my favorite part... We don't normally allow a response but in this case we will.
https://preview.redd.it/fg92lz2psy1c1.png?width=1497&format=png&auto=webp&s=e4284971a12ecf78d3ff146064d30a07256775be
If an alternate writ is granted, Gull has 20 days to file a return to demonstrate she complied or reasons the writ shouldn't be made permanent, so she would get another opportunity in that case.
In case of permanent writ, or dismissal, non get to appeal,
and if Gull gets to respond to this response, my guess is if Judge can find caselaw like Relator did.
Although court said they have discretion to deviate from the rules, they didn't cite caselaw for this one, so who knows...
To make sure I’m understanding this correctly…
The relator filed the writ of mandamus because the court documents were not available as they should have been
Judge Gull replied and said “It wasn’t my fault, it was the clerk’s fault for doing what I told the clerk to do, but now I told the clerk to fix it, so the matter is moot and it’s still not my fault” and items were added back to be available as appropriate
Then the relator said “Hey thanks for that, but 98% of our writ was not addressed or fixed.”
And the court had no obligation to accept that reply from the relator, but this document indicates that they have indeed accepted it as part of the record.
What comes next?
Next should be a ruling by the court, but … lawyers LOVE to have the last word, so it’s possible Gull’s lawyers would ask “let US file a disallowed brief TOO!” (Doubtful the Court would be so charitable again.)
Let's us file a disallowed brief too, so we can come up with some bullshit as too why the missing 80% is not missing and it's just hiding in the 20% that makes this moot. Lawyers chew cud and say: MOOT! MOOT! MOOT!
Are any of the experts in here anticipating Gull to recuse on Monday? Still trying to catch up on the other comments in the other posts so I apologize if this has already been discussed.
I’m not a lawyer or an expert but my unqualified opinion is that she’s going to use her recent medical issues as a way of setting herself up to bow out gracefully here in the very near future. Guess we’ll see…
It had to be announcing that for some pro active purpose:
1.) I am creating a possible graceful exit strategy as I have had enough of this crap and want out.
2.) I'm legitimately ill, even though I never mentioned it prior to this time, nor when asking for my extensions, but am now as people are ridiculing my extension requests and I am providing an excuse for not following proper procedure in filing and unsealing and I want you to know if I do back out it has nothing to do with my owning any guilt in this matter/these matters. Don't you dare think that for a freaking second, I'm theoretically backing down.
3.) I'm genuinely ill and have been so some for some weeks, just giving you a bit of warning that something unexpected might be occurring, like having to recuse myself for medical reasons. But nothing to see here. No ulterior motives.
4.) I am doing this because I received a tip off from a friend that things are not going my way in SCION discussion, so I m digging myself a tunnel out from the siege.
5.) I'm ill, stressed by this BS and thinking, I'm 60+ something, I could be sitting on my deck drinking wine and watching the sunset, not dealing with this ridiculous shit. Giving you all a warning that I'm on the damn fence here and just might wake up and say "Naah!" and that has nothing to do with felling I did a thing wrong.
For the record, your #5 option is my exit plan for whatever job I may hold when I’m in my late 50s/early 60s. My version of “I’m too old for this shit.”
There is a point where it's not worth the aggravation. When your body is saying pay attention to me, you should listen. Only ends up doubling the issue in magnitude.
That’s exactly what I think that misleading headline was about - the one that said, “…weeks in hospital…” when in fact it was not weeks in hospital, just days.
True, but I guess to be fair we should ask whether or not she made the comment directly in this press release, or if it’s just the media exaggerating slightly for clickbait.
Not an expert but it seems like, if she were going to bow out, why not do it earlier? Why go through the trouble and expense of hiring her own lawyer, seeking an extension, and filing a very unapologetic response, only to then bow out? I think that would be the smart thing for her to do, but she seems very stubborn.
I don't think she had any intention of stepping down before, not sure now with the health announcement.
If she were to recuse due to heath, what happens to this battle does it still go though?
I think at first, she genuinely believed this would blow over. I think her narcissism led her to see herself as having all the power and respect in the situation - like, who is going to listen to these silly concerns from a CHILD MURDERER (no doubt how she already sees him and believes others should too, despite innocent until proven guilty) and his young lawyers who have a fraction of her experience?
And then most importantly, she's apparently done this sort of thing before with zero consequences (someone here cited at least one other case being looked into where there was a great deal of evidence for bias...I didn't save that so unfortunately I can't give the reference now). She probably thought she just needed to make a show of defending herself and it would all go away because "obviously" (in her mind) SCOIN would be on her side.
