Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Supreme Court has declined to enter a writ of mandamus in the dispute over access to court records between a trial judge and the man accused of murder in the deaths of two Delphi teens, finding the issue is now moot.
The high court on Monday denied Richard Allen’s petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition in State of Indiana ex rel. Richard Allen, v. Carroll Circuit Court, et al., 23S-OR-302.
“Because a writ is an extraordinary remedy, we will not issue a writ unless the party seeking relief ‘can show a clear and obvious emergency where the failure of this Court to act will result in substantial injustice,’” the Monday order says, citing State ex rel. City of New Haven v. Allen Super. Ct., 699 N.E.2d 1134, 1136 (Ind. 1998), “Allen has not made the requisite showing here.”
At issue was Allen’s petition to order Special Judge Fran Gull to reinstate several court records as publicly accessible on the chronological case summary and electronic case file; prohibit Gull from ordering the removal of any records from the CCS or electronic case file; and prohibit her from excluding documents from public record without complying with the Rules on Access to Court Records.
According to the petition filed by Allen’s counsel in October, in the spring, “(S)omeone within the court system sua sponte changed all of Allen’s filings to ‘confidential’ and excluded all of them from public access without any notice to or from Allen. From that point through the end of June 2023, more than 125 separate court records were excluded from public access.”
Later, according to the petition, “The trial court … allowed the parties to ‘agree’ to exclude the entirety of certain records from public access, even though both actions are prohibited by the Access to Court Records Rules.
“… With regard to the other documents that have been improperly excluded from public access, the trial court did not order the Clerk to make the documents on the CCS public — something that clerks do all the time — which would have allowed the public to identify the filings they wanted and then access those particular findings,” the petition continued. “Instead, the trial court created a link at https://allensuperiorcourt.us/Delphi/ and uploaded a Zip Drive containing the 118 documents.
“Although the 118 documents were all filed sometime between April and June, every document in the Zip Drive has the date of 6-27-2023. More problematic, the file names have no clear identifying information to let someone know what that document actually is, and none of the exhibits to a particular file are anywhere near the actual filings … .”
Finally, Allen’s counsel noted two other documents that were excluded and not included at the link: a June 20 filing by the Carroll County sheriff and a July 5 letter from an inmate in the Department of Correction.
Given the notoriety of the case — Allen is accused of murder in the February 2017 killings of Abigail “Abby” Williams, 13, and Liberty “Libby” German, 14, which gained national attention — his counsel argued, “If there was ever a time when the openness mandated by the Trial Rules and Access to Court Records Rules was critical, it is the present case — one of the most high-profile cases this state has ever seen.”
“Yet the Trial Rules and Access to Court Records Rules have been repeatedly violated, leaving the public and the media in the dark,” the petition concluded. “A writ of mandamus or prohibition is appropriate to ensure that, going forward, this Court’s mandates regarding public access are followed without exception.”
In its order, the Supreme Court noted ACR Rule 5 provides two exceptions to the presumption that the public will have access to court records.
First is the exclusion of an entire case from public access under either statute or court rule, which is automatic. Second is the exclusion of 13 types of individual case records, in which cases the documents must be filed as confidential and include an “ACR Form” identifying the specific basis for exclusion.
“Aside from these two exceptions, Rule 6 permits a trial court to exclude otherwise public court records from public access only in extraordinary circumstances and by following the rule’s process,” the court continued. “That process requires any person affected by the release of the court record to make a written request to prohibit public access, which must give notice to the parties and allow them twenty days to respond. And before a trial court excludes the requested record, it must hold a public hearing and issue a written order explaining why it is granting the request.
“We expect all Indiana courts to comply with these rules,” the justices wrote.
However, in Allen’s case, the judge on Nov. 14 issued an order directing the clerk to place the 118 individual documents on the CCS, unseal the June and July filings, and place pleadings from Allen’s former counsel on the CCS.
“The requests that prompted this petition have largely been resolved, and thus mooted, by the trial court’s order entered on November 14, 2023,” the justices wrote.
“… Along with reinstating these excluded documents to the CCS, the November 14 order reflects the court’s intention to comply with the A.C.R. Rules going forward,” they continued. “If there are any remaining concerns about access to court records here, interested parties should first seek relief in the trial court and then pursue an appeal if necessary.
“… Because Allen bore the burden to persuade this Court to issue a writ and he has not done so, the petition is DENIED. This disposition is final. No petitions for rehearing or motions to reconsider shall be filed in this original action.”
All justices concurred.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.