The Delphi Murders: Attorney Mark Inman on Richard Allen's Sentencing and Appeals

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01]: Content warning, this episode includes discussion of the murder of two children and profanity.

[00:00:07] [SPEAKER_00]: So today on the Murder Sheet we're really thrilled to have back a familiar face, a familiar name to those of you who have been listening. We're going to be speaking with attorney Mark Inman. Mark is a longtime defense attorney. He's very experienced in criminal defense and he's kind enough to chat with us sometimes about topics in cases, specifically the Delphi murders case.

[00:00:29] [SPEAKER_00]: And so today we thought it would be interesting to ask him essentially what can we all expect going forward in the Delphi murders case? On the one hand, trial is over. The verdict was rendered. Richard Allen is guilty of murdering Abigail Williams and Liberty German. On the other hand, just because that phase is over doesn't mean we're totally done. We have the sentencing hearing on December 20th and after that there's the strong possibility that appeals will be filed.

[00:00:57] [SPEAKER_00]: So Mark today is going to just talk us through that process and tell us basically what we can all expect.

[00:01:02] [SPEAKER_00]: My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:01:05] [SPEAKER_01]: And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:01:07] [SPEAKER_01]: And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:01:09] [SPEAKER_01]: We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:01:16] [SPEAKER_01]: We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:01:18] [SPEAKER_00]: And this is the Delphi murders.

[00:01:20] [SPEAKER_00]: Attorney Mark Inman on Richard Allen's sentencing and appeals.

[00:02:09] [SPEAKER_00]: I guess to start off with Mark, our audience knows you, but can you just tell us a little bit again about your background and sort of just your career a little bit?

[00:02:20] [SPEAKER_02]: Yes.

[00:02:20] [SPEAKER_02]: I've always practiced criminal law and I have since 1982.

[00:02:25] [SPEAKER_02]: I did a lot of work as a public defender in Marion County.

[00:02:31] [SPEAKER_02]: I was ahead of what's called the conflict panel for the Marion County Public Defender Agency.

[00:02:37] [SPEAKER_02]: And then I did a lot of work later on in federal court instead of state court.

[00:02:41] [SPEAKER_02]: And back when I was doing PD work, there were a lot more part-time contracts.

[00:02:45] [SPEAKER_02]: I also had my own practice.

[00:02:47] [SPEAKER_02]: I took private cases, but I've done cases in many counties and then obviously in the federal courts, mostly in southern Indiana.

[00:02:59] [SPEAKER_02]: I've done it for a long time.

[00:03:01] [SPEAKER_02]: And I've done nine death penalty cases.

[00:03:05] [SPEAKER_02]: I've done murder trials.

[00:03:07] [SPEAKER_02]: And that's kind of what I've always done, always concentrated on.

[00:03:12] [SPEAKER_00]: As you've been watching the Delphi murders case unfold, and I know we've talked to you on the show about that case a few times,

[00:03:19] [SPEAKER_00]: but what sort of things have stood out to you as a defense attorney, as somebody who has so much experience in that space?

[00:03:27] [SPEAKER_02]: I suppose one thing that stood out to me was that the way it was, you know, it was already so popular by the time charges were filed

[00:03:41] [SPEAKER_02]: that there was an extra amount of precaution on the part of the court in appointing two attorneys.

[00:03:46] [SPEAKER_02]: Normally, if it's not a death penalty case, you don't get two attorneys.

[00:03:50] [SPEAKER_02]: But from the beginning, it was treated like a death penalty case, which has specific requirements of counsel and then of funding by the county for experts and things like that.

[00:04:05] [SPEAKER_02]: Obviously, right away, the judge retains to himself.

[00:04:08] [SPEAKER_02]: It was pretty quickly decided, from what I could tell, that it would be venued out as far as at least bringing a jury in.

[00:04:15] [SPEAKER_02]: Those types of things happening quickly, I think, was unique.

[00:04:18] [SPEAKER_02]: And then just the parage of motions that were repetitive, I thought.

[00:04:24] [SPEAKER_02]: The unique parsing together of evidence.

[00:04:27] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, you've got a bullet that has nothing to do with positive death.

[00:04:31] [SPEAKER_02]: You have the lack of public accident at the beginning, which has caused all kinds of speculation as to what the cause of death was.

[00:04:40] [SPEAKER_02]: It's rare that I've seen information like that to feel for so long, especially when there was so much interest in it.

[00:04:48] [SPEAKER_02]: And I still can't figure out why exactly.

[00:04:52] [SPEAKER_02]: So that gave rise to a lot of speculation.

[00:04:54] [SPEAKER_02]: And then, you know, then it goes on.

[00:04:59] [SPEAKER_02]: And I see a case go to the Supreme Court on an interlocutory appeal.

[00:05:06] [SPEAKER_02]: It's been having to do with the qualification of counsel and or the judge.

[00:05:11] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know that I've ever seen that.

[00:05:15] [SPEAKER_02]: Those are all unique things.

[00:05:17] [SPEAKER_02]: And then a three-day hearing about whatever that hearing was about, I'm assuming most of it was about Odinism and whether or not they were going to be allowed to use that as a defense.

[00:05:30] [SPEAKER_02]: I think that's very rare if maybe for the first time that Odinism has ever popped up as a defense and had a three-day hearing.

[00:05:39] [SPEAKER_02]: And then once the trial started, you know, I thought the judge gave counsel a lot of leeway as far as arguing that Alan was pressured into giving all of these different statements, being allowed to show all those videos of the jail or from the prison.

[00:05:58] [SPEAKER_02]: And, you know, that's another unique thing.

[00:06:01] [SPEAKER_02]: And there are other unique things I know, but those struck me.

[00:06:07] [SPEAKER_02]: And, you know, one thing is, I know this has taken seven-some years since these girls were killed.

[00:06:17] [SPEAKER_02]: But the legal case itself took two.

[00:06:20] [SPEAKER_02]: And for this type of case, all of the things going on with that, I mean, obviously it's not as excited, but I thought it was within the timeframes that I've seen other major murder cases get tried.

[00:06:32] [SPEAKER_02]: So from that perspective, I didn't think it was unique, you know, in that it just took two years from the time the charges were filed.

[00:06:40] [SPEAKER_02]: And I know people got frustrated with the time.

[00:06:43] [SPEAKER_02]: Oh, my God, this took seven years.

[00:06:44] [SPEAKER_02]: But it took five years to arrest a person.

[00:06:47] [SPEAKER_02]: So those are just thoughts off the top of my head about what I saw and what I observed.

[00:06:51] [SPEAKER_00]: One of the things that you mentioned and one of the things we've certainly observed is just how sensationalized this case was, how much the media, mainstream media and social media got a hold of it.

[00:07:03] [SPEAKER_00]: And, you know, I'm just curious, what are your thoughts on that?

[00:07:07] [SPEAKER_00]: How can that affect a case, especially around in your experience, like people's willingness to believe that the accused could be guilty?

[00:07:15] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, my observation is generally the more popular a case is, the more there's willingness to believe that the accused is innocent.

[00:07:31] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know if it's because, especially in this day and age, that the rise of popularity gives rise to unbridled speculation with no ethical guardrail like journalism, that people are willing to believe whatever is out there.

[00:07:53] [SPEAKER_02]: And once they start speculating and paying attention, some people like to play a lot of no one really wants to play prosecutor.

[00:08:04] [SPEAKER_02]: They like to play investigator or defense attorney when they start speculating about those things or about gathering what they believe to be the information and then coming up with an opinion.

[00:08:15] [SPEAKER_02]: So I think that's what happened here.

[00:08:17] [SPEAKER_02]: And then you had five years where everybody's trying to solve the case in the first place.

[00:08:21] [SPEAKER_02]: I, uh, online or what have you.

