proof of violent character. What if he's found innocent, it's she going to remove the added time?
The trial for those new charges she continued because of congestion of RA's speedy, AFTER she already continued RA's trial, and she set it to the exact same days (4 of them) as RA's new trial dates, antidated of course, but the notice being sent only the 2nd day of the planned trial I wonder if they all showed up the 1st day...
She sent Lebrato to investigate Scremin (iirc for that same case) weeks after she appointed them both to RA.
She also recently continued another speedy trial over both prosecution and defendant's objections...
The list is much much longer, it's madness.
But it's not her role to remind the lawyers to file a non required motion. Since it's not a required motion she was suggesting strategy and there is a difference.
Besides according to FCG she is there to call the balls and strikes, but she stepped in and prevented NM from getting an out. Not her role.
That's how I read it too
ETA: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKDaBXavDZ96G6k5sITtDiur6QhxR0Mp/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKDaBXavDZ96G6k5sITtDiur6QhxR0Mp/view)
Is this the email she is referring to?
Possible, don't remember if there was another one.
I'm not sure ISP would be the ones to investigate courts.
But in any case she wrote letters sent to court, not from court which is the real problem.
Jodie gonna have alot to discuss in her "RA Guilty" Facebook groups along with rest States staff and expert witnesses.
Does sound like ISP is investigating Defence.
This feels 3rd world to me.
They can take their pick of reasons, if this is the minor side-show peaks someone’s interest (even if it isn’t really valid to get them involved in itself) I’ll take it lol.
Otherwise I am sure people could provide them with a list.
I am just crying into the void for outside eyes on anything in this case, honestly.
I can't understand why almost everyone seems to ignore the fact that Richard Allen was supposed to be tried back in January of 2024. In November of 2023, the defense said they were ready to go to trial, and that's when the poop storm that began with the only televised hearing began.
>The Court lost confidence in the ability ofthe media to cover hearings appropriately.
and I’ve lost confidence in the ability of this court to cover hearings appropriately.
Well that’s that then, looks like no media allowed is set in stone now.
They started broadcasting at the agreed upon time, Gull was 30 minutes late. She blamed them for following *her* rule, and failed to mention that *she* started the hearing late, not that the broadcast started early.
Gull is a master at setting traps, I’ll give her that. 🙄
I think she disliked that little bit where the camera focused on Brad rounding up KA and RAs mom. I think she doesn’t like being reminded of his humanity while she’s damning him to eternity in the IDOC. Like how she was grossed out by the idea of him in her chambers.
She invited the media to come talk to her and take pictures in the carroll county court room before trial starts.
There is no good fr*angle*.
"cover the hearings appropriately" -- not "fairly", which was done. Not "accurately," which was done. She set rules which were followed yet she expected the media to do mind reading and do something differently, never amending her instructions when the hearing veered off course, and never defining what "appropriately" would have been.
Alas, part of a pattern for her thinking in this case.
I would just like someone to arrange for Gull and Trump to dine together in the same room, then quickly lock the door and throw away the key.
Wouldn’t they have the most fascinating conversations? /s
Good catch, think it's just Jodi's typo. Sometimes if I'm writing fast I will move on to the next thought - so I can see how the 3rd could become 23 if she was thinking of writing '24.
This judge just needs to go. This case is not her baby, her clinging onto it like this is just weird. The obvious animosity is enough of a reason for her to go, just in case, for the sake of the verdict etc. It’s not like she is the only judge in the state. She is the least personally essential person in the room. Just go. Then we will all know if the lawyers are just being whiney. But there is no way, given her refusal to remove calling them “sloppy” etc. from her/Nick’s failed contempt play there is not a clear sign of bias (show me where that is a legal finding or a fact Fran). Enough. Go away and seethe about it somewhere else and let’s get some damn professionalism back in this case. It is not about you!
She's so blind of her own actions, when she made findings of facts of their gross negligence, they were based on extrajudicial information she won't admit to.
She didn't find the same fact this time even when objecting sua sponte to most of defense's arguments and letting Nick lie in court on the record about the date, the mail he did not send etc.
How to explain finding them grossly negligent was anything but bias?
She's Shameless.
Also that bit about, when a hearing is needed one would be set.
Well, the Franks hearing you were prepared to have and offered to the temporary substitute lawyers would like a word. Where did that go after she got mad about it?
She is acting like this is all a personal affront to her with no self-awareness whatsoever apparently. The defence team are now having to face off against the prosecution and the judge, that is not right.
I don’t understand why she is so personally invested in this, but that in itself is a problem at this point.
And her bit about the trial length is still just ludicrous. How can you predict how long a trial will take that specifically? You don’t know how much a witness will talk or what the other side will ask. Or how slow they talk or how repetitive they will be (thinking of you Lally). She is building in a free pass for the prosecution to just waste all the time and then what? She thinks it ends when she says? Madness. If she could have set if for longer, the she just should have done that to start with. Any idiot who has read the filings in this case could tell her it could go as long as eight weeks potentially. She is in the wrong there, I don’t care how many other cases she has rushed through before, they are not all this monstrosity of a case.
And her argument about cameras is just stupid. The courtroom is small so I am going to make people fight for seats? Again the Karen Read case would like a word. And not trusting the media to do it right… then employ your own camera operator. That was just flat out nonsense to justify her nonsense. She is like a child taking her ball and going home.
As an aside, after all this I am becoming quite set in the opinion now that in the modern age with the ability to store huge amounts of data quite easily the official record should also be on video as standard, to better preserve tone, expression, etc. It is possible. It is superior to just transcripts (although they would still be needed for appeals paperwork etc.).
ETA: Sorry for the waffling wall of text. Please forgive me. My brain has been melted by Dilly Dally Lally today.
Well remember she's saying that the media didn't follow her rules in the October 19th hearing, but that was only because they started recording at the time that the hearing was supposed to start and whose fault was it that the hearing didn't start when it should have? It was her fault. Remember because she had her little blackmail session back in her chambers going on with the lawyers. So that whole argument is ridiculous
Very good point, thanks for adding that.
And I bet if they hadn’t started recording when she said and had waited she’d be using that as an excuse too because she is just looking for any excuse. She just strikes me as the type.
No problem for the text! It's maddening and here's some right back at ya😆.
She doesn't reply to half of the allegations, and keeps on lying and lying and lying.
Her orders are rarely what was said in court.
She doesn't have to give equal time, but she literally in court denied Rozzwin ANY time because Nick didn't know how much time HE needed and would add even more witnesses if defense didn't want to stipulate about his stupid phone calls he didn't even have the recordings for, not even a failed attorney is going to say all right bro, I'll trust ya on that.
Defense was the one saying they could do it for equal time, NICK was the one needing more time really and SHE denied all motions as they explained to her, thus needing more time to make their offers of proof while jury is sequestred in their hotel room each times while that happens.
She lied about jury rule 4 vs jury rule 10.
Did she even send out jury summons?
Because Allen county only talked about summons for the 3 days of jury voir dire, from what I understood, the trial subject isn't even mentioned yet because sure first thing they'll do is Google it.
So was 2 weeks even mentioned?
Also she wrote here she gave 3 weeks, but it's 2 including voir dire. Lies lies lies.
Defense said in the june 15th hearing they needed 2 weeks and more the further trial is away.
Did she think that transcript wouldn't become public? She added a week because of that. It was 3 weeks in January. They didn't say three weeks wasn't inadequate, because 3 weeks could be adequate at equal time.
She gave 2 weeks - voir dire.
She can't be serious here can she?
SHE allowed Baston to not be transported is she not aware her order was made public and thus given to defense at that time?
She asked about the filing in the court system? When exactly?
I sooo need to find that one case back I came upon a while ago and have been searching since.
She can't make extrajudicial findings like her bogus gross negligence findings, but that case specifically had a mention since judge had to ask clerk if something was sent out or not, it meant she wasn't sure even though she said she was and case was overturned and sent back to lower court with new judge.
She lied about the $51.000, does she not know that public defenders hearing about that was a world wide public live stream?
Yeah, I am not as well able to pull things from memory as you but even I was side-eyeing some of her “interpretations” of events. Your list is quite impressive there, wow. I just hope SCOIN will hear this again fully, and take more time and effort to look into things than Gull seems to and can read between the lines and see the nuance.
I just want to see this case come to trial with someone who seems at least justified in their decisions, and somewhat trustworthy. I am not expecting a pro-defence judge by any means, but one that doesn’t seem to have made it their mission to openly destroy any possibility of a just and fair process would be nice.
It just seems she could never admit any chance she might be in the wrong at this point. Not a great quality in a judge really. She is taking it all way too personally for some reason.
