The Delphi Murders: The Appeal: Oral Arguments Granted

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] It's Mike with Brad Preble from Car Subaru in Beaverton. For 80 years, Car Auto Group has been doing what they do and doing so well. Over 80 actually. It was like 82? I mean, who's counting when you're that long? Did you really need to correct me on that? I mean, now we've wasted half the commercial. I wanted to talk about the affordability, the safety, and the amazing low payment you could have on a new Subaru purchase or lease. But instead, what I'm talking about is you being wrong. It's 82.75 years. It's been around for a long time and there's a reason at Car Subaru in Beaverton with you all the way.

[00:00:29] [SPEAKER_01] Every mile, every day.

[00:00:30] [SPEAKER_02] I'm Kevin and today we're going to be talking about the recent decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals to grant an oral argument in the ongoing Delphi murders case, and more specifically, the conviction of Richard Allen. Content warning, this episode includes discussion of murder, including the murder of children.

[00:00:52] [SPEAKER_02] So, before we get started, yeah, I think we, probably most of us saw the news last week that an oral argument had been granted in the ongoing appeal of Richard Allen.

[00:01:04] [SPEAKER_02] Mr. Allen was convicted of the murder of Liberty German and Abigail Williams, and his attorneys, as is their right, have filed a number, they filed an appeal on his behalf in which they made a number of arguments as to why they think that his case was handled in an unfair way and why they think he deserves a new trial.

[00:01:32] [SPEAKER_02] And in their most recent filing, they said, we don't just want the Court of Appeals of Indiana. We don't just want them to make a decision. We want to have an oral argument. And the Indiana Court of Appeals said, sure, we'll do it. So, what does all that mean? We'll talk about it in a minute.

[00:01:50] [SPEAKER_00] My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:01:53] [SPEAKER_02] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:02:04] [SPEAKER_00] We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:05] [SPEAKER_02] And this is The Delphi Murders, The Appeal, Oral Arguments Granted.

[00:02:55] [SPEAKER_02] You know, Anya, I think it's only natural whenever you have a process that is long. And God knows anything that happens in the criminal justice system is a long process. It's very natural for people to look for signs as to what it means because we're all impatient for what the final result is going to be.

[00:03:19] [SPEAKER_02] And so, people have certainly been doing that in this case even though I think we all know what the ultimate final conclusion of this story is going to be. Richard Allen is going to die in prison. But it's only natural, of course, for us to want to follow this appeals process. And we're all looking at the tea leaves trying to figure out what it means.

[00:03:43] [SPEAKER_02] And I've seen a number of people saying, oh, golly, the fact that oral arguments were granted in this case, that's a big win for Richard Allen. And that's like a huge sign that they're going to vote his way. And I just want to say right here at the top, no. This is basically more or less a routine thing.

[00:04:12] [SPEAKER_02] I mean, oral arguments aren't granted in every case. They're granted in very few cases. But this is a very high profile case.

[00:04:19] [SPEAKER_00] It's like the Indiana trial of the century. Like, I mean, yeah.

[00:04:24] [SPEAKER_02] And I want to tell people candidly that ever since this appeal was filed and ever since Mr. Allen's attorneys requested oral arguments, we've asked a lot of people what they think was going to happen. We talked to people who have no strong opinion on the case. We talked to people who think Mr. Allen is innocent. We talked to people who are convinced, as we are, that he is guilty.

[00:04:54] [SPEAKER_02] And all of them told us we think there's going to be oral arguments granted.

[00:04:59] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, because this is the kind of case that would be granted in.

[00:05:01] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, it doesn't really mean anything. So I don't want people on either side of this to jump to any unwarranted conclusions.

[00:05:13] [SPEAKER_00] I think it's important to just not read too many tea leaves into anything. I don't know. I just, you know, I just, I don't know. I just think that happens too often in true crime. And a lot of things that people kind of think is a big deal is kind of more pro forma than you'd think because there's like a system and there's a process and, you know, a case that's this big of a deal. I mean, you would, I think the appeals court would rightly be like, well, this one, this one's definitely a big one. We should probably hear him out.

[00:05:43] [SPEAKER_02] I'll tell you in a minute at what stage I think maybe we can read a few tea leaves, at least a little bit. But before I do that, I want to talk about the Indiana Court of Appeals. There are 15 judges on this court. But cases are not heard by all 15 judges. Cases are heard by a three judge panel.

[00:06:12] [SPEAKER_02] And that judge panel has been chosen in this case. And Anya is going to talk about it in a moment.

