The Delphi Murders: The Indiana Court of Appeals Weighs in on Kegan Kline

[00:00:00] Thank you so much to our sponsor, Viya Hemp. These folks make delectable gummies for you to enjoy of the THC and THC-free CBD and CBN varieties. We love the CBD and CBN options. There's something for everyone, whether you want to relax, get high, become more productive,

[00:00:18] or boost your sleep routine. Whatever mood you're trying to create, Viya's got you covered. These gummies are delicious and legal to ship to all 50 states. If you're like us, you might need some help settling down at night to go to sleep. We can be

[00:00:32] downright jittery after a day spent running around looking into disturbing stories about crime. I've found Xen to be a nice THC-free option. CBN and CBD help me unwind as I try to catch some Zs. Viya's new Dreams formulations also can help with sleep.

[00:00:49] They allow for a fully customizable sleep journey, featuring 2, 5, and 10 milligram options, depending on the strength you're seeking. Head to viyahemp.com and use the code MSHEET to receive 15% off, plus one free sample of their award-winning gummies

[00:01:04] for people age 21 and older. That's viiahemp.com and use MSHEET at checkout. Please support our show and tell them we sent you. Get the rest you deserve with Dreams from Viya. Content warning. This episode contains discussion of the sexual abuse of children,

[00:01:23] including discussion of child sexual abuse materials. This information is very disturbing and listener discretion is advised. So of course we've spent a lot of time on this podcast talking about Kagan Klein, the awful crimes he was charged with, and what happened when he pled guilty and was

[00:01:48] ultimately sentenced for those crimes. But that was not the end of the story. Mr. Klein chose to appeal his sentence to the Indiana Court of Appeals, and they have made a decision. So I think

[00:02:01] it's worth our time to spend a moment or two going through all of this, trying to discuss the arguments Kagan Klein and his attorneys made, and hearing what the Court of Appeals thought of

[00:02:14] it. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist. 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. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:30] And this is The Delphi Murders. The Indiana Court of Appeals weighs in on Kagan Klein.

[00:03:21] So Anya, before we even get to that, maybe we should take a moment to remind everybody, who is Kagan Klein? Kagan Klein is a 30-year-old Indiana man. And his relevance to our story comes from the fact that he at one time was being heavily looked into

[00:03:40] in relation to the Delphi murders case, of course, the murders of Delphi teenagers, Liberty German and Abigail Williams. So as we've reported on this show many times, there have been any number of men who came up in the Delphi case as suspects, as people of interest,

[00:03:59] as, you know, let's dig into these folks and see if there's any connection there. Kagan Klein was one of them, although it was never clear to us that he was actually being

[00:04:09] considered as a suspect for the murders themselves or if he was just seen as somebody who could have further answers on what happened. Kagan Klein's crimes came to light because of the Delphi murders investigation. So as a result of investigators digging into the murders of

[00:04:29] these two kids, they uncovered evidence around child sexual abuse materials. And basically, what that means is images of children being sexually exploited, just horrifying stuff. And so to us, the Kagan Klein story is a part of the Delphi murders story, regardless of whether

[00:04:52] it turns out if he's connected at all. At this time, we've seen no indication from official sources or authorities or anything that there's any sort of link between Richard Allen, who's currently on, you know, in charge with the murders and Kagan Klein. And so we have to

[00:05:10] assume that there's not necessarily a link there, but we can say that these crimes were uncovered as a result of these investigations. So it's part of the story. It's kind of maybe like a side

[00:05:23] avenue at this point, but it's still interesting. And something that we feel passionately about is covering this because it's really educated us a lot about the scourge of CSAM or child sexual abuse materials that exists on the internet. And it's very important to us to bring this

[00:05:41] information to you because we feel it could be helpful for any parent or anyone with children that they care about in their lives to keep them safe from predators like this, because it's unfortunately a reality these days that the predator often isn't in a van on your street.

[00:05:57] He's in your child's phone trying to talk to them, trying to get them to send images. And that's sort of what Kagan Klein represents. The truth will set you free. We live by that on the murder sheet. We're always looking to get at the truth when we

[00:06:13] cover criminal cases, when we're parsing through legal documents and stories from survivors and detectives and attorneys just trying to get the full picture. So you can imagine why we love to listen to Brittany Ard's Quest for the Truth on the new

[00:06:26] podcast. You probably think this story's about you. Britt is all about getting an answer to a deeply personal question. What if the person you thought was your soulmate never really existed? After a chance meeting on the Hinge dating app, a man named Kanan stole Britt's heart.

[00:06:45] She fell hard for him, but he ended up dragging her into a web of lies. The Kanan she came to love was an invention, a ghost. Britt's journey to piece together this disturbing mystery isn't just compelling. It's a raw look at self-discovery and the power of coming together

[00:07:02] to form a community through shared grief and trauma. Listen and follow You Probably Think This Story's About You wherever you listen to podcasts. And he was charged, rather, with a variety of offenses, mostly related to uh sexually explicit images of underage children.

[00:07:22] And he was sentenced to 43 years, which is a much harsher sentence than most people expected. You may think back to when the idea of him pleading guilty was floated. There were people in the media saying, oh, he'll probably be out in a year, maybe two years.

[00:07:40] That's what I thought, honestly. I mean, I remember back then thinking, well, if he pleads guilty, this is going to be a pretty, you know, much a slap on the wrist. David That didn't happen. And what let's give credit where credit is due.

[00:07:54] I'm going to talk more about this at the end of the show probably. But Miami County Prosecutor's Office, the Miami County Prosecutor's Office led by Jeffrey Sienkiewicz did an incredible job with this case. And more specifically, the attorneys Courtney Allwine and Jennifer Kiefer did a great job

[00:08:16] with this case. And Jennifer Kiefer wrote what I've called the Kiefer Brief in, I believe, May of last year, in which to summarize really in a very simplistic way, she said, everybody thinks he's going to be out in just a year or so.

[00:08:35] No, he can be sentenced for a whole lot longer than that. And she explained that in great detail. And that brief really changed the way a lot of people thought about sentencing Kagan Klein in particular.

[00:08:51] And I think it has the potential to change the way people think about sentencing these offenders in general. And so that brief and the arguments in it, we're going to be discussing because they are kind of at the heart of some of these appeals. Absolutely.

[00:09:09] But then again, it's not surprising that Kagan Klein filed an appeal sort of saying that his sentence is too harsh and that the court of appeals needed to take a look at it. Right. That's pretty common after something like this.

[00:09:24] Of course, he can't appeal his conviction because he pled guilty, but he can appeal a sentence. Yeah, it would be ridiculous if a person could plead guilty and then say, it was wrong that I pled guilty. Some people have tried. No, I mean, everyone's going to try everything.

[00:09:40] Right. But it definitely that's not a winning strategy at that point. You've kind of taken that off the table in many cases, unless you can say that somehow that was coerced, which, you know. So Klein's appellate attorney, Mark James, filed his brief in this back in December.

[00:10:00] And I believe we covered that brief on the show at that time. So I don't think there's really reason for us to go into that brief in depth. But let's just talk about it for a minute or two.

[00:10:10] So we all are on the same page and understand the arguments here. I'm going to read from that basically just something to give you the gist of the argument. Summary of the argument. Klein's sentence is manifestly unreasonable based on his character and the nature of the offense.

[00:10:32] Klein has no other criminal history, and he saved the state the time and expense of a trial. The court improperly determined the episodes of criminal conduct. So he's saying there that basically Klein doesn't have a criminal history, so he shouldn't have been sentenced so harshly.

[00:10:52] And boy, wasn't it great that he didn't make them go to trial. And by the way, also the episodes of criminal conduct were determined incorrectly. So that raises an obvious question. What are these episodes of criminal conduct? We all know that each criminal charge carries a certain penalty.

[00:11:15] And we also can imagine, let's say for instance that I was to rob someone who has three $10 bills in his pocket. And I take those three $10 bills and let's say I'm going to rob someone who has three $10 bills in his pocket.

[00:11:38] And I take those three $10 bills and let's say that the penalty for robbery like that is a year. So you could say, well, Kevin stole $30. He should go to prison for a year.

[00:11:53] Or you could try to make the argument that no, Kevin stole a $10 bill and then another $10 bill and then a third $10 bill. Therefore, he committed three offenses and should go to jail for three years. I don't think anybody would really buy that.

[00:12:09] So what we're looking at is what is an episode? An episode would be when I go and rob the person of the three $10 bills at one time. That's a single episode. You can't just pile in everything I conceivably stole during that time and make a separate

[00:12:26] episode out of it. I have the same victim, the same incident. It's one episode. Does that make sense? Yeah, it makes sense. And that would be that sort of a principle to prevent prosecutorial overzealousness or

[00:12:43] abuse where, you know, let's send this guy away for three years instead of one. Ooh, what if we made each $10 bill a separate episode? Basically, it's to prevent that. Yeah, we said that doesn't fly because obviously the robbery was one single act. It wasn't three separate acts.

[00:13:04] So this is where we started talking last year about cereal boxes because... Oh, goody. Because one of the crimes that Kagan was charged with was possession. And so let's say that Anya goes down to the corner grocery store and steals a box of cereal

[00:13:26] and brings it home and puts it on the shelf. And then a week later, she goes to another grocery store, steals another box of cereal, puts it on the shelf next to the first.

[00:13:37] If we then charge her with possession of stolen cereal, you could say, well, she is possessing both of those boxes of cereal on the shelf at the same time. And that's the way a lot of people would think about child sexual abuse materials.

[00:13:53] This person has two files at the same time. It's a single act. But another way of looking at it is no, Anya stole these two boxes on two separate occasions. So even though she is possessing them at the same time, it's actually two different episodes

[00:14:12] of a criminal act. This is a little complicated. Am I explaining it OK? You're explaining it great. It's making sense to me. And so ultimately, the act of procurement becomes the episode, not the possession outright. It's when you started possessing it.

[00:14:30] And what they were looking at with Kagan Klein specifically is when files were downloaded. Yes. So are they being downloaded together? Are they being downloaded separately on different dates at different times? Yes.

[00:14:44] And from the defense point of view, they would want to minimize the number of criminal episodes because the fewer criminal episodes that he is convicted of or pleads guilty to, the lower his total sentence. The prosecutors would want to maximize the number of episodes because, again, the more

[00:15:05] episodes he is convicted of or pleads guilty to, the higher the sentence. Does that make sense? It does make sense. So it's a very important question at the heart of this case is how many episodes of criminal conduct did Kagan Klein admit to?

[00:15:22] Because it sort of determines how long he's going to be in prison. Yes, and there's certain factors we look at to evaluate that. Like when I was robbing someone of the $10 bills, that was one action that had the same victim, the same incident, the same time.

[00:15:39] I just happened to get three $10 bills from them. When Anya is stealing the cereal, she's doing that from different supermarkets at different times. That's different episodes. So that's the distinction there. Again, is that making sense? Yes.

[00:15:54] And it's but also, I mean, to use your example, if every week you would jump the same guy as you are want to do and steal another $10 for him, then you could argue that those are separate episodes. Yes.

[00:16:06] If I stole $30 from a person, but I stole it from him on three separate occasions. Yeah. A combined total of $30, you know, $10 each week, then you can make an argument that those are separate episodes. Makes sense to me.

[00:16:22] So that was in my clumsy blunt way of simplifying an elegant argument that Jennifer Kiefer, according to Allinwine and Jeffrey Sienkiewicz advanced in that memo last year. Yes. And again, that is really the heart of this case is how do we classify the criminal actions?

[00:16:46] How do we categorize them into a certain number of episodes? That is basically what most of this is about. Yes. Yeah. Do you look at Kagan Klein's cache of child sexual abuse materials and do you see just one big offense?

[00:17:04] Or do you see a man choosing to download something that represents the horrific abuse and horrific treatment of different children again and again or procuring it from his victims that he manipulated into sending him pictures? So what do you see?

[00:17:24] And I think, yeah, it's a very interesting legal question, but it's definitely in the at least in the initial courtroom, the Kiefer argument carried the day and Courtney Allinwine and Jen Kiefer were able to successfully ensure that Klein was found to have committed

[00:17:47] 13 episodes of criminal conduct, which then added up to 43 years. So they got him on a lot of episodes there. If those episodes, if those charges had been combined into fewer episodes than the predictions we would have seen about him getting a very short sentence would have come true.

[00:18:07] I think all of us can probably remember instances where we've seen sexual offenders get much shorter sentences than we believe they should. Yes. That did not happen here. Yes. I will say this in addition to that.

[00:18:22] So, you know, what James, the appellate attorney for Klein is arguing is that, you know, in his view, counts 10 through 20 should have been combined into one episode because and in that case, just to give you a sense of how important that is, instead of getting

[00:18:40] 14 years for those various assorted crimes, he would have gotten seven. So this really added up. Yes. So it was some brilliant strategy on the part of the prosecution. Another thing is it wasn't specifically mentioned here, but it'll come up later.

[00:18:58] We may as well talk about it now is aggravating factors and mitigating factors when it comes to sentencing. And basically an aggravating factor is something that makes the underlying offense worse. A mitigating factor is something that makes the underlying offense better.

[00:19:17] Let's imagine, for instance, that my parents came over last night and Anya made a horrible dinner that gave them food poisoning. So we can say, well, Anya went out to the grocery store that day. She got the highest quality ingredients. She got a great recipe book.

[00:19:36] She followed it to the letter. These would be mitigating factors. It doesn't change what happened to my parents, but Anya really tried hard. Isn't this a criminal offense all of a sudden? Aggravating factors would be Anya waited to the last minute.

[00:19:53] Anya just went and found ingredients out of a garbage pail and just didn't really care. And she didn't even follow her recipe. She just made it up as she went along. Again, that doesn't change the fact that my parents still got food poisoning, but maybe

[00:20:09] it makes what Anya did seem worse. And maybe she should get a harsher sentence as opposed to if she followed all the ingredients, maybe we say it was not a big deal. Does that make sense? Yes.

[00:20:19] To use your example about stealing $10 bills from people, would mitigating be that you were desperately ill and needed $30 for a prescription medication and that was the motivating factor in you choosing a life of crime versus an aggravating factor, which is like you stole from a child? Yeah.

[00:20:44] Or even an aggravating factor would be if I used a gun on an adult whose child was with him. And told them that you were going to kill them if they didn't give you the money. Yes.

[00:20:55] So basically, to really boil it down in a stupid way, aggravating equals this makes things worse because you were really horrible about it. Mitigating means we kind of see where you were coming from. You still shouldn't have done it, but we can see what was moving.

[00:21:14] So judges look at that. It doesn't change what happened. It doesn't change what the person has been found guilty of or pled guilty to. But a judge can say, oh, when I look at this, it makes it seem worse.

[00:21:27] I'm going to give them a bit of a harder sentence. Oh, I look at this, it makes it seem a little bit better. I'm going to give them a little bit of an easier sentence.

[00:21:35] And for instance, in this, Kagan Klein's attorney says, well, Kagan Klein didn't make them go through a trial. He pled guilty. So because of that, that should be a mitigating factor. So that's that argument. Does that make sense? Yes.

[00:21:53] So what James claims in this brief is that Judge Spahr, Judge Timothy Spahr, who is, of course, the judge in Kagan Klein's case, improperly considered aggravating factors. And he lists those as not going to counseling, not getting a high school equivalency or GED or driver's license.

[00:22:12] And because Judge Spahr mentioned those in sort of his preamble to his discussion of aggravating and mitigating factors. One thing that will be noted later, but I think I will say here is that it does not appear

[00:22:26] to me that Judge Spahr considered Kagan Klein's lack of doing different things to be aggravating factors. He was merely mentioning that before getting into the meat of what was aggravating and what was mitigating. So I see where James is coming from.

[00:22:41] I just don't think that that is necessarily an accurate summation of what Spahr was actually saying. So that is essentially the argument that was being. Oh, there's one more thing I think we wanted to mention. Yeah, I'll say this.

[00:22:58] This is a quote from James about why he thinks that there should be relief here. So there is nothing to suggest Klein will not respond affirmatively to imprisonment. So a period of probation would be beneficial to Klein and the community.

[00:23:14] This is interesting because I think there is some indication that Klein has not responded well to imprisonment in the past, namely that when he was in jail, he was engaging a lot of sort of borderline extortion and manipulation tactics when sexting with a wide group of

[00:23:33] women and trying to demand money from podcasters, including us, to give information on the Delphi murders case. So that came up at his trial. That kind of came up as like you seemingly haven't really learned your lesson because

[00:23:47] even though it's not a crime to do that with adult women, it still looks very similar to what you were doing with these children. And that doesn't really scream somebody who has turned over a new leaf. Fair enough.

[00:24:00] So I think, you know, again, I see what James is saying. King Klein did not have a criminal record, although I believe there were some things alluded to about juvenile record stuff that couldn't come up. But for all intents and purposes, he didn't have anything in his past.

[00:24:16] But I think the imprisonment thing there is a little bit shakier based on his behavior while incarcerated. So the state did respond to this and the state responded in the form of a brief from Stephen J. Hosler, deputy attorney general of the state of Indiana.

[00:24:38] Yeah, he works in Todd Rikita's office. So I'm going to read just a bit of that now. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing Klein. Sentencing decisions lie within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed only for an abuse of discretion.

[00:24:59] This court will only reverse a trial court sentence upon a showing of an abuse of that discretion, a holding that is clearly against the logic and circumstances of the facts facing the trial court. The trial court can abuse its discretion by one, relying on an aggravating circumstance

[00:25:17] that has no support in the record. Two, ignoring a significant mitigating circumstance that has sufficient support in the record. Three, using a legally improper reason to impose a sentence. Or four, failing to enter a sentencing statement entirely for a non-advisory sentence.

[00:25:37] So the argument they're making is the sentence handed down to Klein was not an abuse of discretion on the part of the judge. They're saying the judge has discretion to impose whatever sentence within the statutory limit he feels appropriate, he or she feels appropriate.

[00:25:59] And that that discretion is only abused if the judge does something ridiculous. Like let's say Anya is going to be sentenced for stealing the box of cereal and the judge says, well, here's an aggravating factor.