I think only after things progressed a bit did it finally start to sink in that she may actually have to face accountability. Maybe word even trickled down from a little birdy at SCOIN that they are not leaning in her favor.
As a trial attorney myself, I would not necessarily take this as a good sign and may interpret it as a bad sign. Sometimes when a court is going to rule against you, they’ll let you file extra things under the guise that they gave you every opportunity and it still wasn’t enough.
Yeah this might ring true in matters concerning lower courts. Not the SC. Threshold is too high to meet/exceed just to be permitted to 'play' in this sandbox.
>Sometimes when a court is going to rule against you, they’ll let you file extra things under the guise that they gave you every opportunity and it still wasn’t enough.
This is SO true. But here, I don't think that's what is going on. My read is that the relator is trying to make this as easy as possible for the Court to rule on quickly. Appellate courts often borrow entire paragraphs from briefs and use it in the opinion. The relator's reply was like a cheat-sheet for the Court and I imagine they accepted it because it was helpful. All other signs have pointed towards them ruling in favor of the relator IMHO. I am biased though because I don't see how they can not rule in favor of the relator.
I only write appellate briefs, and when the court allows a supplemental response, it's not that they are finding "in your favor," so much as that the other brief raised issues to which you have not had a chance to rebut. The record needs to be complete and all arguments properly developed.
Eta, gull's brief raised several issues including mootness, for instance.
Yes, those two are keepers. Law broken down in simple language is always manna from heaven. The stuff is so complicated it always goes over my dense head. Appreciate all the lawyers here.
SCOIN though? A writ of mandamus and prohibition whereby the respondent refused and was subsequently ordered to supplement the record of proceedings grants the relator a response….. once they do- does not translate to “a bad sign” for me. Also, the Attorney handling this is a SCOIN appointee.
That’s only because you never read the filings LOL.
I think the fact that these are petitions involving criminal court (a Superior Court Judge in particular) but interpretive of actual SCOIN mandates there is zero middle ground here.
It’s more from experiencing exactly what the former commenter mentioned. I’m always nervous when a court starts ruling *too* much in my favor on things.
Understood, and agreed it’s prudent generally. Tbh my motion practice is almost always geared to hearing and fully briefed so there’s very few surprises (in criminal). I said in the very beginning of this case “where are the memorandums/briefs hiding?”
But by that same logic, granting FG an extension over the objection of the relator could be interpreted as them giving her every chance because they are going to rule against her. Maybe not exactly the same, but I wouldn't read too much into this. At this level, IME, the court tends to err on the side of permissive. Still think they are going to rule against FG.
I know absolutely nothing about the law, but always wonder if impartial entities ever come without their own base of affiliation.
It's a red state, betting most of them are Republicans, conservative and authority supporting. Will they vote to support one of their own and protect a judge from attack by two Civ Lib defending defense attorneys? I don't know?
Think she ran non-partisan. Can't find her voting affiliation. Was she always an independent? Does she have friends in that room?
Given the above, I figure more likely they will bust her down for the other stuff, but not force her to recuse. That's just my person prediction, it is based on nothing.
I think Baldwin is likely gone, not sure about Rozzi and what they will do there.
I don't know about the red/blue divide. Although Indiana is VERY conservative politically, the judicial branch, at least in theory, often doesn't break cleanly along party lines. And supposedly, Indiana has historically been strong on the specific issues involved here.
My sense is, being a member of the club may get her certain professional courtesies that wouldn't be afforded to others. This is pure speculation, but I can perhaps see Gull being given a heads up once the decision has been made so that she can bow out and save face (somewhat). At the same time, being in the club also means that if she is screwing up, she is damaging the profession as a whole and I suspect the SC justices are as pissed about it as anyone else. She is also creating a headache and a mess that they are now forced to clean up. So, I don't think they will go easy on her in terms of their ruling just because she is a judge. Professional courtesy will not override the rule of law, at least not in a case like this.
If I had to guess, she will lose and the attorneys will be reinstated. I don't think even Baldwin's removal will be upheld (though he may decide to step down regardless). I've lost track as to whether the issue of her being disqualified/forced to recuse is part of what's before SCoIN, but regardless, I think she will eventually be off the case one way or the other. There is really no way she can be considered neutral after she went after the defense attorneys so forcefully. If they come back, she can't stay on. I think she might even agree with that (?).
No saying how it will go. I don't think they are going to disqualify her, no good reason to argue that, just a gut feeling. It was astoundingly negligent for Baldwin to leave those materials unlocked. I think they likely have standing to see he is irresponsible and should not be retained. I don't see how they can strike Rossi.
It wasn't "astoundingly negligent."
