Skip to content

Delphi suspect’s attorneys respond to contempt of court claims



CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — Before Monday’s hearing, Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi, the attorneys for Richard Allen, are responding to claims brought forward by the prosecution that they should be held in contempt of court, stating that those claims should be thrown out.

According to court documents filed in Carroll County on Wednesday, Baldwin’s and Rozzi’s attorney said the state lacks standing for both to be held in contempt of court. Baldwin and Rozzi are representing Allen, a man who was charged in the February 2017 homicide of Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi.

This comes after the Carroll County prosecutor filed documents in late January, stating that he believes Baldwin and Rozzi should be held in contempt of court. According to previous reports, the prosecutor provided 25 points within the filing surrounding Baldwin and Rozzi’s conduct as to why they should be held in contempt, including:

  • Evidence leaks in December 2022 and October 2023



  • The attorney’s response to a gag order and subsequence news release surrounding the investigation.

According to previous reports, Special Judge Fran Gull called for the removal of Baldwin and Rozzi after an evidence leak. The two attorneys later resigned, but then fought for reinstatement on the case. Baldwin and Rozzi were reinstated on Jan. 18.

“The state’s information has many flaws,” the response reads. “Not least among them is its failure to allege, either directly or by inference, either Mr. Baldwin or Mr. Rozzi committed any of the supposed offending acts willfully.”

In its response, Baldwin and Rozzi’s counsel asks for the court do “summarily deny” the request to hold the two in contempt.

The attorneys argue why neither a civil contempt or criminal contempt ruling would be relevant in this case. The defense argues that none of what Baldwin and Rozzi reportedly committed would have harmed the state and the actions were not done intentionally.

The defense states that the state lacks standing to pursue civil contempt because the state has not alleged “an injury a civil contempt sanction can remedy.” The documents state that even if the court reported each allegation as true, no sanction imposed for any of the acts would remedy an injury to the state.

Even if the prosecution filed a criminal contempt motion, the defense argues that the state would have no authority to impose a criminal sanction. The documents said that the state filed its information “in the wrong place” and an action for indirect criminal contempt “must ‘be filed as an independent action.’”

“The court simply may not impose any punitive sanction for what could only be a finding of criminal contempt in this criminal case against Mr. Allen,” the documents read. “That would amount to a conviction and punishment on a charge the state has not made.”

According to previous reports, Gull set a hearing for Monday morning in Fort Wayne in relation to the contempt of court filing, along with the additional charges filed against Allen.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *