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 heard oral arguments Thursday in a dispute between the man accused of killing two teenage girls from Delphi and the judge who removed his attorneys over his objection.
People lined up outside the Supreme Court Courtroom at the Indiana Statehouse to hear oral arguments in State of Indiana ex rel. Richard M. Allen v. Carroll Circuit Court and The Honorable Frances M. Gull, Special Judge, 23S-OR-311.
Richard Allen is charged with the 2017 murders of Liberty German, 14, and Abigail Williams, 13, both of Delphi. The case is being heard by Allen Superior Judge Fran Gull, who was appointed as special judge after Carroll Circuit Judge Benjamin A. Diener recused himself.
Last October, Gull disqualified Allen’s attorneys, Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi, after determining they were ineffective.
According to WTHR, the attorneys were dismissed following a leak of crime scene photos at Baldwin’s law office. A former employee later admitted that he took pictures of the crime scene photos while visiting the office, and did so without Baldwin’s knowledge.
That former employee, Mitchel Westerman, has been criminally charged in connection with the leak, WTHR reported.
After Gull appointed new attorneys for Allen, he filed an original action petition with the Supreme Court alleging the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by disqualifying his attorneys over his objection.
He asked the high court to issue a writ reinstating his previous attorneys, setting trial within 70 days and appointing a new special judge to hear the case.
The respondent court and the attorney general are opposing the writ.
Attorney Mark Leeman, of Leeman Law in Logansport, argued on behalf of Allen that Gull abused her discretion in disqualifying his attorneys, violating his Sixth Amendment rights.
“No Indiana court has tolerated a trial judge removing a lawyer from a case over the client’s objection,” Leeman said.
Justice Christopher Goff questioned why the regular appellate process was not the correct route to take in this case, rather than an original action in the Supreme Court.
Leeman responded that the regular process wouldn’t get Allen the relief he wants and is entitled to. He referenced the speedy trial request that Allen had signed.
But Angela Sanchez, an attorney from the Office of the Attorney General arguing on behalf of the state, said the regular appellate process was the correct process.
“The only knowledge we have of Mr. Allen, what he wants, what he knows, what he understands, is second-hand,” Sanchez said.
During Leeman’s argument, Chief Justice Loretta Rush noted that “a lot of questionable things” had occurred, including the leak.
Rush further noted that while Allen signed a form stating he wanted a speedy trial, his attorneys never filed the motion and let it sit for two months. Now they’re asking the high court to grant a speedy trial, which was not requested at the trial level.
Further, the justices opined that Gull was concerned that by allowing Baldwin and Rozzi to represent Allen, there could have been built-in reversible error regarding counsel, which could mean the case may have to be tried twice.
Justice Geoffrey Slaughter stated that Leeman was arguing Allen had the right to counsel of choice but was waiving his right to competent counsel.
Matt Gutwein of DeLaney & DeLaney LLC in Indianapolis argued on behalf of Gull. He told the court that she rightfully removed Baldwin and Rozzi from the case.
Gutwein repeatedly cited Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), to support his argument that Gull did not abuse her discretion. Wheat held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a defendant’s request to chose as his attorney the same attorney for a co-conspirator who pleaded guilty.
Justice Mark Massa noted the justices don’t have a great record, but said the case seems like an issue of ineffectiveness and insubordination.
Gutwein told the justices that a hearing had been scheduled after a private meeting between the former attorneys and the judge, during which the attorneys made their own decision to withdraw from the case.
Rush asked if that decision was a “full and free choice.”
Gutwein responded that it was a tough decision, and the attorneys had to consider both finances and their careers.
On rebuttal, Leeman read a letter from Allen stating that he wants the original attorneys to represent him.
“He’s been clear what he wants,” Leeman said.
But Rush told Leeman that the position he was advocating for was causing “significant delays” in the case going to trial.
The court stated that it will issue a decision as soon as it is able.
The full arguments can be watched online.
According to the Indiana Roll of Attorneys, both Rozzi and Baldwin are active and in good standing.
Allen’s current jury trial is scheduled to begin Oct. 15.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.