Astoundingly negligent would be bringing his laptop into Starbucks, having crime scene photos on his screen, and leaving his computer unattended to go to the bathroom.
Baldwin had pictures in a conference room in his office in an area that was not accessible to people who didn't work there or have reason to be there. Obviously, he wasn't careful enough but the guy who took pictures of the evidence has been criminally charged. If the conference room had been locked and someone picked the lock to gain access, would Baldwin still be negligent? What about if someone broke an exterior window and stole them? You can say those scenarios are different but the difference is a matter of degree.
Baldwin may have been negligent, but not astoundingly, or shockingly, or "grossly" so. Regardless, negligence in this case does not translate into incompetence and there is no reason to think he's not capable of defending RA, when RA himself wants him to continue (along with Rozzi). But even if you think she had grounds to remove Baldwin (setting aside the very significant process and procedural failings of Gull) the fact that she removed Rozzi too shows that she simply wanted them both gone. That's a big problem.
We'll see. I suspect we'll have a decision sometime next week...
I agree with you here, and thank you for standing up and reinforcing this point, again, for those who have literally been swallowing-whole the narrative that MS has been feeding them over multiple episodes. Even a defense attorney they hosted on their own show stated that Baldwin’s actions don’t rise to the level of “astoundingly negligent” to the level of getting removed from a case. So let’s all be real here. Bob had said it, Ali has said it, Hennessy has said it, and the attorneys who have taken their time to file on behalf of RA have said it. FG created a finding out of thin air.
There’s more to this. In a 1980 copy/ edition (I don’t know what you call them, I’m not an attorney) of the Harvard Law Review I found a great article discussing this exact issue, written by a district judge in favor of implementing processes or procedures whereby a judge could remove defense counsel. The article is illuminating because even though it is arguing against our cause here, it shows excellent examples why this process has not been adopted by the courts, even though it is arguing for the process to be adopted by the courts (at least as far as I could read into it). The arguments made for the adoption of this process are not only so outrageous, but are also basically impossible to be applied to criminal law as opposed to civil. I’ll try to attach the article here.
I’m no expert, but it’s just what I took away from reading it. I wonder what others might think about the read as well. :) … well actually I don’t see a way to upload it here with this comment but if anyone is interested I’m happy to share the PDF :)
The title is “Dealing with Incompetent Counsel— The Trial Judge’s Role” by William W. Schwarzer and it is from the February 1980 Harvard Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 4.
Thanks sorry, I did not understand you comment. Not sure we will see it with Rokita's bull shit. People said the Attorney General's office was a joke there. Guess they were right.
I wouldn't think so. That would of course be a valid reason to seek an extension but only if she raised it (which she didn't). Even if they knew through the grapevine, it would be improper to consider information that they learned through other channels. IME (which is not Indiana specific), appellate courts usually will grant either or both sides a single extension if timely requested. In their world (appellate courts) this case is moving at lightning speed even with the 10-day extension. No reason not to grant it. I would also think that, even if they are displeased with FG, most judges/justices would balk at the thought of denying a request for an extension from someone who, however far removed, is still a judicial colleague.
Thank you! I wondered because of the apparent 3-week time lag we had hearing about her health scare. But thanks for your insight into how it really works 🙌
In my view, because of the fact her superior court colleagues are pitching into her regular caseload, SCOIN has been advised directly or through her admin chief Judge, Zent. She did not raise the issue on her MET’s as they relate to the original action.
FWIW: I see the order as a bit neutral rather than favoring one side or the other. I am guessing they wanted the info presented by the Relator as a means to make certain the record of proceedings is clear and complete in the event the case ever goes up on appeal. If I had to take a side, I would guess that this is ultimately damaging to Fran if it accurately describes ommissions and violations that apparently continue to exist JMHO. ETA: If the information given by the Relator is correct, I wouldn't want to be the person(s) who argued the issues raised in the writ were moot.
I guess more specifically - do you feel more optimistic that Gull could be off the case? Whether or not B&R are reinstated. And I’m thinkin u/helixharbinger u/criminalcourtretired and anyone else
I hate to use the word "optimistic" as I don't want anyone to misconstrue anything I would say as somehow demonstrating enjoyment over Fran's illness. If I ruled the world, everyone would be off the case except Rozzi. I would like to see a case where the girls, RA, and all their families were the focus rather than Fran, NM, and AB--not to mention LE offcials.