[00:08:25] [SPEAKER_02]: And that, that just, there was already so much fuel on the fire by the time they charged that file.

[00:08:31] [SPEAKER_02]: So that's where that came up.

[00:08:33] [SPEAKER_02]: And it always kind of irks me to some, some extent, because I've done so many cases where nobody cared about it, where other people died.

[00:08:41] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:08:41] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:08:43] [SPEAKER_02]: And they, they just go into oblivion because it's so common.

[00:08:48] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, killings are unfortunately common, especially in, that's one thing about this killing was that it was out in, it was in Delphi.

[00:08:55] [SPEAKER_02]: It wasn't in downtown Indianapolis.

[00:08:57] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:08:58] [SPEAKER_00]: Right.

[00:08:58] [SPEAKER_02]: That gave rise to a lot of, a lot more interest.

[00:09:03] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah, this case got a lot of interest and was really sensationalized.

[00:09:08] [SPEAKER_01]: How do you think that level of interest affected people's beliefs about the case?

[00:09:13] [SPEAKER_02]: There just seems to be some relationship between popularity almost or, or information being out there and people's willingness to look at both sides or, or to create a defense or to create a way to look at it.

[00:09:29] [SPEAKER_02]: You've got probably a lot of people out there still not believing that, that the Odinists didn't do it or that they're believing that the Odinists did do it or something.

[00:09:40] [SPEAKER_02]: God, I don't, I don't, in so many cases that you can pay attention to every one of them.

[00:09:48] [SPEAKER_02]: So when you latch onto one or you latch onto a few, people's minds start to pay attention, to read up about all the different facts and then to put together a different point of view.

[00:10:00] [SPEAKER_02]: And I don't quite understand why that is.

[00:10:04] [SPEAKER_02]: I can't be complained that, but it happens.

[00:10:08] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, you, you're obviously, you know, that happens.

[00:10:11] [SPEAKER_00]: Oh yeah, it definitely, it definitely happens.

[00:10:14] [SPEAKER_00]: And I think there's probably a number of factors at play there.

[00:10:17] [SPEAKER_01]: Yeah.

[00:10:18] [SPEAKER_01]: Another thing that's unusual about this case is that the defendant confessed 61 times and people wonder, is this an indication that he may have wanted to plead guilty?

[00:10:30] [SPEAKER_01]: You know, what would have happened if he had told his attorneys he wanted to plead guilty?

[00:10:36] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I tell you that's, uh, you had brought that up more than one time, just, just kind of thinking out loud, I think on, on, on your podcast that I've listened to.

[00:10:47] [SPEAKER_02]: And, and first of all, there could, there could not have been a, I don't even know if there was a plea offer, but there was no plea offer that would have kept him from spending the rest of his life in prison.

[00:11:01] [SPEAKER_02]: And as we kind of briefly discussed before, if Alan told, if I was representing Alan and he told me he wanted to plead guilty, I would go to McClellan, the prosecutor and say, look, he wants to plead, what are you going to offer?

[00:11:12] [SPEAKER_02]: And the least that McClellan would have offered, my guess is, is 90 years because each murder count carries 45 to 65 and, and they're going to run consecutive to each other.

[00:11:24] [SPEAKER_02]: And I would say, that would be 45 plus 45, which equals 90.

[00:11:28] [SPEAKER_02]: But if Alan's telling me, this is what he wants to do because he wants either to come to terms with God or he wants to just at least be able to express remorse.

[00:11:46] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, there would be no strategic reason for pleading.

[00:11:50] [SPEAKER_02]: It would be purely Alan's decision from a, I guess, moralistic well inside him that he wanted to get this off his chest.

[00:12:03] [SPEAKER_02]: I wouldn't really tell him not to do that.

[00:12:07] [SPEAKER_02]: Now, whether they've ever had that conversation, I don't know.

[00:12:11] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, he could have walked in and fled straight up, you know, without a plea agreement, knowing full well that he's going to be sentenced to life in prison.

[00:12:23] [SPEAKER_02]: And if he had that, if he ever expressed that to his attorneys, which I don't know if he did or not.

[00:12:29] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, he expressed that to his family.

[00:12:31] [SPEAKER_02]: His family kept telling him that he, he was lying to them, right?

[00:12:37] [SPEAKER_02]: They refused to believe that anyone that they knew would kill somebody, which was a normal human reaction, right?

[00:12:43] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I've had that happen before, not on a case this huge where someone just said, look, I just want to get this done.

[00:12:50] [SPEAKER_02]: Give me the best deal you can and let's get this done.

[00:12:52] [SPEAKER_02]: But that deal wasn't a life in prison deal, which is what his is.

[00:12:59] [SPEAKER_02]: From an ethical standpoint, though, I think if a client is telling you that he wants to believe he doesn't want to go to trial, he wants to get it over with.

[00:13:06] [SPEAKER_02]: And you lay it out to him that you means you're going to spend the rest of your life in prison.

[00:13:10] [SPEAKER_02]: And he says, I don't care.

[00:13:12] [SPEAKER_02]: I want to admit to what I did.

[00:13:14] [SPEAKER_02]: And I, I think you got to really think about doing it.

[00:13:18] [SPEAKER_00]: I want to drill down on that a little bit because I think this is something that, you know, I've been curious about.

[00:13:25] [SPEAKER_00]: So what you're saying is essentially that if, if, if I'm your client and I say, Mark, I, I really want to just plead guilty and be done.

[00:13:35] [SPEAKER_00]: I feel bad about what I did and whatnot.

[00:13:38] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, you, it's your job to say, well, you know, I'm probably not going to be able to get you a very good deal on you, but it's not your job to like bully me out of that.

[00:13:47] [SPEAKER_00]: Is that, is that, is that fair to say?

[00:13:49] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, look, what are, what are the parameters around that?

[00:13:52] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I mean, in this case, yeah, I, there is no way that he would have been offered a plea agreement that would keep him from doing life in prison.

[00:14:05] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, that's not, that's, that's a hundred percent.

[00:14:08] [SPEAKER_02]: So I think you got to make that perfectly clear.

[00:14:11] [SPEAKER_02]: And I would think that Alan would know that.

[00:14:13] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know what, he seemed to be at least aware of what, confident to stand trial.

[00:14:21] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, he was confident to stand trial.

[00:14:23] [SPEAKER_02]: They never even brought up to the confidence to stand trial.

[00:14:25] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't think they brought up to the confidence.

[00:14:28] [SPEAKER_02]: They brought up to him being bullied into making 61 different statements, which is all they had to work with, but it's somewhat preposterous.

[00:14:37] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, you've got to, you might, I mean, he had some psychoanalysis, right?

[00:14:43] [SPEAKER_02]: He'd have some observations by the DOC people.

[00:14:46] [SPEAKER_02]: I think you got to double check to make sure that he knows what he's doing.

[00:14:49] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, and it's hard in the death penalty world.

[00:14:52] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, if you, there are people who will volunteer to plead guilty and they want the death penalty.

[00:14:58] [SPEAKER_02]: That's a little different situation because you're setting someone up to die.

[00:15:02] [SPEAKER_02]: That's different.

[00:15:03] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, you have to talk them off the ledge and not let them, quote unquote, volunteers, what the phrase is in the death penalty world.

[00:15:15] [SPEAKER_03]: Right.

[00:15:16] [SPEAKER_02]: But in this situation, when you're dealing with as many times as he said that and the way that he said that and the fact that, well, the fact that there were several times that he gave facts.

[00:15:29] [SPEAKER_02]: That only the killer could have known.

[00:15:31] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:15:32] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I think that got lost in the number of statements.

[00:15:37] [SPEAKER_02]: Was that there were several statements that he, that only the killer could have made.

[00:15:42] [SPEAKER_02]: For instance, I thought tying that, the guy in the white van in to a statement that Alan made.