[00:06:18] [SPEAKER_00] Meet the judges.

[00:06:19] [SPEAKER_02] And that's, that's very interesting. God bless Anya.

[00:06:23] [SPEAKER_00] We're not doing profile episodes. These are not profiles that we're just talking about what I found about them on newspapers.com. We're never doing profile. We're never doing profile episodes again.

[00:06:32] [SPEAKER_02] God bless Anya for doing that research. But again, no disrespect to the able Miss Kane.

[00:06:40] [SPEAKER_00] The able, was that a biblical pun?

[00:06:42] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, I'm doing like five levels stuff over here.

[00:06:47] [SPEAKER_00] Playing 5D chess against me.

[00:06:50] [SPEAKER_02] But I think we're used to the things happening in the U.S. Supreme Court, where no matter what your political leanings are, you know, oh, this judge is reliably conservative. We know how he's going to vote in this case. This justice is reliably liberal. We know how he's going to vote in this case. The information Anya is going to share with us is interesting.

[00:07:15] [SPEAKER_02] But I don't think it's going to offer any indication of how these people were going to vote.

[00:07:21] [SPEAKER_00] I completely agree. And offering it is not meant as such to be like, well, this guy used to be a prosecutor. So therefore, he's going to side with all the prosecutors. That's not how, you know, they're going to be applying the law. As we've talked about, appellate cases are largely about the law and looking at, was this a fair trial? Was this defendant's rights violated?

[00:07:43] [SPEAKER_02] So I was going to talk a little bit about what oral argument is like, but maybe before we do that, since I kind of clumsily brought it up.

[00:07:50] [SPEAKER_00] With your 5D chess moves.

[00:07:52] [SPEAKER_02] Anya, why don't we meet the judges?

[00:07:54] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, sure. And again, never doing profile episodes again. This Delphi coverage, I'm embarrassed by those profile episodes. Let's see. But yeah, you mentioned the appeals. I kind of just did a quick search about, like, who are they? What cases were they on? Like, just things like that. So, first is, and I'm really terribly sorry if I do say her name wrong. I'm going to try my best.

[00:08:19] [SPEAKER_00] But honestly, I get on the mic and I start pronouncing all words wrong and saying the wrong thing. So, it's the podcaster's curse. Judge Nancy H. Vedic. She is a judge on the Indiana Court of Appeals. My understanding is she was appointed originally by Governor Frank O'Bannon. And then she was, at some point, like, I think served as chief judge.

[00:08:45] [SPEAKER_00] She's somebody who went to Valparaiso University for undergraduate, but also for law school. And her most notable sort of professional experience prior to becoming a judge was being the deputy prosecutor and then chief deputy prosecutor in Indiana's Porter County.

[00:09:07] [SPEAKER_00] She was very involved in cases of juveniles, cases of domestic violence, cases of sexual assaults, cases of, I think, you know, victim's assistance, things like that. And I looked up a couple cases she did.

[00:09:25] [SPEAKER_00] She got a conviction in the case of Clifton Garth Driver, who was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the July 1980 shooting of his neighbor, Ricky Good, who was 21. She got a conviction in the murder trial of Richard Kirby, who was then 36 and was convicted of murdering his young son, Jason, who was only five years old. That was in the middle of a divorce between Jason's parents.

[00:09:54] [SPEAKER_00] You know, Richard Kirby, I think, continued to proclaim his innocence. But I think basically my summary of the story, just from reading a couple newspaper articles, was that the story was like he kind of took Jason out for the day and then the kid ended up dead in a ditch, shot to death. And, you know, he got 60 years, but ultimately he got out after 28, which is just ridiculous, frankly. And those are some of the cases she did.

[00:10:23] [SPEAKER_00] So, you know, kind of some gritty murder cases. She's kind of has that prosecutorial experience and has, yeah, then has many years of being a judge. So that is the first judge on the list. The next one is Judge Elaine B. Brown. And my understanding is she was appointed in 2008.

[00:10:49] [SPEAKER_00] And she is is somebody who was an attorney and was a judge for many years in Dubois County in Indiana. Is that am I saying that right?

[00:11:03] [SPEAKER_02] I think so.

[00:11:04] [SPEAKER_00] Who knows? It's Indiana. We like to we like to mix things up. Right. Verse what looks like Versailles is Versailles. What looks like Milan is Milan, which is fun. Keeps you guessing. She's from Ferdinand, Indiana. She got her like Kevin, got her undergraduate and law degrees at Indiana University in Bloomington. Go Hoosiers. And was actually a teacher in Jasper for a bit and then went into law.

