Court Opinion

ID: 9931185
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-08 17:04:04.246555+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:17:02.060659
License: Public Domain

FILED
                                                                      Feb 08 2024, 9:55 am

                                                                          CLERK
                                                                      Indiana Supreme Court
                                                                         Court of Appeals
                                                                           and Tax Court

                               IN THE

       Indiana Supreme Court
                 Supreme Court Case No. 23S‐OR‐311

                  State ex rel. Richard Allen,
                                  Relator,

                                    –v–

        Carroll Circuit Court and the Honorable
            Frances C. Gull, Special Judge,
                               Respondents.

                         Decided: February 8, 2024

                   Petition for Writ of Mandamus under
             Indiana’s Rules of Procedure for Original Actions

                        Opinion by Justice Molter
          Chief Justice Rush and Justices Massa and Goff concur.
Justice Slaughter concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.
Molter, Justice.

   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.

Facts and Procedural History
   In February 2017, two teenage girls—Abigail Williams and Liberty
German—were killed in Delphi, Indiana. Five years later, in October 2022,
Allen was arrested and charged with murdering them. The trial court
judge transferred Allen to the Department of Correction for his safety

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024      Page 2 of 17
while he awaits trial, and then recused from the case. A special judge was
then appointed, and because Allen couldn’t afford an attorney, the judge
appointed Baldwin and Rozzi to represent him at public expense.

   But a year 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.

   Counsel for both sides met with the special judge in her chambers just
before the October 19 hearing to discuss the court’s expectations for the
hearing. During that meeting, the special judge informed Baldwin and
Rozzi that they had demonstrated “gross negligence and incompetence”
and conveyed she had grave concerns about their representation of Allen.
Suppl. R. at 15. In support, the special judge said the attorneys failed to
safeguard confidential case materials, including crime scene photos;
emailed confidential work product to an unauthorized person and failed

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024          Page 3 of 17
to timely report the leak; made extrajudicial statements about the case;
and included inaccurate statements in various pleadings. Based on these
concerns, the court informed counsel that she had decided to disqualify
Baldwin and Rozzi. But she offered to let them save face by withdrawing
from the case so that she wouldn’t have to go into a public hearing a few
minutes later and read a statement she had prepared explaining why she
believed counsel was grossly negligent and ineffective. Allen wasn’t
present for this discussion, but after briefly speaking with Baldwin and
Rozzi, he relayed through them his objection to the court’s
disqualification.

   Since the court presented to Baldwin and Rozzi what seemed like a
Hobson’s choice—withdraw or be disqualified in a publicly humiliating
fashion—they conveyed they would withdraw over Allen’s objection to
the court’s disqualification decision. The special judge accepted their
withdrawals and conducted a brief public hearing without them, where
she stated merely that there was an “unexpected turn of events” and
defense counsel had withdrawn from the case. R. Vol. 2 at 6.

   But after having a few days to reconsider and discuss it further with
Allen, defense counsel changed their minds, and neither Baldwin nor
Rozzi ever filed a written motion to withdraw as required by Trial Rule
3.1(H). Instead, Rozzi filed a Verified Notice of Continuing
Representation, notifying the court that he, in fact, would not be moving
to withdraw and would continue representing Allen. And he filed a
Motion to Disqualify on Allen’s behalf, arguing the special judge was
biased and should recuse herself. The trial court struck both filings and
ordered the clerk to remove them from the record because Rozzi was no
longer counsel of record. She also appointed two new public defenders to
represent Allen.

   Baldwin then filed a Motion to Reconsider, also informing the court
that he would not file a written motion to withdraw, he did not consider
his oral withdrawal effective, and he would continue representing Allen.
And Baldwin and Rozzi both entered new appearances as Allen’s
privately retained pro bono counsel. But, after a hearing on October 31,
the court entered an order stating that the special judge “previously found
gross negligence by [Baldwin and Rozzi] in their representation of the

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024    Page 4 of 17
defendant,” and “[n]othing has changed in the intervening twelve (12)
days that removes the Court’s grave concerns about their representation.”
R. Vol. 1 at 38. So, over their “strenuous objections,” the court
“disqualifie[d] them from representing the defendant and affirm[ed] the
appointment” of new public defenders. Id. The court also continued the
January 8, 2024 trial date to October 15, 2024.

