DELPHI, Ind. — A Westfield man is being charged in connection to a leak of evidence in the Delphi murders case.
Mitchell Thomas Westerman is accused of conversion.
Police said on Oct. 5, 2023, they were notified of evidence from the murders of Libby German and Abby Williams was released to the public.
Investigators were able to retrieve the evidence from a podcast creator, who said he got the evidence from a man in Texas.
Investigators then learned that Westerman was an associate of Richard Allen's original defense attorney, Andrew Baldwin.
According to court documents, Westerman called Baldwin on Oct. 9 for a meeting. During that meeting, Westerman allegedly admitted he used his phone to take pictures of evidence photographs in Baldwin's law office. He allegedly shared those images, which ended up in the hands of various YouTube and podcast creators.
An affidavit provided to the judge in the case, from Westerman, said in part, "I observed printed copies of photo evidence on the conference room table. I took pictures of a few of them."
A 29-page transcript, released this week, shows what Judge Frances Gull said to Richard Allen’s original defense team before she disqualified them from the case, which – in part – discusses the leak.
In it, Allen's attorneys are discussing their concerns over the judge's used of the word "disqualification" after learning of the leak of evidence from attorney Andrew Baldwin's office. That leak concerned a friend and former employee of Baldwin had photographed crime scene evidence in Baldwin's office and then released it without consent.
Prosecutor Nicholoas McLeland told the judge he was prepared to share the status of the investigation into the leak. McLeland said he had witnesses and exhibits ready to present. He also voiced his frustration about the leak stating, "I'm concerned that the leak is not just a one-time leak. The evidence that we have shows it is an ongoing leak, however it's being done, and it's just – what's next?"
Allen's then-attorney, Bradley Rozzi, tries to establish he had nothing to do with the leak of evidence from Baldwin's office.
"And I'm not distancing myself from Mr. Baldwin, I'm just saying I have no connection with any of these people," Rozzi said, referring to those involved in the leak.
Rozzi then goes on to tell the judge there has been leaks on the case from the beginning and he doesn't see this leak as impacting the case.
Both Rozzi and Baldwin ask the judge to discuss the matter at a future point when they can prepare to defend themselves.
The judge told attorneys Brad Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin, “…it pains me to say this, but the totality of these circumstances demonstrate gross negligence and incompetence on the part of the defense team. I am unsatisfied with your representation of Mr. Allen. I am gravely concerned about his rights to have competent, non-negligent representation. He currently doesn't have that right now, because what you have demonstrated is negligence and incompetence. Now, I am sharing my thoughts with you privately. I don't want to say this in open court. I would encourage you to talk privately about what you wish to do. I don't want this coming out, it is not where we need to be with this case, but will... I am finding gross incompetence and negligence with you.”
RELATED: Richard Allen's attorneys tell Indiana Supreme Court Delphi judge still 'wrong' in handling of case
The judge was referring to evidence leaks traced to the staff of Baldwin and court filings that the defense team filed without requesting to place them under seal despite containing sensitive information.
The judge then encourages Allen's attorneys to have a private conversation among themselves and talk with their client.
Rozzi then responds, "I mean, obviously reading the tea leaves here, what you're giving us a chance to do is bow out gracefully, if you will, if that's the right term."
Rozzi expresses concern that new counsel for Allen could delay the trial by a year and so, keeping Allen from his right to a speedy trial.
Rozzi then asks for clarification on what the judge intends to do, that she plans to remove them from the case. She responds, "I will, based on what I've just shared with you."
The two attorneys ask to have a moment that they can discuss the issue privately and with Allen. When they return, they communicate that Allen does not want them to withdraw from the case. Rozzi then tells the judge he plans to file a motion to withdraw from the case. "I don't want to do it, but I don't think that I have a choice at this point," Rozzi said. "The options I've been given without any notice by the Court really are either I withdraw or I'm gonna be publicly shamed and that's the way I see this." Rozzi expresses that it feels like a "forced resignation" but he feels like he has been given no other choice professionally.
The attorneys said there is a process for a formal disciplinary claim and that didn't happen and they were not given the opportunity to properly prepare.
"I also have some common sense and, you know, me going in there and standing my ground because my client wants me to is just gonna make things worse for him, and so I'm gonna withdraw my appearance," Rozzi goes on to say. Rozzi goes on to state that he feels they were not given proper opportunity to defend themselves.
The judge responded, " Well, I think we talked about. when you asked for a disqualification, and I indicated on our phone conversation I'm inclined to do that."
Rozzi responds, saying in part, "I've seen lawyers disqualified and there is a process for that and it's not this."
Baldwin then says he echoes what Rozzi said and that he will also withdraw. "I'm stunned, I don't know what to say, so I'll just say I'm moving to withdraw orally."
Since that hearing, the judge has appointed new counsel to represent Allen.
Both Baldwin and Rozzi later tried to stay on the case, even offering to help pro bono for Allen's new attorneys, but the judge denied them.
Civil attorneys have questioned the judge's actions and taken the issue to the Indiana Supreme Court, which will be considering those filings.