[00:15:51] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, the guy that had been at work and clocked out, I can't remember his name.

[00:15:55] [SPEAKER_02]: That was Brad Weber.

[00:15:57] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I thought that was amazing work by the prosecutor.

[00:16:01] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, they had these little pieces of, of evidence that they tied into it in the most convincing fashion they could have.

[00:16:11] [SPEAKER_02]: So I think, you know, you do an independent check on whether or not this, or whether or not he, whether or not it's true.

[00:16:23] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:16:24] [SPEAKER_02]: And whether or not, whether or not corroborates what he said, corroborates with what is out there.

[00:16:30] [SPEAKER_02]: And it sure enough did what I can tell.

[00:16:33] [SPEAKER_02]: I think you got to go through all those steps.

[00:16:36] [SPEAKER_02]: But I don't think that you would suggest a defense to him that doesn't exhibit it.

[00:16:42] [SPEAKER_02]: I think that could process a lot.

[00:16:45] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, especially if, and we're speculating that he's telling these guys that he wants to plead.

[00:16:52] [SPEAKER_03]: Right.

[00:16:53] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:16:54] [SPEAKER_02]: So if he's telling me, if he's telling me he wants to plead, then, and I'm telling him that I've got an ode in this theory, I think that's not how I would handle it.

[00:17:13] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah.

[00:17:14] [SPEAKER_00]: I was, you know, you're, you're a defense attorney.

[00:17:17] [SPEAKER_00]: That's your background.

[00:17:18] [SPEAKER_00]: And I'm just curious, just speaking generally, when you're, you know, when, like in the pre-trial stuff, but especially during trial, as you, as you're reading and listening and learning about some of the stuff that they're doing for their defense, what are your impressions of that?

[00:17:35] [SPEAKER_00]: Were there things that you thought they did a good job with?

[00:17:37] [SPEAKER_00]: Were there, were there things that you were not so impressed with?

[00:17:40] [SPEAKER_00]: And I guess, is it a situation where you kind of see it from the perspective of like, well, their hands were kind of tied by their client?

[00:17:48] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[00:17:49] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I think I didn't realize how strong the state's circumstantial case was.

[00:17:58] [SPEAKER_02]: And it wasn't the strongest case ever, but the way that they put together the bullet and the uniqueness of the car, didn't it?

[00:18:05] [SPEAKER_02]: Like one, the one set of wheels in Carroll County or something and the white van thing and the way the bridge guy information all tied in and made sense.

[00:18:17] [SPEAKER_02]: And I thought they did a phenomenal job of melding all that together.

[00:18:24] [SPEAKER_02]: And then you take step two, which is all of the statements that Alan made and that made it very difficult.

[00:18:32] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, I think the defense attorneys tried everything they possibly could.

[00:18:36] [SPEAKER_02]: But I think there's a point, though, where you have to take no for an answer.

[00:18:43] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, to file four Frank's motions when the number of Frank's motions that result in a hearing major wide is probably less than 0.05.

[00:18:56] [SPEAKER_02]: It's not very many.

[00:18:59] [SPEAKER_02]: That you just, you understand.

[00:19:01] [SPEAKER_02]: And then the same thing about the oldest thing.

[00:19:04] [SPEAKER_02]: For them to be, they kind of overplayed.

[00:19:08] [SPEAKER_02]: I think sometimes they could have presented things maybe more streamlined, but I wasn't there.

[00:19:17] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, they were, they threw out everything they could think of and possibly could.

[00:19:23] [SPEAKER_02]: But, I mean, they were not ineffective.

[00:19:26] [SPEAKER_02]: I just think what it all boiled down to in the end is that the state had a stronger case than I think a lot of people gave them credit for, independent of the statements.

[00:19:37] [SPEAKER_02]: I thought for them to be able to at least argue that Alan was pressured into these statements because it's very set of circumstances.

[00:19:47] [SPEAKER_02]: And the way that the judge let them really riff on that, I thought it was great work.

[00:19:55] [SPEAKER_02]: It would be interesting to see whether or not it backed by Alan.

[00:19:58] [SPEAKER_02]: So the jury's watching this guy be kind of crazy.

[00:20:01] [SPEAKER_02]: They might take you as pretty much to kill somebody.

[00:20:04] [SPEAKER_02]: But, you know, I'll give them that, that they tried with that.

[00:20:07] [SPEAKER_02]: I think the oldest thing they gave a shot at, they didn't have an expert to help them.

[00:20:13] [SPEAKER_02]: So I think they should have.

[00:20:15] [SPEAKER_02]: But, again, sometimes you've got to take no for an answer and move on.

[00:20:20] [SPEAKER_02]: I will say this.

[00:20:20] [SPEAKER_02]: They created the best record they possibly could, probably.

[00:20:25] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know how valid those issues are, but at least they made the office reach and everything that they need to do to preserve that record.

[00:20:33] [SPEAKER_01]: Before we move on to the next steps and what lie I had, namely sentencing and the possibility of appeals, I wonder, is there anything else you wanted to say about the trial in specific?

[00:20:49] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I mean, you know, a lot of what I know about the trial is your observation.

[00:20:57] [SPEAKER_03]: Oh, no.

[00:21:00] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I mean, you know, you can read about it, but I mean, you were in there, you know, you know, you and I, you know, what, what the different testimonies were and all that.

[00:21:10] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I read a lot of it, too, from from just the mainstream media reports.

[00:21:16] [SPEAKER_02]: Once again, I think the prosecution did an excellent job putting all that stuff together in the face of a lot of pressure.

[00:21:23] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, I mean, we got to applaud the jury for taking this much time out of their life and then taking the time to deliberate.

[00:21:31] [SPEAKER_02]: It looks like the judge did a good job of not rushing them.

[00:21:35] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, you got to spend 12 hours or try to spend money on you staying in a hotel wherever they were.

[00:21:41] [SPEAKER_02]: She let them take their time and look at things and be fresh when they're looking at things.

[00:21:46] [SPEAKER_02]: I was impressed by that.

[00:21:49] [SPEAKER_02]: I think I wish the judge would have let there be some sort of camera feed to an auditorium at the point in Delphi.

[00:21:57] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't I don't understand why that wasn't done.

[00:22:00] [SPEAKER_02]: But to her.

[00:22:06] [SPEAKER_02]: But what I think what was important was to keep as many distractions out of the courtroom, because that's where the case of the trial was in the courtroom, not not anywhere else.

[00:22:13] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think she made things uncomfortable for people who wanted to report on it and see it.

[00:22:22] [SPEAKER_02]: But I think her overriding concern was that.

[00:22:25] [SPEAKER_02]: And I I can understand that.

[00:22:27] [SPEAKER_02]: Like I said, I thought just generally all over the prosecution did a great job of piecing all that stuff together.

[00:22:33] [SPEAKER_02]: Because once I started reading about it and what you guys did an episode on just coalescing the evidence.

[00:22:40] [SPEAKER_02]: So what it meant, it made a lot of sense.

[00:22:44] [SPEAKER_02]: As to how they did what they did.

[00:22:45] [SPEAKER_02]: I just thought they did a great job.

[00:22:47] [SPEAKER_02]: And it was a tough, it was a tough case to tell you, you got 61 statements.

[00:22:51] [SPEAKER_02]: And the only thing you do, you know, you you they did.

[00:22:56] [SPEAKER_02]: I thought I mean, they did what they could with that.

[00:22:59] [SPEAKER_02]: But that was that was a hard thing to overcome.

[00:23:03] [SPEAKER_02]: And I don't think, you know, when this case came out, when it first got filed.

[00:23:09] [SPEAKER_02]: Obviously, that didn't exist.

[00:23:10] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:23:11] [SPEAKER_02]: So, you know, I.

[00:23:15] [SPEAKER_02]: Once they had that in hand, it became very strong.

