CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. – The attorneys representing Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen filed a new motion seeking to remove Special Judge Fran Gull from the case.

Attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi argued Gull should be replaced or recuse herself from the proceedings in favor of a different judge.

The motion is the latest legal maneuvering in the case. Allen is charged in connection with the February 2017 deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi.

Baldwin and Rozzi were recently reinstated as Allen’s defense team. In October, Gull called for them to be removed from the case, citing a social media leak of evidence as a factor. Baldwin and Rozzi eventually resigned, although they later contended they did so under pressure. Two new attorneys were then appointed to represent Allen.

Allen’s attorneys fought their dismissal from the case, a battle that made it to the Indiana Supreme Court. The state’s highest court ultimately decided to reinstate Baldwin and Rozzi, although justices denied a motion to remove Gull from the case.

In their latest motion seeking Gull’s removal, Baldwin and Rozzi, on behalf of their client, questioned Gull’s impartiality and ability to oversee the case without bias.

“At every stage, from now until the conclusion of this case, the actions and rulings of the court will be scrutinized through the lens of Judge Gull’s error in severing Richard Allen’s attorney-client relationship with his chosen lawyers,” the motion said.

In the motion, the attorneys argued that Gull had affected their attorney-client relationship.

“This court has already interfered with one of the most sacred concepts in our Constitution, the relationship between attorney and client. There can be no dispute that this has occurred. The highest court in the state of Indiana has cemented this fact. If the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that Judge Gull wrongfully denied Richard Allen of the attorneys of his choosing, wouldn’t then, an objective person have a reasonable belief that she, Judge Frances C. Gull, is [emphasis added] biased and prejudiced toward Defendant Allen?”

The attorneys argued that Gull’s recusal would remove any sense of impropriety from the case. They questioned whether Gull, having removed the attorneys earlier, would be able to make rulings without the defense—and the public—wondering about her impartiality.

Gull had said Rozzi and Baldwin acted “grossly negligent” and with “gross incompetence” in the defense of their client. She also alleged the attorneys violated the Rules of Professional Conduct. She expressed “grave concerns” about their ability to defend him.

The attorneys contended that Gull violated Allen’s constitutional right to due process.

Allen’s 22-page affidavit

In a 22-page affidavit supporting the motion, Allen accused Gull of misleading the public during the dramatic Oct. 19 proceedings in which she announced that the attorneys had withdrawn from the case. He also claimed Gull interfered with his right to a speedy trial.

In addition, Allen took issue with Gull’s decision to deny a hearing on a Franks motion concerning the search warrant and another order concerning ballistics evidence. The rulings came just days after the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated Baldwin and Rozzi.

“Two business days after Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin were reinstated, Judge Gull issued an Order denying a hearing on the Frank’s Motion and denying a motion in limine, filed by Rozzi and Baldwin, regarding the admission of ballistics evidence by the State. What appears to the defense to be a hastily written opinion lacks any serious legal and factual analysis on such an important issue,” Allen’s affidavit said.

Gull’s inaction on Allen’s mistreatment

The affidavit said Gull failed in her duty to protect Allen, who alleged mistreatment at Westville Correctional Facility. Allen was eventually moved to Wabash Correctional Facility in Carlisle, Indiana, “some 233 miles away” from the new court-appointed attorneys based in Fort Wayne.

Those attorneys, meanwhile, filed a motion last week to withdraw from the case given the reinstatement of his original lawyers. Baldwin and Rozzi had previously sought to have Allen moved, saying long trips to see him in Westville were proving burdensome for the defense.

“The Court has absolute jurisdiction of Mr. Allen’s detention circumstances. It would be entirely appropriate for the Court to err on the side of caution and engage in remedial measures to ensure Mr. Allen is being housed under humane circumstances for a pre-trial detainee,” the affidavit said. “It would be entirely appropriate for the Court to order the detention of Mr. Allen in a facility close to or near his court appointed attorneys so that they would have the simple convenience of communicating with him in person, and under reasonable conditions, without the necessity of lengthy sojourns each and every time they desire to meet with Mr. Allen to prepare his defense.”

Prosecution treated ‘more favorably’

The affidavit also argued Gull has treated the prosecution “more favorably” than the defense. Allen accused Gull of allowing the prosecution to withhold potentially exculpatory evidence for months. The evidence, which was central to the September Franks hearing memorandum, involved the investigation into the possible involvement of a third party in the Delphi murders.

But Gull never referred to the state or Prosecutor Nick McLeland as being grossly negligent or incompetent as she had Allen’s defense counsel.

Speedy trial component

Allen argued Gull had interfered with his right to a speedy trial when she forced the resignations of Rozzi and Baldwin during an Oct. 19 closed-door hearing. Allen had intended to file a motion for a speedy trial to keep things on track for January 2024.

But Gull “prevented this from happening” by not allowing Allen to have counsel of his choosing, leading to a delay in his trial. In addition, Allen argued he was again confined to the Westville Correctional Facility, where he had been experiencing “both mental and physical deterioration” since his arrest in October 2022.

Alleged court records violations

The affidavit claimed Gull shielded certain defense documents and records from public view in violation of administrative rules from the Indiana Supreme Court. This led to violations of public access.

“Because those acts have shielded documents these actions demonstrate a lack of impartiality and fairness in violation of Judicial Rule 1.1, Compliance with the Law and Rule 2.2, Impartiality and Fairness,” the affidavit said.

Allen alleged further that Gull, following the dismissals of Baldwin and Rozzi from the case, struck “substantive pleadings” from the record, demonstrating “the Court’s inability to remain impartial” to Allen and displaying judicial conduct that undermined public confidence in the “independence, integrity and impartiality” of the court.

Administrative concerns

Allen said Gull had failed in some of her administrative duties, failing to approve invoices for Allen’s defense lawyers and essentially ignoring their appeals to get paid. A May 19, 2023, invoice from Baldwin wasn’t paid until Sept. 18, 2023, for example. Invoices from Rozzi, the affidavit said, were submitted in on May 10, 2023, but were not authorized for payment until Sept. 19, 2023.

The attorneys also requested a transcript from the June 15, 2023, hearing in which the defense asked for Allen to be moved out of Westville to a different facility. While the request was made on Aug. 8, 2023, the affidavit said, the attorneys have not received the transcript.

Social media response

The defense even took issue with a July 2023 social media interaction in which a relative of Gull’s published a Facebook post concerning a softball tournament held in honor of Abby Williams and Libby German. The girls’ grandparents presented the winners with their championship rings; Gull replied to the post with a comment saying, “Congratulations.”

While the comment may have appeared innocuous on the surface, the affidavit argued that it demonstrated a potential breach of judicial conduct, with Gull choosing to comment on the post even though she was aware she would be “resolving evidentiary and procedural disputes” in the case of the girls’ accused killer.

In all, the affidavit laid out a total of 19 supporting arguments for why Allen believes Gull should recuse herself or be removed from the case.

The prosecution, meantime, filed another document in recent days alleging Allen’s attorneys have not turned over discovery evidence or provided the state with a list of expert witnesses they intend to call at trial.