IN - Abigail Williams & Liberty German, Delphi, Media, Maps, Timelines NO DISCUSSION #2

INDIANAPOLIS (WISH) — A new attorney has joined the defense team in the Delphi murders case.

...



Updated: Mar 27, 2024 / 10:17 AM EST
 

INDIANAPOLIS — 13News has learned more information about jury selection and logistics for the upcoming Delphi murders trial.

Special judge Frances Gull told 13News she expects jury selection to take approximately three days when the trial for defendant Richard Allen begins in Fort Wayne on May 13. She said the jury would then be sworn in on the fourth day, with opening statements beginning by Day 5. That means the jury could start hearing testimony on Friday, May 17.

After jury selection, the actual trial phase of the proceedings will take place at the Carroll County Courthouse in Delphi. Gull confirmed Allen’s trial will take place six days a week — Monday through Saturday — if there are no religious objections from any of the jurors.


If interested, more at link...



Updated: 8:50 AM EDT March 29, 2024
 
...

Allen’s trial was previously scheduled to begin in October but will now start on Monday, May 13.

According to our sister station WTHR, the trial will begin in Fort Wayne with jury selection. Special Judge Frances Gull expects that process to take approximately three days.

Gull says the jury would then be sworn in on the fourth day, with opening statements beginning by the fifth day. That means the jury could start hearing testimony on Friday, May 17.

After the jury is selected, the actual trial phase of the proceedings will take place at the Carroll County Courthouse in Delphi. The trial will take place six days a week — Monday through Saturday from roughly 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. — if there are no religious objections from any of the jurors.

Gull expects the trial to be completed in three weeks by May 31.

...


Special judge in Delphi murders case releases new details on trial proceedings

Published: Apr. 1, 2024 at 3:00 PM EDT|Updated: 1 hour ago
 
The State filed their Memorandum in Support of Contemptuous Conduct yesterday and contends Baldwin/Rozzi intentionally leaked information to gauge the public’s reaction. But this is an inference offered by the State rather than evidence based on personal knowledge or observation (direct evidence). Also not sure there are any collateral facts from which this belief may be inferred (circumstantial evidence). However, I was not present for the hearing.

Moreover, Indiana law requires a court to issue a rule to show cause before there is a finding of contempt. The show cause must clearly and distinctly set forth the facts alleged to constitute contempt. But the court failed to issue a rule to show cause in this instance. Even if one were issued, it wouldn’t have included the above inference as the State didn’t include such within its Verified Information of Contemptuous Conduct. Thus, there are due process issues if the court were to rely on the State’s conclusion.

This belief also conflicts with the State’s decision to criminally charge Mitchell Westerman. If taken as true, Westerman didn’t exert unauthorized control over property belonging to Baldwin as Baldwin authorized Westerman’s control. While there are two separate prosecuting attorneys btwn the two cases, the State is the State. See, e.g., Becker v. State, 992 NE2d 697, 698-99 (Ind. 2013)(DOC bound by the prosecutor); State v. Barnett, 176 NE3d 542, 555 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021)(prosecutor bound by DCS), trans. denied. Both share identical interests and jointly investigated the leak. Thus, the McLeland must be bound by the decision to charge Westerman.

Finally, in indirect criminal contempt proceedings, all ambiguities or uncertainties must be construed against the State. Tusing v. State, 175 NE2d 17, 19 (Ind. 1961).

In conclusion, I believe the court would be abusing its discretion if it were to find Baldwin/Rozzi in contempt as it appears there is no evidence or inference to support a finding of willful disobedience of the court’s order.


11:01 PM · Apr 2, 2024

 
CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The attorneys for accused Delphi killer Richard Allen are once again claiming that police investigators lied or deceived a judge in filing for a search warrant that led to the arrest of their client.

Allen is accused of killing Abby Williams and Libby German near the Monon High Bridge in February 2017. He faces multiple counts of murder in the high-profile case that has garnered national attention.


If interested, more at link...



Delphi defense team once again accuses police investigators of lying, omitting details

Updated:
Apr 8, 2024 / 03:37 PM EDT
 


Here’s a quick UNFORMATTED copy and paste text version:
Page 1 of 11

Filed: 4/11/2024 8:56 AM

Carroll Circuit Court

Carroll County, Indiana

STATE OF INDIANA IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT

)ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001

STATE OF INDIANA

vs.

RICHARD M. ALLEN

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ALLEN'S MOTION TO

SUPPRESS

Facts:

Defendant Allen was arrested in October of 2022 and immediately detained in the Carroll

County Jail. Allen was thereafter transferred to the White County Jail and ultimately charged with two counts offelony murder. The charges were lodged against him on October 28, 2022.

On November 3rd, 2023, the Carroll County Sherifi'petitioned the Court for an order

transferring jurisdiction ofAllen's custody

from the Carroll County Shefifito the Indiana

Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). On the same day, and without the formality of hearing

on the Sheriff's request, Judge Benjamin Diener signed an Order ("Safekeeping Order")

transferring Allen's custody to the IDOC, without Allen or his legal representativesl having any

input

into his pretrial detainment. Allen was then shipped ofi' to the Westville Correctional

Facility and placed in maximum-security segregation unit referred to by prison officials as

((WCU'9,

The records suggest

that just prior

to his transfer to the WCU, Allen may have made

brief stop at the Reception Diagnostic Center ("RDC") where some sort ofintake procedure may

have taken place, but it does not appear

that Allen underwent any

formal mental health

assessment or testing to establish baseline in terms ofhis mental health history or needs.

At the time the Court signed the Safekeeping Order, Allen had yet

to be appointed counsel. In fact, Allen's Court

appointed Public Defenders, Rozzi and Baldwin, did not enter their appearances until November 14, 2022 and

therefore, Allen had no input as to his pre-trial detention circumstances. The record should also reflect that the

Safekeeping Order and all other exhibits referenced herein have been personally served on the court in the form of

supplemental appendix.

Page 2 of 11

From approximately November 15', 2022, through December of 2023, Allen remained

incarcerated in the WCU. Allen's attorneys are unaware of any other pre-trial detainee that has

ever been housed in the WCU in the history ofthe facility and most certainly not in the five or so

years preceding his placement?

Allen's attorneys have conducted depositions, watched video from Allen's cell and other

video from within the prison, reviewed prison records regarding Allen's detention, reviewed

Allen's medical and psychiatric records, and listened to audio interviews of prison inmates and

guards conducted by law enforcement 'officials. Through this process, Allen's attorneys have

learned that Allen has been accused of making incriminating statements to both inmates and

guards. Nearly all ofthese statements appear

to have occurred between mid-March of 2023 and

June of 2023. During this time frame, there also exists medical/psychiatric

records suggesting

that Allen was in state ofpsychosis. (See attached Report ofTreatment Review Committee

RC) Hearing).

Allen's defense team has learned that Allen was not only detained in an isolation cell in WCU, but that prison officials chose to post

inmates at Allen's cell door and required the inmates

to keep logs of all ofAllen's actions, statements, and behaviors. This appears

to have occurred

during all hours ofthe day and continued over the course ofmuch ofAllen's stay

in the WCU.

These inmates, all of whom are convicted felons, were not only actively engaged in surveilling Allen's activities, but were also communicating with him from time-to-time. Allen's attorneys

have also learned that at some point

in early April of 2023, prison officials deliberately pulled the

inmates from Allen's cell door and replaced them with prison guards. Allen's attorneys have

learned that this appears

to have been prompted by an inmate or inmates engaging Allen

regarding his pending charges and communicating Allen's thoughts and words to the families of

these inmates, thereby violating any sense of confidentiality that might exist within the walls of

the penitentiary.

Warden John Galipeau was deposed by the Defense on Friday, March 22, 2024, where he acknowledged he had worked in the IDOC for 28 years and was the Warden at Westville for approximately years leading up to Allen's

placement. Warden Galipeau acknowledged that during his entire tenure, he was unaware of any other

circumstance involving the pretrial detention of man who had not yet been convicted of crime. (See attached Galipeau depo transcript p. 2426).

Page 3 of 11

Most notably, Allen's living circumstances within the prison appear

to have been

designed (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to expose him to some ofthe harshest

conditions that even the most heinous of convicted offenders have not endured. This coercive

environment was initially the product ofAllen being detained in an observation cell used for

convicted inmates with suicidal ideations. This single cell,

located in "A-pod",

is one of

approximately sixty individual segregation cells, all containing felons convicted of crimes such

as burglary, robbery, child molestation and murder. (Galipeau depo p. I3). Each and every one

ofthese inmates had the ability to communicate with Allen, by yelling at him at all hours ofthe

day and night and by chastising him every time he was removed fi'om his cell for purposes of

recreation, showering, or other administrative reasons. Allen's attorneys have learned that he was referred to as "baby killer" and that he was the target of other similar accusations during

his stay

in the WCU. (see attached statement ofC/O Michael Roberts at 22:30 23:00).

Prison records reflect that Allen was placed on "suicide watch" during the majority ofhis

stay at the WCU, including upon his initial detention in November of 2022. (see attachedAdult Mental Health Order of11/3/22). This occurred despite the fact there were no underlying

findings

to suggest he was suicidal. Allen's designation as "suicidal" subjected him to even

harsher circumstances than those of other offenders on the unit. For example, Allen's bed

consisted of metal plate with thin mattress, all of which was just

few inches from the

concrete floor. (Galipeau depo p. 55-56). Allen was issued an anti-suicide smock which covered

his body no better than that of the garment of caveman. (see attachedAdult Mental Health Order of11/3/22 and video #M2U00987). Allen's food was served to him through cuffportal

and his dining habits involved him sitting on his bed or on the floor, as his cell was not equipped with table or chair that would otherwise serve even as rudimentary dining arrangement.

(Gahpeau p. 54-56). Allen's cell also contained steel toilet and sink; both in direct lineof- sight of the inmates and guards assigned to his surveil. The toilet bowl was located

approximately 24 inches from his bed. (see video M2U00987 at the 4555 sec. mark). Allen's

attorneys

learned that Allen was not only under constant surveillance, but that the lights

remained on in his cell for many days and nights. It is also true that due to his "suicide watch"

designation, he was afforded less or no recreation time and less of an opportunity

for showers.

(see attached audio ofC/O Timothy Weist at 3-4 min. mark). In essence, his suicide designation was the cause for the removal of additional privileges, to the extent the word "privilege" even

Page 4 of 11

applies, which in turn further fostered an environment that led to the deterioration ofAllen's mental and physical health.3 In all, for nearly

thirteen months at the WCU, Allen was deprived of any social interaction, very little to no privacy, limited recreation time, and was left to

entertain himself.

Unfortunately, Allen's unusual detention circumstances would extend beyond the door of

his isolation cell. Whenever Allen was removed from the confines of his 12 steel and

concrete box (a/k/a "cell"), he was shackled with ankle cuffs, belly chain, box cuffs on his

hands, and guided around by guards with "lead", or what most people refer to as "leash."

(Galz'peau depo pp. 55-56, 96, 160161). As ifthis restriction ofhis basic freedom ofmovement was not enough, prison ofiicials assigned videographer

to Allen to record his movements

around the prison, including when he would meet with his lawyers. (Galipeau depo pp 93-94). During all the meetings between Allen and his attorneys, he remained shackled (as

referenced

above) making simple tasks difficult, such as taking drink of water from water bottle. Allen would not be able to communicate as much as hand gesture due to his shackled state. During

other meetings, prison officials placed Video camera outside of window in the visitation room

and required Allen to sit on hard plastic

chair directly in line with the video camera, which was

less than ten feet away. (Galipeau depo pp. 95-96).

Allen's highly unusual detention circumstance extended even to Visits with his wife.

During one visit, Allen was transported outside of the WCU to building reserved for visitation

for those inmates in general population. Allen again, was shackled and confined during the

transport and ultimately re-robed into green jumpsuit before seeing his wife. He was however,

unshackled during the visit. His embrace with his wife was controlled by prison protocol, which

permitted only few brief seconds of contact despite the fact that Allen had not seen his wife for

the better part of six months. Allen was required to sit on the opposite side of the table from his wife and had two prison guards

stationed within ear-shot of each end ofhis table. They were left with absolutely no privacy. The room was completely empty, except

for his lawyers and few

other prison guards who were also stationed within the building. This provided no background

noise, whatsoever, which might offer up some aspect ofprivacy as he and his wife tried to

Allen's intake records with the DOC reflect that he was 5'5" tall and 175 lbs at admission in November of 2022. His weight by April of 2023 had dropped to below 135 lbs.