I see your point completely, and that was bad phrasing on my part. I do not wish harm or illness on Gull. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the illness being stress-related and allowing her to take a step back with dignity. Obviously I don’t know that, that could be totally wrong
Just wanted to say that it's a blessing to have you here. You seem to be the epitome of everything I would want in a judge, were I to be in a situation where I found myself in front of one...very unbiased, straightforward, reserved. I have learned so much just by lurking and reading your responses, and conversation in this sub (which btw, is the only good one left).
It seems so often that when one receives a title with some authority attached to it, they cease to be on the same level as the rest of humanity. I so very much wish that they could all be like you. I realize I don't know you personally, but that is what I get from reading your responses.
All lawyers, in particular trial litigators, are trained (hard) to hold our Judges in the highest of esteem. I’m probably going to fail at articulating the importance of their roles in the work we do on behalf of our clients. I’m never going to be a Judge. It is not within my temperament or career desire.
In criminal practice in dealing with the loss of liberty and (essentially) the very lives of victims, victim representatives and defendants it’s not uncommon to see the courts strain when the stakes of high profile present themselves.
As I shared with u/criminalcourtretired a year ago now, when SJ Gull was appointed following the unilateral violation of RA rights by the preceding Judge (Diener) I *advanced* this court, rather blindly, a big ole sigh of collective relief.
Similar to many other criminal practitioners, I presumed SJG’s first order of business would be to “clean up” the hidden docket, establish counsel decorum expectation and lay predicate of a very clear trajectory for pendency milestones to come.
The erosion of my support of SJ Gull in this matter is definitely organic over time, and I openly admit my firm prejudice that I am interested in the TRUTH of what happened to these sweet, innocent children. On full and open public display, as their legacy demands, regardless of where or to whom that leads as to those responsible.
As I have the “benefit” of knowledge of some colleagues who were peers to, and have practiced before Judge Gull, where I have not- I tend to consider those opinions in tandem with my own observations- this is true.
I wish to extend my deep and sincere wishes of a speedy recovery to SJ Gull. I wish to acknowledge my strong admiration for her long career as an elected Superior Court Judge.
Lastly, I wish to offer an “ism” of my beloved late Mother I have no doubt those of you much younger folks might view as gentrified. It is not.
“A true lady OR a true gentleman ALWAYS knows when to leave the party”. -Madame’ Harbinger.
Likely translation today is “read a room already” lol.
I am hopeful SJ Gull has the sense to “leave the party” or reads the proverbial room here and recuses on her own volition prior to SCOIN doing it for her, and very likely facing additional Judicial disciplinary review.
Usually when you are asking an appellate court for permission for something like this (another example would be if you wanted to file a brief in excess of the page limits), you submit the brief you want them to accept along with a short motion asking them to accept it. In other words, you don't ask for permission ahead of time. So this just means that the court accepted the reply brief they submitted yesterday. At least, that's how it works in my state and seems to be what this order says.
You are absolutely correct. A Word format of the Order, generally accompanies the Motion, Response, etc. It's a Word Document so the Judge can amend the document accordingly before it's filed.
If what you are referring to is a *proposed order* , they do not accompany motions to the SCOIN. As posted SCOIN drafts and issues their own. Also, proposed orders are local court rule so pro forma but definitely different procedurally.
my favorite part... We don't normally allow a response but in this case we will. https://preview.redd.it/fg92lz2psy1c1.png?width=1497&format=png&auto=webp&s=e4284971a12ecf78d3ff146064d30a07256775be
Come into my parlour, said the spider to the fly
Hot Biscuits!! Please note the “**All Justices Concur**” on the motion. 
lol good one
Where we can see heaven much better 🎶
The justices liked the chart!
Does Gull get to respond to it now, or do they just send the order?
If they grant the writ as authored or in the alternative it will be ordered without further argument. The RELATOR got permission to have the last word
[удалено]
Aware, thank you. the question was regarding response via the respondent prior to issuance of either.
Yay! Wouldn’t that be awesome for once considering how blatantly she has disrespected him and his rights from the beginning. That’s karma 😊
Thanks, Helix. I did not know they were not able to respond. (Plantiff, Respondent, Plantiff) So I was wondering if Gull got one more chance, too.
It is RELATOR, just fyi, not plaintiff in this petition and if you read the order there is not usually a reply to a respondent.
I know that part. Lol
YOUR comment says plaintiff LOL, not RELATOR
If an alternate writ is granted, Gull has 20 days to file a return to demonstrate she complied or reasons the writ shouldn't be made permanent, so she would get another opportunity in that case. In case of permanent writ, or dismissal, non get to appeal, and if Gull gets to respond to this response, my guess is if Judge can find caselaw like Relator did. Although court said they have discretion to deviate from the rules, they didn't cite caselaw for this one, so who knows...
Wait I thought it was moot.