[00:11:30] [SPEAKER_00] As a judge, she founded Dubois County's drug court. She was a trial judge from 1987 to 1998. And then again from 2005 to 2008. I think it's cool that she founded the county's drug court. I think drug courts are a very worthwhile enterprise and seek to address addiction issues in defendants, seek to maybe even some mental health issues sometimes. And, you know, try to keep people out of the system as much as possible and offer them treatment for these diseases.

[00:12:00] [SPEAKER_00] And I think that's wonderful. And she was she presided over a trial where Jeffrey Allen Seyfried was found not guilty of criminal deviant conduct against a 17 year old girl who was 15 years old at the time he allegedly sexually assaulted her. And he was not found not guilty of that. But then the jury deadlocked, I think, on the rape charge.

[00:12:26] [SPEAKER_00] Prosecutor Bill Weikert asked Judge Brown to take the not guilty verdict under advisement. Ultimately, this Seyfried guy was sentenced to eight years for sexual misconduct. That was part of a plea deal. So that was one case I found that she worked on. And then the third and final judge. And again, I'm sorry if I'm saying his name wrong. Is Judge Robert R. Altice Jr. He is he was appointed by Governor Mike Pence.

[00:12:57] [SPEAKER_00] And I believe started serving in 2015. And then his colleagues selected him to serve as chief judge for a time. So he got his bachelor's from Miami University of Ohio and has a master's in criminal justice from the University of Central Missouri and a J.D.

[00:13:24] [SPEAKER_00] from the University of Missouri, Kansas City School of Law. He was a deputy and chief deputy prosecutor in Jackson County, Missouri. Then I think he went into civil. He went into like private practice for a while. And then he went came to Marion County, Indiana. Marion County, for those of you who don't know, is where Indianapolis is. And he became a deputy prosecutor here. So he did that for a while. And then ultimately, I believe in 2000, he was elected to the Marion Superior Court bench.

[00:13:53] [SPEAKER_00] And he's worked a lot of pretty serious murder, felony cases. I think he's done a couple of death penalty cases from what I could see. As a prosecutor, one thing he rather as a judge, one thing he was presiding over. In 2006, David W. Brown pled guilty but mentally ill in Marion County for murdering his 15-year-old son, Harley, and shooting his daughter, Ashley.

[00:14:21] [SPEAKER_00] And so Judge Altice Jr. was on the case for that one. And in 1994, as a prosecutor, Altice was on a case of Wilberto Rivera. And that was a case where he was accused of shooting a guy.

[00:14:41] [SPEAKER_00] Judge Paula E. LaPasa overturned the whole thing, basically acquitted him by saying that a witness kind of collapsed and couldn't, like, kind of fell apart on the state. And she said it could not be proved that this was not self-defense. So that case collapsed. And Altice was in the newspaper saying he was disappointed. In 1992, there was a murder, a man named Gary A. Moore.

[00:15:07] [SPEAKER_00] On February 23, 1992, he was murdered by a guy named Lance A. Wilson. This was, like, a cocaine dispute. And Altice got a conviction on that one.

[00:15:19] [SPEAKER_02] Refresh your wardrobe as the temperatures warm up without overheating your wallet. Shop our wonderful sponsor, Quince, and get premium luxury for less.

[00:15:29] [SPEAKER_00] Quince is our favorite clothing brand for many reasons. The clothes look great. They feel great. None of that fancy, expensive stuff that stays in the back of your closet because you hate wearing it on some level. These are clothes you'll be excited to put on again and again. Quince's clothing is high quality and enduring. All of our Quince pieces are crafted to last. And perhaps most importantly, you can actually afford these pieces. They're a great price and they never go out of fashion.

[00:15:55] [SPEAKER_02] Quince doesn't do markups or middlemen. All their products are 50 to 80 percent less expensive than what you'd find at competitors. So they're affordable without sacrificing quality.

[00:16:06] [SPEAKER_00] This spring and summer, you're going to love wearing their 100 percent European linen shorts and shirts from $34.

[00:16:14] [SPEAKER_02] I love Quince's work shirts. I wear my 100 percent European linen utility shirt in Martini Olive all the time. It's comfortable. It's an elevated version of my usual style, but it looks crisper and more put together. Plus, it's very comfortable as the temperatures heat up. Most importantly of all, Anya loves the way I look in it.

