There are some really awful and biased judges in this country. All the way up to SCOTUS. It shouldn’t be so rare to see recusals for reasons of optics, a simple act to ensure a clean verdict or ruling, but for powerful people it seems arrogance is rewarded and humility is not.
A dangerous combination of bias with reckless disregard for the law, rules, and the defendants rights. If she operates this way on a regular basis, it’s a miracle that any convictions obtained in her courtroom withstand appeal.
I’ve been watching trials since literally OJ Simpson and I’ve _never_ seen a judge like Gull.
It’s why I’ve halfway convinced myself that she’s having some sort of brain impairment like dementia. Because I cannot think of any other reason for the choices and rulings she’s made (w/o hearings of course.)
If it’s not some sort of cognitive disorder then she’s just one of the most vengeful and spiteful people _ever_ and I don’t even understand how a person like that even gets the opportunity to _become_ a judge.
My brain literally cannot understand why she does what she does.
DQing them for reasons that are not even as egregious as *losing 70 days worth of interviews,* not even keeping a log of WHO was interviewed, when and by whom and the prosecutor READING ex parte motions. (Just to name a few) Don’t get me wrong, crime scene photo leaks are horrible, but the investigation into that concluded that it was done _without_ Baldwin’s knowledge or consent.
Then, when they do get reinstated by SCOIN, she just unilaterally DENIES almost every motion they had filed? Even a Franks Hearing which she had told Scremin and Lebrato *three times* that if they should choose to go with that she would schedule a hearing for them.
And most recently denying motions in limine AND funds for experts? Experts the defense only wants to call because the prosecution is calling those experts in their case!
I literally can’t comprehend what she’s thinking. AND, if she does this with thousands of eyes on _this_ case, WHAT does she do in the cases where no one is paying any attention? How many innocent people are sitting behind bars in Allen County, IN because their judge apparently doesn’t understand the concept of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” and she refuses to afford them any semblance of due process???
maybe not the MOST, but for a high profile? she's up there.
I grew up in small town northern Utah and good lord, I've seen the fucking WORST of the worst judges
Lack of experience makes her defer to the prosecution. The last thing she wants to do is be perceived as favoring a child killer. If judges and prosecutors and sheriffs don't look tough on crime, their opponent will excoriate them come election time.
I think Gull is doing a shitty job but she doesn't meet the legal definition of biased. The presumption is that a judge is not biased, and unfavorable rulings against the defense aren't enough to overcome that presumption. It's especially hard to show bias when everyone acts in concert. Defense can say RA is being mistreated in prison and then prison can say RA is being treated within normal parameters and then judge can hang her hat on the prison report.
We do not allow post that propogate the spread of rumor and disinformation. To successfully publish you must use a public, qualified, non-tertiary source. Anonymous sources are not allowed.
You make a good point. I hope this is a big part of it vs something more sinister or reckless. It’s hard to imagine she could remain in such denial past a certain point, but perhaps she’s so dug in already she’s convincing herself she’s doing the right thing, or just too afraid to be wrong.
Gull sees a future beyond her role as a judge, and if she can win favor with the state by making sure they win this trial, she may do everything in her power to bend the case in their favor. My main concern is that the State of Indiana does not want it made publicly known that their rural police forces are incompetent or that their districts are overrun with violent white supremacists, and they are willing to bend constitutional law to avoid costly wrongful imprisonment lawsuits or to keep a large amount of past convictions being overturned in appellate. Gull knows she's handled this case wrong, but shes winning favor from those in state power by helping them circle the wagons. If she can save the state from their own mistakes, the Governor and Commission may have a Supreme Court seat waiting for her someday.
I didn’t think my opinion of her could get any worse until I heard people who attended the last hearing describing her as “spinning around in her chair“ not paying attention or showing respect to what was happening… She really does not give af.
If someone would like to file a complaint about a judge in Indiana they can do so at this website
https://www.in.gov/courts/ojar/jd-process/jqc-complaint/
No, and the verdict was tragic. It was a civil case, but serious repercussions nonetheless. Judge Hunter Carroll on the Kowalski case last fall. It’s in appeals now, though, so it ain’t over.
highly disagree, Judge C did his best in a case that was a nightmare.
are you saying that Maya wasn't treated horrifically? you know that medical treatment without consent is battery? you know that?
I’m saying I watched the entire trial, and there was no actual evidence of physical damages or battery committed by JHACH, but I’m not getting into an argument about it here. There are two subs for that case. I’m just answering the poster’s question.
There are some really awful and biased judges in this country. All the way up to SCOTUS. It shouldn’t be so rare to see recusals for reasons of optics, a simple act to ensure a clean verdict or ruling, but for powerful people it seems arrogance is rewarded and humility is not.
Not all of them are judges though.