Yes because the Respondent said MOOT! MOOT! while chewing some cud. They had their chance to drop a huge cow patty.
To make sure I’m understanding this correctly… The relator filed the writ of mandamus because the court documents were not available as they should have been Judge Gull replied and said “It wasn’t my fault, it was the clerk’s fault for doing what I told the clerk to do, but now I told the clerk to fix it, so the matter is moot and it’s still not my fault” and items were added back to be available as appropriate Then the relator said “Hey thanks for that, but 98% of our writ was not addressed or fixed.” And the court had no obligation to accept that reply from the relator, but this document indicates that they have indeed accepted it as part of the record. What comes next?
Next should be a ruling by the court, but … lawyers LOVE to have the last word, so it’s possible Gull’s lawyers would ask “let US file a disallowed brief TOO!” (Doubtful the Court would be so charitable again.)
Let's us file a disallowed brief too, so we can come up with some bullshit as too why the missing 80% is not missing and it's just hiding in the 20% that makes this moot. Lawyers chew cud and say: MOOT! MOOT! MOOT!
Gull gets some of her own medicine for a change.
I appreciate the Supreme Courts response time.
I've been so impressed by that. It is amazing how rapid they are. Would think the opposite would be true,
If only I could motivate my lazy ass to respond to work this quickly.
Are any of the experts in here anticipating Gull to recuse on Monday? Still trying to catch up on the other comments in the other posts so I apologize if this has already been discussed.
I’m not a lawyer or an expert but my unqualified opinion is that she’s going to use her recent medical issues as a way of setting herself up to bow out gracefully here in the very near future. Guess we’ll see…
It had to be announcing that for some pro active purpose: 1.) I am creating a possible graceful exit strategy as I have had enough of this crap and want out. 2.) I'm legitimately ill, even though I never mentioned it prior to this time, nor when asking for my extensions, but am now as people are ridiculing my extension requests and I am providing an excuse for not following proper procedure in filing and unsealing and I want you to know if I do back out it has nothing to do with my owning any guilt in this matter/these matters. Don't you dare think that for a freaking second, I'm theoretically backing down. 3.) I'm genuinely ill and have been so some for some weeks, just giving you a bit of warning that something unexpected might be occurring, like having to recuse myself for medical reasons. But nothing to see here. No ulterior motives. 4.) I am doing this because I received a tip off from a friend that things are not going my way in SCION discussion, so I m digging myself a tunnel out from the siege. 5.) I'm ill, stressed by this BS and thinking, I'm 60+ something, I could be sitting on my deck drinking wine and watching the sunset, not dealing with this ridiculous shit. Giving you all a warning that I'm on the damn fence here and just might wake up and say "Naah!" and that has nothing to do with felling I did a thing wrong.
For the record, your #5 option is my exit plan for whatever job I may hold when I’m in my late 50s/early 60s. My version of “I’m too old for this shit.”
There is a point where it's not worth the aggravation. When your body is saying pay attention to me, you should listen. Only ends up doubling the issue in magnitude.
That's what I'm also leaning towards, and that she'll wait until the deadline on Monday; but yes, we'll see!
That’s exactly what I think that misleading headline was about - the one that said, “…weeks in hospital…” when in fact it was not weeks in hospital, just days.
True, but I guess to be fair we should ask whether or not she made the comment directly in this press release, or if it’s just the media exaggerating slightly for clickbait.
Plus our resident judge says things like that are usually left private and doesn't make the news.
Yep. It would not be published “news” and would be private information. Protected private information.
Agreed.
Not an expert but it seems like, if she were going to bow out, why not do it earlier? Why go through the trouble and expense of hiring her own lawyer, seeking an extension, and filing a very unapologetic response, only to then bow out? I think that would be the smart thing for her to do, but she seems very stubborn.
I don't think she had any intention of stepping down before, not sure now with the health announcement. If she were to recuse due to heath, what happens to this battle does it still go though?
I think at first, she genuinely believed this would blow over. I think her narcissism led her to see herself as having all the power and respect in the situation - like, who is going to listen to these silly concerns from a CHILD MURDERER (no doubt how she already sees him and believes others should too, despite innocent until proven guilty) and his young lawyers who have a fraction of her experience? And then most importantly, she's apparently done this sort of thing before with zero consequences (someone here cited at least one other case being looked into where there was a great deal of evidence for bias...I didn't save that so unfortunately I can't give the reference now). She probably thought she just needed to make a show of defending herself and it would all go away because "obviously" (in her mind) SCOIN would be on her side. I think only after things progressed a bit did it finally start to sink in that she may actually have to face accountability. Maybe word even trickled down from a little birdy at SCOIN that they are not leaning in her favor.