   On November 6, 2023, Allen petitioned this Court for a writ of
mandamus by original action and asked us to: (1) order the trial court to
reinstate Baldwin and Rozzi as court‐appointed counsel; (2) order Allen’s
trial to begin within seventy days after the writ is issued; and (3) replace
the special judge. We heard oral argument on January 18, 2024, and we
issued a writ later that day granting Allen’s first request but denying his
other two.

Discussion
   As we explain below, we agree with Allen that he is entitled to have his
original court‐appointed attorneys reinstated. But we agree with the State
and the special judge that Allen is not entitled to a writ ordering a trial to
begin within seventy days or replacing the special judge.

I.      Allen’s request to reinstate his original court‐
        appointed counsel presents extraordinary
        circumstances warranting relief.
   Allen argues the trial court exceeded its authority by disqualifying his
original court‐appointed counsel because disqualification was
unwarranted and significantly prejudices both his defense and his
opportunity for a speedy trial. The State and the special judge respond
that this original action is not the proper procedural vehicle to evaluate
Allen’s claim, and even if it was, the special judge was within her
authority to disqualify counsel because she was rightly concerned that
they were not fulfilling Allen’s constitutional right to effective legal
assistance.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024       Page 5 of 17
   We agree with Allen. Our Court has repeatedly reviewed attorney
disqualification issues through original actions, and we do so here because
Allen’s petition presents the sort of extraordinary circumstances for which
there is not an adequate appellate remedy that our Original Action Rules
require.

        A. We may review an attorney disqualification decision
           through an original action.

   This Court has exclusive, original jurisdiction to supervise the exercise
of jurisdiction by all Indiana courts. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 4; Ind. Original
Action Rule 1(A). We exercise our supervisory authority through original
actions for writs of mandamus or prohibition. Orig. Act. R. 1(B). Each writ
“is an extraordinary remedy, equitable in nature and viewed with
disfavor.” State ex rel. Commons v. Pera, 987 N.E.2d 1074, 1076 (Ind. 2013).
A writ “will not be issued unless the relator can show a clear and obvious
emergency where the failure of this Court to act will result in substantial
injustice.” Id. It will also “be issued only where the trial court has an
absolute duty to act or refrain from acting.” Id. And original actions “may
not be used as substitutes for appeal.” Orig. Act. R. 1(C).

   One issue our Court has repeatedly reviewed through original actions
is whether to disqualify counsel. State ex rel. Kirtz v. Delaware Cir. Ct. No. 5,
916 N.E.2d 658, 661–62 (Ind. 2009) (issuing a writ to disqualify a special
prosecutor because the prosecutor’s relationship with an attorney against
whom the defendant had recently testified created an appearance of
impropriety); State ex rel. Jones v. Knox Super. Ct. No. 1, 728 N.E.2d 133, 134
(Ind. 2000) (declining to issue a writ to reinstate court‐appointed counsel
the trial court disqualified for their “insulting and absolutely improper”
comments because the attorneys had “affirmatively requested that they be
allowed to withdraw” if the trial court denied their request for a
continuance (quotations omitted)); State ex rel. Meyers v. Tippecanoe Cnty.
Ct., 432 N.E.2d 1377, 1379 (Ind. 1982) (declining to issue a writ requiring
the trial court to withdraw its order disqualifying the elected prosecutor,
where the elected prosecutor was a defense attorney for the accused in
two prior cases); State ex rel. Sendak v. Marion Cnty. Super. Ct., Room No. 2,

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024         Page 6 of 17
268 Ind. 3, 6, 373 N.E.2d 145, 147–48 (Ind. 1978) (issuing a writ to remove
private counsel retained for a state agency in violation of a statute).

   As in those prior cases, reviewing the trial court’s disqualification
decision here is appropriate through an original action. That is because
this case presents extraordinary circumstances where denying a writ will
result in substantial injustice, and Allen’s petition is not a substitute for an
adequate appellate remedy. We reach that conclusion for a few related
reasons.

   For starters, disqualifying Allen’s counsel delayed his trial by at least
nine months, and the trial court has already concluded that Allen’s
pretrial confinement presents extraordinary challenges. Normally,
criminal defendants who must be confined while they await trial are
detained in the county jail with other defendants who are awaiting trial or
who have been convicted and received shorter sentences. But here, for
Allen’s safety, the original judge transferred Allen to the Department of
Correction, which runs our state’s prisons—facilities that generally detain
inmates only after they are convicted and serving longer sentences for
more serious crimes. The special judge later reconsidered the original
judge’s transfer order, and she too found it “reasonable and necessary to
ensure the defendant’s safety and to prevent serious bodily injury.” R.
Vol. 1 at 26.

