INDIANAPOLIS — The Indiana Supreme Court recently released its full opinion surrounding last month’s decision to reinstate Richard Allen’s original defense team.
According to documents, filed on Thursday morning with the Indiana Supreme Court clerk’s office, Indiana Supreme Court Justice Derek Molter wrote the main opinion, an opinion that was concurred by Chief Justice Loretta Rush, Justice Mark Massa and Justice Christopher Goff.
Accompanying the documents was a second opinion from Justice Geoffrey Slaughter, an onion where Slaughter concurred in part and dissented in part with the overall ruling.
According to previous reports, Allen was charged after he reportedly killed Abby Williams and Libby German on the Monon High Bridge in Delphi in February 2017. Since Allen’s arrest in October 2022, there have been several developments in the case through both the county court system and the Indiana Supreme Court.
In late January, attorneys representing Allen, Special Judge Fran Gull and the Indiana Attorney General’s Office argued in the Indiana Supreme Court over a variety of issues, including the removal of Allen’s original defense team, Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi, as well as the removal of Gull from the case.
In the Indiana Supreme Court’s ruling, the majority of the justices sided with Allen, reinstating Baldwin and Rozzi as his defense team. The court denied Allen’s request to order the trial to commence within 70 days and did not ultimately remove Gull from the case.
Molter’s Opinion
In Molter’s opinion, he stated that the opinion was made after the justices considered “all parties’ excellent written and oral submissions.”
“In short, we reinstated Baldwin and Rozzi as Allen’s court-appointed counsel because the trial court did not find that their disqualification was a necessary last resort after weighing the prejudice to Allen,” the opinion read. “We denied Allen’s request for a trial within 70 days because he did not make that request in the trial court. And we denied Allen’s request to replace the special judge because he did not overcome our presumption of impartiality by identifying facts showing clearly that the special judge is biased or prejudiced.”
Molter said that removing Allen’s original attorneys delayed his trial by at least nine months amid the “extraordinary challenges” that Allen’s pretrial confinement has presented. The court concluded that the trial court lacked the authority to remove Allen’s legal team without considering other options, with the removal of the attorneys being a “last resort.”
“Allen can’t afford an attorney, and he has asked us to reinstate Baldwin and Rozzi as his court-appointed counsel,” the opinion reads. “Consequently, he has no constitutional right to choose which attorneys will represent him. But he didn’t choose Baldwin and Rozzi; the trial court did. Allen just wants to continue with the attorneys the trial court chose for him – he is insisting on the continuity of counsel rather than his choice of counsel.”
Even though the court cited Gull’s conclusion of Baldwin and Rozzi’s mistakes, including the evidence leaks and the gag order, Molter said that disqualifying Baldwin and Rozzi was not a last resort and that mistakes could have been addressed through procedural rules and court orders. Molter also stressed that there was no suggestion that Baldwin and Rozzi were out of their depth, citing their combined experience.
In the opinion, Molter also cited the reasons that the Indiana Supreme Court refused to appoint a new special judge. Molter stressed that nothing in the record suggested Gull’s decision to remove Allen’s attorneys “emerged from bias or prejudice against Allen.” Gull said that she made the decision to protect his right to the effective assistance of counsel.
“Though she mistakenly hit defense counsel’s eject button instead of the case’s lockdown button, she was right to try to get the situation under control quickly and decisively,” the opinion read. “Her efforts did not reflect any bias or prejudice, and Allen doesn’t identify anything she has done that demonstrates she isn’t impartial.”
Molter said Allen’s last request, the request for the trial to commence within 70 days, was denied because it was never filed with the trial court. Molter stressed that until a trial court has ruled, there is no basis for relief in the Indiana Supreme Court….
Read More: Indiana Supreme Court releases opinion on Richard Allen ruling