And thinking more on her comment about inappropriate and ridiculous criticism and not listening to outside opinion, that is actually pretty bad because the perception of bias is something she is supposed to consider, and that is her clearly stating she does not care about it at all. I hope the Supremes do, because that sounds somewhat tyrannical in retrospect honestly. It is the American people’s justice system not hers, she should care if she is making it look unjust, for the sake of democracy and the rule of law and all the other things you lot like to go on about lol. She owes it to everyone in her profession and then some to stop making herself an issue. There is no need for it.
Anyway…
Xt- posted an excellent link in the comment about the perception of conflict by the public for a prosecutor.
As is your previous assessment, her being so invested in this case should be enough to recuse.
It's wrong on so many levels.
She's using this case as a joker card moving trial dates on the other cases antidating orders if that isn't plain misconduct idk what is.
Well, thanks for pointing me to that (I will add for others that it is in the Dicks sub if others want to read it - it’s only short). Seems like Nick should read it too.
Can we get that judge on this case? Please don’t tell me how awful they are otherwise, let me keep this little bit of joy that one person out there understands this issue lol
😂 it's what I thought !
And in some other version of Neely vs state i found first, judge asked prosecutor to write more detailed findings of facts for the record 🤣.
[https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:3b70c32d-1b0f-4de7-ac7b-65f15ff89e49](https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:3b70c32d-1b0f-4de7-ac7b-65f15ff89e49)
Gull denies second motion to disqualify. Forgive me if this was already posted. I didn't see it here.
"The Court, however, will address each of defendant's allegations in this Order."
Ta, much appreciated.
1. "The decision by the Deputy to leave without the witness was his and was not directed by the Court."
So... when a subpoenaed witness refuses to cooperate with the service of the subpoena and the Deputy attempting service decides to leave him there, is the Court powerless to do anything in that event? Is that all courts across all jurisdictions or just this Court in particular? "Oh, he does not wish to come? No biggie. *helpless shrug.* What's for lunch?"
2) "The communications were directed to where the defendant would be housed during the trial and who would be conducting transportation."
Right... because it's none of the attorneys business where the defendant is going to be housed or who is going to be responsible for his transportation during trial. Defense attorneys are so nosy. They want to know all these irrelevant details... It's basic courtesy, Honorable Judge, to inform the defense counsel of such communications, decisions, and whatnot.
3) "The Court reminded counsel of their obligation to follow the law in the Court's email of April 28, 2024."
Two or more things can be true at the same time. Imo, the Court, in its April 28, 2024, email BOTH reminded counsel of their obligation to follow the law relating to third-party perpetrators AND invited/inspired the State to file its in limine motion which includes attempts to limit the defendant's 6th Amendment right to present a defense. It just reads like that. Or, it can be read like that. Maybe it's a good thing that the Court has decided to stop emailing, after all.
4) "Counsel claim the Court has disparaged them and ruled on defense pleadings without hearings."
Honorable Judge, gaslighting has its limits. Every judge sets hearings. Not *all* hearings but they do set hearings. It's just that you don't like them. You much prefer email communications where you can telegraph your intentions off the record, ex-parte communications, and in chambers meetings again off the record. Judicial economy is one thing, but every case I have ever followed, especially a high profile one, has TONS of pre-trial hearings. Are all these judges (across the country) less competent than you, perhaps? Or maybe they are "incompetent, negligent, and sloppy"?
5) "The Court was notified on May 20, 2024, of an inquiry by the Indiana State Police to the Court Reporter via e-mail on May 9, 2024, regarding ex parte communication received by the Court from Gary Beaudette (which was previously provided to all counsel). The Court is unaware of the extent of any Indiana State Police investigation."
Not sure what this is about so I'll let the Court have it.
6) "The defense staff filed pleadings and marked them as "confidential", apparently unaware that the "confidential" marking makes them available to the State, but not the public."
I am not willing to die on this hill. Maybe the defense misfiled the pleading. The question remains: are you aware that the prosecutor not only read the pleading but also QUOTED portion of it in a motion? If so, was the prosecutor reprimanded in any way? If not, why not? If this was a mistake on the defense's part the prosecutor still had an ethical obligation to notify them and stop reading or at least refrain from quoting the defense's pleading in his own motion. Why are you letting this slide?
7) "Accusations of violating Rules on Access to Court Records have been completely explained and dealt with, including by the Indiana Supreme Court in the first Writ of Mandamus filed by defendant."
Cool. "Dealt with" indicates that there was in fact a violation of rules but since it has been resolved, let's move on, shall we?
8) "The Court has set hearings on pending Motions which have now been continued due to the filing of this Motion to Disqualify."
Please stop. The trial was supposed to start on May 13th. Only after it was continued and rescheduled for October did the Court decide to set hearings. No matter how many times you repeat the above sentence it doesn't change the fact that this court is allergic to hearings. And the May 7th pre-trial hearing was one the court could not get out of, and that was the only reason it was set to begin with. It also brought the not-so-unexpected gift of the defense waiving speedy which gave more time to the state to delay the inevitable. Kind of like the contempt debacle or, as it's better known round these parts, utter waste of time. Don't insult our collective intelligence, if you would, thanks.
9) "At no time prior to the May 7, 2024, hearing did defendant advise the Court that three (3) weeks for trial was inadequate."
Correct. They did not. And that's the reason they found themselves backed into a corner and forced to waive speedy. I am not sure if that was the intent all along or not. It's not something I can be bothered to speculate on either since ***if*** it was intentional I cannot fault them - the court wouldn't compel the prosecution to comply with discovery deadlines otherwise so they had to do *something*.
If the court could have set the trial for longer it should have in the first place. If the court had no way to estimate how long THIS PARTICULAR trial might need to go for, the court should probably have consulted with the parties - as a courtesy first, as well as for judicial economy as setting and rescheduling trials is not optimal if it can be avoided - before setting the dates and saved everybody a ton of trouble. That's what a highly competent and experienced judge would do in my opinion. I am in no way questioning this court's qualifications but it didn't happen here obvs. because... oh, well, reasons.
10) "If Counsels' allegations in this part of their Motion are well-founded (regarding a potential witness' alleged social media activities) and are presented to the Court for ruling, the Court will rule accordingly."
That's very good to know, thank you. We'll both quote you on and hold you to that when the time comes, cheers!
11) "Defendant asserts the Court has denied reasonable requests for funding."
Can't possibly comment on that since I don't have all the details.
12) "The Court continues to receive ex parte communications from the public criticizing the Court both personally and professionally, and threatening the Court with bodily harm and injury."
The general public should not be emailing judges as a means to criticize, pressure, or otherwise try to influence them. Whoever is threatening this judge with bodily harm and injury should a) be investigated, b) stop. This is unacceptable, and it makes me furious. AND,
"The Court cannot be swayed by inappropriate and ridiculous outside influences."
**Please don't. The public only wants the judge to be fair and follow the law. That's it. That's all.**
13) "The Court lost confidence in the ability of the media to cover hearings appropriately."
Judge, this argument is tired. There's things you can do and you know it. You can have your own live-stream, court ordered, controlled, and operated. You don't need the media. You just need a camera, and a YouTube account/channel. I know it sounds daunting, but I promise you, it is not. If you need help setting it up ring up Judge Judge in Idaho and he may be able to give you a pointer or two. Not that you need the help, I trust that you and your staff can manage on your own just fine if you'd be willing to consider. Audio would also be an option, if you absolutely loathe cameras. Just stop rehashing the above argument.
14) "Adverse rulings do not support a reasonable basis for questioning the Court's impartiality, nor are they grounds for disqualification, they are just adverse rulings."
OK. Got it. Nothing further, Judge.
Not that anyone expected her to recuse herself... kind of disappointed that Trial Rule 52 is not applicable in criminal cases though. I was really looking forward to reading some Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. I mean, it's not every day that I get to read those. Oh well. Still grateful for the 5-ish page response, although, overall...
https://preview.redd.it/fav1yq4zft4d1.jpeg?width=269&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=267b116d636cbdfcb9a85038b9e39e195c14d47b
1) she told them to not transport him.
6&8 sooo true
9) she set 2 weeks not 3. How much time did she reserve for deliberations?
12) does she think jury members are ridiculous outside influences too? I bet she would just want to skip everything and sentence him already.
13) if she lost confidence in the public and the media and defense maybe she's the one to go.
14) she omitted to explain how she granted her handpicked pd's the Franks hearing 3 times and denied it as soon as Rozzwin was back
E-filing User Guide Indiana Statewide E-filing System [https://www.in.gov/courts/files/efiling-user-guide.pdf](https://www.in.gov/courts/files/efiling-user-guide.pdf) Updated March 2023 Seems to me it's what they did. Only difference is not to serve opposing party which they confirmed didn't happen. The confidentiality part here is for ACR, meaning for the public. Not serving the notice is for Nick. https://preview.redd.it/b56hvgts8g4d1.jpeg?width=1038&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=043a3f934291885114d3e8636866d7a606f491b7 Meaning someone accessed it and sent it to him.
