HomeCrimeLawyer for Richard Allen seeks to have judge disqualified

Lawyer for Richard Allen seeks to have judge disqualified

Andrew Baldwin, Brad Rozzi, and Richard Allen (YouTube:WTHR screenshot, Westville Correctional Facility)

Andrew Baldwin, Brad Rozzi, and Richard Allen (YouTube: WTHR screenshot, Westville Correctional Facility)

One week after the presiding judge in the high-profile Delphi murders case announced that both attorneys representing accused killer Richard Allen had withdrawn in an “unexpected turn of events” during the case’s first broadcasted hearing, Allen’s sole remaining attorney says the judge “ambushed” him and his co-counsel before the proceedings and essentially ordered them to quit.

He’s now seeking to remain as Allen’s attorney and to have the judge thrown off the case.

During last week’s hearing, Special Judge Fran C. Gull said that one of Allen’s attorneys, Andrew Baldwin, had orally withdrawn from the case. That withdrawal came after sealed evidence was leaked from Baldwin’s office and provided to a true crime podcast. Gull said that Allen’s other attorney, Brad Rozzi, also planned to submit a written notification of his withdrawal.

The online court docket for the case has the following order from Gull for the Oct. 19 hearing:

“Prior to the scheduled hearing this date, Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin advise the Court they will be withdrawing their representation of the defendant. Court accepts their representations and orders them withdrawn from the cause. Counsel ordered to comply with the previously entered Protective Order on Discovery and are ordered to turn the discovery over in full to the State of Indiana to be made available to successor counsel.”

But Rozzi never submitted his written resignation, and in a series of motions filed Thursday, he requested that Gull be disqualified from presiding over the trial. The motions claim that Gull violated the state’s judicial code of conduct when she allegedly “removed and concealed, or allowed to be removed by the Clerk of Carroll County, defense pleadings from the chronological case summary in violation of the Indiana Supreme Court’s Administrative Rules.”

RELATED ARTICLES
- Advertisment -

Most Popular

- Advertisment -
Share on Social Media