   Allen is being held at the Wabash Valley Correctional Facility, which is
hours from Carroll County, where the charges were filed, and Allen
County, where the special judge serves. Allen’s original public defenders
and his substitute public defenders have all challenged the conditions of
his pretrial confinement, including as they relate to preparing his defense.
We are in no position to evaluate the claims in those motions, and the
special judge has concluded at least some of Baldwin and Rozzi’s claims
about the confinement conditions are wrong. But even assuming every
aspect of Allen’s pretrial confinement is proper (and again, we are in no
position to say one way or another at this point), extending it for at least
nine months still presents extraordinary challenges for which there is no
adequate appellate remedy.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024        Page 7 of 17
    What’s more, as we explain in greater detail below, 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.

   Of course, these concerns can generally be resolved through
discretionary interlocutory appeals. See Ind. Appellate Rule 14(B)(1)(c)
(including as bases for a discretionary interlocutory appeal that the
“appellant will suffer substantial expense, damage or injury if the order is
erroneous and the determination of the error is withheld until after
judgment”; or the “order involves a substantial question of law, the early
determination of which will promote a more orderly disposition of the
case”). And both the State and the special judge argue that is the
procedural route Allen should have pursued instead. But Allen effectively
couldn’t, which is another reason this matter is extraordinary.

   On top of disqualifying counsel, the special judge struck their later
filings because they were no longer counsel of record. Without the ability
to file a motion requesting the special judge to certify her order for
interlocutory review, Allen’s attorneys couldn’t pursue that avenue. App.
R. 14(B) (requiring trial court certification to pursue a discretionary
interlocutory appeal).

   To that point, the State and the special judge respond that Allen should
have had either his new public defenders or the appellate attorneys he
retained for this original action pursue an interlocutory appeal instead.
But it isn’t clear how either option was feasible. The newly appointed trial
counsel had nothing to do with the disqualification proceedings, and
Allen wasn’t present for them, so it is not obvious how Allen could work
with his new trial attorneys to pursue an interlocutory appeal in the trial
court. Maybe Allen’s privately retained appellate attorneys could have
done so, but it is unclear whether the trial judge would permit them to
represent Allen in the trial court along with his new substitute court‐

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024      Page 8 of 17
appointed counsel. And it is unclear how it would work if substitute,
court‐appointed trial counsel disagreed with the privately retained
appellate counsel about whether to seek certification in the trial court.

   We simply don’t expect Allen to untie that procedural knot, and he can
cut through it with this original action instead. Our prior precedents
pointed appellate counsel to the original action tool, and we decline to
retire that tool for these sorts of situations now.

    Having concluded that Allen’s petition is properly before us, we turn to
its merits.

   B. Allen is entitled to the reinstatement of his original
      court‐appointed counsel.

        1. Court‐appointed counsel may be disqualified only
           as a last resort after considering the prejudice to the
           defendant.

   The Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (applicable to Indiana
through the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause, Gideon v.
Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 339–45, 83 S. Ct. 792, L. Ed. 2d. 799 (1963)), and
Article 1, Section 13 of our Indiana Constitution, guarantee criminal
defendants the right to have an attorney assist them with their defense.
U.S. Const. amend. VI (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”);
Ind. Const. art. 1, § 13 (“In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall
have the right . . . to be heard by himself and counsel . . . .”). For
defendants who can afford to hire an attorney or retain an attorney to
represent them for free, that constitutional guarantee includes the right to
choose which attorney will represent them. United States v. Gonzalez‐Lopez,
548 U.S. 140, 144, 126 S. Ct. 2557, 165 L. Ed. 2d. 409 (2006). And the
erroneous deprivation of this right constitutes structural error, which,
unlike other errors, entitles criminal defendants who are convicted to
automatic reversal and a new trial. Id. at 150–51. But the right to counsel of

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024       Page 9 of 17
choice does not extend to criminal defendants who can’t afford an
attorney and can’t find one to represent them for free. Id. at 144, 151.

  Allen can’t afford an attorney, and he has asked us to reinstate Baldwin
and Rozzi as his court‐appointed counsel. Consequently, he has no
constitutional right to choose which attorneys will represent him. But he
didn’t choose Baldwin and Rozzi; the trial court did. Allen just wants to
continue with the attorneys the trial court chose for him—he is insisting
on the continuity of counsel rather than his choice of counsel.

   Courts around the country are divided over whether the Sixth
Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the continuity of court‐
appointed counsel. Compare, e.g., United States v. Parker, 469 F.3d 57, 61 (2d
Cir. 2006) (“There is no constitutional right to continuity of appointed
counsel.”), with, e.g., State v. McKinley, 860 N.W.2d 874, 880 (Iowa 2015)
(“Once established, the interest in maintaining a relationship of trust with
counsel is of no less importance to an indigent client than to one with
ample resources to hire counsel.”). Our Court has been “generally of the
view that a trial court is limited in its authority to remove a criminal
defendant’s court‐appointed counsel.” State ex rel. Jones, 728 N.E.2d at 134.
And even courts that have concluded there is no Sixth Amendment right
to the continuity of court‐appointed counsel have agreed with that much.

    For example, though the Colorado Supreme Court recently held there is
no Sixth Amendment right to the continuity of court‐appointed counsel, it
still acknowledged that “a defendant’s interest in continued
representation by a lawyer they have been working with is entitled to
great weight . . . if they can demonstrate that prejudice would result from
substitution with a different court‐appointed attorney.” People v. Rainey,
527 P.3d 387, 394 (Colo. 2023) (quotations omitted). The court concluded
that interest flows from the due process guarantees in the Fifth and
Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution rather than the Sixth
Amendment’s right to counsel. Id. at 396–97. And while the U.S. Supreme
Court has not yet addressed whether there is a Sixth Amendment right to
the continuity of court‐appointed counsel, it too has recognized that the
rights to due process and counsel overlap. See Strickland v. Washington, 466
U.S. 668, 684–85, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674 (1984) (“The Constitution
guarantees a fair trial through the Due Process Clauses, but it defines the

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024      Page 10 of 17
basic elements of a fair trial largely through the several provisions of the
Sixth Amendment, including the Counsel Clause . . . .”).

   The Colorado Supreme Court also recognized that before disqualifying
court‐appointed counsel, “the court must determine that any remedy
short of disqualification would be ineffective.” Rainey, 527 P.3d at 395
(quotations omitted). In other words, disqualifying court‐appointed
counsel is a drastic remedy that should only be a last resort. See In re Ellis,
822 S.W.2d 602, 605 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1991) (“Courts should, therefore,
disqualify counsel with considerable reluctance and only when no other
practical alternative exists.”); cf. United States v. Gearhart, 576 F.3d 459, 464
(7th Cir. 2009) (“Thus, disqualification of defense counsel should be a
measure of last resort, and the government bears a heavy burden of
establishing that disqualification is justified.” (quotations omitted)). And
this approach aligns with how we have treated other drastic litigation
remedies that are in tension with parties’ due process rights. See State v.
Lyons, 211 N.E.3d 500, 506 (Ind. 2023) (“Courts exclude evidence only as a
last resort because that remedy frustrates a trial’s truth‐seeking
function.”); Canaan v. State, 541 N.E.2d 894, 908 (Ind. 1989) (“The trial
court has broad discretion in determining whether to declare a mistrial,
and ordinarily the prerogative to declare one will be exercised only as a
last resort.”).

   While the State defends the disqualification decision here, it
appropriately acknowledges that a trial court’s discretion to disqualify
court‐appointed counsel is significantly limited. The State’s brief
accurately explains that while “varied interests may necessitate overriding
a defendant’s preference, disqualification is an extreme remedy that
should only be used ‘when a court deems it reasonably necessary to
ensure the integrity of the fact‐finding process, the fairness or appearance
of fairness at trial, the orderly or efficient administration of justice, or
public trust or confidence in the criminal justice system.’” Att’y General’s
Resp. at 15 (quoting Rainey, 527 P.3d at 394 (cleaned up)).

   So whether as a product of a defendant’s right to due process or the
right to counsel, the bottom line is this: a trial court cannot disqualify
court‐appointed counsel over the objection of both the defendant and
appointed counsel unless (a) disqualification is a last resort; (b)

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024         Page 11 of 17
disqualification is necessary to protect the defendant’s constitutional
rights, to ensure the proceedings are conducted fairly and within our
profession’s ethical standards, or to ensure the orderly and efficient
administration of justice; and (c) those interests outweigh the prejudice to
the defendant.