[00:23:18] [SPEAKER_02]: And this isn't the first case that got worse because somebody was in jail.

[00:23:23] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I can't tell you the number of cases I've had were, you know, two months before trial date, all of a sudden there's two jailhouse snitches ready to talk about how my client had told them everything he did.

[00:23:35] [SPEAKER_02]: That was not completely unique.

[00:23:39] [SPEAKER_02]: The videoing of him, I thought, was.

[00:23:42] [SPEAKER_02]: But he was on suicide watch.

[00:23:44] [SPEAKER_02]: I assume that's why that was done.

[00:23:46] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, that's our that's our understanding.

[00:23:49] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, those are my general impressions.

[00:23:52] [SPEAKER_02]: About it.

[00:23:53] [SPEAKER_00]: Maybe we could we can go on to the sentencing then.

[00:23:56] [SPEAKER_00]: I'd be curious what your thoughts are.

[00:23:57] [SPEAKER_00]: What should people expect for a sentencing like this?

[00:24:01] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, the process of sentencing is there has to be by law, there has to be done with investigation by the probation department in Carroll County.

[00:24:10] [SPEAKER_02]: And so they'll put together a picture of Alan, just his social history, family history, employment history, educational history.

[00:24:22] [SPEAKER_02]: There's a part of the pre-sentence report now that's called a risk assessment about risk activism.

[00:24:26] [SPEAKER_02]: Most pre-sentences are fairly pre-functory.

[00:24:32] [SPEAKER_02]: And they'll outline just generally what was in the probable cause affidavit.

[00:24:37] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't think they'll write some sort of huge version of events.

[00:24:40] [SPEAKER_02]: Now, the prosecutor can submit a version of events if they want to.

[00:24:46] [SPEAKER_02]: Not really a version of events.

[00:24:48] [SPEAKER_02]: It's just kind of a synopsis trial.

[00:24:49] [SPEAKER_02]: But I don't think that's necessary in this case.

[00:24:52] [SPEAKER_02]: I got to tell you that.

[00:24:54] [SPEAKER_02]: Then, you know, each side has the right to memorandum and file.

[00:24:59] [SPEAKER_02]: Now, the question is, and, you know, to present that the fed has the right to have family members write letters or testify.

[00:25:13] [SPEAKER_02]: The victim impact comes after the retent.

[00:25:19] [SPEAKER_02]: So, the families will be heard, but it'll be after the sentencing.

[00:25:24] [SPEAKER_02]: They'll be able to write letters to court and attach to the pre-sentence.

[00:25:30] [SPEAKER_02]: As far as testimony, it comes after the sentencing.

[00:25:34] [SPEAKER_02]: The sentencing, it's, now, you know, you have to look at what the parameters of what the sentence is going to be

[00:25:41] [SPEAKER_02]: and what is it that the defense can do, that either side can do that's going to affect the outcome.

[00:25:50] [SPEAKER_02]: And the practical outcome is going to be, well, okay, so murder carries 45 to 65 years.

[00:26:00] [SPEAKER_02]: Now, technically, the judge could run each count concurrent so that you got 45 and 45.

[00:26:10] [SPEAKER_02]: You got 45 running with each other.

[00:26:12] [SPEAKER_02]: So, for a minimum of 45 years, that's not going to happen.

[00:26:17] [SPEAKER_02]: Whatever sentence there is on, will be up for each victim, will be run consecutively.

[00:26:24] [SPEAKER_02]: If the judge is smart, and when you do a sentence, there's a presumptive sentence.

[00:26:31] [SPEAKER_02]: It's got a different name now, but in the old days, it was a presumptive advisory

[00:26:35] [SPEAKER_02]: that you start at 55 on a murder, maybe 50, and then you either go down to 45 or you go up to 65,

[00:26:43] [SPEAKER_02]: depending on what are called mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

[00:26:48] [SPEAKER_02]: But if the judge is smart, she doesn't aggravate the sentence itself.

[00:26:53] [SPEAKER_02]: She just runs the two sentences concurrently, or consecutively.

[00:26:58] [SPEAKER_02]: Right? Does that make sense?

[00:26:59] [SPEAKER_00]: It does make sense.

[00:27:01] [SPEAKER_02]: And...

[00:27:02] [SPEAKER_02]: Give 50 years on each victim.

[00:27:05] [SPEAKER_02]: That's 100 years.

[00:27:07] [SPEAKER_02]: You got to do 80 to 85% of your time in Indiana.

[00:27:12] [SPEAKER_02]: He's not getting out.

[00:27:13] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, why create another issue?

[00:27:17] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, if the judge aggravates the sentences to the maximum of what she can,

[00:27:24] [SPEAKER_02]: then she might create an issue.

[00:27:27] [SPEAKER_02]: For appeal, there's no need to do that.

[00:27:29] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, Allen doesn't have a criminal history, I don't think,

[00:27:32] [SPEAKER_02]: for whatever that's worth in this context.

[00:27:34] [SPEAKER_02]: So why create a problem?

[00:27:37] [SPEAKER_02]: He absolutely doesn't need to.

[00:27:40] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think she probably realizes that.

[00:27:44] [SPEAKER_02]: But, you know, I don't know if Allen's attorneys are going to put on another two-day show or not.

[00:27:52] [SPEAKER_02]: It's just...

[00:27:55] [SPEAKER_02]: And, you know, he can't...

[00:27:56] [SPEAKER_02]: What's he going to do?

[00:27:57] [SPEAKER_02]: Apologize?

[00:28:00] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, he can if he wants.

[00:28:03] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, he's got the absolute right of what's called allocution, which is the right to say whatever he wants.

[00:28:09] [SPEAKER_02]: But that's not going to have any impact.

[00:28:13] [SPEAKER_00]: I want to ask you, if he allocutes and says,

[00:28:16] [SPEAKER_00]: I'm so sorry for doing this to your kids,

[00:28:19] [SPEAKER_00]: I mean, this is probably a dumb legal question.

[00:28:21] [SPEAKER_00]: Kevin may roll his eyes.

[00:28:23] [SPEAKER_00]: But would that hurt him on appeal?

[00:28:26] [SPEAKER_02]: No, because the appeal is confined to...

[00:28:30] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I mean, they're not going to be able to...

[00:28:32] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, the questions on appeal are whether or not the state threw their case to be under reasonable doubt.

[00:28:37] [SPEAKER_02]: That's efficiency of the evidence, which in this case they did.

[00:28:41] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, you can raise efficiency on an appeal, but it's really...

[00:28:46] [SPEAKER_02]: And just because he says that, it doesn't change what was presented at the trial.

[00:28:52] [SPEAKER_02]: So you can't apologize and you can still win on appeal, if that makes sense.

[00:28:57] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, what...

[00:29:00] [SPEAKER_02]: Appeal issues are going to be...

[00:29:02] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I'm getting ahead of myself.

[00:29:04] [SPEAKER_02]: But, yeah, he's...

[00:29:07] [SPEAKER_02]: I tried to tell my attorney for two years that I wanted to plead guilty,

[00:29:11] [SPEAKER_02]: that that's going to cause a problem down the road.

[00:29:12] [SPEAKER_02]: But if he stands up and allocutes that he's been trying to do that for two years down the road,

[00:29:20] [SPEAKER_02]: that it's not going to affect the appeal, but it might after the appeal.

[00:29:23] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, there's another process after the appeal.

[00:29:26] [SPEAKER_02]: So anyway, that's my view of the sentencing is that I think your judge goes just place close to the hip,

[00:29:33] [SPEAKER_02]: gives no more than the advisory sentence,

[00:29:37] [SPEAKER_02]: and runs them consecutively that what more do you need to do?

[00:29:43] [SPEAKER_02]: It's a lie to that.