[00:16:35] [SPEAKER_00] Refresh your every day with luxury you'll actually use. Head to Quince.com slash msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada, too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com slash msheet. And there was also a pretty heinous case in January 11th, 1996.

[00:17:05] [SPEAKER_00] There was two gentlemen where they were essentially like robbed, tied up, beaten and then shot. Like one of them went in to check on the other. Like it was a whole thing with these kind of two guys named Alfonso Harris and Kenny Elmore. Now, he got convictions. They got 85 and 45 years.

[00:17:29] [SPEAKER_00] But Altice was in the newspaper saying he was disappointed by the 45 years because he felt that was the minimum and he wanted the accomplice to get more. So that's just a brief snapshot of aspects of their careers. You're kind of seeing different things. You're seeing maybe some who, you know, two deputy prosecutors who had some pretty extensive experience on the prosecution side. One judge who is really more on the judge side and had her experience mostly in there.

[00:17:58] [SPEAKER_00] So Altice and Vedic are the prosecution. That's their experience. But all of them have been judges of some kind for years. So very, very experienced panel here.

[00:18:10] [SPEAKER_02] Very experienced panel. I know at one point we did a whole episode about oral arguments. We did.

[00:18:17] [SPEAKER_00] And you should honestly, people should listen to that because it's going to give you that is actually an interview with a guy who is very experienced in giving oral arguments. So like listen to that so you can kind of get more of a feel for this. We'll link to it in our show notes.

[00:18:28] [SPEAKER_02] So I don't necessarily want to reinvent the wheel, but let's talk a little bit about what the oral argument in front of this three-judge panel will be like. Basically, the lawyers for each side will have an opportunity to present their case.

[00:18:45] [SPEAKER_02] And as they start talking, the judges will interrupt them and ask questions, usually tough, aggressive questions, trying to find the weaknesses in their cases, trying to poke and prod to get at the actual meat of the matter.

[00:19:06] [SPEAKER_02] And this is what I was referring to earlier when I said there is a point where maybe at least a little bit you can read tea leaves because sometimes in these oral arguments, you can get an idea of where the judges' heads are by what kind of questions they are asking. Is that fair to say?

[00:19:26] [SPEAKER_00] Yes, it is. You can kind of like see what, you know, but like, I mean, it's not always that clear in my opinion. It's not always that clear.

[00:19:38] [SPEAKER_02] It's not always clear. That's why I said a little bit of a tea leaf situation. Yeah. Just a little bit. Just a little bit. I'll say we don't know who on the defense side is going to handle the argument, but both of his attorneys, both of his appellate attorneys, Mr. Lehman and Ms. Juliana have a lot of experience in this sort of venue. I'm sure whichever one gets the nod will do a fine job. We saw him.

[00:20:07] [SPEAKER_00] I've not been impressed with the writing from them so far. I'm just going to be honest. Like I was expecting a lot more. I felt like the Mark Lehman was on the case for getting Alan's trial team back together. You know, what a what a Trojan horse of a gift that turned out to be. So I felt I felt like with that, like the way they put those arguments together and filed those. I thought those were like pretty what I would expect and kind of that kind of like thoroughness and competency with this round.

[00:20:37] [SPEAKER_00] I've just not I've not seen it, but maybe they will bring out, you know, something more impressive in person. So we've got to be, you know, aware of that.

[00:20:48] [SPEAKER_02] I would tend to agree that the brief in the earlier case was more was better handled.

[00:20:55] [SPEAKER_00] It was way better handled. This is just a bunch of emotional, you know, tripe. I mean, it's just I don't it's not at all what I would expect from an appeals, you know, effort at all. It's it's just this kind of like over the top rhetoric that feels like, frankly, Andrew Baldwin helped with that. And I mean that in the most derogatory way possible.

[00:21:16] [SPEAKER_02] There is the classic law joke that I think I've referenced many times on this program, where if the facts are on your side, you pound the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound the law. If neither is on your side, you pound the table. And I felt that a lot of the briefs that Mr. Allen's team has produced so far in this appellate process have been pounding the table. They've just been kind of empty rhetoric like, oh, paper tigers.

[00:21:45] [SPEAKER_02] Let's set a match to the paper tigers, blah, blah, blah. And I'm not sure how much of that is a reflection of the skills of the lawyers who handled this and how much of it is simply the fact that they didn't really have very good arguments to make on behalf of Mr. Allen in this appeal, in my opinion.