Page 5 of 11

communicate. And his restrictions did not end here. Allen and his wife were also denied the

simple concession of getting drink of water during this Visit, despite the fact that there were

number of vending machines and water fountain within 10-20 feet from his table. (Galipeau

depo pp. 77-78).

Allen's unusual detention involves an even stranger set of circumstances. During the

course of their representation ofAllen, his attorneys discovered the existence of dozens and

dozens of police reports, audio interviews and other investigative findings that centered on

group of suspects associated with Pagan Norse spiritual/religious practices. These suspects

considered themselves "Odinists," all of which were referenced in the Frank's motion and memorandum and second Frank's motion and memorandum previously filed with this Court.4 Allen incorporates herein, the details referenced in the Frank's filings rather than re-stating the

lengthy details in this memorandum. Allen's lawyers also discovered that at least two guards

assigned to his pod and/or his movements around the facility also held themselves out to be

afiiliated with the Pagan Norse God known as "Odin." (See Aflidavits ofJoshua Robinson and

Randy Jones). The Guards proudly displayed their Odinistic beliefs on their own prison

uniforms, despite the fact that such display was in direct violation oftheir uniform policy.

(Galipeau depo pp. 97-109). And on at least one occasion, one ofthese guards

tased Allen after

he was placed into his secured 12 cell because Allen refused to remove his hands from the

cuff-port

in the door of his cell; cuffport that is barely large enough through which to slide meal tray. (see video #MZU01] 6). Allen posed absolutely no risk to anyone at the time he was

tased.

Allen had also battled depression throughout most ofhis adult life. He was medicated

over the course of his life and in fact, had sought out therapeutic

resources to treat and manage

his depression. (see pp. 45 ofINE).5 The IDOC gave very little consideration to Allen's

condition at the time of his intake and initial incarceration in the WCU, especially given the

unusual circumstances in which he was detained. It is also believed that Allen's medications were administered in less than consistent fashion while he was on the unit, all of which would

The facts and circumstances surround the possibility that these individuals, otherwise known as Odinists, are

specifically referenced in the Frank's motion and memo filed with this Court on September 18, 2023 and October 2, 2023.

Independent Neuropsychological Evaluation dated 3/31/24 offered up to the court in appendix form.

Page 6 of 11

have contributed to his inability to endure his living environment during his pre-trial detention at

the WCU.

Issue:

The issue in this case is whether the State violated Allen's Fifth and Sixth Amendment

Rights and Federal and State Due Process rights by detaining him in solitary confinement in maximum-security prison segregation unit while he was awaiting trial? Allen's statements were

involuntary and should be suppressed.

Rule:

Coercive police activity is necessary predicate to finding that confession is

involuntary within the meaning ofthe Due Process Clause. Colorado v. Connellv, 479 U.S. 157

(1986). However, coercive police activity is not necessary prerequisite to challenge the

voluntariness of defendant's statement under Article l, Section 14 ofthe Indiana Constitution,

as there may be other elements that would tend to support finding ofinvoluntariness. Bligh, N.E.3d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The proper standard under the Indiana Constitution is whether the confession was "freely self-determined and the product of rational intellect and

free will." Hurt v. State, 594 N.E.Zd 1212, 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Thus, courts look to the

totality of the circumstances to determine ifthe confession was voluntary, taking into account many factors, including: (1) whether the statement was made under court order; (2) use of

police trickery; (3)

threats or promises by police; (4) defendant's race, age, or disability; (5)

State v.

length of detention; (6) physical coercion; or (7) illegal police practices.

Analysis: Notwithstanding the lower standard for showing involuntariness set by the Indiana

Constitution, it is indisputable that Allen's detention circumstances were manufactured by the

Carroll County Sheriff, purposefiJlly, and without the existence of any sense of due process, as

the Court signed the safekeeping order without requiring the State to establish the burden of

proofrequired by the statute. But this was just

the beginning. Allen was then shipped off to WCU and immediately placed on suicide watch in detention cell where he had little to no

accommodations, not even those offered up to the other two thousand convicted inmates housed

across the prison yard. (see entiretjz ofGalzpeau depo). Almost simultaneous with Allen's

Page 7 of 11

isolation from human contact, prison "companions" were placed at his doorstep and tasked with

the duty ofreporting his every move and recording his every word. (Galzpeau depo pp. 125-126).

The companions appear

to have gone above and beyond this duty by communicating with Allen

about his case and even praying with him as he struggled to withstand the rigors of his

incarceration. (See audio statement ofGuard Michael R0berts...minute 38:00). Their mere

presence at his doorstep is akin to Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), where police

obtained incriminating statements from jailhouse informant who engaged the defendant in

conversation and developed relationship oftrust and confidence with the defendant such that he

revealed incriminating information about the charged crime when counsel was not present. Id. at

203. The Court held that this was improper and suppressed the statements. Id. at 206, 207. This

trial court should do the same.

The trial court's decision regarding admissibility of confession or incriminating

statement is controlled by determining from the totality ofthe circumstances whether the

statement was given voluntarily, rather than induced through violence, threats, coercion or other

improper

influence so as to overcome the defendant's free will. Hartman v. State,_988 N.E.2d

785, 78788 (Ind. 2013); see also Treadwaz, 924 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. 2010); Griflzth v.

State 788 N.E.2d 835, 841 (Ind.2003)). Standard indicators for voluntariness include whether

the confession was freely self-determined, the product of rational intellect and free will, without compulsion or inducement of any sort, and whether the accused's will was overborne. Id.

at 841.

Here, Allen's free will was overcome by the forces ofhis environment, all ofwhich were

placed upon him by the government and its actors. Allen, man with bona fide pre-existing mental health issues, was detained in an isolation cell, entirely

isolated from any sense of meaningful human contact, and then offered up the most basic amenities of life through cuff

port (hole)

in his door. He was reduced to sleeping on mattress that was placed on top of

steel plate just

few inches from the floor. This same mattress, and floor, also doubled as his

dining table because his cell had no such accommodation. His attire was reduced to nothing more than suicide smock covering only portion ofhis body. Allen's healthiest

accommodations came in the form ofrecreation time not to exceed hours per week. (Galipeau

depo p. 30). In this space, there was not enough room to jog or run, only an exercise bike and

Page 8 of 11

pull-up bar. (Galipeau depo pp. 32-34). Allen's other "accommodation" would have been window slit that was inside his cell. His View of anything outside of the boundaries of the

penitentiary would have been impaired by the rusty chain link and razor wire of at least two

separate fences between him and any sense of freedom. To the extent Allen was ever allowed to

be removed from his cell, he was shackled at the ankles, wrists, further confined by belly chain

and cuff port, and guided around the prison on leash; all ideal ways to confine and control the movements of convicted killer or some other convict who in addition to his conviction, posed

threat to himself or the prison staff. Allen, at feet inches tall and 173 lbs, soaking wet, and with not one single criminal conviction on his rap sheet, met none of these conditions.6 (See WC suicideform of11/8/22). As ifthis treatment wasn't enough, Allen was forced to endure

the intimacies ofhis restraint systems even while he was meeting with his court appointed

lawyers inside the confines ofthe maximum-security segregation unit located inside ofthe Westville Correctional Facility. And to add insult to injury, Allen's meetings with his attorneys

occurred while he had video camera aimed at his face, recording sessions that should have been

afforded the most private of environments so as to protect

the relationship between attorney and

client. All ofthis occurred while Allen's medications were being adjusted by the prison medical

team, the combination of which factors reduced him to nothing more than human experiment. Allen's free will was overcome.

Under the Indiana Constitution, the voluntariness of confession must be proved beyond

reasonable doubt, and in reviewing voluntariness, the courts look at the totality of

circumstances, reviewing all the evidence in the record rather than focusing only on the evidence

supporting

the finding of voluntariness. Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90, 114-15 (Ind. 2005). Under the U.S. Constitution, the prosecution only has to prove by preponderance of the

evidence that the confession was voluntary. Smith v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997); Egg

v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972)). As explained below, the State cannot meet its burden of

showing voluntariness here, even applying the lower standard of preponderance. The federal

courts have long history ofregulating the admission of "confessions" that have been product

Page 125, subsection "c." of the INA references Richard Allen's physical deterioration from 173 lbs on 11/8/22 to

130 lbs on 8/3/23.

Page 9 of 11

of state action that exploits

the weak and compromised through interrogatory and custodial

pI'OCCSSeS.

In Blackburn State ofAlabama, 80 S..Ct. 274, 279-80 (1960), the United States

Supreme Court noted that it had recognized:

"[T]hat coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is

not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition. number of cases have demonstrated, if

demonstration were needed, that the efficiency of the rack and the thumbscrew can be matched,

given the proper subject, by more sophisticated modes of 'persuasion.' prolonged

interrogation of an accused who is ignorant of his rights and who has been cut ofi' from the moral

support offriends and relatives is not infrequently an effective technique of terror. Thus the

range ofinquiry in this type of case must be broad, and this Court has insisted that the judgment

in each instance be based upon consideration of 'the totality of the circumstances.' (citation

omitted 1."

Allen's case falls within these federal parameters. In Blackburn, the Defendant had

documented history of mental illness, having served in the military, which ultimately resulted in

his discharge because of medical finding that he suffered from some fonn ofpsychosis. Id. at

200-201. He was in the process ofbeing treated in the days and weeks leading up to the

commission ofthe crime and his ultimate apprehension. Id. at 201. After enduring an 8-10 hour

interrogation, Blackburn was given prepared written statement with admissions offered up by him in the course ofthe interrogation, and he ultimately signed the written statement two days

later. Id. at 204.

Here, Allen endured longer, more sustained form ofinterrogation; one that lasted more

than five months before he was finally broken. Already suffering from bona fide mental health

disorder, and then having been cut offfrom the moral support of his wife, mother, and daughter, Allen was weakened to the point where he slipped into state of psychosis plagued with grossly

disorganized, delusional, paranoid and highly dysfunctional behavior. (INEp. 124). These

behaviors were manifested through verbal confessions that he may have been drugged, verbal

confessions to the double homicide (inconsistent with known facts about the crime scene),

periods of not sleeping for days, paranoia, stripping off his clothes, drinking toilet water,

Page 10 of 11

covering himself with and eating his own feces, and many other socially unacceptable behaviors.

(INEp. 124). On one occasion Allen "confessed" to "molesting [those] two young girls and

shooting them in the back." (see attached transcribed statement of

inmate companion Lacy

Patton, Jr., p. 3, lines 16-1 7). On another occasion, he professed his sorrow for molesting Abby,

Libby and others which he specifically named. (C/O Michael Roberts statement between 15-16 min. mark). These facts are known to be falsities, none ofwhich are supported by the autopsy

findings by Dr. Roland Kohr as to the cause of death ofthe girls and unsupported by the absence

of any evidence that either one ofthe girls were sexually assaulted near or before the time of

their deaths. (see attached autopsy reports

re: Abigail Williams and Liberty German). At the

time Allen uttered these falsities, the State's actors were in the "ready position" with pen in hand,

documenting the entirety ofAllen's mental and physical deterioration and actions stemming

therefrom. The infringements on Allen's legal rights didn't stop here. Inmate companions

then

spread the "good word" ofAllen's "confessions" to inmates in general population at Westville,

prompting these imnates to then share the information with their respective family members in

public. (see attached transcripts ofLacy Patton, Jr. (inmate) and Jason Elliott (inmate). Proof ofthese leaks were ofiered up by the State in the form of audio recorded interviews and

accompanying transcripts and included in large volumes of discovery dumps

received by the Defense in the recent past. However, neither Allen nor his legal team are aware of any self- reporting of said leaks by the State to the Defense, or by the State to the Court, despite the fact

that the State was aware ofthis information as early as May 12, 2023, when Patton and Elliot were interviewed by law enforcement investigators. Allen's due process rights have been all but

ignored.

It is also established that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids 'fundamental unfairness in

the use of evidence whether true or false.' Lisenba v. People ofState ofCalifornia, 314 U.S. 219,

236, 62 S. Ct. 280, 290. As important as it is that persons who have committed crimes be

convicted, there are considerations that transcend the question of guilt or innocence. Thus, in

cases involving involuntary confessions, this Court enforces the strongly felt attitude of our

society that important human values are sacrificed where an agency of the government, in the

course of securing conviction, wrings confession out of an accused against his will. This

insistence upon putting the government

to the task of proving guilt by means other than

inquisition was engendered by historical abuses which are quite familiar. See Chambers v. State

10

Page 11 of 11

at Florida. supra, 309 U.S. at pages 235238, 60 S. Ct. S. Ct. at pages 477, 478; Watts v. State

01 Indiana, supra, 338 U.S. at pages 5455, 69 S. Ct. at page 1350. The truth or falsity of Allen's statements are of no consequence to this analysis. Allen has been treated unlike any other pretrial detainee in Indiana in recent history. The methodology employed by the justice

system is one of first impression, and therefore, the circumstances created by this methodology

should not be part of any consideration ofAllen's guilt or innocence. The system ofpre-trial detention employed against Allen runs afoul ofthe Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United

States Constitution, and Article Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution. It is for these reasons,

any and all incriminating statements made by Allen while incarcerated should be suppressed.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

certify that have served copy ofthis document by the Co nty e-filing system upon

the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin the ofApril, 2024.

Bra ylA I{ i# 365-09 fiorney or enda

ay

Brad] A.R #23365-09 HI IS, LIS, ROZ DEA

Fourth Stre 6947

11

2024 4/11 Allen Memorandum.pdf.pdf
 
Last edited:
Motion to Suppress Statements (of defendant):
2024 4/11 Allen Motion.pdf.pdf


Motion to Conduct Inmate Depositions:

2024 4/11 Motion for Leave.pdf.pdf

—-

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ALLEN'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS


Here’s a quick UNFORMATTED copy and paste text version of MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ALLEN'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS
Page 1 of 11

Filed: 4/11/2024 8:56 AM

Carroll Circuit Court

Carroll County, Indiana

STATE OF INDIANA IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT

)ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001

STATE OF INDIANA

vs.

RICHARD M. ALLEN

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ALLEN'S MOTION TO

SUPPRESS

Facts:

Defendant Allen was arrested in October of 2022 and immediately detained in the Carroll

County Jail. Allen was thereafter transferred to the White County Jail and ultimately charged with two counts offelony murder. The charges were lodged against him on October 28, 2022.

On November 3rd, 2023, the Carroll County Sherifi'petitioned the Court for an order

transferring jurisdiction ofAllen's custody

from the Carroll County Shefifito the Indiana

Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). On the same day, and without the formality of hearing

on the Sheriff's request, Judge Benjamin Diener signed an Order ("Safekeeping Order")

transferring Allen's custody to the IDOC, without Allen or his legal representativesl having any

input

into his pretrial detainment. Allen was then shipped ofi' to the Westville Correctional

Facility and placed in maximum-security segregation unit referred to by prison officials as

((WCU'9,

The records suggest

that just prior

to his transfer to the WCU, Allen may have made

brief stop at the Reception Diagnostic Center ("RDC") where some sort ofintake procedure may

have taken place, but it does not appear

that Allen underwent any

formal mental health

assessment or testing to establish baseline in terms ofhis mental health history or needs.

At the time the Court signed the Safekeeping Order, Allen had yet

to be appointed counsel. In fact, Allen's Court

appointed Public Defenders, Rozzi and Baldwin, did not enter their appearances until November 14, 2022 and

therefore, Allen had no input as to his pre-trial detention circumstances. The record should also reflect that the

Safekeeping Order and all other exhibits referenced herein have been personally served on the court in the form of

supplemental appendix.

Page 2 of 11

From approximately November 15', 2022, through December of 2023, Allen remained

incarcerated in the WCU. Allen's attorneys are unaware of any other pre-trial detainee that has

ever been housed in the WCU in the history ofthe facility and most certainly not in the five or so

years preceding his placement?

Allen's attorneys have conducted depositions, watched video from Allen's cell and other

video from within the prison, reviewed prison records regarding Allen's detention, reviewed

Allen's medical and psychiatric records, and listened to audio interviews of prison inmates and

guards conducted by law enforcement 'officials. Through this process, Allen's attorneys have

learned that Allen has been accused of making incriminating statements to both inmates and

guards. Nearly all ofthese statements appear

to have occurred between mid-March of 2023 and

June of 2023. During this time frame, there also exists medical/psychiatric

records suggesting

that Allen was in state ofpsychosis. (See attached Report ofTreatment Review Committee

RC) Hearing).

Allen's defense team has learned that Allen was not only detained in an isolation cell in WCU, but that prison officials chose to post

inmates at Allen's cell door and required the inmates

to keep logs of all ofAllen's actions, statements, and behaviors. This appears

to have occurred

during all hours ofthe day and continued over the course ofmuch ofAllen's stay

in the WCU.

These inmates, all of whom are convicted felons, were not only actively engaged in surveilling Allen's activities, but were also communicating with him from time-to-time. Allen's attorneys

have also learned that at some point

in early April of 2023, prison officials deliberately pulled the

inmates from Allen's cell door and replaced them with prison guards. Allen's attorneys have

learned that this appears

to have been prompted by an inmate or inmates engaging Allen

regarding his pending charges and communicating Allen's thoughts and words to the families of

these inmates, thereby violating any sense of confidentiality that might exist within the walls of

the penitentiary.

Warden John Galipeau was deposed by the Defense on Friday, March 22, 2024, where he acknowledged he had worked in the IDOC for 28 years and was the Warden at Westville for approximately years leading up to Allen's

placement. Warden Galipeau acknowledged that during his entire tenure, he was unaware of any other

circumstance involving the pretrial detention of man who had not yet been convicted of crime. (See attached Galipeau depo transcript p. 2426).

Page 3 of 11

Most notably, Allen's living circumstances within the prison appear

to have been

designed (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to expose him to some ofthe harshest

conditions that even the most heinous of convicted offenders have not endured. This coercive

environment was initially the product ofAllen being detained in an observation cell used for

convicted inmates with suicidal ideations. This single cell,

located in "A-pod",

is one of

approximately sixty individual segregation cells, all containing felons convicted of crimes such

as burglary, robbery, child molestation and murder. (Galipeau depo p. I3). Each and every one

ofthese inmates had the ability to communicate with Allen, by yelling at him at all hours ofthe

day and night and by chastising him every time he was removed fi'om his cell for purposes of

recreation, showering, or other administrative reasons. Allen's attorneys have learned that he was referred to as "baby killer" and that he was the target of other similar accusations during

his stay

in the WCU. (see attached statement ofC/O Michael Roberts at 22:30 23:00).

Prison records reflect that Allen was placed on "suicide watch" during the majority ofhis

stay at the WCU, including upon his initial detention in November of 2022. (see attachedAdult Mental Health Order of11/3/22). This occurred despite the fact there were no underlying

findings

to suggest he was suicidal. Allen's designation as "suicidal" subjected him to even

harsher circumstances than those of other offenders on the unit. For example, Allen's bed

consisted of metal plate with thin mattress, all of which was just

few inches from the

concrete floor. (Galipeau depo p. 55-56). Allen was issued an anti-suicide smock which covered

his body no better than that of the garment of caveman. (see attachedAdult Mental Health Order of11/3/22 and video #M2U00987). Allen's food was served to him through cuffportal

and his dining habits involved him sitting on his bed or on the floor, as his cell was not equipped with table or chair that would otherwise serve even as rudimentary dining arrangement.

(Gahpeau p. 54-56). Allen's cell also contained steel toilet and sink; both in direct lineof- sight of the inmates and guards assigned to his surveil. The toilet bowl was located

approximately 24 inches from his bed. (see video M2U00987 at the 4555 sec. mark). Allen's

attorneys

learned that Allen was not only under constant surveillance, but that the lights

remained on in his cell for many days and nights. It is also true that due to his "suicide watch"

designation, he was afforded less or no recreation time and less of an opportunity

for showers.

(see attached audio ofC/O Timothy Weist at 3-4 min. mark). In essence, his suicide designation was the cause for the removal of additional privileges, to the extent the word "privilege" even

Page 4 of 11

applies, which in turn further fostered an environment that led to the deterioration ofAllen's mental and physical health.3 In all, for nearly

thirteen months at the WCU, Allen was deprived of any social interaction, very little to no privacy, limited recreation time, and was left to

entertain himself.

Unfortunately, Allen's unusual detention circumstances would extend beyond the door of

his isolation cell. Whenever Allen was removed from the confines of his 12 steel and

concrete box (a/k/a "cell"), he was shackled with ankle cuffs, belly chain, box cuffs on his

hands, and guided around by guards with "lead", or what most people refer to as "leash."

(Galz'peau depo pp. 55-56, 96, 160161). As ifthis restriction ofhis basic freedom ofmovement was not enough, prison ofiicials assigned videographer

to Allen to record his movements

around the prison, including when he would meet with his lawyers. (Galipeau depo pp 93-94). During all the meetings between Allen and his attorneys, he remained shackled (as

referenced

above) making simple tasks difficult, such as taking drink of water from water bottle. Allen would not be able to communicate as much as hand gesture due to his shackled state. During

other meetings, prison officials placed Video camera outside of window in the visitation room

and required Allen to sit on hard plastic

chair directly in line with the video camera, which was

less than ten feet away. (Galipeau depo pp. 95-96).

Allen's highly unusual detention circumstance extended even to Visits with his wife.

During one visit, Allen was transported outside of the WCU to building reserved for visitation

for those inmates in general population. Allen again, was shackled and confined during the

transport and ultimately re-robed into green jumpsuit before seeing his wife. He was however,

unshackled during the visit. His embrace with his wife was controlled by prison protocol, which

permitted only few brief seconds of contact despite the fact that Allen had not seen his wife for

the better part of six months. Allen was required to sit on the opposite side of the table from his wife and had two prison guards

stationed within ear-shot of each end ofhis table. They were left with absolutely no privacy. The room was completely empty, except

for his lawyers and few

other prison guards who were also stationed within the building. This provided no background

noise, whatsoever, which might offer up some aspect ofprivacy as he and his wife tried to

Allen's intake records with the DOC reflect that he was 5'5" tall and 175 lbs at admission in November of 2022. His weight by April of 2023 had dropped to below 135 lbs.


Page 5 of 11

communicate. And his restrictions did not end here. Allen and his wife were also denied the

simple concession of getting drink of water during this Visit, despite the fact that there were

number of vending machines and water fountain within 10-20 feet from his table. (Galipeau

depo pp. 77-78).

Allen's unusual detention involves an even stranger set of circumstances. During the

course of their representation ofAllen, his attorneys discovered the existence of dozens and

dozens of police reports, audio interviews and other investigative findings that centered on

group of suspects associated with Pagan Norse spiritual/religious practices. These suspects

considered themselves "Odinists," all of which were referenced in the Frank's motion and memorandum and second Frank's motion and memorandum previously filed with this Court.4 Allen incorporates herein, the details referenced in the Frank's filings rather than re-stating the

lengthy details in this memorandum. Allen's lawyers also discovered that at least two guards

assigned to his pod and/or his movements around the facility also held themselves out to be

afiiliated with the Pagan Norse God known as "Odin." (See Aflidavits ofJoshua Robinson and

Randy Jones). The Guards proudly displayed their Odinistic beliefs on their own prison

uniforms, despite the fact that such display was in direct violation oftheir uniform policy.

(Galipeau depo pp. 97-109). And on at least one occasion, one ofthese guards

tased Allen after

he was placed into his secured 12 cell because Allen refused to remove his hands from the

cuff-port

in the door of his cell; cuffport that is barely large enough through which to slide meal tray. (see video #MZU01] 6). Allen posed absolutely no risk to anyone at the time he was

tased.

Allen had also battled depression throughout most ofhis adult life. He was medicated

over the course of his life and in fact, had sought out therapeutic

resources to treat and manage

his depression. (see pp. 45 ofINE).5 The IDOC gave very little consideration to Allen's

condition at the time of his intake and initial incarceration in the WCU, especially given the

unusual circumstances in which he was detained. It is also believed that Allen's medications were administered in less than consistent fashion while he was on the unit, all of which would

The facts and circumstances surround the possibility that these individuals, otherwise known as Odinists, are

specifically referenced in the Frank's motion and memo filed with this Court on September 18, 2023 and October 2, 2023.

Independent Neuropsychological Evaluation dated 3/31/24 offered up to the court in appendix form.

Page 6 of 11

have contributed to his inability to endure his living environment during his pre-trial detention at

the WCU.