   In a previous original action, we said a trial court is “limited in its
authority to remove a criminal defendant’s court‐appointed counsel,” but
we went on to say it was “unnecessary to explicate the parameters of that
authority.” State ex rel. Jones, 728 N.E.2d at 134. While an original action is
not the appropriate vehicle through which to adjudicate or establish a
right or to define and impose a duty, State ex rel. Fadell v. Porter Super. Ct.,
475 N.E.2d 310, 312 (Ind. 1985), here we do find it necessary to explain the
parameters of the previously established limitations on the trial court’s
authority. The framework we describe here mirrors how our Court has
treated other drastic remedies that may conflict with parties’ due process
rights. And our concern that disqualifying counsel introduced structural
error—at least as it relates to disqualifying them as privately‐retained pro
bono counsel—presents further extraordinary circumstances that prompt
us to exercise our jurisdiction now to preserve the integrity of the trial
proceedings going forward.

      2. Disqualification here was not a last resort.

   The special judge concluded Baldwin and Rozzi made four mistakes
that demonstrated they may be unable to assist Allen with his defense
effectively: (1) they failed to secure confidential case materials, including
crime scene photos; (2) Baldwin misdirected an email (he says
inadvertently) with confidential case materials to a non‐party client
without timely reporting the mistake to the trial court or prosecutor; (3)
Baldwin and Rozzi made extrajudicial statements while the prosecutor’s
motion for a gag order was pending which the special judge thought
might prejudice the case; and (4) statements in Baldwin and Rozzi’s
Motion to Reconsider Safekeeping Order turned out to be wrong.
Respondent’s Br. at 12–15. But the record does not reflect the special judge
disqualified counsel only as a last resort after balancing her effective‐

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024        Page 12 of 17
assistance‐of‐counsel concerns against the prejudice to Allen that would
result from substituting counsel.

   First, the record does not reflect that disqualifying counsel was a last
resort. Each of the special judge’s four concerns could be addressed
through a combination of procedural rules and court orders, including the
gag order and protective order she entered. And trial courts maintain both
statutory and inherent authority to compel compliance with their orders
and the procedural rules through contempt proceedings and sanctions
that include fines and even jail. Reynolds v. Reynolds, 64 N.E.3d 829, 833,
835 (Ind. 2016); In re Nasser, 644 N.E.2d 93, 95 (Ind. 1994); McQueen v. State,
272 Ind. 229, 231, 396 N.E.2d 903, 904 (1979) (recognizing that “a trial
judge can protect [the] court against insult and gross violations of
decorum by the infliction of summary punishment by fine, imprisonment
or both via a contempt citation”); Ind. Code §§ 34‐47‐2‐1 to ‐4‐3 (contempt
statutes). Indeed, the trial court’s protective order invoked the court’s
contempt power to enforce compliance. R. Vol. 1 at 51 (ordering that the
parties cannot grant anyone access to discovery materials without the
court’s permission and without the person seeking access first signing an
agreement subjecting them “to the Court’s contempt powers”). There was
no finding that these tools were inadequate to resolve the special judge’s
concerns.

   Second, the only basis for disqualifying counsel was the special judge’s
concern that they could not assist Allen with his defense effectively.
Respondent’s Br. at 10–15. To be sure, the Sixth Amendment’s right to
effective counsel “imposes a baseline requirement of competence on
whatever lawyer is chosen or appointed.” Gonzalez‐Lopez, 548 U.S. at 148.
But there is no suggestion that Baldwin and Rozzi are out of their depth.
Baldwin has over thirty years of experience representing thousands of
clients around the state—including clients charged with murder, rape,
robbery, burglary, and other violent offenses—and he has tried more than
125 jury trials. Rozzi has over twenty years of the same experience,
including three murder trials and a previous certification to handle death
penalty cases.

   Moreover, neither the State nor the special judge argue that counsel’s
extrajudicial statements or the statements in their motion harmed Allen’s

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024      Page 13 of 17
defense. They do argue the disclosure of case materials undermines
Allen’s defense, but they don’t explain how. And they don’t argue these
mistakes reflect that Baldwin and Rozzi are incompetent to handle Allen’s
defense or explain why disqualification is necessary to protect Allen’s right
to the effective assistance of counsel. Notably, neither the State nor the
special judge direct us to any case concluding that issues like these—either
in isolation or combination—rendered counsel constitutionally ineffective
or were sufficient to warrant disqualification.

   Third, there is no showing that the special judge’s concerns outweighed
the substantial prejudice to Allen from substituting counsel. Baldwin and
Rozzi spent a year working with Allen, investigators, and experts
developing Allen’s defense, and Allen says he is ready to present it to a
jury. The prejudice to Allen begins with the fact that information and
momentum spillage is inevitable as one trial team hands a complicated
case like this over to another. Add to that, Allen has already been in jail
for about a year and a half now, and substituting counsel requires a nine‐
month delay in the trial date with substitute counsel unsure whether they
would even be ready by then. That is not surprising given that this is a
complicated, high‐stakes case. Further, it has already been seven years
since the murders. And fact‐finding only gets harder as time passes,
memories fade, and evidence is lost. Matter of Peoples, 614 N.E.2d 555, 557
(Ind. 1993) (“Our disciplinary rules recognize that with the passage of
time, clients risk the loss of rights, witnessesʹ memories fade, and evidence
may disappear.”). The record does not reveal any weighing of these
concerns.

  Because the record does not reflect disqualification was a last resort that
was necessary after balancing the trial court’s concerns against the
prejudice to Allen, Baldwin and Rozzi must be reinstated.

II.     Allen’s remaining requests present no
        extraordinary circumstances warranting relief.
  Allen’s second request is that we mandate that the trial court order
Allen’s trial to commence within seventy days. Allen and his attorneys
prepared and signed a speedy trial motion, but they never filed it with the

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024     Page 14 of 17
trial court. Until a trial court has refused to rule properly, there is no basis
for relief in this Court. Orig. Act. R. 3(A)(4); State ex rel. Wonderly v. Allen
Cir. Ct., 274 Ind. 572, 574–75, 412 N.E.2d 1209, 1211 (1980). We therefore
deny Allen’s request to order that his trial begin within seventy days,
although his attorneys remain free to make such a request in the trial court
if Allen wishes.

   Allen’s third request is that we appoint a new special judge to avoid the
appearance that the trial court is biased against the defense. But Allen has
not stated facts showing clearly that the special judge’s disqualification is
required. We begin with the presumption that a trial judge is unbiased.
Smith v. State, 770 N.E.2d 818, 823 (Ind. 2002). To overcome that
presumption, the party seeking disqualification must identify facts
reflecting the judge’s actual bias or prejudice. Id. Our law is well settled
that “[p]rejudice is not inferred from adverse judicial rulings.” Zavodnik v.
Harper, 17 N.E.3d 259, 269 (Ind. 2014). And that is all Allen identifies
here—the special judge’s adverse ruling disqualifying counsel.

  No doubt, that adverse ruling was significant. But nothing in the record
suggests the special judge’s decision emerged from bias or prejudice
against Allen. Just the opposite, the special judge explained she
disqualified counsel because she was trying to protect Allen’s right to the
effective assistance of counsel. And we don’t minimize her concern; she
faced a significant dilemma given her conclusion that defense counsel
were no longer effective. If she left counsel in place and Allen was
convicted, the conviction might have been vacated through post‐
conviction proceedings based on ineffective assistance of counsel. Or if
she disqualified counsel and Allen was convicted, then the conviction
might have been vacated because she infringed on Allen’s right to the
continuity or choice of counsel. She was in a tough spot either way.

   Though we’ve determined the record does not support her
disqualification decision, we reach that conclusion with the benefit of
weeks to consider the issue; thorough briefing and oral argument from
excellent appellate attorneys; and the benefit of five justices and their
staffs poring over the record, authorities, and arguments. The special
judge did not have those luxuries.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024       Page 15 of 17
   Nor does Allen point to anything suggesting the special judge is biased
against Baldwin and Rozzi. Of course, she said their mistakes reflected
“gross negligence,” and she was concerned their representation was
ineffective. Suppl. R. at 15. But “judicial remarks during the course of a
trial that are critical or disapproving of, or even hostile to the parties, or
their cases, ordinarily do not support a bias or partiality challenge.” Noble
v. State, 725 N.E.2d 842, 848 (Ind. 2000) (cleaned up). That is, unless “they
reveal an opinion that derives from an extrajudicial source” or “reveal
such a high degree of favoritism or antagonism as to make fair judgment
impossible.” Id. (quotations omitted).

   The special judge said counsel made mistakes that rendered their
representation ineffective, but her statements were not based on any
extrajudicial source or any experience outside this case. Instead, her
statements were based entirely on her observations within this case. And
while her conclusion that counsel were constitutionally ineffective was too
harsh, she wasn’t wrong to be deeply concerned that sensitive case
materials had leaked.