[00:22:04] [SPEAKER_00] What is the type of kryptonite that takes away Superman's powers? Is that gold kryptonite?

[00:22:10] [SPEAKER_02] Gold kryptonite is the type of kryptonite that if Superman is exposed to it, he permanently loses his powers.

[00:22:15] [SPEAKER_00] Okay. That's this case for a lot of people. And that's not just lawyers. That's not just lawyers. A lot of people come up against this case and they lose something. I don't know. Maybe not permanently like Superman would, but I feel like this is the gold kryptonite of cases for a lot of media people, for a lot of law people too. I don't know what it is, but yeah, I was not expecting this kind of like, you know, haranguing. It's just like, okay, just make your argument. You know what I mean?

[00:22:45] [SPEAKER_00] Why are you trying to pose for the cameras in your filing? I don't understand that. And frankly, I'm disgusted by it because it seems more like what you would do to benefit yourself rather than your own client. Who again, I think is guilty, but like, I mean, that's neither here nor there. You got to get good representation. Maybe it's the best they felt they could do though. I don't know.

[00:23:08] [SPEAKER_02] I don't really think they had good arguments to make. Like, I don't.

[00:23:12] [SPEAKER_00] Maybe they didn't. And maybe then you got to pound the table. I don't know.

[00:23:15] [SPEAKER_02] That's what that joke is. If you don't have the facts or the law, you just pound the table.

[00:23:19] [SPEAKER_00] I would prefer people not because I just find it kind of insulting to everybody's intelligence. But I guess if that's all you can do. I just, I felt like, I don't know. I felt like these were weak arguments.

[00:23:30] [SPEAKER_02] And if I recall correctly, when Mr. Lehman argued before the Indiana Supreme Court in his successful bid to have Mr. Rosie and Mr. Baldwin returned as Mr. Allen's attorneys, I think I thought he did a better job than you did.

[00:23:47] [SPEAKER_00] I didn't care for his manner. It was very whiny. But I, but I mean, I give him credit for that. And I felt like his filings were good. I mean, you know, I don't know. I, I tend to have a, I tend to prefer and be biased. And this is probably different than a lot of people. I tend to be biased towards attorneys who are coming off as like more, less emotional, which is probably ironic coming from the likes of me. But, but no, I do.

[00:24:16] [SPEAKER_00] Because it's like, okay, you know, we're taking this seriously when you're like my clients, the saddest little guy in the world. It's like, that makes me want to like just throw myself out a window. That's me personally. That, that doesn't mean that's ineffective. You know, other people might like that. In that case, that's what you should do in order to vigorously defend your client. I'm just talking about my personal, personal preference.

[00:24:36] [SPEAKER_02] And in my personal experience, I find that maybe juries can be swayed by the more emotional stuff. I agree. I think when you're arguing before.

[00:24:49] [SPEAKER_00] It makes me sad that that's the case.

[00:24:50] [SPEAKER_02] When you're arguing before an appellate panel of judges, I think they're more likely to be persuaded by the actual facts and to disregard a lot of the emotionalism, which was another reason why I think both of us were a bit surprised by the tone of some of these filings from the defense team for Mr. Allen.

[00:25:13] [SPEAKER_02] So what happens after the oral argument, after both sides has their presentation, they're both questioned, oral argument is over. What happens then? Well, then the court considers the arguments and makes a decision. It's a three-judge panel, so it's decided by a simple majority vote.

[00:25:37] [SPEAKER_02] And then at some point after that, we'll find out what they decided when they issue an opinion. And the opinion may come out weeks, months. Who knows?

[00:25:49] [SPEAKER_00] Hopefully they'd expedite it. It's a pretty important case. But who knows? They may have a pretty crowded docket that they don't want to. I mean, I don't know.

[00:25:56] [SPEAKER_02] So, Anya, do you think at that point when the Court of Appeals issues its decision one way or the other, do you imagine then Ms. Cain, does the able Ms. Cain imagine that at that point this will all be over?

[00:26:08] [SPEAKER_00] No.

[00:26:09] [SPEAKER_02] No, because what would happen next is either side would have the option to request the Indiana Supreme Court to review it. And that itself is on its own timeline. That's a long process that will take months before that court decides whether or not to hear it, and then things get scheduled, blah, blah, blah. So, it's a very, very long process.

[00:26:36] [SPEAKER_02] And the oral arguments are by no means the end of the road.