[00:29:45] [SPEAKER_00]: That makes sense.

[00:29:46] [SPEAKER_00]: And just to drill down on this a little bit,

[00:29:48] [SPEAKER_00]: if he gets up and says,

[00:29:51] [SPEAKER_00]: I didn't want to do this, my attorneys need me,

[00:29:54] [SPEAKER_00]: that's more of a problem for the attorneys as opposed to...

[00:29:57] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[00:29:57] [SPEAKER_00]: Okay, yeah.

[00:29:58] [SPEAKER_00]: That makes sense.

[00:29:59] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[00:29:59] [SPEAKER_02]: On what's called a post-eviction petition.

[00:30:02] [SPEAKER_02]: But that would be after the appeal.

[00:30:05] [SPEAKER_01]: So what are the issues you would expect to see raised in an appeal in this case?

[00:30:11] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, I mean, I think they, I don't think there's any secrets, right?

[00:30:16] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, it's what they, they didn't get a Frank's hearing.

[00:30:20] [SPEAKER_02]: And, but you know, that's the standard for a Frank's hearing.

[00:30:25] [SPEAKER_02]: The judge repeated every time she made a ruling.

[00:30:30] [SPEAKER_02]: And that standard, her application of that standard is challenged for abuse and discretion.

[00:30:38] [SPEAKER_02]: And that's the hurdle they're going to have to clear to, to win this, to win that issue on appeal.

[00:30:46] [SPEAKER_02]: And I, it's rare that any abuse of discretion standard is overturned.

[00:30:53] [SPEAKER_02]: And Goal made, you know, the record has been made by Judge Goal.

[00:30:56] [SPEAKER_02]: I would be shocked if that wins.

[00:31:00] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, then the presentation of the Odinism defense, it's the same thing that they've, they've repeated that.

[00:31:07] [SPEAKER_02]: And they've made their record on it.

[00:31:09] [SPEAKER_02]: And she has been consistent on how she ruled on that.

[00:31:12] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think she's, you know, she's made all the rulings.

[00:31:16] [SPEAKER_02]: I think she's made all the rulings in writing.

[00:31:20] [SPEAKER_02]: And once again, that's an abuse of discretion standard.

[00:31:24] [SPEAKER_02]: And once again, that's going to be difficult to overcome.

[00:31:28] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, those are the two main issues.

[00:31:29] [SPEAKER_02]: Like, there's no affiliate issue as far as their ability to present evidence as to his mental state when he gave all these statements.

[00:31:38] [SPEAKER_02]: Because they were able to do that as much as they wanted to, pretty much, from what I could tell.

[00:31:43] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm sure there were a couple of other pretrial issues that they litigated.

[00:31:47] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm not sure what they are off the top of my head.

[00:31:50] [SPEAKER_02]: And I don't know what came up at trial.

[00:31:52] [SPEAKER_02]: It didn't sound like there were any big, were there any motions for mistrial at the trial?

[00:31:57] [SPEAKER_00]: No.

[00:31:59] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[00:31:59] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[00:32:00] [SPEAKER_02]: So you don't have that.

[00:32:01] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I think that's the general basis of their appeal, from what I've observed, are those, the Odin's issue, the Franks issue.

[00:32:11] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know that there's, I guess it was, was there a suppression?

[00:32:17] [SPEAKER_02]: Was there actually ever a suppression hearing?

[00:32:19] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't think there was.

[00:32:20] [SPEAKER_02]: I think it was all couched with the Franks motions, right?

[00:32:24] [SPEAKER_00]: I vaguely recall a motion to suppress, but I don't think it was.

[00:32:28] [SPEAKER_00]: There was a hearing.

[00:32:29] [SPEAKER_00]: Resulted in a hearing.

[00:32:31] [SPEAKER_02]: Okay.

[00:32:32] [SPEAKER_02]: So if they made a record on the suppression issue, then they might throw that in.

[00:32:37] [SPEAKER_02]: But, I mean, you know, as far as the process, I mean, there's nothing with the public access thing and all of that.

[00:32:46] [SPEAKER_02]: That's not an appeal issue.

[00:32:48] [SPEAKER_02]: That didn't affect the safety of the trial.

[00:32:52] [SPEAKER_02]: So, I mean, I think they, you know, pretty much flagged what they're going to be able to present to somebody who's presented the best they can.

[00:33:02] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know if they'll do the appeal or somebody else.

[00:33:06] [SPEAKER_00]: Would it be normal for the trial attorneys to do the appeal, or is it typical that you'd get more of an appellate expert?

[00:33:13] [SPEAKER_02]: I think you should.

[00:33:14] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't think you should do your own appeals.

[00:33:17] [SPEAKER_02]: I would hope that they have someone that does appeals.

[00:33:21] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I've done appeals before, but not my own.

[00:33:25] [SPEAKER_02]: So I think it's better to have a set of eyes.

[00:33:32] [SPEAKER_02]: So, you know, what happens is, as far as the appeal is concerned for the sentencing is set at the end of our year, right?

[00:33:41] [SPEAKER_00]: It's December 20th.

[00:33:42] [SPEAKER_00]: Yep.

[00:33:43] [SPEAKER_02]: And I doubt that'll be continued.

[00:33:45] [SPEAKER_02]: You have 30 days to file.

[00:33:47] [SPEAKER_02]: So that's the judgment.

[00:33:49] [SPEAKER_02]: The sentencing is the judgment.

[00:33:51] [SPEAKER_02]: Then you have 30 days to file a notice.

[00:33:54] [SPEAKER_02]: And that's just a perfunctory notice.

[00:33:58] [SPEAKER_02]: And then that kicks in the timelines about preparation of the record and, you know, the court and the court reporter.

[00:34:05] [SPEAKER_02]: And the attorneys are responsible for coordinating and getting the transcript ready, getting the exhibits ready, getting everything over to the appellate court.

[00:34:15] [SPEAKER_02]: That's the next step after the notice of the appeal.

[00:34:19] [SPEAKER_02]: And if you look at the Indiana appellate rules, it's going to lay that what the timelines are.

[00:34:26] [SPEAKER_02]: And those timelines can be extended for good reason.

[00:34:29] [SPEAKER_02]: And there's a lot of stuff here.

[00:34:31] [SPEAKER_02]: So it may take a while to actually put the record together with the Indiana Court of Appeals.

[00:34:38] [SPEAKER_02]: This goes to the Indiana Court of Appeals, not to the Supreme Court.

[00:34:41] [SPEAKER_02]: From the date of that filing of the record, it takes in time frames for the preparation of briefs.

[00:34:51] [SPEAKER_02]: Obviously, the appellant will file their brief first.

[00:34:54] [SPEAKER_02]: Then the state responds.

[00:34:57] [SPEAKER_02]: And then the appellant can file a reply.

[00:35:00] [SPEAKER_02]: And once again, those, the preparation of those briefs, the timelines on those can be extended for good cause.

[00:35:08] [SPEAKER_02]: Once again, there's good cause probably for that to give them one extra time to prepare what they need to prepare.

[00:35:19] [SPEAKER_02]: And then after the briefs are done, then the court can set an oral argument.

[00:35:25] [SPEAKER_02]: They don't have to.

[00:35:27] [SPEAKER_02]: That's kind of up to them.

[00:35:29] [SPEAKER_02]: And then you wait for a decision.

[00:35:31] [SPEAKER_02]: So it feels going to take a little while because of the length of the trial and, you know, just the volume of information.

[00:35:40] [SPEAKER_02]: Trial transcripts and, you know, all the pleadings that were done pre-trial.

[00:35:46] [SPEAKER_02]: So and and then the number of exhibits.

[00:35:50] [SPEAKER_02]: So it would still take a year, I would think.

[00:35:53] [SPEAKER_02]: Maybe even a little more.