   Though she mistakenly hit defense counsel’s eject button instead of the
case’s lockdown button, she was right to try to get the situation under
control quickly and decisively. Her efforts did not reflect any bias or
prejudice, and Allen doesn’t identify anything she has done that
demonstrates she isn’t impartial. We therefore deny Allen’s request to
replace the special judge.

Conclusion
  Having granted Allen’s request to reinstate his original court‐appointed
counsel and denied his remaining requests through our January 18, 2024
order, this opinion terminates the original action proceedings in this
Court. Petitions for rehearing or motions to reconsider are not allowed.
Orig. Act. R. 5(C).

Rush, C.J., and Massa and Goff, JJ., concur.
Slaughter, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate
opinion.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024      Page 16 of 17
ATTORNEYS FOR RELATOR
Mark Leeman
Leeman Law Office
Logansport, Indiana

Cara Wieneke
Wieneke Law Office, LLC
Brooklyn, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT
Matthew Gutwein
Christopher Stake
Delaney and Delaney
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR STATE OF INDIANA
Theodore E. Rokita
Attorney General of Indiana

Angela Sanchez, Chief Counsel of Appeals
Andrew Kobe, Section Chief, Criminal Appeals
Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR AMICUS CURIAE,
INDIANA PUBLIC DEFENDER COUNCIL
Bernice Corley, Executive Director
Indianapolis, Indiana

Joel Schumm
Indianapolis, Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S‐OR‐311 | February 8, 2024   Page 17 of 17
Slaughter, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part.

   Relator, Richard Allen, fails to meet the demanding threshold for
obtaining the extraordinary relief he seeks. He establishes neither that
Respondents breached a clear legal duty entitling him to an unquestioned
right to relief nor that an ordinary appeal would provide an inadequate
remedy. Thus, I concur with Part II of the Court’s opinion, ante, at 14–16,
which denies Allen’s requests that we replace Special Judge Frances C.
Gull and order a trial within seventy days. But I respectfully dissent from
Part I, which orders the reinstatement of Allen’s court-appointed counsel,
Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi.

  My objection has less to do with the Court’s legal analysis than with its
bottom-line issuance of a writ, given the procedural posture in which the
issue of attorney disqualification comes to us. Had this issue arisen in an
interlocutory appeal or after a final judgment, I would be more open to
Allen’s argument that the trial court erred in threatening to disqualify his
trial counsel after finding them grossly negligent and incompetent. But
that is not the posture of this case. By seeking relief through the vehicle of
an original action, Allen takes on the onerous burden of satisfying its
exacting requirements.

   Original actions are “viewed with disfavor” and cannot serve as
“substitutes for appeals.” Ind. Original Action Rule 1(C). We do not issue
writs to establish rights or define duties. A writ is warranted “only to
force an official to perform a clear legal duty or to grant an unquestioned
right to relief.” State ex rel. Fadell v. Porter Super. Ct., 475 N.E.2d 310, 312
(Ind. 1985). A writ will issue, in other words, “only where the trial court
has an absolute duty to act or refrain from acting.” State ex rel. Commons v.
Pera, 987 N.E.2d 1074, 1076 (Ind. 2013). And we will not intervene if an
appeal will afford an adequate remedy. Orig. Act. R. 3(A)(6). The regular
appellate process must be “wholly inadequate” to compel us to action.
Ibid. Allen falls short in both respects.

                                             A

  First, the trial judge did not violate an absolute duty in dismissing
court-appointed counsel because Allen does not have an unquestioned

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-OR-311 | February 8, 2024          Page 1 of 4
right to keep them. The Sixth Amendment protects Allen’s right to
effective counsel, Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153, 159 (1988), which
includes his choice of qualified counsel, Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered v.
United States, 491 U.S. 617, 624 (1989). The right to counsel of one’s choice,
though, is not absolute but is “circumscribed in several important
respects.” Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159. Trial courts have “wide latitude” to
balance this right against competing interests like fairness, our
profession’s ethical standards, and the court’s scheduling needs. United
States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 152 (2006). The “essential aim”, after
all, is to “guarantee an effective advocate for each criminal defendant”
and not “to ensure that the defendant will inexorably be represented by
the lawyer whom he prefers.” Wheat, 486 U.S. at 159. While the trial
judge’s actions raise a potential constitutional problem, under current law
it is far from clear she exceeded her authority.