[00:26:17] Ms. Kane used a submachine gun when she stole the cereal and the record shows there was no weapon used. Ms. Schulman Or like, I don't like your face, you know, or like something or like I, well, I personally hold stock in Kellogg's and I'm outraged as a shareholder.

[00:26:35] Something totally inappropriate. And so what they're saying here is that there are specific instances and categories that we can group those instances into when a judge is abusing their discretion. But abusing their discretion is not necessarily the same thing as like, I don't agree with

[00:26:54] the sentence or it seems kind of harsh. It has to be has to fall in a specific category as to how the judge came to this conclusion or how the judge handled the conclusion. Dr. Stevens And they're making the argument that nothing

[00:27:04] in this case comes even remotely close to that. And then I believe the brief addresses what you were talking about earlier in regard to some of the comments Judge Sparman made. You want to talk about that? Ms. Kane Yes, certainly.

[00:27:17] The comments are at best an explanation of the trial court's fifth aggravating circumstance that Klein's sexual behavior and attitudes and selfish manipulative character support the imposition of additional sentencing consequences upon him or that Klein had not turned over a new leaf after the initial search warrant in 2017.

[00:27:37] While Klein told officers that the 2017 search warrant was a wake up call, his failure to address the issues he claimed contributed to him seeking out child pornography, soliciting children and exploiting children shows that he had not taken efforts to correct his behavior and attitudes.

[00:27:54] Thus, the purported aggravators were really facts supporting another aggravating circumstance or facts contradicting potential mitigating circumstances. Dr. Stevens What does all that mean on you? Ms. Kane So essentially, they're saying that Klein gave his reasoning to officers in 2017 when his devices were first seized and CCM was found

[00:28:16] on them. And he's saying things like, I need to go back to school. I need to get, you know, I don't even have a driver's license. I need to grow up. I need to do all these things.

[00:28:24] So what Spar is referencing is basically he didn't do any of that. Like he I mean, and that's not necessarily an aggravating factor, but it is noting that like he's really made no effort to change in all this time.

[00:28:36] So it contributes to other aggravating factors around his repeated behavior, but it doesn't they're not in and of themselves aggravating factors. It's just that if Kagan Klein had actually gone to counseling or gotten help or done

[00:28:48] something to try to work on himself in a meaningful way, perhaps that could have been a mitigating factor as somebody who's trying to control their issues here. Yeah. Interesting. The brief then goes on to argue that the 43-year sentence for Kagan Klein was not inappropriate,

[00:29:15] that it was a fair and just sentence under the circumstances, and that in order for the court to in order for the Court of Appeals to review that sentence, Kagan Klein in the mind of this brief must provide compelling evidence portraying by a positive light the

[00:29:38] nature of the offense, such as accompanied by restraint, regard and lack of brutality and his character, such as substantial virtuous traits, persistent examples of good character. So they're saying you can only expect the Court of Appeals to change or revise a sentence again

[00:29:59] under specific circumstances, and those don't seem to be circumstances that apply here in the mind of the state of Indiana. Yeah. So next they talk about, they basically get into more about his crimes, his underlying crimes.

[00:30:24] So we are not going to talk about them in the same level of detail as we've talked about them before, but we are going to talk about them. So it's not necessarily pleasant listening. Yeah.

[00:30:37] But if you want to skip ahead like five minutes or three minutes, something like that, that's fine. And by the same token, if you desire more information about it, we did an episode on

[00:30:48] the day he was sentenced last year, last year in June, where we went into extensive detail about all of this. Yes. And we will include that episode in our show notes. It's again, this is all very disturbing,

[00:31:04] but we don't really want to avert our eyes from this stuff because it did happen. And we don't feel that pretending like stuff like this doesn't happen is beneficial to anyone. So, again, listener discretion is advised here. Was there a section you wanted to read?

[00:31:20] Yes. The nature of Klein's offenses does not warrant a revision of a sentence. This court's consideration of the nature of the offense recognizes the range of conduct that can support a given charge and the fact that the particulars of a given case may render

[00:31:36] one defendant more culpable than another charged with the same offense. Klein's offenses are disturbing and horrifying. He solicited and groomed young girls using false identities. And as a result, he received approximately 100 images and 20 videos of child pornography.