Issue:

The issue in this case is whether the State violated Allen's Fifth and Sixth Amendment

Rights and Federal and State Due Process rights by detaining him in solitary confinement in maximum-security prison segregation unit while he was awaiting trial? Allen's statements were

involuntary and should be suppressed.

Rule:

Coercive police activity is necessary predicate to finding that confession is

involuntary within the meaning ofthe Due Process Clause. Colorado v. Connellv, 479 U.S. 157

(1986). However, coercive police activity is not necessary prerequisite to challenge the

voluntariness of defendant's statement under Article l, Section 14 ofthe Indiana Constitution,

as there may be other elements that would tend to support finding ofinvoluntariness. Bligh, N.E.3d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The proper standard under the Indiana Constitution is whether the confession was "freely self-determined and the product of rational intellect and

free will." Hurt v. State, 594 N.E.Zd 1212, 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Thus, courts look to the

totality of the circumstances to determine ifthe confession was voluntary, taking into account many factors, including: (1) whether the statement was made under court order; (2) use of

police trickery; (3)

threats or promises by police; (4) defendant's race, age, or disability; (5)

State v.

length of detention; (6) physical coercion; or (7) illegal police practices.

Analysis: Notwithstanding the lower standard for showing involuntariness set by the Indiana

Constitution, it is indisputable that Allen's detention circumstances were manufactured by the

Carroll County Sheriff, purposefiJlly, and without the existence of any sense of due process, as

the Court signed the safekeeping order without requiring the State to establish the burden of

proofrequired by the statute. But this was just

the beginning. Allen was then shipped off to WCU and immediately placed on suicide watch in detention cell where he had little to no

accommodations, not even those offered up to the other two thousand convicted inmates housed

across the prison yard. (see entiretjz ofGalzpeau depo). Almost simultaneous with Allen's

Page 7 of 11

isolation from human contact, prison "companions" were placed at his doorstep and tasked with

the duty ofreporting his every move and recording his every word. (Galzpeau depo pp. 125-126).

The companions appear

to have gone above and beyond this duty by communicating with Allen

about his case and even praying with him as he struggled to withstand the rigors of his

incarceration. (See audio statement ofGuard Michael R0berts...minute 38:00). Their mere

presence at his doorstep is akin to Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), where police

obtained incriminating statements from jailhouse informant who engaged the defendant in

conversation and developed relationship oftrust and confidence with the defendant such that he

revealed incriminating information about the charged crime when counsel was not present. Id. at

203. The Court held that this was improper and suppressed the statements. Id. at 206, 207. This

trial court should do the same.

The trial court's decision regarding admissibility of confession or incriminating

statement is controlled by determining from the totality ofthe circumstances whether the

statement was given voluntarily, rather than induced through violence, threats, coercion or other

improper

influence so as to overcome the defendant's free will. Hartman v. State,_988 N.E.2d

785, 78788 (Ind. 2013); see also Treadwaz, 924 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. 2010); Griflzth v.

State 788 N.E.2d 835, 841 (Ind.2003)). Standard indicators for voluntariness include whether

the confession was freely self-determined, the product of rational intellect and free will, without compulsion or inducement of any sort, and whether the accused's will was overborne. Id.

at 841.

Here, Allen's free will was overcome by the forces ofhis environment, all ofwhich were

placed upon him by the government and its actors. Allen, man with bona fide pre-existing mental health issues, was detained in an isolation cell, entirely

isolated from any sense of meaningful human contact, and then offered up the most basic amenities of life through cuff

port (hole)

in his door. He was reduced to sleeping on mattress that was placed on top of

steel plate just

few inches from the floor. This same mattress, and floor, also doubled as his

dining table because his cell had no such accommodation. His attire was reduced to nothing more than suicide smock covering only portion ofhis body. Allen's healthiest

accommodations came in the form ofrecreation time not to exceed hours per week. (Galipeau

depo p. 30). In this space, there was not enough room to jog or run, only an exercise bike and

Page 8 of 11

pull-up bar. (Galipeau depo pp. 32-34). Allen's other "accommodation" would have been window slit that was inside his cell. His View of anything outside of the boundaries of the

penitentiary would have been impaired by the rusty chain link and razor wire of at least two

separate fences between him and any sense of freedom. To the extent Allen was ever allowed to

be removed from his cell, he was shackled at the ankles, wrists, further confined by belly chain

and cuff port, and guided around the prison on leash; all ideal ways to confine and control the movements of convicted killer or some other convict who in addition to his conviction, posed

threat to himself or the prison staff. Allen, at feet inches tall and 173 lbs, soaking wet, and with not one single criminal conviction on his rap sheet, met none of these conditions.6 (See WC suicideform of11/8/22). As ifthis treatment wasn't enough, Allen was forced to endure

the intimacies ofhis restraint systems even while he was meeting with his court appointed

lawyers inside the confines ofthe maximum-security segregation unit located inside ofthe Westville Correctional Facility. And to add insult to injury, Allen's meetings with his attorneys

occurred while he had video camera aimed at his face, recording sessions that should have been

afforded the most private of environments so as to protect

the relationship between attorney and

client. All ofthis occurred while Allen's medications were being adjusted by the prison medical

team, the combination of which factors reduced him to nothing more than human experiment. Allen's free will was overcome.

Under the Indiana Constitution, the voluntariness of confession must be proved beyond

reasonable doubt, and in reviewing voluntariness, the courts look at the totality of

circumstances, reviewing all the evidence in the record rather than focusing only on the evidence

supporting

the finding of voluntariness. Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90, 114-15 (Ind. 2005). Under the U.S. Constitution, the prosecution only has to prove by preponderance of the

evidence that the confession was voluntary. Smith v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997); Egg

v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972)). As explained below, the State cannot meet its burden of

showing voluntariness here, even applying the lower standard of preponderance. The federal

courts have long history ofregulating the admission of "confessions" that have been product

Page 125, subsection "c." of the INA references Richard Allen's physical deterioration from 173 lbs on 11/8/22 to

130 lbs on 8/3/23.

Page 9 of 11

of state action that exploits

the weak and compromised through interrogatory and custodial

pI'OCCSSeS.