[00:26:40] [SPEAKER_00] So, let me ask you something. So, if the defense doesn't get what they want, if they don't get a new trial that's denied, they can go to the Supreme Court of Indiana and say, hey, can you give us another shot here?

[00:26:51] [SPEAKER_02] Yes.

[00:26:52] [SPEAKER_00] And if the state is told, yeah, you've got to go do another trial, they can also do the same.

[00:26:57] [SPEAKER_02] They can ask the Supreme Court to review it.

[00:27:00] [SPEAKER_00] Either side can do this.

[00:27:01] [SPEAKER_02] Either side can do this. Okay. And I predict no matter what the ruling is.

[00:27:06] [SPEAKER_00] It will be appealed.

[00:27:07] [SPEAKER_02] It will be appealed. And I expect my own prediction, and I could be wrong because judges can always surprise you. I don't expect Mr. Allen's team to prevail.

[00:27:17] [SPEAKER_00] No, I don't. I mean, but as you said, there can always be surprises. I would not have expected the Supreme Court of Indiana to put both Judge Francis Gull, the original trial court judge, and Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosie, the original trial defense, on, both on. Right? I would have expected, like, I think I thought that she would stay on and they would remain off. But ultimately, I understood their reasoning.

[00:27:44] [SPEAKER_00] She didn't really make a proper record on that, and it wasn't the appropriate thing to just kind of unilaterally push them off. Even if they technically withdrew, I think it's fair to say that, you know, that was kind of, she pushed them off. But I didn't think they'd be like, yeah, everyone get along or we're turning this car around. I did not expect that. So there's certain things that can happen that you don't expect.

[00:28:06] [SPEAKER_02] Yes, definitely.

[00:28:07] [SPEAKER_00] You know, but I think, yeah, it'll be interesting. One question I have for you is, okay, what if the Indiana Supreme Court, they get an appeal, whatever, from either side? They're like, nah, we're not going to. Nope. Do what the appellate court said. What happens then? Can they go to the United States Supreme Court?

[00:28:28] [SPEAKER_02] I guess, in theory, they can try.

[00:28:31] [SPEAKER_00] Go to Washington.

[00:28:32] [SPEAKER_02] Take it to D.C. These are issues of national import that somehow have something to do with federal rights or whatever, or a dispute between the states. Let's take it to the U.S. Supreme Court. They can always do that. But then at some point, people will say, okay, there's no other places to appeal this to. He's lost.

[00:29:02] [SPEAKER_02] He's lost his criminal appeals. So at that point, then, Mr. Allen can start pursuing his post-conviction relief, which is a whole other kettle of fish that we probably should do an entire episode on. But when that happens, the government actor who will be in charge of representing the state's interests would be Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McClelland.

[00:29:25] [SPEAKER_00] And hypothetically, it would go back to the trial court judge, but Judge Gull may be very much resigned by then.

[00:29:32] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah, I forget when exactly her term is up, but I think it's...

[00:29:37] [SPEAKER_00] Retired, not resigned. Yeah. Retired.

[00:29:39] [SPEAKER_02] I think she will probably be out of office by the time it would reach her desk.

[00:29:45] [SPEAKER_00] With the Supreme Court of the United States, they would not be under any obligation to hear an appeal in this case. They wouldn't be like, they got to deal with it, right?

[00:29:56] [SPEAKER_02] Yes. And also, the Indiana Supreme Court would not be under any obligation. They're only obligated, in theory, to consider it.

[00:30:06] [SPEAKER_00] We can't afford a trip to D.C. right now. No, I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding. You know, I don't know what would happen with that. But gas prices are pretty bad, folks. No, I'm just kidding. I think, yeah, I mean, I don't really see going that far either. But again, things can always surprise you. This case always has had a lot of weird stuff happen with it. So I'm not necessarily as solid as you are about like, oh, nothing.

[00:30:33] [SPEAKER_00] You know, there's the meme online where it's like the nothing ever happens people, right? Where the people are like, that's not going to happen. That's not going to happen. I think you're very much in that. And I'm more like, I don't know. Stuff can happen.

[00:30:43] [SPEAKER_02] But stuff can happen.

[00:30:44] [SPEAKER_00] I know you know that.

[00:30:46] [SPEAKER_02] But again, and I could be wrong. I'm a human being. But I think in the larger sense of things, Richard Allen is correct when he told Jerry Holman before he was arrested, it doesn't matter. It's over. Richard Allen knew he was a guilty man. He knew that the machinery of justice, once it began to work in his case, it would succeed and he would be incarcerated for the rest of his life.