   The Court’s opinion tacitly admits as much. To justify its award of
relief, the Court must fashion a new rule against which to adjudge the trial
court’s actions below.

      [A] trial court cannot disqualify court-appointed counsel over
      the objection of both the defendant and appointed counsel
      unless (a) disqualification is a last resort; (b) disqualification is
      necessary to protect the defendant’s constitutional rights, to
      ensure the proceedings are conducted fairly and within our
      profession’s ethical standards, or to ensure the orderly and
      efficient administration of justice; and (c) those interests
      outweigh the prejudice to the defendant.

Ante, at 11–12. And then, having announced its new rule, the Court
proceeds to find the trial judge breached it.

   The problem is that this rule did not exist previously. The opinion cites
nothing from our Court—or any court—establishing this rule. Yet despite
being unable to identify the source of the rule imposing the supposedly
clear legal duty, the Court awards extraordinary relief anyway. The Court
is not even sure of the rule’s constitutional source—be it the “defendant’s
right to due process or the right to counsel”. Ante, at 11. The existence of

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-OR-311 | February 8, 2024           Page 2 of 4
such a duty is anything but “clear” if the Court must patch together its
rule out of “whole cloth” to justify today’s result.

   On the merits, I do not necessarily quarrel with the rule the Court
announces today. It appears to strike a reasonable balance between the
competing interests of a criminal defendant’s right to counsel and a
judge’s duty to ensure the defendant receives a fair trial. My beef, rather,
is with our after-the-fact application of this newly minted rule to award
mandamus relief against Judge Gull, who did not have the benefit of our
rule when she acted.

   For this reason alone, I cannot join Part I. Our original-action rules do
not permit issuing a writ when the trial judge’s duties are unclear, or the
law is unsettled. State ex rel. Fadell, 475 N.E.2d at 312. Original actions are
for clear-cut cases that apply settled law, not for cases like today’s that
announce new legal rules. The latter is what appeals are for.

                                             B

   Second, Allen does not make the case that an appellate remedy would
be inadequate. This case could—and thus should—have been brought as
an ordinary appeal. Instead, by issuing a writ, we ratify Allen’s improper
request for a “short-cut to an appeal on the merits.” State ex rel. Durham v.
Marion Cir. Ct., 162 N.E.2d 505, 508 (Ind. 1959). Allen could have sought a
discretionary interlocutory appeal under Appellate Rule 14(B) when the
trial judge dismissed his counsel and barred them from entering a pro
bono appearance. There is no reason to presume Allen’s original-action
counsel could not have pursued such an appeal on his behalf. And had
Judge Gull refused the request and Allen been convicted, he would have
had the ultimate appellate remedy: automatic reversal of any convictions
based on his claim that the judge’s disqualification of counsel amounted to
structural error. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. at 150. Either appellate remedy—
on interlocutory review or after final judgment—would have provided
Allen all the relief to which he was entitled.

                                             C

   Finally, the Court rationalizes its writ by claiming we have “repeatedly
reviewed” attorney-disqualification issues in original actions. Ante, at 6. In

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-OR-311 | February 8, 2024          Page 3 of 4
fact, our case law does not bear out a pattern of issuing writs in
disqualification disputes. Of the many cases the Court cites, we issued a
writ in only two. In one of those, we disqualified a special prosecutor
whose appointment violated a statute forbidding the appearance of
impropriety. State ex rel. Kirtz v. Delaware Cir. Ct. No. 5, 916 N.E.2d 658,
661–62 (Ind. 2009). In the other, we disqualified an attorney whom a state
agency hired in violation of a statute requiring the attorney general to
represent the agency. State ex rel. Sendak v. Marion Cnty. Super. Ct., Room
No. 2, 373 N.E.2d 145, 147–48 (Ind. 1978). Unlike here, both cases involved
the violation of a clear legal right or duty—and, but for the writ, counsel’s
continued representation would have exceeded statutory authority.

                                      *       *       *

   The Court today flouts our original-action rules to award extraordinary
mandamus relief in favor of Allen and against the trial judge. In doing so,
we allow Allen to short circuit the appellate process, muddy our own
jurisprudence in this important area, and invite future deviations from our
rules. In my view, these institutional costs far outweigh the benefits to
Allen.

  For these reasons, I respectfully dissent from Part I of the Court’s
opinion and concur with Part II.

Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 23S-OR-311 | February 8, 2024       Page 4 of 4