[00:35:54] [SPEAKER_00]: So here's I have two questions, kind of a two parter for you about appeals.

[00:35:58] [SPEAKER_00]: One is one thing we get asked a lot about is one of the most dramatic, I think, legal moments in this case came when Judge Francis Gull had the confrontation with the original defense team and they withdrew.

[00:36:13] [SPEAKER_00]: And that, you know, was obviously litigated and then whatnot.

[00:36:16] [SPEAKER_00]: And they came back after the Supreme Court weighed in, you know, the Indiana Supreme Court.

[00:36:22] [SPEAKER_00]: And I guess I'm just curious, you know, for you, I mean, we have kind of our own interpretation of that whole situation.

[00:36:30] [SPEAKER_00]: But for you, is that something that could come up on appeal or is that something that essentially the highest court in Indiana basically said, hey, she didn't do anything wrong?

[00:36:39] [SPEAKER_02]: Well, that's a good question.

[00:36:40] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, well, that's a hard first part.

[00:36:42] [SPEAKER_02]: What's the second part?

[00:36:43] [SPEAKER_02]: No.

[00:36:45] [SPEAKER_00]: We'll clear that hurdle later.

[00:36:49] [SPEAKER_02]: Let's think about the context of that.

[00:36:52] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:36:53] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think I brought this up when we talked back in January.

[00:36:57] [SPEAKER_03]: Mm-hmm.

[00:36:58] [SPEAKER_03]: Mm-hmm.

[00:36:59] [SPEAKER_02]: She was concerned that they didn't know what they were doing.

[00:37:05] [SPEAKER_02]: For whatever reason.

[00:37:06] [SPEAKER_02]: I think at that point, they kept filing the same motion all over again with the Frank stuff, among other things.

[00:37:13] [SPEAKER_02]: And by the way, at the beginning, I go right.

[00:37:16] [SPEAKER_02]: And so how do you bring that up on appeal, that they were allowed to remain as attorneys?

[00:37:24] [SPEAKER_02]: You would have to appeal saying that the Supreme Court, and Alan never asked that they be fired.

[00:37:32] [SPEAKER_02]: But I don't know that Alan ever, did Alan ever actually come into court and say that?

[00:37:39] [SPEAKER_02]: Didn't they prepare a letter with his signature on it that he wanted them to remain as his attorney?

[00:37:45] [SPEAKER_02]: Yes.

[00:37:45] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, that is correct.

[00:37:47] [SPEAKER_02]: I think that was—I don't want to hear it from him.

[00:37:58] [SPEAKER_02]: But as far as an appeal issue is concerned, you would have to say that the Supreme Court made a mistake by allowing those guys to remain on when there was no record of Alan protesting that they remain on.

[00:38:16] [SPEAKER_02]: So I don't see how that's an appellate issue.

[00:38:20] [SPEAKER_00]: This is what people say, basically, and when I say people, I mean sort of online critics and whatever.

[00:38:26] [SPEAKER_00]: You know, there's a lot of like, oh, well, that means that Gull was mean to the defense team, and therefore they were at a disadvantage.

[00:38:33] [SPEAKER_00]: Can you explain why that's not really something that you can appeal over?

[00:38:38] [SPEAKER_02]: No, that's like stacking the first-grade basketball team against the other first-grade basketball team.

[00:38:48] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, that's mean.

[00:38:52] [SPEAKER_02]: I think, you know, I mean, the defense attorney's bad.

[00:38:57] [SPEAKER_02]: I know that.

[00:38:58] [SPEAKER_02]: But I think she was trying to protect the proceedings, you know?

[00:39:04] [SPEAKER_02]: I think at that point that she felt that between this violation of the gag order and this saying one thing back in chambers and going and doing something else, I think she just got tired of it.

[00:39:17] [SPEAKER_02]: Put their feet to the fire.

[00:39:20] [SPEAKER_02]: Put their feet to the fire.

[00:39:20] [SPEAKER_02]: Was she mean to the defense team because you ruled against them on the Frank motions, which, like I said, rarely get a hearing?

[00:39:30] [SPEAKER_02]: And the Odinus thing, which was she let them make their record and she had every right to not allow that in.

[00:39:37] [SPEAKER_02]: That's not being mean.

[00:39:38] [SPEAKER_02]: That's just being a judge.

[00:39:41] [SPEAKER_02]: And then she threw them a bone at the trial by letting him bring in all this video.

[00:39:51] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I thought that that was unique and definitely not being mean to the defense.

[00:39:59] [SPEAKER_02]: I'm assuming McClellan objected to that.

[00:40:02] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, they got to bring in that stuff selectively.

[00:40:04] [SPEAKER_03]: Yeah.

[00:40:05] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:40:05] [SPEAKER_02]: They just got to play snippets.

[00:40:07] [SPEAKER_02]: Right.

[00:40:10] [SPEAKER_02]: So, no, I don't think so.

[00:40:13] [SPEAKER_02]: It was a difficult case.

[00:40:15] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think I have to believe that she did the best she could.

[00:40:20] [SPEAKER_02]: And, you know, so it don't mean.

[00:40:25] [SPEAKER_02]: No, I don't get me.

[00:40:26] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I strongly agree with what you're saying.

[00:40:30] [SPEAKER_00]: And that's been our take here.

[00:40:31] [SPEAKER_00]: I think people kind of don't understand how any of this works and they just sort of go based on vibes.

[00:40:38] [SPEAKER_00]: And that's not ever a good idea.

[00:40:41] [SPEAKER_00]: But here's my second part to the question.

[00:40:43] [SPEAKER_00]: And this is more of just getting your take on something.

[00:40:46] [SPEAKER_00]: You know, one thing that, you know, people who, again, are, you know, these self-proclaimed critics of the case have said is that, you know, this is a practice trial.

[00:40:58] [SPEAKER_00]: There's going to be an automatic new trial because it's so flawed and it was so unfair to Richard Allen's rights.

[00:41:03] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, sorry.

[00:41:08] [SPEAKER_02]: But I mean, you know, these like, there's a catch 22 to have for everyone to have access to everything in this trial, which is that you're going to have.

[00:41:22] [SPEAKER_02]: There's a lot of noise out there where people don't really understand what the system's supposed to be about.

[00:41:30] [SPEAKER_02]: The more everyone has access to these things, the less truth is spoken in many different quarters or objective evaluation.

[00:41:40] [SPEAKER_02]: Let's put it that way.

[00:41:42] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know that anybody knows what the truth is anymore.

[00:41:44] [SPEAKER_02]: I kind of lost track of what.

[00:41:46] [SPEAKER_00]: No, no, no.

[00:41:47] [SPEAKER_00]: You're doing great.

[00:41:48] [SPEAKER_00]: This is the idea that this trial was so flawed that there's going to be an automatic appeal.

[00:41:54] [SPEAKER_00]: I guess what are your just general what's your general thoughts on Allen's chances for a successful appeal?

[00:42:01] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, there's no nothing automatic about an appeal.

[00:42:05] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know where that idea could come from.

[00:42:08] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, there's a whole little cottage industry that sprung up around.

[00:42:11] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I think I think you got to take that for what it's worth and quit answering all their questions.

[00:42:18] [SPEAKER_00]: Oh, no, I mean, we don't.

[00:42:19] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I mean, I mean, but that that high of industry.

[00:42:22] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[00:42:24] [SPEAKER_02]: They're going to say what they're going to say.

[00:42:26] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't care.

[00:42:27] [SPEAKER_02]: You could you could I could we could talk for hours about every fact and it's not going to change their mind.

[00:42:32] [SPEAKER_00]: I think where we where we come in is that there's there's a substantial large population of people who don't necessarily know everything about the law and they can be influenced by that.

[00:42:44] [SPEAKER_00]: But they also prefer the facts and you can easily get to them by just explaining things.