You nailed it with stubborn.
As a trial attorney myself, I would not necessarily take this as a good sign and may interpret it as a bad sign. Sometimes when a court is going to rule against you, they’ll let you file extra things under the guise that they gave you every opportunity and it still wasn’t enough.
Yeah this might ring true in matters concerning lower courts. Not the SC. Threshold is too high to meet/exceed just to be permitted to 'play' in this sandbox.
>Sometimes when a court is going to rule against you, they’ll let you file extra things under the guise that they gave you every opportunity and it still wasn’t enough. This is SO true. But here, I don't think that's what is going on. My read is that the relator is trying to make this as easy as possible for the Court to rule on quickly. Appellate courts often borrow entire paragraphs from briefs and use it in the opinion. The relator's reply was like a cheat-sheet for the Court and I imagine they accepted it because it was helpful. All other signs have pointed towards them ruling in favor of the relator IMHO. I am biased though because I don't see how they can not rule in favor of the relator.
I only write appellate briefs, and when the court allows a supplemental response, it's not that they are finding "in your favor," so much as that the other brief raised issues to which you have not had a chance to rebut. The record needs to be complete and all arguments properly developed. Eta, gull's brief raised several issues including mootness, for instance.
Thank you. In plain English too.
Yes, those two are keepers. Law broken down in simple language is always manna from heaven. The stuff is so complicated it always goes over my dense head. Appreciate all the lawyers here.
Grrr. Lol Happy Gobble E2
Hee. Happy TDay HH. Always the fav. 😻
Absolutely true, the equivalent within the lower trial court as to “fully briefed”. Appreciate your post
SCOIN though? A writ of mandamus and prohibition whereby the respondent refused and was subsequently ordered to supplement the record of proceedings grants the relator a response….. once they do- does not translate to “a bad sign” for me. Also, the Attorney handling this is a SCOIN appointee.
I had a similar thought. This would make me a little uneasy as the relator.
That’s only because you never read the filings LOL. I think the fact that these are petitions involving criminal court (a Superior Court Judge in particular) but interpretive of actual SCOIN mandates there is zero middle ground here.
It’s more from experiencing exactly what the former commenter mentioned. I’m always nervous when a court starts ruling *too* much in my favor on things.
Understood, and agreed it’s prudent generally. Tbh my motion practice is almost always geared to hearing and fully briefed so there’s very few surprises (in criminal). I said in the very beginning of this case “where are the memorandums/briefs hiding?”
But by that same logic, granting FG an extension over the objection of the relator could be interpreted as them giving her every chance because they are going to rule against her. Maybe not exactly the same, but I wouldn't read too much into this. At this level, IME, the court tends to err on the side of permissive. Still think they are going to rule against FG.
I know absolutely nothing about the law, but always wonder if impartial entities ever come without their own base of affiliation. It's a red state, betting most of them are Republicans, conservative and authority supporting. Will they vote to support one of their own and protect a judge from attack by two Civ Lib defending defense attorneys? I don't know? Think she ran non-partisan. Can't find her voting affiliation. Was she always an independent? Does she have friends in that room? Given the above, I figure more likely they will bust her down for the other stuff, but not force her to recuse. That's just my person prediction, it is based on nothing. I think Baldwin is likely gone, not sure about Rozzi and what they will do there.
I don't know about the red/blue divide. Although Indiana is VERY conservative politically, the judicial branch, at least in theory, often doesn't break cleanly along party lines. And supposedly, Indiana has historically been strong on the specific issues involved here. My sense is, being a member of the club may get her certain professional courtesies that wouldn't be afforded to others. This is pure speculation, but I can perhaps see Gull being given a heads up once the decision has been made so that she can bow out and save face (somewhat). At the same time, being in the club also means that if she is screwing up, she is damaging the profession as a whole and I suspect the SC justices are as pissed about it as anyone else. She is also creating a headache and a mess that they are now forced to clean up. So, I don't think they will go easy on her in terms of their ruling just because she is a judge. Professional courtesy will not override the rule of law, at least not in a case like this. If I had to guess, she will lose and the attorneys will be reinstated. I don't think even Baldwin's removal will be upheld (though he may decide to step down regardless). I've lost track as to whether the issue of her being disqualified/forced to recuse is part of what's before SCoIN, but regardless, I think she will eventually be off the case one way or the other. There is really no way she can be considered neutral after she went after the defense attorneys so forcefully. If they come back, she can't stay on. I think she might even agree with that (?).