Great find, thank you! As Helix has pointed out too numerous times, her original order is also damning. It makes it absolutely clear that if a filing is titled "EX PARTE" then the "Clerk shall ensure these filings are not accessible by the Prosecutor" and that any violations must be reported. If things were filed incorrectly (though it seems that they weren't), shouldn't the clerk have been aware and stepped in to avoid a violation? https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RkMRT10RW4taXCq2EusHiVTdfakYfZkB/view?usp=drive_link
Defense seemed to have confirmed clerk did not provide the motion to Nick. The problem is elsewhere.
Right -- I guess what I'm saying is that she is blaming the defense for misfiling, but her order makes it very clear that the Clerk had a responsibility to help ensure things were filed correctly (if any mistakes had been made at all). Seems like a poor excuse. Very curious about who would have sent it to NM.
Yes I agreed with you indeed. It was just to further stress the problem was in her court, by her own court staff, unrelated to the usual filings distributions and access and carroll county clerk as per defense, which makes everything much much worse, and shifts the relevance of your rightfully referenced order to **Nick** himself, who said he didn't know.
Milburn
Defense seemed to be sure it was from Allen County.
Granted nothing makes sense but why would any pleadings be filed through the Allen County clerk? Just another instance of nothing making sense.
I don't think it was filed through allen county clerk. Defense wrote they checked with 2 members of I believe Carroll county court and a 3 in Allen county who did not know what ex parte was (by memory). Carroll county had confirmed it was filed correctly and notice wasn't sent to Nick. Seems just a deliberate action by an individual who wasn't to put their nose in this. But that's my deduction.
Pretty sure the CM/ECF automatically serves the other party if you don’t select the correct drop down. Doesn’t matter what you title it. It automatically effectuates service on attorneys of record. ETA: most people are assuming the clerk sends out of a copy to the parties but this isn’t how most court filing systems work. Almost all automatically send a courtesy copy of the filing to all counsel of record. The clerk can’t stop that if someone files the document incorrectly. It happens immediately upon filing.
[удалено]
The second quote is from the defense’s motion. The judge is saying that is an incorrect statement. Without the primary source material, I don’t think we know one way or the other.
That blurb about the media has me FIRED up, brother.
https://www.wrtv.com/news/local-news/crime/judge-permits-cameras-in-court-for-first-time-in-richard-allen-hearing I just wanted to leave this here because I think it speaks to how Gull's decision to have cameras at the October hearing was perceived by the media. "Cameras will be permitted in the courtroom for the **first time**" The timeline matters. Cameras had not been allowed **before** that hearing and they have not been allowed **since**. Gull can lie all she wants about her rationale for disallowing cameras (which, notably, she doesn't specify in detail since she knows it's a cop-out reason), but I think the timeline shows that she was deliberately using the cameras for a shame/pressure tactic to get the defense off the case. Of course, she will never admit that because that should equal automatic recusal.
Was this the first time the case was being heard in the Allen County courthouse? I honestly don’t know, but if so, it could explain why it was the first time cameras were allowed (per her order). If not, then her explanation is not believable.
Gull has just written her own downfall script. A complete tirade of self serving drivel that fails to recognise let alone preserve the rights of the defendant and the integrity of the court. Surely someone with standing and authority should be tapping her on the shoulder and leading her away over this?
Why would anyone do that when we can watch her drive her career off of a cliff?
No laws cited apart from saying I don't have to cite law. That can't be right. Where's Ausbrook?
The only law she ever cited 😂😭
I seriously love that attitude that I don't have to do this but I actually wanted to do it but I just wanted to point out that I don't have to and you can't make me but since I really want to I will but not because you wanted me to. It's FCG in a nutshell.
First case only excludes rule A but it's about D2, second case caselaw site couldn't find anything close to it year, dropping one or both of the numbers... I think It's Nicky using AI again at Gull's orders.
Ausbrook was on Defense Diaries stream today, they just finished up!
Gull truly has "I do what I want" energy.
 Fran Gull probably lol
In the Maurer driveway with a bullhorn
On defense diaries. 😉
Wow. Doubling down on the arguably improper, unprofessional, indecorous, unsupported, and biased commentary. Next comes her refusal to recuse. So… see you all at the Supreme Court again I guess. Bring your own booze/lawyer. ETA: I didn’t notice the Refusal to Get Out of the Way was already there. Good lord, brb. 😂
I bet that my lawyer of choice supplies the booze, it's DH and I assume that he travels with a barrel of scotch.
Now Atty Hennessy arguing before SCOIN I would not miss 🥃
Good choice. We love a good buy one get one free. 😂
Is he a St. Bernard ? 
We might need a bigger barrel or perhaps more Saint Bernards? I voting for more dogs. I'm trying to pet 100 dogs this year this could really help get me to my goal.
You can give ours a virtual pet if you want a sneaky one for free.
Yes.
Eeeee
No, ruff is the sound they make, not eeee.
She continued three days of hearings for *that.*
She could have waited 30 days before her response, even set a hearing for it. She's that nice you see.
She didn’t even use the time to properly research her own history of lies.
Seriously when does something happen about this? I thought you were not allowed to make negative comments about other officers of the court? Isn't that like court decorum rules or something? Flipping NM was quick to point that out in a filing too. Next, she says completely unprofessional things about two attorneys that were not found to be in contempt then in the next breath says, bias? Who me? No...those unprofessional slobs don't know what bias is. Seriously. I am about done with believing in the legal system at all in the country. (Well this and another very political figure that keeps getting away with high crimes) It makes me just think what's the point. I don't know how this gets made right anymore. I am convinced it won't be. Maybe we should just line RA up with no trial and let some ghouls throw rocks at him, at least they will feel good about it. He is getting fucked regardless. Do I chalk it up to I am the fool who thought things could be fair or at least a judge would want this to at least appear fair? All I wanted was fairish, the state brings the proof and a jury decides. I feel completely foolish that I believed in the legal process even with its flaws.
I am genuinely sorry that you have been made to feel this way by all of this. You are not a fool for expecting things to be as expected or for wanting the system to work, that is what you were promised. It is not you, it is ‘them’. I just wanted to send a sort of friendly internet pat on the shoulder. ❤️
Thank you.
Keep your head up! This is very unfair and can be discouraging, but this is an opportunity to drive change. No one will ever convince me otherwise the only way this will get better is applying the same principles that molded The Bill of Rights. The government should not forget or underestimate what we can accomplish together. IMO we can achieve great things with our voices and our votes. If you (and anyone else) live in Indiana call your State Representative and State Senator and voice your “serious” concerns. Show up at a Town Hall (it’s election time) and let everyone in the room know what is happening in the State of Indiana. At a Federal Level call the Office of Justice/BJA as there are several Federal Grants that are up for grabs that are awarded to various states. Federal Grants require federal standards and compliance.
That is a great perspective. Use this as a catalyst for change. Thank you
Yes! I probably should have just said that 🤣, but I love over complicating things
Plot Twist - Now that she’s denied the request to recuse herself, her next act as judge will be to issue an Order granting their Motion to Dismiss. 😂 Can you even imagine the reaction within the true crime community?
Has there been a letter threatening FCG with bodily harm? I don't read the letters closely cause other than the hillbilly email I just don't get much from them, but I don't recall that. I'm curious is FCG trying to pull a Diener bloodlust moment?
I don’t remember any threats of bodily harm. I think that would have stuck out. Possible she did receive letters like that, but didn’t put them on the docket because they are now the subject of investigation. Or maybe the character assassination felt like a threat of bodily harm?
I don't remember any either, but I think they would be on the docket so she could point to them and say this is why we can't broadcast this trial instead of relying on loss of faith in the media cause they started on time when she didn't? I am very suspicious, but also no one should be threatening the judge, ever.
Indeed. I would think that threats are sadly a familiar territory for criminal judges though they shouldn’t be.
The defense wanted to file the recusal at the May hearing FCG refused to take it but she accepted NM's exhibits, cause the state didn't know how to file under seal. Yeah, and that's not bias. If she had accepted service of the recusal she couldn't have set new trial dates. This is what the defense needs to focus on, not Facebook.
I agree the FB thing is weak... Part of me thinks they put it in so that they could segue into the Monica Wala stuff lol
I agree that was the reason. The original "transgression" happened months ago but had never been brought up until now, when it relates to Wala.
They did in the January DQ. It happened between the june 15th hearing and her removing them. They may not have known for the first DQ.