[00:42:49] [SPEAKER_00]: Whereas there's a committed smaller group where they don't hear anything.

[00:42:53] [SPEAKER_00]: Does that make sense?

[00:42:54] [SPEAKER_02]: It's like, yeah, it does.

[00:42:56] [SPEAKER_02]: It does.

[00:42:57] [SPEAKER_02]: And that group, it doesn't want to hear anything.

[00:42:59] [SPEAKER_00]: They're lost to the reality.

[00:43:02] [SPEAKER_00]: They're gone.

[00:43:03] [SPEAKER_02]: Those that have to have questions, I think I think we did a good job this morning of kind of covering what what what it appeals about.

[00:43:12] [SPEAKER_02]: And there's a process, you know, this process has been in place for a long, long time.

[00:43:18] [SPEAKER_02]: And, yeah, there's always you're always going to find a case where it didn't work.

[00:43:23] [SPEAKER_02]: And we're dealing with human beings trying to apply a process.

[00:43:27] [SPEAKER_02]: So, of course, there are times when it's not going to work, where people make mistakes or people might have ulterior motives.

[00:43:35] [SPEAKER_02]: But for the most part, it works.

[00:43:39] [SPEAKER_02]: And I don't know if someone in this case had some secretly hidden ulterior motives to rope Allen into this, I don't know what the world would be.

[00:43:54] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I really think everyone in the end should be complimented for their willingness to work within the parameters of the process.

[00:44:10] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, I mean, that's the attorney's job to stretch it down.

[00:44:14] [SPEAKER_02]: They might have made some mistakes, but they did some good things.

[00:44:17] [SPEAKER_02]: It was a difficult case.

[00:44:19] [SPEAKER_02]: The prosecution, they didn't take the bait on some stuff that they could have made outlandish comments about or anything.

[00:44:29] [SPEAKER_02]: They worked really hard, I think, for a small county especially.

[00:44:35] [SPEAKER_02]: Put the case together.

[00:44:37] [SPEAKER_02]: Gold did the best job she could.

[00:44:38] [SPEAKER_02]: And keeping away the noise from the courtroom and protecting the jury sounds to me.

[00:44:46] [SPEAKER_02]: So, you know, this is what we tried to do.

[00:44:51] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think everyone involved did pretty much the best they could and that there's no sinister thing here.

[00:45:03] [SPEAKER_02]: I think the defense, well, the defense team talking about finding justice for the victims I thought was a little over the top.

[00:45:11] [SPEAKER_02]: But, and play play to the media, the social media too much.

[00:45:15] [SPEAKER_02]: They did, but they lost sight, I think, sometimes just like all of us do in this day and age of where truth matters and where it doesn't.

[00:45:25] [SPEAKER_02]: Or where you can find it maybe and where you can't.

[00:45:28] [SPEAKER_02]: I mean, I've been doing it for 40 years.

[00:45:30] [SPEAKER_02]: I got to have faith for the most part.

[00:45:32] [SPEAKER_02]: We've come out on the right way of how a case should have been handled and should have been designed.

[00:45:39] [SPEAKER_00]: That's so well said.

[00:45:40] [SPEAKER_00]: I wanted to ask you, Mark, is there anything we didn't ask you about, about any of this that you think it's important to clarify?

[00:45:49] [SPEAKER_02]: No, not about the case itself.

[00:45:51] [SPEAKER_02]: I think what irritates me is how many cases get resolved without anybody giving it a tip.

[00:46:01] [SPEAKER_02]: And then everyone finds one case to jump on board and become an expert about.

[00:46:07] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, that to me, I mean, there were plenty, you know, plenty of cases where you could have got, you could have become just as upset about horrible murders, whatever.

[00:46:23] [SPEAKER_02]: So my hope is that whenever a case gets a lot of attention, that people involved in the process can separate the reality of the case and the parameters of the case from the noise.

[00:46:39] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think they did a good job of doing it.

[00:46:41] [SPEAKER_02]: I think the defense played to the noise too much with no value.

[00:46:47] [SPEAKER_02]: The thing I think gives you no value at all.

[00:46:51] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, you got a sequester jury.

[00:46:53] [SPEAKER_02]: You've got, you can create your own problems by doing that.

[00:46:58] [SPEAKER_02]: But, you know, playing to the noise is the thing nowadays, not just in the legal, but in a lot of things.

[00:47:05] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think we've lost getting back to the reality.

[00:47:11] [SPEAKER_02]: And I think that's what you saw here.

[00:47:13] [SPEAKER_02]: So to a certain extent, I mean, there are ethics involved in the law.

[00:47:20] [SPEAKER_02]: There are ethics involved in journalism.

[00:47:21] [SPEAKER_02]: There are no ethics involved in TikTok.

[00:47:24] [SPEAKER_00]: No.

[00:47:25] [SPEAKER_02]: So.

[00:47:26] [SPEAKER_00]: I would argue that ethics would hinder many people on TikTok.

[00:47:30] [SPEAKER_00]: And that's what, you know, that's what's so unfortunate about it.

[00:47:34] [SPEAKER_00]: And, you know, the best thing we can all do to a certain extent is, you know, where we try to draw the line is.

[00:47:42] [SPEAKER_00]: If someone, if a TikTok or whatnot is having an actual impact on a case, we want to talk about it.

[00:47:47] [SPEAKER_00]: But otherwise, it's really just best to ignore and not give them your clicks because that's kind of what keeps them in the game.

[00:47:55] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, I agree.

[00:47:57] [SPEAKER_02]: And so, I mean, like I said, I applaud the hard work of all the people involved.

[00:48:03] [SPEAKER_02]: And, you know, for these jurors to come over here and do that.

[00:48:07] [SPEAKER_02]: And for the most, it seems to me that I'm sure the jurors, I don't know how she's going to handle questioning the jurors.

[00:48:16] [SPEAKER_02]: Just to go back real quick, at the end of the appeal, and this goes back to Gulls ruling about them not being the attorneys.

[00:48:28] [SPEAKER_02]: After the appeal, and let's assume the appeal is that the conviction is upheld, all right, which I think is a safe assumption.

[00:48:37] [SPEAKER_02]: The next step, if you choose, is to file what's called a post-conviction petition.

[00:48:43] [SPEAKER_02]: And a post-conviction petition has two things that you can bring up.

[00:48:50] [SPEAKER_02]: Newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel.

[00:48:57] [SPEAKER_02]: In Indiana, you cannot bring up the question of effective representation on appeal.

[00:49:03] [SPEAKER_02]: You bring it up post-conviction.

[00:49:05] [SPEAKER_02]: And that's from the Sixth Amendment.

[00:49:08] [SPEAKER_02]: You're entitled to effective representation of counsel.

[00:49:10] [SPEAKER_02]: So, Gulls saying that she thought they were essentially ineffective at that point may come back into play down the road.

[00:49:24] [SPEAKER_02]: Does that make sense?

[00:49:26] [SPEAKER_00]: It does.

[00:49:27] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[00:49:28] [SPEAKER_02]: But the way that it was handled and the ruling that was made and the fact that Allen himself never made a record will hinder that greatly.

[00:49:37] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, as long as you stay awake during the trial and ask three questions, you can be affected.

[00:49:44] [SPEAKER_02]: That's all the cases down south.

[00:49:46] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah.

[00:49:47] [SPEAKER_02]: So, that's where that might come up.

[00:49:49] [SPEAKER_02]: But that's far down the road, if at all.

[00:49:55] [SPEAKER_02]: But back to the jurors.

[00:49:56] [SPEAKER_02]: If something happened to one of the jurors, if the jurors went outside the parameters of what they were supposed to be doing while they were there, if they looked online.

[00:50:05] [SPEAKER_02]: You know, I mean, those kinds of things could get newly discovered.

[00:50:11] [SPEAKER_02]: It might cause a problem.