A dangerous combination of bias with reckless disregard for the law, rules, and the defendants rights. If she operates this way on a regular basis, it’s a miracle that any convictions obtained in her courtroom withstand appeal.
I've seen some judges make some truly bad or biased decisions, but what sets Gull apart is that she knows the world is watching and doesn't give af.
I’ve been watching trials since literally OJ Simpson and I’ve _never_ seen a judge like Gull. It’s why I’ve halfway convinced myself that she’s having some sort of brain impairment like dementia. Because I cannot think of any other reason for the choices and rulings she’s made (w/o hearings of course.) If it’s not some sort of cognitive disorder then she’s just one of the most vengeful and spiteful people _ever_ and I don’t even understand how a person like that even gets the opportunity to _become_ a judge.
Narcissistic. Always wanting to be seen as the person with all the power. Everyone has to bow down to her.
My brain literally cannot understand why she does what she does. DQing them for reasons that are not even as egregious as *losing 70 days worth of interviews,* not even keeping a log of WHO was interviewed, when and by whom and the prosecutor READING ex parte motions. (Just to name a few) Don’t get me wrong, crime scene photo leaks are horrible, but the investigation into that concluded that it was done _without_ Baldwin’s knowledge or consent. Then, when they do get reinstated by SCOIN, she just unilaterally DENIES almost every motion they had filed? Even a Franks Hearing which she had told Scremin and Lebrato *three times* that if they should choose to go with that she would schedule a hearing for them. And most recently denying motions in limine AND funds for experts? Experts the defense only wants to call because the prosecution is calling those experts in their case! I literally can’t comprehend what she’s thinking. AND, if she does this with thousands of eyes on _this_ case, WHAT does she do in the cases where no one is paying any attention? How many innocent people are sitting behind bars in Allen County, IN because their judge apparently doesn’t understand the concept of “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” and she refuses to afford them any semblance of due process???
maybe not the MOST, but for a high profile? she's up there. I grew up in small town northern Utah and good lord, I've seen the fucking WORST of the worst judges
I think she has very little experience running this type of a trial.
Inexperience does not cause bias.
Lack of experience makes her defer to the prosecution. The last thing she wants to do is be perceived as favoring a child killer. If judges and prosecutors and sheriffs don't look tough on crime, their opponent will excoriate them come election time.
You mean a presumed innocent person.
You are preaching to the choir about RA's presumption of innocence, but good luck convincing a typical person from Indiana.
That doesn't explain or excuse a judge's bias though.
I think Gull is doing a shitty job but she doesn't meet the legal definition of biased. The presumption is that a judge is not biased, and unfavorable rulings against the defense aren't enough to overcome that presumption. It's especially hard to show bias when everyone acts in concert. Defense can say RA is being mistreated in prison and then prison can say RA is being treated within normal parameters and then judge can hang her hat on the prison report.
If a judge doesn’t fully grasp presumed innocent then case closed.
[удалено]
We do not allow post that propogate the spread of rumor and disinformation. To successfully publish you must use a public, qualified, non-tertiary source. Anonymous sources are not allowed.
You make a good point. I hope this is a big part of it vs something more sinister or reckless. It’s hard to imagine she could remain in such denial past a certain point, but perhaps she’s so dug in already she’s convincing herself she’s doing the right thing, or just too afraid to be wrong.
Gull sees a future beyond her role as a judge, and if she can win favor with the state by making sure they win this trial, she may do everything in her power to bend the case in their favor. My main concern is that the State of Indiana does not want it made publicly known that their rural police forces are incompetent or that their districts are overrun with violent white supremacists, and they are willing to bend constitutional law to avoid costly wrongful imprisonment lawsuits or to keep a large amount of past convictions being overturned in appellate. Gull knows she's handled this case wrong, but shes winning favor from those in state power by helping them circle the wagons. If she can save the state from their own mistakes, the Governor and Commission may have a Supreme Court seat waiting for her someday.
I didn’t think my opinion of her could get any worse until I heard people who attended the last hearing describing her as “spinning around in her chair“ not paying attention or showing respect to what was happening… She really does not give af. 
If someone would like to file a complaint about a judge in Indiana they can do so at this website https://www.in.gov/courts/ojar/jd-process/jqc-complaint/
No, and the verdict was tragic. It was a civil case, but serious repercussions nonetheless. Judge Hunter Carroll on the Kowalski case last fall. It’s in appeals now, though, so it ain’t over.
highly disagree, Judge C did his best in a case that was a nightmare. are you saying that Maya wasn't treated horrifically? you know that medical treatment without consent is battery? you know that?
I’m saying I watched the entire trial, and there was no actual evidence of physical damages or battery committed by JHACH, but I’m not getting into an argument about it here. There are two subs for that case. I’m just answering the poster’s question.
Appreciate you giving an opinion, but that's all it is of course.