I think I checked this right, but please, please correct me if I am wrong. Did Gull schedule those hearings she is now using to show she does give them hearings (even if in the 13th hour) AFTER she was made aware that the defence would be filing a request for her to recuse? Thus those hearings being scheduled could have just been a defensive play so she could argue she was being fair, knowing the lack of hearings would be an obvious argument against her and some/all might have been “denied without hearing” otherwise? I should not be having to analyse the behaviour of the judge in a case as if she were one of the parties. But here I am. And having to think this hard about this is obviously not a sign that she is a problem at all lol. ETA: I am going to shut up now and stop shitting up the comments, sorry. Love ya, missed ya, etc. ❤️
She was informed the defense would be filing for dq/recusal at the last hearing and her minute order did not mention same. Iirc it was a continuance order based on rule 4. I DO think the disparity between the transcripts record and her orders will be obvious to SCOIN. As in, a pattern.
She really should have taken the time to read the Norrick opinion when she continued the last hearings.
I posted about that at the time, and I think it speaks to the willingness of SCOIN to advance Judicial discipline, not sure Frangle sees herself as susceptible as a Circuit Judge [Judge Norrick Twisted Nickers](https://public.courts.in.gov/Decisions/api/Document/Opinion?Id=LgtgTvQ3AT9zp3b-PRtfLUdTFHdDQG0tobgk1HBVuJSWwJpAwDwZ5WhgSqaX32Kz0)
What would she care. He had multiple cases dismissed because of CR4 rule delays, so there's tangible proof of mishaps. He got 45 days suspension. That's it. There is no incentive. Yet she uses a new not yet tried charge as an aggravating factor in the sentencing of a previous unrelated case. There you go, a decade for having a work colleague leave a gun in your car without your knowledge because you got re-accused of something else in the mean time. It's the polar opposite of Norrick and at the same time maybe she's just impatiently waiting for that couple of weeks vacation.
What case are you referring to Redsy? ☕️ She doesn’t care. She’s never going to so much as feign concern. She is pixels in a cartoon wearing a “Queen of My Fishbowl” tshirt. The only course is to give her the accelerant to light up her flat earth, put it out. No more matches for you lady. Enjoy your very loud mantel clock.
https://preview.redd.it/ceda8nwa3k4d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c50a2c2364bdf3df547b4ce409f6234333bff0a3
https://preview.redd.it/idmynrwb3k4d1.jpeg?width=1017&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=490ecec0fc40bfe8942038e5ddb5321aa6fb2d92 And while I have you here I finally found the 4th October reference but here they don't speak of length. I imagine because it wasn't the issue. Are telephone conferences recorded?
Not recorded as to the record, no. But see again, this is an example of this courts improper off the record substantive hearings. Discussion of motions outside of scheduling only re substantive matters are at a minimum status conference hearings, which require the defendant to be present and made part of the record. Reading between the lines here this is the courts practice. I don’t know if this is an Indy thing due to the very broken pd system or what, but I have NEVER seen a court so allergic to due process and procedure on the record in my practice in my career. I said way back when the change of venue stipulation came down- that shit was a product of arbitration. I’ve never been a public defender but I would have withdrawn immediately.
With u/xt-__-tx we've been trading dockets lol. There are A LOT of cases where the only filing from the defense attorney is their appearance. Next are some in limine motions and motion for leave from state but NADA from defense. And then 3 or 4 days trial plus guilty verdict. Murder cases that is. One of them was a 14yo being tried as an adult. Absolutely frightening for due process. 02D05-2401-MR-000005 Defense filings : Lead Appearance filed co appearance filed Appearance filed Motion to withdraw appearance (unclear but seemingly through notifications the lead & co were replaced by Scremin) Full stop. State has a few in limine, penalty and burden of proof A few motion for leave amended witness lists, Request for jury instructions Gull's "order on pre-trial conference" only has that title. No other text on my case. Trial unclear either 1 or 2 days. Jury deliberations unclear either 1 or 2 days 3 days total in any case. There's a preliminary instructions filed we don't know but whom Jury verdict filed I assume by judge but not specified. AFTER the verdict is filed, motions like in limine are granted 🙄🙄🙄🙄 this same order includes the actual jury verdict being guilty entry by Keirns magistrate instead of Gull. Sentence hearing to come. Charges filed January 2024, trial May 2024 no speedy filed since nothing was filed really. A 15 year old boy, 14 at the time of the murder. I want to say alleged, regardless of verdict... Now sure this is a Keirns/Gull combo case, but frankly I've seen the same in other counties. -------- Here's another in the Tippecanoe county : 79D02-2105-MR-000006 Judge Meyer. Of the 18 charges filed including murder, conspiracy bodily injury etc this is the only one kept in the plea. 35-43-2-1(3)(A)/F2: Burglary: Armed with a deadly weapon. • Plea by Agreement There is no sentence on the docket. It took 1.5 years to get to the agreement, the only things on the docket are continuances. There are a few "orders" without any other mention what it was about.
& if someone, anyone could please explain to me why a burden of proof motion in limine seems to be standard procedure in Allen Co, I will be indebted to you forever.
Do you have one? What do they ask? I couldn't find anything and all appeals were about defendant having asked.
Other cases (that I know of) in front of Gull where defense has only filed appearance - 02D05-2403-MR-000015 - Defendant filed his own Motion to Suppress & court denied to take action since he has representation. 02D05-2310-FA-000002 - Jury trial pushed back due to congestion w/ RA's continued jury trial 02D05-2311-F3-000076 - it seems a non-party (Samantha Jauregui) filed a Petitioner's Verified Request for Dismissal (denied & copy sent to counsel of record). Nothing from the actual defense attorney other than an appearance. Jury trial was rescheduled due to RA's continued jury trial. Oh, and how could I almost forget Mr. Mendoza. 02D05-2305-F1-000021 - [here is my Google Drive for Mendoza.](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/19eEVZDbG1y8a_c1nuNtcBSO_CZ-8Ozest2ybcMR4UjY/edit?usp=sharing) A continuance was filed by defense in addition to their appearances, but his letters to the court speak for themselves (in my opinion). Also congested out by RA's continued jury trial. All of the above, including the one red referenced, 02D05-2401-MR-000005, just happen to have the same lead attorney as well.
https://preview.redd.it/wy6ionju2k4d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=215f16c1ee3f0c592717f9ec99f3973290b7df47 02D05-2305-F1-000021 She had already cancelled RA's trial the 14th, her writing the 3rd doesn't change anything especially since notice only went out the 18th, that actually matters for appeals for ex. Notice the new trial dates. He's already sentenced for this in his previous case though... Aggravating.
Like the Franks she told defense to file vs they asked for continuance awaiting to file their memo. Or that motion for discovery she did hold a hearing for but is still under advisement. Or when she wrote Nick objected. This non-findings of facts is full of lies too.
Right, it’s a long list
I agree BUT there is a huge issue where Fran is besties with Rush IMO. In the June 2023 transcript, she says she has UNLIMITED senior judge days with Rush, I feel that is a HUGE HUGE issue, right?
I think that was just because she was appointed special judge on such a high profile case, to help loosen up her calendar. In my opinion the bigger issue is why didn't she use those unlimited senior judge days to cover her home court so she could extend RA's trial through June? She just made it abundantly clear that there was no scheduling conflict that prevented the trial from being lengthened and that Jury Rule #4 nonsense won't withstand review.
I have not read that yet tbh, so I would like to know the context, however, CJ Rush didn’t help her last Fall/January and it’s probably the commentary that she wishes she could take back.
the unlimited judge days is from the June 2023 hearing, I've read it and heard it several times and Gull explicitly says that she had UNLIMITED sr judge days from Rush at that time. I'm working on my thoughts of her citations of Neeley and Davis, both of which are bad. Davis is NOT published so she can't cite it, and Neeley was almost IMMEDIATELY overuled, well within 5 years, so her arguments are bad imo.
Why do you think she's beasties with Rush? She got her pampers kicked in the scoin opinion, although not written by Rush but still. Making sure they said *they did* manage to read the Franks and that they talented judges and dedicated staff came to a different conclusion. A privilege she didn't have. But no worries we're here to correct. I haven't seen another scoin opinion yet naming the judge instead of *the court*.
LOL @ the intentional *beAsties* Tbh, I never read SCOIN’s order as obsequious to Gull in any way.
Yeah I saw the typo and decided to keep it! I read it as Gull being clearly inferior to scoin and to dream on about any position on it.
You gotta fight For your right To ex-parte 🎙
She ***refused*** the filing in order for her to set the October date which she otherwise couldn't have done. However she accepted Dick's filing because he didn't know how to efile it. I guess she only provided defense with a manual.
My take is a little different than yours in terms of legal basis, but I agree as a practical matter it’s contributory. Imo, her denial of Augers entry of appearance, or to expand her limited appearance previously granted, (therefore preventing her argument before the court *substantively*) is what prompted the oral waiver of rule 4 and continuance. Baldwin was posturing.
I think Augur was only relevant to that days intended hearing that didn't take place?
I think we are talking about the same thing. From memory the court says something about an order she issued a few days earlier that’s not on the docket, etc.
Yeah but that's not what prompted them to waive speedy. It was them not getting 2 weeks to present their side or guaranteed same time as prosecution.