[00:31:52] Klein preyed on young girls between the ages of 12 and 18, grooming them to send him explicit images of themselves by eliciting their pity as Emily Ann or appealing to them as Anthony Shotz. Klein convinced the girls to send him images and videos that depicted their

[00:32:08] unclothed breasts, vaginas, and buttocks or even videos of the girls masturbating. He also possessed images of children who were far younger, including a file depicting a child between two and four playing with an adult male penis. In addition to seeking explicit images

[00:32:25] of the girls, Klein would ask whether they would be willing to engage in sex acts with him for money, drugs, or other goods. He also traded child pornography with others online, thereby revictimizing the girls he preyed on. That Klein was able to engage in such extensive and horrifying

[00:32:41] conduct from the comfort of his home does not make his sentence inappropriate. Klein used the anonymity of the internet to groom and carry out his criminal conduct, which would have likely been impossible otherwise. Klein also asked many of the girls whether they would meet him,

[00:32:56] offered them money to meet him, and the majority of his victims were within driving distance of his residence. Klein has failed to carry his burden to provide compelling evidence portraying the nature of his offenses in a positive light necessary to prove that the trial court sentence

[00:33:11] was inappropriate. So what does that mean? Well, just what he did was horrifying and... Yeah, he needed to show that... yeah. The thing about like a property crime or theft, like things like theft, there can be mitigating factors like poverty, desperation, things like that. But when

[00:33:37] we're talking about sexual abuse, especially sexual abuse of children, I think it becomes very difficult to portray any sort of positive light on that. And yeah, I mean, again, when you're talking about even things like drug dealing that can have a really horrific impact on somebody's

[00:33:55] life, it can get somebody killed if they ingest drugs and they overdose. But I think a lot of us can understand that people due to addiction or due to issues around perhaps poverty, desperation,

[00:34:10] not having opportunities in life, how you could fall into that lifestyle, it doesn't make it okay. It doesn't make it okay at all. But it's something that you can say that, well, maybe in different circumstances, this person would have made different choices.

[00:34:24] Perhaps if someone committed an offense related to drugs and subsequently really made an effort to get treated and to get off drugs, and it turned their life around, then maybe you would have an argument. Yes. And I think there's not always necessarily that clear

[00:34:43] cut in this with sexual abuse crimes. Yes. And I mean, I know that there is some debate about recidivism around sexual offenses. I think that's something to definitely look into. And people within an incarcerated setting getting rehabilitative services, I think,

[00:35:09] is a good thing. And I think some sexual offenders can, through that rehabilitation, improve and whatnot. But there needs to be an acknowledgement of underlying, like, this is what I did. And if somebody can't even get to that point, I don't think that that's

[00:35:28] going to work. And I don't know that we've ever seen Kagan really get to that point. I don't believe we have. I think he's minimized what he's done again and again. I don't think

[00:35:37] I've ever seen him be like grappled with the weight of what he did. So, you know, that kind of argues against not being a threat in the future, because if you can't even acknowledge

[00:35:49] that you have a problem and that you did something horrible to people, then I don't really see someone in that situation. Why should you change? Because you didn't really do anything

[00:35:58] that was that bad. There was a final quote I wanted to read from this brief, very short one. Klein's decision to plead guilty does not reflect as well on his character as he contends, since it was merely a pragmatic decision. Again, the argument was made that King Klein

[00:36:16] pled guilty out of the kindness of his heart because he wanted to spare Miami County the the expense and time of a trial. And Deputy Attorney General Hosler is arguing that his decision to plead guilty, it really isn't about him being a decent person or accepting responsibility,

[00:36:41] because the fact of the matter is the evidence against Kagan Klein was absolutely overwhelming. If he went to trial, he was going to be found guilty. There was absolutely no doubt about that.

[00:36:58] Yeah. Being found guilty after having a parade of people in his life be brought as witnesses against him and having to testify against him. Yes. So he basically by pleading guilty, he spared himself an ordeal. So that's not about him doing something decent. That's about him

[00:37:16] sparing himself an ordeal. So then on June 27th, the decision was released. Yeah. So the memorandum decision came down from the Court of Appeals. So Judge Paul D. Matias of the third district wrote the decision. And then the two judges that concurred with him

[00:37:35] were Judge Elaine B. Brown of the fifth district and Judge Patricia A. Riley of the fourth district. So the appeals court has a lot of different judges on it, but typically it's a smaller group weighing in on these decisions is my understanding. Yes. So let's talk about what

[00:37:51] they found. Let's read from it. Klein argues that his sentence is manifestly unreasonable. One, as the state points out, this is no longer a valid argument or an appeal. To the extent Klein

[00:38:05] purports to argue that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character, that issue is waived for a complete lack of cogent argument under Indiana Appellate Rule 7b-2. So basically, they are just completely dismissing the idea that the sentence is

[00:38:27] inappropriate in the light of the offenses and of Kagan Klein's character. So they're saying the offenses are very bad and that Kagan Klein's character is not good. And that they follow that with a discussion of the issue of episodes. Do you want to read that? Yes.

