Jerry Lambe

Both Judge Gull and the State filed their Briefs in response to Allen’s 2nd Writ…addressing Gull’s Brief… First, Gull contends Allen did not meet the procedural requirements, in part, as he does not have a clear, unequivocal right to have counsel reinstated. Gull cites to Jones where the Indiana Supreme Court denied a Writ RE the removal of counsel. But Gull is misapplying Jones. Jones did not deny the Writ for failing to have a clear, unequivocal right to reinstatement of counsel. Instead, bc the attorneys wished to be w/drawn, the Court would “not countermand the trial court's ruling that placed [defense counsel] in precisely the position their motion indicated their willingness to be.” Jones is also factually distinguishable as the attorneys initiated their own w/drawn w/o any influence from the trial court. Gull also contends that an appeal is wholly adequate. I couldn’t disagree more. By being removed, Baldwin/Rozzi cannot act on Allen’s behalf. Rozzi’s filings were struck and appearances from both were rejected. Thus, there was no ability for both to initiate an interlocutory appeal. If Baldwin/Rozzi were to file a limited appearance, there would certainly be standing issues as the right to counsel and related rights belong to Allen. Additionally, once new counsel was appointed, Allen must ‘speak’ thru this counsel. Thus, an appeal is entirely inadequate. Next, Gull argues she properly exercised her discretion in removing Baldwin/Rozzi. Summarily, Gull contends she has considerable discretion. But she notably provides only persuasive authority and fails to mention Jones which states a court has limited authority to remove appointed counsel. Gull also argues she afforded due process but provides absolutely no authority in support of her conduct. Moreover, Gull contends she has shown no bias or prejudice toward Allen or his former counsel. She’s correct RE the law presumes a judge is unbiased; there must be actual bias; adverse rulings aren’t enough, etc. But removing counsel on the judge’s own accord w/o conducting an evidentiary and w/o the defendant present overcomes this presumption as Allen is entitled to a fair proceeding. See In re JK, 30 NE3d 695 (Ind. 2015)(reversing a CHINS adjudication bc judge made derogatory comments, pressured father into waiving fact-finding hearing). All things considered, I don’t find Gull’s arguments particularly convincing. #RichardAllen #Delphi #DelphiMurders #truecrime