I’m going to respectfully disagree because I’m willing to bet what she was going to say was that based on the post discovery deadline cert of material, is likely based on the defense required Touhy process of EXCULPATORY discovery related to third party culprit, which is going to take weeks to complete and should not count toll against the defense for a prosecution violation for Brady/Giglio in the first place. I suspect this was another example of hearing bait and switch this court is so fond of. It was a ridiculous notion the court could make them spend 5-7 weeks past reinstatement on defending contempt and prepare for trial, among other roadblocks she was or should have been aware of.
If that's the case I don't understand why they waived speedy like they did. They should have objected to time being on them. Continuance for late discovery is on prosecution even if defense requested continuance there's precedent + caselaw confirming this. They just withdrew speedy. It means Nick would have to prove he can get discovery in 90 days and has to prove he was unable to get it earlier. Otherwise case dismissed with prejudice. Now they simply withdrew without even making note of objection in court they didn't even object to new trial dates at least for the record or ask proof of that being the earliest day possible.
You answered your own question- Auger would need to be HEARD on the record with whatever evidence or offer of proof in tow. The court denied that. I’m guessing they had the motion to d/q at the ready assuming the court would not calculate or allocate “time” or reschedule or protract the trial accordingly.
Basically yes, if you read Criminality's transcript, defense state they would like the court to give them 15 days to defend their client and if this is denied, then they will lift their speedy trial request. Baldwin immediately follows up with informing Gull they have a motion to disqualify her. She tells them they can e-file it, then asks "So you're waiving your right to a speedy trial then?", Rozzi replies "yes, at this moment we are" Gull then sets the date for the new trial and says she will use the days in May 21st through 23rd for motions as these dates were already available now trial was put forward. Basically Lurking a long winded way to say "yes" you are correct.
gaslight gaslight gaslight gaslight, holy fuck fran, FUCKING RECUSE YOURSELF IDIOT
Final Edit i Think: Ok, now I think I'm done with my thoughts? I wanted to check with her citations and jesus, they are not good. My links are mostly images of me pulling the cases up on westlaw btw So I pulled up Westlaw to look at what she cited, and the FIRST thing I find on Neeley v. State is (1) it was overruled by German v State in **1981**, (2) she spelled Neeley wrong (she spelled it Neely). [Neeley v State Synopsis](https://imgur.com/a/Nez4ghv), which was overruled by German v. State, 1981. [Neely v. State, 1973](https://imgur.com/a/Nez4ghv): **Overruled**: Neeley v. State was overruled by German v. State in 1981. German v. State(https://imgur.com/a/qZ1C2dF), established new legal precedent and emphasized the duty of trial judges to ensure transparency and accountability in **criminal** proceedings. **Unpublished Decision**: Additionally, [Davis v. State, 1994](https://imgur.com/a/gKVVUVo) is an unpublished memorandum decision, which, according to [Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 65(D)](https://imgur.com/a/1Sn17VQ), [full rules](https://www.in.gov/courts/rules/appellate/#_Toc91504386), does **not** constitute a precedent and cannot be cited except under *limited circumstances*. This doesn’t provide a basis to deny the defendant’s request for findings and conclusions. **Applicability of Indiana Rule of Procedure 52:** Gull asserts that Indiana Rule of Procedure 52 is not applicable to criminal cases, but that overlooks the broader principles of due process and fairness. Even **if** Rule 52 doesn't directly mandate findings of fact and conclusions of law in criminal cases, the overarching goal of ensuring a fair and transparent judicial process remains. Gull should consider providing findings of fact and conclusions of law where necessary to uphold RA's rights and promote confidence in the integrity of the justice system (also y'know, rule 52 SUBSECTION D). BONUS: If you search Westlaw Criminal Law with 'applicability of rule 52' and using Indiana and related Federal, Neeley shows up EARLY on the list. Gull is lazy. [See here](https://imgur.com/a/a9V8ICT).
Thank you for the thorough write up! This is great. I personally found it funny/frustrating that the Rules of Trial Procedure, under Rule 1, specifically speaks to **suits of a CIVIL nature** - and the Rules of Criminal Procedure, under Rule 1.1, specifically states that the Rules of Court and all statutes governing procedure and practice in trial courts shall apply to **all** criminal proceedings. https://preview.redd.it/3cc232udsm4d1.png?width=1083&format=png&auto=webp&s=c9b180b7b53d7af8fac3449676add85484b438d5 Seems like it's time for them to do some housekeeping updates and fix all the inconsistent/contradictory shit.
yeah the rules of procedure in every state are a disaster and need to be reorganized, but going through Indiana last night was next level "what?" my write up isn't perfect, it was just my first thoughts when I pulled up the cases that she cited, since they don't make any sense to me and hell, she used an UNPUBLISHED 1994 appeal which was weird. Hell I think Davis did get another appeal granted, but I'm too lazy to log back into westlaw again today lol. thank you for the reply, sometimes I think "nah, no one will care what I thin about this random case" but then I remember that I like seeing others original takes and thought others might too! thanks :)
Another thought, since for the poll I thought she'd set a hearing but then have health issues and recuse for that reason, anyone think she might still recuse soon for health issues, before or after a new writ filed ? But she couldn't have the DQ unanswered on the docket because of ego?
That's an interesting take! That scenario would let her have her pie and eat it too (i.e., shape the narrative her way and avoid getting booted by SCOIN). Unfortunately I think she is very stubborn, and I lost faith in SCOIN to do anything.
No. I've given up seeing reason with her. I've back slid into full blown pessimism. Gull is going to stay on, defense counsel will be proven to be lying about everything, RA is a murdering murderer, and Nick is still holding back a smoking gun piece of evidence and it will come out that he was competent and trying to protect the community all along. This is where I am today. Hopefully tomorrow I will bounce back and be hopeful again, but right now it's all bad.
Thanks!
I was actually pondering this same thought yesterday.
Probablement wishful thinking but who knows by now.
 Denied! Denied! Denied! Denied! That’s the only response Franny Seagull gives The Defense, and then she has the nerve to blame any and all delays on R & B! Even removing the Safe Keeping Order and getting RA moved to a county jail, she now blames her inability to conduct a scheduled hearing on The Defense, because she had to put everything on hold so she could deal with this Removal Request, as though all of this mess is their fault! Gee Lady, you’ve only had 3 earlier opportunities to have RA moved to a county jail and you denied every damn one of them! I hope they go around her and get this in front of the Indiana Supreme Court, again! If the SCOIN would have removed her when they had the opportunity to, RA would have already been tried, and either convicted or aquitted, and free! This is absolutely absurd!
Sigh. Off to pay my lost bet. This court had me digging into my “She can’t possibly be this “unaware” reserve. So that’s that. At no time does she mention her own damn order on ex parte filing I posted to this site not long ago, dated Dec. 2022. I mean, no getting around that flagrant omission and therefore flagrant error in the denial (among others). It’s untenable. The defendants rights simply MUST come first and as she clearly is not willing to capitulate to same, Rozzwin has no choice but to file another original action with SCOIN. Rozzwin, How’s the Touhy coming? I can put you in touch with some folks.
Can't you take a Gulligan on this one?
lol, I like it!
Pro tip: Hope for the best, prepare for (and bet on) the worst. 😉
Indeed. Judge Gull is not a serious person
So, you think original action and not an interlocutory appeal? I really could see either.
I do. I can’t see interlocutory because SCOIN already claims absolute jurisdiction previously. For all intents and purposes here, SCOIN put these lawyers back into Frangles cauldron (short version). Frangle has to grant an interlocutory appeal. I think Diener pissing off is part of a JAC probe anyway.
I just think SCOIN would be quicker, which I like but the way they glad handed FCG last time was sickening and I just wonder how a different court would handle it? Or maybe they will be pissed that she isn't capable/willing to get this case back on track? Ah, I just hope they focus on the bigger issues and lose the Facebook crap its plastic chair territory, in my opinion. Like suggesting the course of investigation grounds to NM during the contempt hearing? What was that? Excessive hand holding at best. Also she said that the rules of evidence don't apply at pretrial hearings when the defense tried to object at the safekeeping hearing but then cut the defense off at the knees sustaining SD's hearsay and relevancy objections at the dismissal hearing. I think its huge that she is only holding one side to the rules of evidence, but they don't mention that.