[00:31:16] [SPEAKER_02] And he's correct. So a lot of this stuff that we're going through now is very important. We all have the rights to appeals if we're convicted and that's important and all these things should be considered. But I don't expect him to win any of these appeals.

[00:31:36] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, I mean, there's just, I don't know. It's not just because we think he's guilty, folks. I mean, we do. We're very, very convinced of his guilt. I know he's guilty. But it's less that. I mean, we talked recently about the Alec Murdoch case, right? I think he's guilty, too. Now, I'm a little bit more open on that one because I'm not, I don't consider myself like a case expert. We're kind of following it along at this point and trying to catch up. But, you know, I feel like he's guilty.

[00:32:03] [SPEAKER_00] But, like, stuff that came out in that case with the county clerk and what she was doing and whatever, I felt like there was a, even if I thought he was guilty, I was like, yeah, that seems really inappropriate. And it feels like a higher court could take that very seriously.

[00:32:23] [SPEAKER_02] And in another local case from my hometown, a woman named Sharon Myers was killed, was murdered. And I believe the right person was convicted in that crime. I believe he was a guilty man, but I believe he got an unfair trial. So.

[00:32:40] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, that was Jason Hubble. He absolutely murdered that woman. He's a guilty murderer. But if his rights were violated, you can't, that can't stand. You just can't. It can't stand. That's not justice. So. And then, you know, a lot of people have a hard time with that because it's like, well, what about the victim? Yeah. But unfortunately, I mean, not unfortunately, correctly, our system is predicated on protecting the rights of the defendant. And that can feel really horrible to a lot of victims' families. And I understand that. I'm sympathetic with it.

[00:33:10] [SPEAKER_00] But I think it's the correct way to do things. And because it also protects innocent people. But it's, you know, it's troubling. But if I felt like I saw issues like that in this case, I would also, you know, I'd be like, well, that stinks. But even though he's guilty, got to give him a new trial. I mean, you got to be intellectually honest at the end of the day or you've got or you don't deserve to be saying anything. I mean, that's not the case amongst the Richard Allen truthers. For them, it's black and white thinking.

[00:33:39] [SPEAKER_00] It's everything, you know, everything, you know, that's evidence against Richard Allen, I will lie about or ignore. And everything that makes him sound sympathetic or makes it sound like he's getting out, I will, you know, amplify. We're not, I don't, we don't operate like that. If we felt like there was something here that was unfair to him, I would be very honest about it. And I would be like, oh, man, that, you know, that's not good. But for this, it's just like so much of it is just like reheated leftovers for the billionth time.

[00:34:08] [SPEAKER_02] Which to a certain extent is what the appeals process is all about.

[00:34:12] [SPEAKER_00] It's not, but it's like, but I guess I just didn't expect an appeals process to have so much like half truth. And that's putting it very nicely in it. I thought there was some kind of commitment to like, let's be honest.

[00:34:23] [SPEAKER_02] The appeals process is all about rehashing things.

[00:34:26] [SPEAKER_00] I get the rehashing is not the problem, but the like kind of omission is for me.

[00:34:31] [SPEAKER_02] And then on a more practical level, I want to point out that if you are interested in this case, you know, God bless you. You don't have to worry if you're interested in seeing this. You don't have to come to the courthouse and stand in line for hours. You can stay at home. It's going to be live streamed.

[00:34:56] [SPEAKER_00] We'll probably do that just on instinct, right? That's what we're used to. You can show up at 1 a.m. Wait, why are we doing this?

[00:35:04] [SPEAKER_02] But the people, you don't have to do that. You don't do it.

[00:35:06] [SPEAKER_00] Don't do it. You're going to wreck your mental health for a long time. Don't do it, kids. Don't try this at home. Yeah, don't do it. You can just watch. You can just stream it.

[00:35:16] [SPEAKER_02] And I'm glad of that. I think it's a good thing when things like this are made available to the public so people can see things for themselves and not just have to rely on people like you and me to tell you what we think of it.

[00:35:31] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, and you might form a different opinion. That's okay. You might say, well, I found this compelling or that compelling or whatever. I think it's better when more people have information typically. I mean, sometimes a trial gets sensationalized anyway, so I'm a little bit less optimistic about stuff like that because I've seen cases still go off the rails. And it's like, why does everyone believe this? Oh, because that's how it's being spun on social media because a lot of people can watch stuff, but they don't necessarily have the background to interpret it.

