DELPHI, Ind. — One of the two attorneys who represented Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen is claiming the judge forced their withdrawal prior to a hearing in Allen County.
An order by Judge Frances Gull was entered into record Oct. 19 — after the hearing — in which she ordered defense attorneys Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin withdrawn from the case. She then ordered the clerk to remove them as attorneys of record in the case.
Allen is accused of killing Abigail Williams, 13, and Liberty German, 14, in February 2017.
Judge appoints new defense attorneys
After ordering Rozzi's filings on Thursday to be stricken from the record, Gull announced two new court-appointed attorneys for Allen: Robert Scremin and William Lebrato.
Scremin has a private practice in Fort Wayne. His website says he has been practicing more than 24 years and has litigated more than 600 major felony cases.
Scremin's website says he is a former deputy prosecutor with the Indianapolis Drugs, Guns and Gangs Unit and also worked as a deputy prosecutor with the Allen County Domestic Violence Unit. His website says he is a former SWAT and narcotics detective.
Lebrato is currently the chief public defender for Allen County and has been an attorney in Indiana since 1999. He has argued many cases before Gull.
Gull also said cameras will not be allowed in the courtroom at the next hearing on Tuesday, Oct. 31.
Notice to continue representing Richard Allen
According to a new court filing Thursday, Rozzi claims Gull ordered Rozzi and Baldwin to "cease work on Mr. Allen's case" on Oct. 12 until they were set to appear in court on Oct. 19.
The long-anticipated hearing lasted 3 minutes as Gull announced Baldwin had withdrawn his representation as Allen's attorney, and Rozzi was expected to give an oral withdrawal.
NOTE: A court administrator confirmed to 13News on Oct. 26 that Rozzi has not filed a motion to withdraw from the case.
The filing says the judge ordered the defense and Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLleland to appear in chambers at 12:30 p.m. on Oct. 19 — which is 90 minutes before the hearing was scheduled to start.
According to the filing, the defense and prosecutor met prior to the Oct. 19 hearing when the judge read a prepared statement to Rozzi and Baldwin, identifying various issues throughout the case of the defense exercising "gross negligence" in carrying out their responsibilities for Allen.
The filing says the judge then gave Rozzi and Baldwin two options:
- Voluntarily withdraw their appearances and exit the courthouse in advance of the hearing
- Participate in the 2 p.m. hearing, and the judge would read a prepared statement into the record and then disqualify both Rozzi and Baldwin in the presence of Allen, his family and the public.
According to the filing, the defense then spoke with Allen, who allegedly reaffirmed he wanted to continue being represented by Rozzi and Baldwin — and Allen allegedly still objects to the judge's attempt to strip him of his current counsel.
After speaking with Allen, the court filing says Rozzi and Baldwin returned to chambers, at which time Rozzi said the judge "had engaged in an ambush of defense counsel, entirely void of due process," and Rozzi would withdraw his appearance — noting it wasn't voluntarily.
Rozzi cites the jury trial in Allen County scheduled to begin Jan. 8, 2024. If Rozzi were to continue representing Allen, the court filing says there will be no need to appoint two new attorneys to dedicate "hundreds and thousands of hours toward a mere review of the discovery."
The filing states, "any successor lawyer would have the convenience of working with Attorney Rozzi to become familiar with the subject matter in a much more efficient and fiscally responsible way."
According to the filing, there are no circumstances under Rule 1.16 of the Indiana rules of Professional Conduct which warrant Rozzi's withdrawal in representing Allen.
13News has learned Baldwin's attorney plans to file motions that Baldwin does not intend to withdraw from the case. According to Baldwin's attorney, “Judge Gull obtained a coerced and involuntary oral motion of Mr. Baldwin."
The planned filing, obtained by 13News, states: "There have been no valid motions to withdraw by appointed counsel. There has been no order of disqualification. There is no legitimate basis for disqualification."
It is not clear if the filing will appear in court record as the judge is not recognizing filings by attorneys she no longer considers to be on the case.
Baldwin's attorney is also asking for the transcript of the conversation in the judge's chambers on Oct. 19.
Request to remove judge
Rozzi is also requesting Gull remove herself from the case.
The attorney is asking for her recusal, claiming she has shown her "impartiality might reasonably be questioned."
Rozzi goes on to claim Gull violated the Indiana Supreme Court’s Administrative Rules by removing or concealing some of the defense’s pleadings from the case summary.
In the motion to disqualify, Rozzi also points to his claims the judge ordered counsel to "cease work on Mr. Allen’s case" leading up to the Oct. 19 hearing, which Rozzi claims violates Allen's Sixth Amendment rights to representation.
Rozzi also accuses Gull of a lack of concern to protect the physical and mental health of Allen and has shown bias against Allen.
13News reached out to Gull's office and was told the court cannot comment on the matter.
Attorney challenges could head to a new court
The new developments usher in a new and potentially very messy chapter of the Delphi legal proceedings, according to longtime Indianapolis defense attorney Ben Jaffe.
“This is very unusual to see these types of filings. I’ve never seen an attorney just push off a case like this and then, you know, push back,” Jaffe told 13News Friday afternoon. He said if both Allen and his original attorneys want to continue working together, as the lawyers claim, it’s unclear whether removing those public defenders without a hearing is in Allen’s best interest.
“There’s likely a feeling on his part that these attorneys are being removed because they are fighting so hard for him. Whether that’s the case or not, I’m certain Mr. Allen has internalized that idea, and it would probably be hard for him to accept that a new attorney is going to do things the same way,” Jaffe said.
Gull’s decision to appoint new public defenders while the original defense team is appealing their removal amid allegations the judge bullied them into stepping down against their will also means we will likely see the judge’s decision legally challenged.
“I wouldn’t be shocked to see a filing of some sort with a higher court,” Jaffe said, adding that a decision by the judge to strike recent motions filed by the original public defenders could prompt additional legal scrutiny. Exactly what court would hear that challenge? “This is so unusual, I don’t even know where you would begin to file that sort of thing,” he replied.
Even the Indiana Public Defender’s Council isn’t sure what court would appropriately address the chaotic developments now taking place in the Delphi murders case, according to the organization’s assistant executive director. The state court of appeals, or even the state Supreme Court, could be called on to settle the unusual issues now being decided in Delphi.