[00:50:13] [SPEAKER_02]: But that's just, that's pure supposition.

[00:50:16] [SPEAKER_02]: I don't know if that happened.

[00:50:19] [SPEAKER_02]: I guess it did.

[00:50:20] [SPEAKER_02]: But, you know.

[00:50:22] [SPEAKER_00]: That makes sense.

[00:50:23] [SPEAKER_00]: Well, Mark, thank you so much.

[00:50:25] [SPEAKER_00]: It's really always a pleasure to speak with you and get your insights on this case.

[00:50:29] [SPEAKER_00]: Is there anything else that you wanted to mention or you think it's important for people to take away?

[00:50:35] [SPEAKER_02]: No, I don't think so.

[00:50:36] [SPEAKER_02]: I think we covered it.

[00:50:37] [SPEAKER_02]: And once again, I applaud you guys for getting out of the way to get in line every day and joining the free time Hall of Fame or whatever.

[00:50:49] [SPEAKER_02]: You guys came up close to that.

[00:50:53] [SPEAKER_02]: And, you know, I think you did a great job of letting people know what happened, what actually happened in there.

[00:51:00] [SPEAKER_02]: To the best, you know, how you interpreted it to a certain extent.

[00:51:03] [SPEAKER_02]: But for the most part, just what was said and what was not.

[00:51:07] [SPEAKER_00]: That really means a lot.

[00:51:09] [SPEAKER_00]: Thank you so much, Mark.

[00:51:10] [SPEAKER_00]: And, yeah, we had a lot of help.

[00:51:11] [SPEAKER_00]: And it's, that means a lot.

[00:51:17] [SPEAKER_00]: So thank you.

[00:51:17] [SPEAKER_02]: Thank you so much.

[00:51:19] [SPEAKER_02]: Yeah, anytime.

[00:51:20] [SPEAKER_02]: Anytime.

[00:51:21] [SPEAKER_02]: You guys, good luck with future broadcasts.

[00:51:23] [SPEAKER_02]: And hopefully we talk again.

[00:51:25] [SPEAKER_00]: Absolutely.

[00:51:26] [SPEAKER_00]: We'd love that.

[00:51:28] [SPEAKER_01]: Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet.

[00:51:30] [SPEAKER_01]: If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com.

[00:51:39] [SPEAKER_01]: If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:51:48] [SPEAKER_00]: If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet.

[00:51:58] [SPEAKER_00]: If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet.

[00:52:08] [SPEAKER_00]: We very much appreciate any support.

[00:52:12] [SPEAKER_01]: Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:52:22] [SPEAKER_00]: If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join The Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook.

[00:52:30] [SPEAKER_00]: We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much.

[00:52:35] [SPEAKER_00]: We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages.

[00:52:42] [SPEAKER_00]: Thanks again for listening.

[00:52:45] [SPEAKER_00]: Thanks so much for sticking around to the end of this Murder Sheet episode.

[00:52:49] [SPEAKER_00]: Just as a quick post-roll ad, we wanted to tell you again about our friend Jason Blair's wonderful Silver Linings Handbook.

[00:52:57] [SPEAKER_00]: This show is phenomenal.

[00:52:59] [SPEAKER_00]: Whether you are interested in true crime, the criminal justice system, law, mental health, stories of marginalized people, overcoming tragedy, well-being, like he does it all.

[00:53:11] [SPEAKER_00]: This is a show for you.

[00:53:12] [SPEAKER_00]: He has so many different conversations with interesting people, people whose loved ones have gone missing, other podcasters in the true crime space, just interesting people with interesting life experiences.

[00:53:27] [SPEAKER_00]: And Jason's gift, I think, is just being an incredibly empathetic and compassionate interviewer where he's really letting his guests tell their stories and asking really interesting questions along the way, guiding those conversations forward.

[00:53:40] [SPEAKER_00]: I would liken it to like you're kind of almost sitting down with friends and sort of just hearing these fascinating tales that you wouldn't get otherwise because he just has that ability as an interviewer to tease it out and really make it interesting for his audience.

[00:53:55] [SPEAKER_01]: On a personal level, Jason is frankly a great guy.

[00:53:58] [SPEAKER_01]: Yes.

[00:53:59] [SPEAKER_01]: He's been a really good friend to us.

[00:54:01] [SPEAKER_01]: And so it's fun to be able to hit a button on my phone and get a little dose of Jason talking to people whenever I want.

[00:54:09] [SPEAKER_01]: But it's a really terrific show.

[00:54:11] [SPEAKER_01]: We really recommend it highly.

[00:54:13] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, I think our audience will like it.

[00:54:15] [SPEAKER_00]: And you've already met Jason if you listen consistently to our show.

[00:54:18] [SPEAKER_00]: He's been on our show a couple times.

[00:54:19] [SPEAKER_00]: We've been on his show.

[00:54:20] [SPEAKER_00]: He's a terrific guest.

[00:54:22] [SPEAKER_00]: I say this in one of our ads about him, but I literally always – I'm like, oh, yeah, I remember when Jason said this.

[00:54:27] [SPEAKER_00]: That really resonated.

[00:54:28] [SPEAKER_00]: Like I do quote him in conversations sometimes because he really has a good grasp of different complicated issues.

[00:54:34] [SPEAKER_01]: She quotes him to me all the time.

[00:54:35] [SPEAKER_00]: I do – I'm like, I remember when Jason said this?

[00:54:37] [SPEAKER_00]: That was so right.

[00:54:37] [SPEAKER_00]: So, I mean, I think if we're doing that, I think – and you like us, I think you should give it a shot.

[00:54:42] [SPEAKER_00]: Give it a try.

[00:54:43] [SPEAKER_00]: I think you'll really enjoy it.

[00:54:44] [SPEAKER_00]: And again, he does a range of different topics, but they all kind of have the similar theme of compassion, of overcoming suffering, of dealing with suffering, of mental health, wellness, things like that.

[00:54:55] [SPEAKER_00]: There's kind of a common through line of compassion and empathy there that I think we find very nice.

[00:55:01] [SPEAKER_00]: And we work on a lot of stories that can be very tough, and we try to bring compassion and empathy to it.

[00:55:06] [SPEAKER_00]: But this is something that almost can be like if you're kind of feeling a little burned out by true crime.

[00:55:11] [SPEAKER_00]: I think this is kind of the life-affirming stuff that can be nice to listen to in a podcast.

[00:55:16] [SPEAKER_01]: It's compassionate.

[00:55:18] [SPEAKER_01]: It's affirming.

[00:55:20] [SPEAKER_01]: But I also want to emphasize it's smart.

[00:55:24] [SPEAKER_01]: People – Jason is a very intelligent, articulate person.

[00:55:29] [SPEAKER_01]: This is a smart show, but it's an accessible show.

[00:55:32] [SPEAKER_01]: I think you'll all really enjoy it.

[00:55:34] [SPEAKER_00]: Yeah, and he's got a great community that he's building.

[00:55:36] [SPEAKER_00]: So we're really excited to be a part of that.

[00:55:38] [SPEAKER_00]: We're fans of the show.

[00:55:39] [SPEAKER_00]: We love it.

[00:55:40] [SPEAKER_00]: And we would strongly encourage you all to check it out.

[00:55:43] [SPEAKER_00]: Download some episodes.

[00:55:44] [SPEAKER_00]: Listen.

[00:55:44] [SPEAKER_00]: I think you'll understand what we're talking about once you do.

[00:55:47] [SPEAKER_00]: But anyways, you can listen to The Silver Linings Handbook wherever you listen to podcasts.

[00:55:52] [SPEAKER_01]: Wherever you listen to podcasts.

[00:55:53] [SPEAKER_01]: Very easy to find.

[00:55:54] [SPEAKER_00]: Absolutely.