[00:38:49] Klein does not dispute that the images supporting these charges were created on five separate dates. His sole argument on appeal is that his possession of those images on the same date means that his offenses constitute an episode of criminal conduct under the statute.

[00:39:04] But the evidence shows that the offenses were neither simultaneous nor contemporaneous. Accordingly, the court did not err when it found that counts 10 through 20 were comprised of five episodes of criminal conduct under Indiana Code Section 3550.1.2 and we affirm Klein's sentence.

[00:39:22] So basically, the Court of Appeals agreed with the arguments put forth in the Kiefer memo that was prepared by the office of Jeff Sienkiewicz and Courtney Alwyn. You have to go where the evidence

[00:39:36] is. The evidence says that he the procurements of these and and the, you know, the creation of these images were done on different dates at different times. They're not part of the same

[00:39:51] episode. You know, I mean, it might be a novel way of looking at this, but I think it's frankly a necessary one given the seriousness of these kinds of crimes. If it if it helps prosecutors

[00:40:03] deal with offenders that are this prolific and have such an extensive cache of these materials, then I think it's it's very sensible to look at it this way. And I don't think it makes sense to look at it like I happen to because that again,

[00:40:20] to go back to the silly cereal example, I mean, it would not be it would be ridiculous if I was, you know, for a month robbing the same grocery store every week in different instances and

[00:40:31] stealing different batches of cereal. And then I only they acted like, oh, well, that was just one big episode for her. It's like, no, I every day, every week I would wake up one day, decide I'm

[00:40:45] going to hit my local Walmart and go make that choice. And that's I don't even know how you can argue that that's not a different episode. So the only after this decision came down,

[00:41:00] you know, we'd heard from the Court of Appeals. We heard from the deputy attorney general who wrote the brief. We were curious to hear from Courtney Alwyn, who, of course, is the lead prosecutor

[00:41:13] on this case. And so we reached out to her for a comment. And I will read that now. We are pleased with the decision the Court of Appeals issued last Thursday. The 43 year sentence delivered in this case was a just and deserving sentence, well supported by the law

[00:41:31] and reflective of the nature of Kagan-Klein's offenses. As the Court of Appeals indicated in a footnote, this court has rarely had occasion to consider a more heinous set of facts than those

[00:41:44] here. My colleagues and I have a similar impression of this case and of the depravity we saw on Mr. Klein's devices. Our thoughts continued to be with the countless victims impacted by Kagan-Klein. We remain committed to our community, our children, and ensuring justice is served against

[00:42:02] those who are the most deserving. And again, that was a statement from Courtney Alwyn, who was the lead prosecutor on the case against Kagan-Klein in Miami County. Yeah. I want to say that, and we'll get into this later, but like these prosecutors,

[00:42:21] everyone involved in this case had to look at this stuff on his phone. And I will never forget Judge Spahr leaving to go look at this stuff. Yeah, there's a one point when the hearings,

[00:42:36] he, before he made a decision, he wanted to look at some of the images so he could get a good sense of them. So hearing was recessed and then it was called to session again a little bit later.

[00:42:47] He came back and he was like pale and just like, you know, he always came across like a very bubbly judge, you know, he's kind of like very, you know, very, like kind of friendly, like, oh,

[00:42:58] you know, very patient with people. And he just came back and it's like, face is just like totally blank. Like it, it was upsetting. I mean, it was, we didn't, we didn't obviously see anything,

[00:43:08] but like it was upsetting to think about all these people having to even look at this disgusting, horrific abuse. I think that, that affects you, that changes you when you see that. How can it not? How can it not? We never saw these images. Thank God.

[00:43:23] Just having them described. The descriptions. The descriptions, reading through the descriptions made me like sick for a week. Like I felt like it's just, it's just awful. And I commend everyone who was able to

[00:43:39] do this and do their jobs professionally. And I don't know how they do it, but let's get into what happens next. So is this it for Kagan Klein? Does he have any other options that he can pull at this point in terms of trying to reduce the sentence?

[00:43:55] He has a period of 45 days to ask for the Supreme Court of Indiana to take a look at all of this. Now, if he does that, does the Supreme Court of Indiana have to do it?

[00:44:07] They can decline. Okay. But they might, they might do it if he does that. So there could be further relief for him through that. Although frankly, it seems like this wasn't really close with the appellate court.

[00:44:26] No. And I would hope the prosecutors in other jurisdictions study this case and how the sentencing was done and use it as an example that they can follow in their own jurisdictions to get these people locked up longer to protect the community.