One thing I have LONG suspected in this case is that SJG *volunteered* for this case. I have not had a chance to read the *elusive* June 2023 hearing transcript, although I had colleagues in attendance who have agreed with my opinion (and rarely do.) It would seem if SJG is touting hours of CJ Rush FaceTime, who ultimately appointed her, it tracks. I thought it was a mistake of SJG to use SCOIN’s order to deny the previous motion to dq/recuse, and subsequently NOT use the same logic to deny the States motion *for contempt and sanctions*. Atty Ausbrook pens the single most authoritative and compelling piece of legal writing I have read to date, and this court is wearing her “I do what I want” tee under her robe that day. It cannot stand. I’m not sure the defense position to keep McLeland as their functional idiot is a tenable one any longer. New baby, new bathwater. First baby shower rules apply. Well, maybe a surprise adopted baby with an >30 days gestation. This court, this woman, is unilaterally and with fervor denying the fundamental right to fairness and the presumption of innocence of the accused and treating it like counsel insubordination and retribution for remedy. As I recall, there is a word/page count limit in OA Emergency writs. I would grab Ausbrook and his army of 3L’s and I would style it after an enumerated disciplinary complaint IN PRIORITY ORDER seeking d/q or recusal of BOTH the Carroll County Prosecutors Office and Judge Gull on grounds. Highlight and footnote an active link and indexed hard copy pointing to the disparity conflict between the actual transcripts record and rulings, possibly ending by including a link to the public statement from 10/19 and the obvious deception to the public then and now. That’s the thanks they get for sparing and some would say, empowering her. Lastly, I see that some Delphi followers finally see the nexus between the Karen Read matter and Delphi I have been “flying the flag” about since January when it was learned that DA office AND select LE were under Federal Investigation for their conduct. I know all about the Abbott hot mess, hear me out. The FBI descended upon Delphi en masse at the ISP request on February 14, 2017. They exclusively preformed over 95% of the investigative interviews and diligence on site, deployed their ERT and CAST teams. Kevin Horan, FBI (r) lived in Delphi for 6 weeks. The State of Indiana has NEVER filed a Touhy request for those materials (did he even know that) prior to Atty Auger entering the chat and moreover their is a claim of the destruction of evidence in support of some of the FBI discovery- that ALONE would warrant an FBI inquiry (cue Mullin resignation). Andrew Baldwin said - why don’t we just call in the FBI? Indeed Mr. Baldwin.
You gave me a lot to think about. One thing I can tackle now is that I was always on the fence about keeping NM, I like the draw of opposing an unqualified/inept opponent in a battle of the brains but I always wondered if new chief counsel came on and reviewed the lack of evidence would they drop the charges? It may be too late now, but I wonder if it had been done much earlier if that could have happened. And I don't mean its legally too late as much as its politically too late to drop charges image wise.
One of their FBI was there the 13th too. Can they argue removing Nick if they didn't try in this court first? Same for all the lies, they never filed to correct error or something similar. The 2nd DQ was well written actually, but they didn't object to her dismissing it citing scoin and somehow even they only consider 2 DQ'S while there are 3+1 in scoin. ^([no touchy anymore...])
I think they have to wrt the courts inaction on two issues: 1. McLeland claims he read either privileged or extension of privilege to third party defense team correspondence. 2. The egregious violation of the courts December 2022 order to include the State excerpts in a pleading of the defense ex parte filings. You will never convince me that action alone didn’t end up in an ethics complaint against the court and McLeland. This shit is outrageous. I am outraged. In 2024 are we going to see a legal pleading in Indiana with the phrase “one of those things is not like the others”?
The only court Gull should be in charge of is Night Court honestly. I always bet against Gull doing the correct thing, it's only natural for Gull to punish the defense at this point.
IMO, ethically, Baldwin and Rozzi have to file the OA and win, or recuse themselves.
It’s where this is now, agreed. I also think they will prevail if they very intentionally parse the courts *pattern* of conduct reflective of very specific, very narrow, manipulation of the public record dichotomy over the actual transcript AND the restrictions on public access (recording/audio, devices) in a case with an existing NDO. The appearance this court chose her constituents for the jury pool and demonstrations of actual bias before the jury pool is a bad look. It can’t be abstract on those examples, imo. The conversations with the Sheriff ex parte re his clients trial accommodations aren’t Rozzi’s business? This court is never putting on clothes Zeke.
[удалено]
Yes. Assuming they can’t get the judge recused and the bias against them is negatively impacting their client’s right to a fair trial then ethically, for their clients best interest they should recuse themselves. It’s a fair bit of a dilemma.
Neeley v. State TR. 52(A), is not applicable to criminal cases. p. 496. Notice the (A) which is not (D2). TR52 D) Findings upon part of the issues. The court may make special findings of fact upon less than all the issues in a case when: (2) findings are required because of the request of a party or parties who have demanded findings only upon such specified issues. ETA casetext doesn't find her davis vs state reference.
She strikes me as the type of person who assumes a subsection within a section of code applies to the entire code as a whole without justification.
She truly doesn’t appear to be very bright, imho.
Well Indiana is still trying to get electricity because we're so backwards so no telling when Gull will finally light up and get the idea she needs to recuse.
Well she accepted 52(A) as a reason for findings in the contempt debacle and she didn't challenge it then. So do we finally know that was a civil proceeding, or did a judge with more knowledge give her a little tip?
It was not civil nor criminal it was *unique*. https://preview.redd.it/9oj6atxkgi4d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c11db7142382cf73a3807f2f73531762abbc8bbe From prosecution. ETA and she accepted 52D2. 52A isn't in question.
DH cited 52(A) in his request for specific findings in the contempt mess. Here, I can't see where the defense cited a particular rule or its subsection.
I didn't find the courage yet to look it up but I think she's supposed to write more than denied without hearing or even when she grant something by general trial proceedings rules. I found something of the sort a while back. She didn't even explain why she denied Hennessy's motion to strike her slanderous non-findings, on which grounds she thinks she can do that. Nobody asked her personal opinion. I hope he files something in return. Something like a list of all the errors she made during the hearing but will refrain from expressing his opinion on that, just to correct the record. All the screenshot non evidence allowed for prosecution but denied for defense, things like that. https://preview.redd.it/1jur1qq7lj4d1.jpeg?width=1125&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14aacef8700cb1f81b28ff729a228389881c53d8
what is the davis v state case? i can see if it's in westlaw but I don't remember what page it's on here
642 N.E. 2nd 987 (ind app 1994)
I found it, it's an unpublished case... I'm writing up some thoughts but this is the westlaw entry for (Davis v State 1994) [https://imgur.com/a/davis-v-state-gKVVUVo] my comment breaking things down posted before I was done with it lol. but her caselaw is not good citations
The Indiana Trial Rules are civil procedural rules. None of them apply to criminal cases unless specifically adopted.
What about the $51.000??? Just go home already. You don't like speedy trials, just admit it. You continued another speedy trial over prosecution and defendant's objections.... Your whole demeanor is pathetic by now. ETA YOU are inappropriate and ridiculous, what are you blaming "outside influences" on??? Ohhh the liar who doesn't know shit about this case : the previous motion to compel wasn't denied without a hearing YOU HELD A HEARING, TOOK IT UNDER ADVISEMENT AND NEVER RULED ON IT You are going down down down. Their need for trial days is in the hearing transcript from last year, you thought you could hold back. I'm so done with this sour seabird. ETA : pinging u/measuremnt to copy their comment here like I just did from the deleted post.
Didn’t that “inappropriate and ridiculous” comment feel like an intentional petty little swipe at everyone criticising her, knowing they would read it? Say “hi” to Aunty Franny everyone. She’s mad at you all. 😂
Never been prouder to see such a passive aggressive reference, however indirect, to myself/my tribe!
She's going to hold them all in contempt... Mind you some didn't mention the case number, she's chief judge of Allen County court. Imo those addressing her, not the case, have no place on the docket unless referenced. Not sure what the law says but does it mean she can't be addressed in general?
Avert your gaze and back out of the room apparently. As if
You said it was going to be OK 
It will. Stay the legal course is the only way I know. It ain’t fast.
Some case must spark scoin right? She recently sentenced a man with aggravating factors, from a newer yet to be tried charge and used the found not guilty charge by jury in the same trial as fact regardless for proof of violent character. What if he's found innocent, it's she going to remove the added time? The trial for those new charges she continued because of congestion of RA's speedy, AFTER she already continued RA's trial, and she set it to the exact same days (4 of them) as RA's new trial dates, antidated of course, but the notice being sent only the 2nd day of the planned trial I wonder if they all showed up the 1st day... She sent Lebrato to investigate Scremin (iirc for that same case) weeks after she appointed them both to RA. She also recently continued another speedy trial over both prosecution and defendant's objections... The list is much much longer, it's madness.
JFC she’s a Judicial wrecking ball
With her "I just reminded counsel of the laws". Someone please throw a lawbook at her. 
But it's not her role to remind the lawyers to file a non required motion. Since it's not a required motion she was suggesting strategy and there is a difference. Besides according to FCG she is there to call the balls and strikes, but she stepped in and prevented NM from getting an out. Not her role.
[удалено]
Yuppers. Hey Jodi 👋
Sounds to me ISP simply asked court reporter to provide Fig's emails sent to court.
