CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — Judge Fran Gull said a petition to the Indiana Supreme Court calling on her to be removed from the Delphi murders trial should be thrown out due to the defense not using proper legal avenues in order to seek their end goal.

Gull wasn’t alone in calling for the high court to throw out the petition, as Indiana Attorney General Todd Rokita echoed many of Gull’s same sentiments in a separate filing that also asked the court to reject the petition.

Both Gull and Rokita called the writ of mandamus filed with the Indiana Supreme Court — the legal petition that not only called for Gull’s removal but for the reinstatement of accused murderer Richard Allen’s original defense team — “improper” with both stating that Allen should have pursued an appeal if he thought Gull was abusing her power by removing his original defense team.

In his filing, Rokita argued that a writ of mandamus was “inappropriate” for pursuing the reinstatement of legal counsel and that the appellate process is the “adequate and preferred” way to present these arguments, not a writ of mandamus.

Rokita pointed out that Allen didn’t appeal these actions or file a motion to disqualify, despite having the chance.

“A writ is inappropriate because Allen has a remedy through the appellate process: he can file his motion for change of judge, and if denied, he can appeal that decision,” Rokita wrote.

Gull also echoed this sentiment in her own response, citing a court decision that said writs are often used as a “shortcut” to an appeal which “cannot be done.”

One of the main reasons the writ called on Judge Gull’s removal was due to her decision to remove Richard Allen’s original defense team, Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin, from the case. Gull cited “gross negligence” in this decision which came in the wake of an evidence leak traced back to Baldwin’s office that led to a Westfield man’s arrest.

Allen argued his Sixth Amendment rights were being interfered with by the decision to remove his original defense team. Both Gull and Rokita argued against this, however, with Rokita writing that while defendants who cannot afford their own counsel are guaranteed representation via the Sixth Amendment, the amendment does not provide the defendant the right to choose their appointed counsel.

Rokita and Gull went on to say that “contrary to Allen’s claims,” there are circumstances that require a court to interfere with a defendant’s choice in counsel. One of these instances being “gross incompetence.”

Gull argued she was well within her power to remove Baldwin and Rozzi due to concluding that the pair “committed multiple violations of the Rules of Professional Conduct” in addition to compromising Allen’s defense due to the evidence leak and her finding of them being negligent and incompetent.

Gull drove this point home further by saying that Baldwin and Rozz “failed to take responsible steps to safeguard confidential case materials” citing the leaked crime scene evidence. Not only were the photos laid out in Baldwin’s office conference room, providing the opportunity for Baldwin’s former co-worker Mitchell Westerman to take photos of the evidence, but the judge wrote that Baldwin “would share with Westerman information about the case to obtain Westerman’s feedback.”

Gull cited further examples of the pairs’ incompetence including: Baldwin sending an email about the case to the wrong Brad (instead of Rozzi), Baldwin and Rozzi making statements to the media that included information “that would not normally be revealed,” and Baldwin and Rozzi “providing false information” to the court about Allen’s reported condition in prison.

Rokita also weighed in on the transcripts of the Oct. 19 meeting between the defense team, Gull and the prosecutor. In this meeting, Rozzi and Baldwin claimed they were pressured into withdrawing from the case by Gull. Rokita stated that in the hearing Gull listed the reasons why she felt Rozzi and Baldwin should be disqualified due to “gross negligence” as a result of the evidence leak. When given a chance to argue their side, Rokita said Rozzi and Baldwin “withdrew rather than challenge the factual allegations.”

Gull also argues she gave the pair “ample notice” about her considerations of disqualifying them from the case, citing letters that mentioned the possibility of disqualification sent more than a week before the Oct. 19 hearing. Gull also echoed Rokita’s findings that Rozzi and Baldwin had opportunities to be heard on record arguing against disqualification.

While Allen argued bias against him due to Gull’s decision to remove Rozzi and Baldwin, Gull said her decision to remove the attorneys doesn’t show bias but rather demonstrates her concern to ensure Allen had “competent representation.”

In the conclusion of both filings, Gull and Rokita ask the Indiana Supreme Court to deny the writ filed on behalf of Allen which would mean marching ahead toward a late 2024 trial with Allen represented by a new set of attorneys.