[00:44:51] Yeah. Children need to be protected. Children are the most, you know, some of the most vulnerable amongst us and it becomes hard. It's easy for parents to keep an eye on their kids and teach

[00:45:02] them about stranger danger and teach them that, you know, that they don't have it. Like if someone touches them in a weird way that they should come and tell somebody and keep an eye on people that

[00:45:13] they let into their children's lives. All of that's difficult, but it's possible for people to do. But when you have people who are predators, who are manipulating technology and using social media to access children through their phones, that's very difficult for parents to monitor. So when

[00:45:30] these cases come up, I think that there should be some strict severe consequences and accountability for predators that are caught doing this. And I mean, I think that if a case like this, if you're

[00:45:44] in Indiana, I know a lot of our listeners are in Indiana and there's a case that happens locally to you, I think it's worth reaching out to your prosecutor's office and citing this case and saying

[00:45:54] are you going to do what Miami County did? Are you going to step up like they did? Maybe in all cases, not in all cases, that's not necessarily going to be possible. It's just going to

[00:46:04] the facts of the case will largely determine whether or not that's possible. But if it is a situation where there is a prolific predator who is doing this online in different dates and different

[00:46:15] instances, then I don't believe that there is really a reason that this sort of model shouldn't be used again and again. Because I can tell you, I think child predators, I think most people can agree,

[00:46:31] people who are abusing children like this do not belong in out free in our society and able to do it again. And this isn't the place to really go into a lot of detail about what's happening with the Richard

[00:46:47] Allum case. And so I'm not going to do that. Suffice to say that a number of people have indicated the way that case has progressed has caused them to lose faith in the justice system

[00:46:59] in the state of Indiana. With that said, I think this particular case, this Kay and Klein case, should have the opposite effect on people. And I really think that should be stressed. Watching this case work its way through the justice system. I was impressed. Kagan, Klein's defense

[00:47:20] attorneys originally was Andrew Aki. He worked on this case for years. And then who came on later on? Eric D. Honeyager and William F. Berkshire. They came in kind of at the last minute after he

[00:47:32] fired, fired Aki for what appeared to be just frankly ridiculous reasons. I don't think that was on Aki. These were really good attorneys who had an obviously guilty client, but they worked to protect their clients' rights as they should.

[00:47:49] Even when that client was often actively working against them? Judge Tim Spar, I think did a great job handling the case and conducting the case. And I saw some great cooperation between the law enforcement agencies and the prosecutor, Indiana State Police.

[00:48:10] Yeah, Detective David Vito was the lead investigator on this case. Did an excellent job obviously compiling a lot of evidence against Kagan Klein. He came into this overall case later. He was not involved in the original sort of like 2017, whatever happened there in terms

[00:48:29] of delaying this whole thing. But when he did take it on, he did an excellent job. Commander Christopher Cecil of the Indiana State Police Cybercrime Unit did incredible. I mean, that man does some very difficult work dealing with some of the CSAM stuff. So again,

[00:48:46] these two detectives did a great job. Probation Officer Kathy Knight from Miami County did a wonderful job kind of summarizing Kagan as a person in the sort of pre-sentencing report. And again, I said it earlier, I'd like to say it again, the Miami County Prosecutor's Office

[00:49:04] led by Jeff Sienkiewicz and represented on this case by lead prosecutor Courtney Allwine and Jennifer Kiefer. They did an extraordinary job handling this case and getting justice for Kagan Klein's victims. And they should be commended for that. And personally,

[00:49:24] I think the people of Miami County are lucky to have such a great team of prosecutors working on their path. Dr. Jennifer McKinney I concur. And as for Kagan,

[00:49:35] we have done a lot of extensive reporting on him. We've talked to him. Part of me does feel bad for the child that he was once being raised in such an abusive, chaotic, disturbing household. Even if he

[00:49:51] was not necessarily the target of the physical abuse going on at the hands of his father, Tony Klein, he was witnessing that. And that is obviously incredibly damaging for a child to see.

[00:50:04] That being said, none of that excuses the choices and decisions made by adult Kagan when he decided that he was going to victimize other children. And so at that point, I think my sympathy evaporates

[00:50:21] because when you're dealing with bad urges like that, there's always room to try to get help before you do something horrible. And instead of doing that at every turn, he sort of leaned into whatever

[00:50:36] he wanted to do. And the net result was a lot of children suffered at his hands. And I just really wish all of his victims peace going forward. What happened was not their fault.

[00:50:51] An adult man took advantage of them, and they're in no way to blame for that happening. The guilt lies with him, not them. And again, wherever they are, I hope they find some peace. Well said. Well, thank you, everyone, so much for listening. And yeah, thank you.

[00:51:15] 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 murdersheetatgmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:51:33] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:51:55] 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. If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered,

[00:52:09] 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,

[00:52:21] but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening. murdersheet.com