Delphi: What the Supreme Court Did (and Did Not) Say

On January 18, 2024, only a few hours after we had completed our argument in front of the Supreme Court of Indiana in Richard Allen’s second original action, the Supreme Court issued an order. First, by a majority vote, the Court reinstated Richard’s counsel of choice, Andy Baldwin and Brad Rozzi. Second, the Supreme Court unanimously declined to grant us the relief we sought regarding a new speedy trial date for Allen and a new special judge to preside over the case. The Court indicated it would issue a written opinion explaining its reasons for the decision.

While we were waiting on the Court’s written decision, Baldwin and Rozzi filed a motion to disqualify the special judge. In the affidavit attached to the motion, Allen raises several instances that he believes points to judicial bias. Most of the instances relate to the court’s removal of counsel, but at least one claim is related to extrajudicial activities.

On February 6, 2024, the trial court denied the disqualification motion without a hearing. In the written order, the court noted that its denial was based on the fact that the Supreme Court of Indiana had “unanimously denied Defendant’s previous request on January 18, 2024.” At that time, however, the parties in the second original action had no idea on what grounds the Supreme Court had denied our requested relief. Moreover, our sole argument to the Supreme Court regarding appointment of a new special judge was based on the improper removal of counsel. Yet Allen’s motion to disqualify contained other reasons for disqualification that had not been raised before.

After receiving notice of the order the next day, I tweeted out the following:

But yesterday, we learned the trial court was right, at least partially. The Supreme Court had indeed denied our relief on the merits of the claim we presented and not merely on procedural grounds. But again, we requested a new special judge based solely on the appearance of bias resulting from the court’s removal of counsel. We did not request the relief for any of the other reasons Allen’s motion to disqualify cited.

This is why the court’s February 6th order is only partially correct. The Supreme Court’s written opinion did not reach any decision on the merits of Allen’s other disqualification claims. Thus, the opinion cannot be the basis for denial of those claims.