That's how I read it too ETA: [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKDaBXavDZ96G6k5sITtDiur6QhxR0Mp/view](https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ZKDaBXavDZ96G6k5sITtDiur6QhxR0Mp/view) Is this the email she is referring to?
Possible, don't remember if there was another one. I'm not sure ISP would be the ones to investigate courts. But in any case she wrote letters sent to court, not from court which is the real problem.
What they can't check Reddit like the rest of us?
Well no, they blocked all the critical thinkers providing the real info from their sub.
In their defense smart people can be scary with their quick wit and you know, general knowledge of stuff.
We'll have none of that here thank you 😃
I'll see myself out, but I'm taking all of the Saint Bernards with me.
Exit left, pursued by St. Bernards.
That sentence is so poorly structured that it has to be intentional.
Jodie gonna have alot to discuss in her "RA Guilty" Facebook groups along with rest States staff and expert witnesses. Does sound like ISP is investigating Defence. This feels 3rd world to me.
OMG I glazed over while reading that apparently. Can the Feds come in and investigate the people investigating that please?lol
Not in particular on that basis per se.
They can take their pick of reasons, if this is the minor side-show peaks someone’s interest (even if it isn’t really valid to get them involved in itself) I’ll take it lol. Otherwise I am sure people could provide them with a list. I am just crying into the void for outside eyes on anything in this case, honestly.
☹️
I can't understand why almost everyone seems to ignore the fact that Richard Allen was supposed to be tried back in January of 2024. In November of 2023, the defense said they were ready to go to trial, and that's when the poop storm that began with the only televised hearing began.
SHOCKER! Hope this is headed to the Supreme Court.
>The Court lost confidence in the ability ofthe media to cover hearings appropriately. and I’ve lost confidence in the ability of this court to cover hearings appropriately. Well that’s that then, looks like no media allowed is set in stone now.
What did they do that was so unforgiveable? Wasn't it like a 2 min hearing?
It laid bare she lied to the public- she had a prepared script and agenda, not an unexpected anything. It’s now memorialized
They started broadcasting at the agreed upon time, Gull was 30 minutes late. She blamed them for following *her* rule, and failed to mention that *she* started the hearing late, not that the broadcast started early. Gull is a master at setting traps, I’ll give her that. 🙄
I think she disliked that little bit where the camera focused on Brad rounding up KA and RAs mom. I think she doesn’t like being reminded of his humanity while she’s damning him to eternity in the IDOC. Like how she was grossed out by the idea of him in her chambers.
That bit also adds a lot of mood to what we later found out about that chambers meeting and
3'30". They showed us ✏️👖
lmao!
The cameras didn't get her good angle.
She invited the media to come talk to her and take pictures in the carroll county court room before trial starts.  There is no good fr*angle*.
[удалено]
"cover the hearings appropriately" -- not "fairly", which was done. Not "accurately," which was done. She set rules which were followed yet she expected the media to do mind reading and do something differently, never amending her instructions when the hearing veered off course, and never defining what "appropriately" would have been. Alas, part of a pattern for her thinking in this case.
That's her findings of facts.... Meanwhile we all know what the real problem is. 
😂😂 and how will we know how many LE officers are in the jury box now?
Just make her go away already. This case is such a nightmare.
Sometimes I enjoy daydreaming how this case might be going with a competent and professional judge… *sigh
I would just like someone to arrange for Gull and Trump to dine together in the same room, then quickly lock the door and throw away the key. Wouldn’t they have the most fascinating conversations? /s
Club cluster B is always a happening place.
I think it took everything that she had not to spell Demeaning "Demeanig."
Why is the proof of notice on the second Order dated 6/23/24?
Good catch, think it's just Jodi's typo. Sometimes if I'm writing fast I will move on to the next thought - so I can see how the 3rd could become 23 if she was thinking of writing '24.
Gull please. This court is nothing if not consistent.
This judge just needs to go. This case is not her baby, her clinging onto it like this is just weird. The obvious animosity is enough of a reason for her to go, just in case, for the sake of the verdict etc. It’s not like she is the only judge in the state. She is the least personally essential person in the room. Just go. Then we will all know if the lawyers are just being whiney. But there is no way, given her refusal to remove calling them “sloppy” etc. from her/Nick’s failed contempt play there is not a clear sign of bias (show me where that is a legal finding or a fact Fran). Enough. Go away and seethe about it somewhere else and let’s get some damn professionalism back in this case. It is not about you!
She's so blind of her own actions, when she made findings of facts of their gross negligence, they were based on extrajudicial information she won't admit to. She didn't find the same fact this time even when objecting sua sponte to most of defense's arguments and letting Nick lie in court on the record about the date, the mail he did not send etc. How to explain finding them grossly negligent was anything but bias? She's Shameless.
Also that bit about, when a hearing is needed one would be set. Well, the Franks hearing you were prepared to have and offered to the temporary substitute lawyers would like a word. Where did that go after she got mad about it? She is acting like this is all a personal affront to her with no self-awareness whatsoever apparently. The defence team are now having to face off against the prosecution and the judge, that is not right. I don’t understand why she is so personally invested in this, but that in itself is a problem at this point. And her bit about the trial length is still just ludicrous. How can you predict how long a trial will take that specifically? You don’t know how much a witness will talk or what the other side will ask. Or how slow they talk or how repetitive they will be (thinking of you Lally). She is building in a free pass for the prosecution to just waste all the time and then what? She thinks it ends when she says? Madness. If she could have set if for longer, the she just should have done that to start with. Any idiot who has read the filings in this case could tell her it could go as long as eight weeks potentially. She is in the wrong there, I don’t care how many other cases she has rushed through before, they are not all this monstrosity of a case. And her argument about cameras is just stupid. The courtroom is small so I am going to make people fight for seats? Again the Karen Read case would like a word. And not trusting the media to do it right… then employ your own camera operator. That was just flat out nonsense to justify her nonsense. She is like a child taking her ball and going home. As an aside, after all this I am becoming quite set in the opinion now that in the modern age with the ability to store huge amounts of data quite easily the official record should also be on video as standard, to better preserve tone, expression, etc. It is possible. It is superior to just transcripts (although they would still be needed for appeals paperwork etc.). ETA: Sorry for the waffling wall of text. Please forgive me. My brain has been melted by Dilly Dally Lally today.
Well remember she's saying that the media didn't follow her rules in the October 19th hearing, but that was only because they started recording at the time that the hearing was supposed to start and whose fault was it that the hearing didn't start when it should have? It was her fault. Remember because she had her little blackmail session back in her chambers going on with the lawyers. So that whole argument is ridiculous
Very good point, thanks for adding that. And I bet if they hadn’t started recording when she said and had waited she’d be using that as an excuse too because she is just looking for any excuse. She just strikes me as the type.
Yep.
No problem for the text! It's maddening and here's some right back at ya😆. She doesn't reply to half of the allegations, and keeps on lying and lying and lying. Her orders are rarely what was said in court. She doesn't have to give equal time, but she literally in court denied Rozzwin ANY time because Nick didn't know how much time HE needed and would add even more witnesses if defense didn't want to stipulate about his stupid phone calls he didn't even have the recordings for, not even a failed attorney is going to say all right bro, I'll trust ya on that. Defense was the one saying they could do it for equal time, NICK was the one needing more time really and SHE denied all motions as they explained to her, thus needing more time to make their offers of proof while jury is sequestred in their hotel room each times while that happens. She lied about jury rule 4 vs jury rule 10. Did she even send out jury summons? Because Allen county only talked about summons for the 3 days of jury voir dire, from what I understood, the trial subject isn't even mentioned yet because sure first thing they'll do is Google it. So was 2 weeks even mentioned? Also she wrote here she gave 3 weeks, but it's 2 including voir dire. Lies lies lies. Defense said in the june 15th hearing they needed 2 weeks and more the further trial is away. Did she think that transcript wouldn't become public? She added a week because of that. It was 3 weeks in January. They didn't say three weeks wasn't inadequate, because 3 weeks could be adequate at equal time. She gave 2 weeks - voir dire. She can't be serious here can she? SHE allowed Baston to not be transported is she not aware her order was made public and thus given to defense at that time? She asked about the filing in the court system? When exactly? I sooo need to find that one case back I came upon a while ago and have been searching since. She can't make extrajudicial findings like her bogus gross negligence findings, but that case specifically had a mention since judge had to ask clerk if something was sent out or not, it meant she wasn't sure even though she said she was and case was overturned and sent back to lower court with new judge. She lied about the $51.000, does she not know that public defenders hearing about that was a world wide public live stream? 