[00:35:58] [SPEAKER_00] And that's, you know, but I think if you watch enough trials, if you watch enough legal proceedings, you develop those skills. I don't feel like I had the ability to do that in the beginning, but honestly, watching it with Kevin, asking him questions, what's going on, has helped me, I feel like, be able to read the stuff a bit better, not to the same extent a lawyer could, but I feel like I can get through it more now than I could in the beginning where I'd just be like, what is going on?

[00:36:28] [SPEAKER_00] Anything else about oral arguments? So what's this? When's this going down?

[00:36:32] [SPEAKER_02] This is happening, I believe, in September. All right. And it's going to be at the Supreme Court's courtroom.

[00:36:40] [SPEAKER_00] Which is in the Indiana State Capitol?

[00:36:42] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah. So they're probably choosing that location because it's a little bit bigger. So more people who are interested can come. But again, you don't have to do that. You can stay at home.

[00:36:57] [SPEAKER_00] Sounds like you're trying to convince them to stay at home. Ulterior motives.

[00:37:03] [SPEAKER_02] You can just stay at home in the comfort of your own home. You can have beverages with you. That's important. You can't do that in the courtroom.

[00:37:14] [SPEAKER_00] Right. I remember the last time they did oral arguments here, we got one press pass. You went in. I hung out in this weird phone booth thing for the entirety of the duration.

[00:37:25] [SPEAKER_02] And a number of people commented on how odd that was. No one commented on that. You were just hanging out in a phone booth by yourself.

[00:37:31] [SPEAKER_00] I don't want to talk to people. Leave me alone. Being antisocial. Well, I wanted somewhere. And then they actually had it on a screen outside the room. So I was kind of watching it. There wasn't really like, I think there wasn't a lot of places to sit. But yeah. So I'll be curious to see what happens this time. You got September. I'm trying to think of if there was anything else I had a question about for you. But yeah, I think, you know, it's a case that we'll go through the process and we'll follow it as it does.

[00:38:01] [SPEAKER_00] But I would just encourage you, like, if you see Richard Allen truthers, like, screaming about anything. I just, I'm not trying to be mean here, although they certainly deserve it. But like, I don't, they don't really understand how anything works. And they never have. And a lot of the creators who know better, who kind of feed into that sort of thing, you know, they're doing so in order to, you know, cement their position and get them to donate money to them.

[00:38:28] [SPEAKER_00] So I would just say, like, sometimes I think, like, the normal people who don't want to, like, be fanboying and girling over a child murderer who's, like, a disgusting sex pest. I think they see this and they're like, oh my gosh, like, this is a really big deal. And I would just say, like, few things are. You know, it would be a big deal if they granted him a new trial. But assigning oral arguments is not really much to go on.

[00:38:56] [SPEAKER_02] Before we go, first of all, is there anything you wanted me, wanted to talk about before I conclude?

[00:39:02] [SPEAKER_00] Well, no, we'll be covering it and we'll be, you know, looking at it.

[00:39:06] [SPEAKER_02] Before we go, we would be remiss if we did not quickly mention that we are starting to make our premium services more robust. We have the Patreon where you get ad-free and early episodes and a couple of extra episodes. Now we're also offering those same things on Apple. You can subscribe through Apple. You can get some extra episodes, get ad-free episodes, early release.

[00:39:34] [SPEAKER_02] And Anya is cooking up ideas for even more new content and extra content for us to offer at those platforms. And it doesn't matter whether you sign up for Patreon or Apple. We'll make sure you get the same extra content.

[00:39:51] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, don't sign up for both.

[00:39:53] [SPEAKER_02] Unless, again, unless you want to make me really happy.

[00:39:55] [SPEAKER_00] Don't. I don't waste your money. Everyone, we gotta, I don't want anyone to get ripped off. So just don't.

[00:40:02] [SPEAKER_02] Unless you want to make me really happy.

[00:40:03] [SPEAKER_00] You don't have to do that. You know, you could just, let's not, Kevin's trying to like lean into some parasocial nonsense right now and I'm trying to de-influence you. That's what's happening. If you, you know, if you, if you want to, don't do both. Don't, don't waste your money. That's my take.

[00:40:20] [SPEAKER_02] Are we done?

[00:40:21] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. Thank you guys for listening. Bye.

[00:40:23] [SPEAKER_02] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail dot com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:40:44] [SPEAKER_00] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:41:08] [SPEAKER_02] 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.

[00:41:17] [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. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience, as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. Thanks for listening.

[00:41:39] Thanks for listening.