Public Defenders Reinstated In Murder Prosecution

The Indiana Supreme Court reinstated appointed counsel who had been removed by the trial judge in a murder case

The State charged Richard Allen with two counts of murder. Because he couldn’t afford an attorney, the trial court appointed public defenders Andrew Baldwin and Brad Rozzi to represent him. But after about a year, the special judge presiding over the case became concerned they were not representing Allen effectively. So she disqualified them over Allen’s objection, replaced them with two new public defenders, and continued Allen’s trial for at least nine months so that his new trial attorneys would have enough time to prepare.

Allen then retained two appellate attorneys who filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandamus in our Court requesting that we mandate: (1) Baldwin and Rozzi’s reinstatement as court‐appointed counsel; (2) that Allen’s criminal trial begin within seventy days after we issue the writ; and (3) that a new special judge replace the current special judge. The special judge and the Attorney General both opposed the petition, and we held an oral argument. After considering all parties’ excellent written and oral submissions, we granted Allen’s request to reinstate Baldwin and Rozzi but denied his other two requests in a short order with this opinion to follow.

Here, we explain our reasons for those three decisions. In short, we reinstated Baldwin and Rozzi as Allen’s court‐appointed counsel because the trial court did not find that their disqualification was a necessary last resort after weighing the prejudice to Allen. We denied Allen’s request for a trial within seventy days because he did not make that request in the trial court. And we denied Allen’s request to replace the special judge because he did not overcome our presumption of impartiality by identifying facts showing clearly that the special judge is biased or prejudiced.

The case involves the murder of two teenaged women; Defenfant was arrested five years later.

the special judge lost faith in their ability to assist Allen with his defense effectively, so she ultimately disqualified them as counsel. A leak of confidential case materials, including crime scene photos, triggered the disqualification. Baldwin and Rozzi represent that in August 2023, one of Baldwin’s friends and former employees—Mitchell Westerman—visited Baldwin’s office, secretly copied discovery materials, including crime scene photos, and distributed them to others. After discovering the leak, Baldwin and Rozzi notified the special judge and the prosecutor on October 6. They also explain that after Westerman told Baldwin on October 9 what he had done, Baldwin and Rozzi relayed that information to the prosecutor the next day.

Two days later, the prosecutor emailed defense counsel and the special judge informing them that the individual to whom Westerman allegedly provided the materials committed suicide hours after refusing to answer questions from an Indiana State Police detective investigating the leak. The special judge responded to the email by expressing that she was “deeply concerned that Mr. Allen’s defense is being compromised by all these recent events.” R. Vol. 1 at 223. She then directed defense counsel to stop working on the case until the judge could discuss the recent developments with the parties during an October 19 hearing. In the meantime, Allen wrote a letter to the special judge informing her that he had discussed the leak with Rozzi and the impact it could have on his defense, but that he wanted Baldwin and Rozzi to continue representing him.

Disqualication

we’ve concluded the trial court lacked the authority to remove counsel without (1) considering other, less drastic options and (2) weighing the prejudice to Allen. So not only would Allen’s trial be delayed for at least many months if his original attorneys were not reinstated, if Allen were convicted, correcting the disqualification by vacating his conviction and ordering a second trial would produce years of further delay and an enormous waste of time and resources. That would not serve anyone’s interests—not Allen’s, the State’s, the victims’ families’, the courts’, nor the public’s.

(Mike Frisch)