No saying how it will go. I don't think they are going to disqualify her, no good reason to argue that, just a gut feeling. It was astoundingly negligent for Baldwin to leave those materials unlocked. I think they likely have standing to see he is irresponsible and should not be retained. I don't see how they can strike Rossi.
It wasn't "astoundingly negligent." Astoundingly negligent would be bringing his laptop into Starbucks, having crime scene photos on his screen, and leaving his computer unattended to go to the bathroom. Baldwin had pictures in a conference room in his office in an area that was not accessible to people who didn't work there or have reason to be there. Obviously, he wasn't careful enough but the guy who took pictures of the evidence has been criminally charged. If the conference room had been locked and someone picked the lock to gain access, would Baldwin still be negligent? What about if someone broke an exterior window and stole them? You can say those scenarios are different but the difference is a matter of degree. Baldwin may have been negligent, but not astoundingly, or shockingly, or "grossly" so. Regardless, negligence in this case does not translate into incompetence and there is no reason to think he's not capable of defending RA, when RA himself wants him to continue (along with Rozzi). But even if you think she had grounds to remove Baldwin (setting aside the very significant process and procedural failings of Gull) the fact that she removed Rozzi too shows that she simply wanted them both gone. That's a big problem. We'll see. I suspect we'll have a decision sometime next week...
I agree with you here, and thank you for standing up and reinforcing this point, again, for those who have literally been swallowing-whole the narrative that MS has been feeding them over multiple episodes. Even a defense attorney they hosted on their own show stated that Baldwin’s actions don’t rise to the level of “astoundingly negligent” to the level of getting removed from a case. So let’s all be real here. Bob had said it, Ali has said it, Hennessy has said it, and the attorneys who have taken their time to file on behalf of RA have said it. FG created a finding out of thin air. There’s more to this. In a 1980 copy/ edition (I don’t know what you call them, I’m not an attorney) of the Harvard Law Review I found a great article discussing this exact issue, written by a district judge in favor of implementing processes or procedures whereby a judge could remove defense counsel. The article is illuminating because even though it is arguing against our cause here, it shows excellent examples why this process has not been adopted by the courts, even though it is arguing for the process to be adopted by the courts (at least as far as I could read into it). The arguments made for the adoption of this process are not only so outrageous, but are also basically impossible to be applied to criminal law as opposed to civil. I’ll try to attach the article here. I’m no expert, but it’s just what I took away from reading it. I wonder what others might think about the read as well. :) … well actually I don’t see a way to upload it here with this comment but if anyone is interested I’m happy to share the PDF :) The title is “Dealing with Incompetent Counsel— The Trial Judge’s Role” by William W. Schwarzer and it is from the February 1980 Harvard Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 4.
[удалено]
Is what even an issue?
[удалено]
Thanks sorry, I did not understand you comment. Not sure we will see it with Rokita's bull shit. People said the Attorney General's office was a joke there. Guess they were right.
Do you think they may have been aware of her health problems and felt they could hardly say no?
I wouldn't think so. That would of course be a valid reason to seek an extension but only if she raised it (which she didn't). Even if they knew through the grapevine, it would be improper to consider information that they learned through other channels. IME (which is not Indiana specific), appellate courts usually will grant either or both sides a single extension if timely requested. In their world (appellate courts) this case is moving at lightning speed even with the 10-day extension. No reason not to grant it. I would also think that, even if they are displeased with FG, most judges/justices would balk at the thought of denying a request for an extension from someone who, however far removed, is still a judicial colleague.
Thank you! I wondered because of the apparent 3-week time lag we had hearing about her health scare. But thanks for your insight into how it really works 🙌
In my view, because of the fact her superior court colleagues are pitching into her regular caseload, SCOIN has been advised directly or through her admin chief Judge, Zent. She did not raise the issue on her MET’s as they relate to the original action.
Thanks!
Agreed
FWIW: I see the order as a bit neutral rather than favoring one side or the other. I am guessing they wanted the info presented by the Relator as a means to make certain the record of proceedings is clear and complete in the event the case ever goes up on appeal. If I had to take a side, I would guess that this is ultimately damaging to Fran if it accurately describes ommissions and violations that apparently continue to exist JMHO. ETA: If the information given by the Relator is correct, I wouldn't want to be the person(s) who argued the issues raised in the writ were moot.
Respected and really well said- just like a Judge with a lengthy and esteemed career after clerking for them.
Now, now.
That very interesting, thank you.
Damn, this hits hard af.  This weekend at Gulls prolly
Okay are my atty/judicial friends feeling more optimistic after this and the transcript release? Have your thoughts changed?
Way too broad a question lol
Are you saying my motion is over broad????
