Yesterday - 3 April 2024 - Judge Gull ordered the release of Richard Allen's health records to the prosecution, without hearing.
Let's read the Indiana Code. Section 16-39-3 deals with health records.
Section 16-39-3-4 - Notice of hearing
Except as provided in section 8 of this chapter, notice of a hearing to be conducted under this chapter shall be served at least fifteen (15) days in advance on the following:
(1) The patient.
(2) The guardian, guardian ad litem or court appointed special advocate appointed for a minor, parent, or custodian of a patient who is incompetent.
(3) The provider that maintains the record or the attorney general if the provider is a state institution.
Now, consider the order made yesterday, and its wording:
"State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (mental health records) filed March 14, 2024 granted without hearing. State of Indiana's Motion for Leave of Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records (medical records) filed March 14, 2024, granted without hearing."
You can see where I'm going with this. Sometimes in court cases the "authorities" that lawyers cite to say a court can't or should do something are difficult to unravel, relying on case law that has gone through appeals, or state or federal Supreme Court rulings. Those can be open to interpretation or misinterpretation. Statute however - in this case the Indiana Code - is much less open to interpretation, and §16-39-3-4 is about as clear as you can get. "Notice of a hearing to be conducted" is the key language, and Judge Gull's order completely ignored it. She ignored the law.
So what next?
I think Gull's calculation was that Allen's defense will go for an interlocutory appeal on this order, which would delay the trial by many months. But I think she might have shot herself in the foot. Such a bare failure to follow the law in a case that has already seen a man jailed (in solitary, in a high-security prison) for a year and a half, where speedy trial rights have been activated, is in my opinion a sound reason to go straight to Indianapolis, straight to the Indiana Supreme Court (SCOIN).
If the lawyers go down that route, this matter could be ruled on by SCOIN before the trial is even scheduled to begin, and the implications of another slap-down from SCOIN could be very chilling for Judge Gull. Not least, SCOIN would be forced to look at Gull's actions since their last ruling earlier in the year, and perhaps the issue of impartiality will finally be given the weight it needs.