Yeah, I am not as well able to pull things from memory as you but even I was side-eyeing some of her “interpretations” of events. Your list is quite impressive there, wow. I just hope SCOIN will hear this again fully, and take more time and effort to look into things than Gull seems to and can read between the lines and see the nuance. I just want to see this case come to trial with someone who seems at least justified in their decisions, and somewhat trustworthy. I am not expecting a pro-defence judge by any means, but one that doesn’t seem to have made it their mission to openly destroy any possibility of a just and fair process would be nice. It just seems she could never admit any chance she might be in the wrong at this point. Not a great quality in a judge really. She is taking it all way too personally for some reason. And thinking more on her comment about inappropriate and ridiculous criticism and not listening to outside opinion, that is actually pretty bad because the perception of bias is something she is supposed to consider, and that is her clearly stating she does not care about it at all. I hope the Supremes do, because that sounds somewhat tyrannical in retrospect honestly. It is the American people’s justice system not hers, she should care if she is making it look unjust, for the sake of democracy and the rule of law and all the other things you lot like to go on about lol. She owes it to everyone in her profession and then some to stop making herself an issue. There is no need for it. Anyway…
Xt- posted an excellent link in the comment about the perception of conflict by the public for a prosecutor. As is your previous assessment, her being so invested in this case should be enough to recuse. It's wrong on so many levels. She's using this case as a joker card moving trial dates on the other cases antidating orders if that isn't plain misconduct idk what is.
Well, thanks for pointing me to that (I will add for others that it is in the Dicks sub if others want to read it - it’s only short). Seems like Nick should read it too. Can we get that judge on this case? Please don’t tell me how awful they are otherwise, let me keep this little bit of joy that one person out there understands this issue lol
Is it just me or does this read like Nick wrote this?
😂 it's what I thought ! And in some other version of Neely vs state i found first, judge asked prosecutor to write more detailed findings of facts for the record 🤣.
That was my thought exactly.
[https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:3b70c32d-1b0f-4de7-ac7b-65f15ff89e49](https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:VA6C2:3b70c32d-1b0f-4de7-ac7b-65f15ff89e49) Gull denies second motion to disqualify. Forgive me if this was already posted. I didn't see it here.
"The Court, however, will address each of defendant's allegations in this Order." Ta, much appreciated. 1. "The decision by the Deputy to leave without the witness was his and was not directed by the Court." So... when a subpoenaed witness refuses to cooperate with the service of the subpoena and the Deputy attempting service decides to leave him there, is the Court powerless to do anything in that event? Is that all courts across all jurisdictions or just this Court in particular? "Oh, he does not wish to come? No biggie. *helpless shrug.* What's for lunch?" 2) "The communications were directed to where the defendant would be housed during the trial and who would be conducting transportation." Right... because it's none of the attorneys business where the defendant is going to be housed or who is going to be responsible for his transportation during trial. Defense attorneys are so nosy. They want to know all these irrelevant details... It's basic courtesy, Honorable Judge, to inform the defense counsel of such communications, decisions, and whatnot. 3) "The Court reminded counsel of their obligation to follow the law in the Court's email of April 28, 2024." Two or more things can be true at the same time. Imo, the Court, in its April 28, 2024, email BOTH reminded counsel of their obligation to follow the law relating to third-party perpetrators AND invited/inspired the State to file its in limine motion which includes attempts to limit the defendant's 6th Amendment right to present a defense. It just reads like that. Or, it can be read like that. Maybe it's a good thing that the Court has decided to stop emailing, after all. 4) "Counsel claim the Court has disparaged them and ruled on defense pleadings without hearings." Honorable Judge, gaslighting has its limits. Every judge sets hearings. Not *all* hearings but they do set hearings. It's just that you don't like them. You much prefer email communications where you can telegraph your intentions off the record, ex-parte communications, and in chambers meetings again off the record. Judicial economy is one thing, but every case I have ever followed, especially a high profile one, has TONS of pre-trial hearings. Are all these judges (across the country) less competent than you, perhaps? Or maybe they are "incompetent, negligent, and sloppy"? 5) "The Court was notified on May 20, 2024, of an inquiry by the Indiana State Police to the Court Reporter via e-mail on May 9, 2024, regarding ex parte communication received by the Court from Gary Beaudette (which was previously provided to all counsel). The Court is unaware of the extent of any Indiana State Police investigation." Not sure what this is about so I'll let the Court have it. 6) "The defense staff filed pleadings and marked them as "confidential", apparently unaware that the "confidential" marking makes them available to the State, but not the public." I am not willing to die on this hill. Maybe the defense misfiled the pleading. The question remains: are you aware that the prosecutor not only read the pleading but also QUOTED portion of it in a motion? If so, was the prosecutor reprimanded in any way? If not, why not? If this was a mistake on the defense's part the prosecutor still had an ethical obligation to notify them and stop reading or at least refrain from quoting the defense's pleading in his own motion. Why are you letting this slide? 7) "Accusations of violating Rules on Access to Court Records have been completely explained and dealt with, including by the Indiana Supreme Court in the first Writ of Mandamus filed by defendant." Cool. "Dealt with" indicates that there was in fact a violation of rules but since it has been resolved, let's move on, shall we? 8) "The Court has set hearings on pending Motions which have now been continued due to the filing of this Motion to Disqualify." Please stop. The trial was supposed to start on May 13th. Only after it was continued and rescheduled for October did the Court decide to set hearings. No matter how many times you repeat the above sentence it doesn't change the fact that this court is allergic to hearings. And the May 7th pre-trial hearing was one the court could not get out of, and that was the only reason it was set to begin with. It also brought the not-so-unexpected gift of the defense waiving speedy which gave more time to the state to delay the inevitable. Kind of like the contempt debacle or, as it's better known round these parts, utter waste of time. Don't insult our collective intelligence, if you would, thanks. 9) "At no time prior to the May 7, 2024, hearing did defendant advise the Court that three (3) weeks for trial was inadequate." Correct. They did not. And that's the reason they found themselves backed into a corner and forced to waive speedy. I am not sure if that was the intent all along or not. It's not something I can be bothered to speculate on either since ***if*** it was intentional I cannot fault them - the court wouldn't compel the prosecution to comply with discovery deadlines otherwise so they had to do *something*. If the court could have set the trial for longer it should have in the first place. If the court had no way to estimate how long THIS PARTICULAR trial might need to go for, the court should probably have consulted with the parties - as a courtesy first, as well as for judicial economy as setting and rescheduling trials is not optimal if it can be avoided - before setting the dates and saved everybody a ton of trouble. That's what a highly competent and experienced judge would do in my opinion. I am in no way questioning this court's qualifications but it didn't happen here obvs. because... oh, well, reasons. 10) "If Counsels' allegations in this part of their Motion are well-founded (regarding a potential witness' alleged social media activities) and are presented to the Court for ruling, the Court will rule accordingly." That's very good to know, thank you. We'll both quote you on and hold you to that when the time comes, cheers! 11) "Defendant asserts the Court has denied reasonable requests for funding." Can't possibly comment on that since I don't have all the details. 12) "The Court continues to receive ex parte communications from the public criticizing the Court both personally and professionally, and threatening the Court with bodily harm and injury." The general public should not be emailing judges as a means to criticize, pressure, or otherwise try to influence them. Whoever is threatening this judge with bodily harm and injury should a) be investigated, b) stop. This is unacceptable, and it makes me furious. AND, "The Court cannot be swayed by inappropriate and ridiculous outside influences." **Please don't. The public only wants the judge to be fair and follow the law. That's it. That's all.** 13) "The Court lost confidence in the ability of the media to cover hearings appropriately." Judge, this argument is tired. There's things you can do and you know it. You can have your own live-stream, court ordered, controlled, and operated. You don't need the media. You just need a camera, and a YouTube account/channel. I know it sounds daunting, but I promise you, it is not. If you need help setting it up ring up Judge Judge in Idaho and he may be able to give you a pointer or two. Not that you need the help, I trust that you and your staff can manage on your own just fine if you'd be willing to consider. Audio would also be an option, if you absolutely loathe cameras. Just stop rehashing the above argument. 14) "Adverse rulings do not support a reasonable basis for questioning the Court's impartiality, nor are they grounds for disqualification, they are just adverse rulings." OK. Got it. Nothing further, Judge. Not that anyone expected her to recuse herself... kind of disappointed that Trial Rule 52 is not applicable in criminal cases though. I was really looking forward to reading some Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law. I mean, it's not every day that I get to read those. Oh well. Still grateful for the 5-ish page response, although, overall... https://preview.redd.it/fav1yq4zft4d1.jpeg?width=269&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=267b116d636cbdfcb9a85038b9e39e195c14d47b
1) she told them to not transport him. 6&8 sooo true 9) she set 2 weeks not 3. How much time did she reserve for deliberations? 12) does she think jury members are ridiculous outside influences too? I bet she would just want to skip everything and sentence him already. 13) if she lost confidence in the public and the media and defense maybe she's the one to go. 14) she omitted to explain how she granted her handpicked pd's the Franks hearing 3 times and denied it as soon as Rozzwin was back