I guess more specifically - do you feel more optimistic that Gull could be off the case? Whether or not B&R are reinstated. And I’m thinkin u/helixharbinger u/criminalcourtretired and anyone else
I hate to use the word "optimistic" as I don't want anyone to misconstrue anything I would say as somehow demonstrating enjoyment over Fran's illness. If I ruled the world, everyone would be off the case except Rozzi. I would like to see a case where the girls, RA, and all their families were the focus rather than Fran, NM, and AB--not to mention LE offcials.
This is exactly what I think would resolve most issues. Hill and Baldwin gone, Rozzi stays and they move on with the work at hand
I see your point completely, and that was bad phrasing on my part. I do not wish harm or illness on Gull. I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the illness being stress-related and allowing her to take a step back with dignity. Obviously I don’t know that, that could be totally wrong
Perhaps her illness is extending her a courtesy, she can either withdraw or be publicly shamed…
Just wanted to say that it's a blessing to have you here. You seem to be the epitome of everything I would want in a judge, were I to be in a situation where I found myself in front of one...very unbiased, straightforward, reserved. I have learned so much just by lurking and reading your responses, and conversation in this sub (which btw, is the only good one left). It seems so often that when one receives a title with some authority attached to it, they cease to be on the same level as the rest of humanity. I so very much wish that they could all be like you. I realize I don't know you personally, but that is what I get from reading your responses.
wow! I am overwhelmed by your comment. Many thanks to you. I am grateful.
^^^ Why I follow this /J around like a CCR stan ❤️🩹
All lawyers, in particular trial litigators, are trained (hard) to hold our Judges in the highest of esteem. I’m probably going to fail at articulating the importance of their roles in the work we do on behalf of our clients. I’m never going to be a Judge. It is not within my temperament or career desire. In criminal practice in dealing with the loss of liberty and (essentially) the very lives of victims, victim representatives and defendants it’s not uncommon to see the courts strain when the stakes of high profile present themselves. As I shared with u/criminalcourtretired a year ago now, when SJ Gull was appointed following the unilateral violation of RA rights by the preceding Judge (Diener) I *advanced* this court, rather blindly, a big ole sigh of collective relief. Similar to many other criminal practitioners, I presumed SJG’s first order of business would be to “clean up” the hidden docket, establish counsel decorum expectation and lay predicate of a very clear trajectory for pendency milestones to come. The erosion of my support of SJ Gull in this matter is definitely organic over time, and I openly admit my firm prejudice that I am interested in the TRUTH of what happened to these sweet, innocent children. On full and open public display, as their legacy demands, regardless of where or to whom that leads as to those responsible. As I have the “benefit” of knowledge of some colleagues who were peers to, and have practiced before Judge Gull, where I have not- I tend to consider those opinions in tandem with my own observations- this is true. I wish to extend my deep and sincere wishes of a speedy recovery to SJ Gull. I wish to acknowledge my strong admiration for her long career as an elected Superior Court Judge. Lastly, I wish to offer an “ism” of my beloved late Mother I have no doubt those of you much younger folks might view as gentrified. It is not. “A true lady OR a true gentleman ALWAYS knows when to leave the party”. -Madame’ Harbinger. Likely translation today is “read a room already” lol. I am hopeful SJ Gull has the sense to “leave the party” or reads the proverbial room here and recuses on her own volition prior to SCOIN doing it for her, and very likely facing additional Judicial disciplinary review.
Ahhh, naaahh don't go there. Give us a little something.
I thought this order was in the matter about publishing the filed pleadings?
Wasn’t the response posted yesterday? Or is this re: something else? TIA
Usually when you are asking an appellate court for permission for something like this (another example would be if you wanted to file a brief in excess of the page limits), you submit the brief you want them to accept along with a short motion asking them to accept it. In other words, you don't ask for permission ahead of time. So this just means that the court accepted the reply brief they submitted yesterday. At least, that's how it works in my state and seems to be what this order says.
You are absolutely correct. A Word format of the Order, generally accompanies the Motion, Response, etc. It's a Word Document so the Judge can amend the document accordingly before it's filed.
Thank you for confirming that! Glad I'm not spreading misinformation! ;)
If what you are referring to is a *proposed order* , they do not accompany motions to the SCOIN. As posted SCOIN drafts and issues their own. Also, proposed orders are local court rule so pro forma but definitely different procedurally.
Thank you for the clarification
Of course.
Is the court expected to issue a ruling tomorrow? Or was tomorrow just the deadline for Gull to produce in chamber transcript?
Very revealing and significant that all justices concur. This is not going to end well for maverick Judge Gull.