In Blackburn State ofAlabama, 80 S..Ct. 274, 279-80 (1960), the United States

Supreme Court noted that it had recognized:

"[T]hat coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is

not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition. number of cases have demonstrated, if

demonstration were needed, that the efficiency of the rack and the thumbscrew can be matched,

given the proper subject, by more sophisticated modes of 'persuasion.' prolonged

interrogation of an accused who is ignorant of his rights and who has been cut ofi' from the moral

support offriends and relatives is not infrequently an effective technique of terror. Thus the

range ofinquiry in this type of case must be broad, and this Court has insisted that the judgment

in each instance be based upon consideration of 'the totality of the circumstances.' (citation

omitted 1."

Allen's case falls within these federal parameters. In Blackburn, the Defendant had

documented history of mental illness, having served in the military, which ultimately resulted in

his discharge because of medical finding that he suffered from some fonn ofpsychosis. Id. at

200-201. He was in the process ofbeing treated in the days and weeks leading up to the

commission ofthe crime and his ultimate apprehension. Id. at 201. After enduring an 8-10 hour

interrogation, Blackburn was given prepared written statement with admissions offered up by him in the course ofthe interrogation, and he ultimately signed the written statement two days

later. Id. at 204.

Here, Allen endured longer, more sustained form ofinterrogation; one that lasted more

than five months before he was finally broken. Already suffering from bona fide mental health

disorder, and then having been cut offfrom the moral support of his wife, mother, and daughter, Allen was weakened to the point where he slipped into state of psychosis plagued with grossly

disorganized, delusional, paranoid and highly dysfunctional behavior. (INEp. 124). These

behaviors were manifested through verbal confessions that he may have been drugged, verbal

confessions to the double homicide (inconsistent with known facts about the crime scene),

periods of not sleeping for days, paranoia, stripping off his clothes, drinking toilet water,

Page 10 of 11

covering himself with and eating his own feces, and many other socially unacceptable behaviors.

(INEp. 124). On one occasion Allen "confessed" to "molesting [those] two young girls and

shooting them in the back." (see attached transcribed statement of

inmate companion Lacy

Patton, Jr., p. 3, lines 16-1 7). On another occasion, he professed his sorrow for molesting Abby,

Libby and others which he specifically named. (C/O Michael Roberts statement between 15-16 min. mark). These facts are known to be falsities, none ofwhich are supported by the autopsy

findings by Dr. Roland Kohr as to the cause of death ofthe girls and unsupported by the absence

of any evidence that either one ofthe girls were sexually assaulted near or before the time of

their deaths. (see attached autopsy reports

re: Abigail Williams and Liberty German). At the

time Allen uttered these falsities, the State's actors were in the "ready position" with pen in hand,

documenting the entirety ofAllen's mental and physical deterioration and actions stemming

therefrom. The infringements on Allen's legal rights didn't stop here. Inmate companions

then

spread the "good word" ofAllen's "confessions" to inmates in general population at Westville,

prompting these imnates to then share the information with their respective family members in

public. (see attached transcripts ofLacy Patton, Jr. (inmate) and Jason Elliott (inmate). Proof ofthese leaks were ofiered up by the State in the form of audio recorded interviews and

accompanying transcripts and included in large volumes of discovery dumps

received by the Defense in the recent past. However, neither Allen nor his legal team are aware of any self- reporting of said leaks by the State to the Defense, or by the State to the Court, despite the fact

that the State was aware ofthis information as early as May 12, 2023, when Patton and Elliot were interviewed by law enforcement investigators. Allen's due process rights have been all but

ignored.

It is also established that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids 'fundamental unfairness in

the use of evidence whether true or false.' Lisenba v. People ofState ofCalifornia, 314 U.S. 219,

236, 62 S. Ct. 280, 290. As important as it is that persons who have committed crimes be

convicted, there are considerations that transcend the question of guilt or innocence. Thus, in

cases involving involuntary confessions, this Court enforces the strongly felt attitude of our

society that important human values are sacrificed where an agency of the government, in the

course of securing conviction, wrings confession out of an accused against his will. This

insistence upon putting the government

to the task of proving guilt by means other than

inquisition was engendered by historical abuses which are quite familiar. See Chambers v. State

10

Page 11 of 11

at Florida. supra, 309 U.S. at pages 235238, 60 S. Ct. S. Ct. at pages 477, 478; Watts v. State

01 Indiana, supra, 338 U.S. at pages 5455, 69 S. Ct. at page 1350. The truth or falsity of Allen's statements are of no consequence to this analysis. Allen has been treated unlike any other pretrial detainee in Indiana in recent history. The methodology employed by the justice

system is one of first impression, and therefore, the circumstances created by this methodology

should not be part of any consideration ofAllen's guilt or innocence. The system ofpre-trial detention employed against Allen runs afoul ofthe Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United

States Constitution, and Article Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution. It is for these reasons,

any and all incriminating statements made by Allen while incarcerated should be suppressed.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

certify that have served copy ofthis document by the Co nty e-filing system upon

the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin the ofApril, 2024.

Bra ylA I{ i# 365-09 fiorney or enda

ay

Brad] A.R #23365-09 HI IS, LIS, ROZ DEA

Fourth Stre 6947

11

2024 4/11 Allen Memorandum.pdf.pdf
 
Last edited:
List of documents - 4/11/2024:

04/11/2024Motion to Suppress Filed
Motion to Suppress Statements
Filed By:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
04/11/2024
04/11/2024Memorandum/Brief Filed
Memorandum of Law in Support of Defendant Allen's Motion to Suppress
Filed By:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
04/11/2024
04/11/2024Motion Filed
Motion for Leave of Court to Conduct Inmate Depositions
Filed By:
Allen, Richard M.
File Stamp:
04/11/2024

——

Organizing for clarity in order of above list:


Document 1:
Motion to Suppress Statements (of defendant):
2024 4/11 Allen Motion.pdf.pdf

—-

Document #2:
MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ALLEN'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS

(Here’s a quick UNFORMATTED copy and paste text version of MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ALLEN'S MOTION TO SUPPRESS:

Page 1 of 11

Filed: 4/11/2024 8:56 AM

Carroll Circuit Court

Carroll County, Indiana

STATE OF INDIANA IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT

)ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001

STATE OF INDIANA

vs.

RICHARD M. ALLEN

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT ALLEN'S MOTION TO

SUPPRESS

Facts:

Defendant Allen was arrested in October of 2022 and immediately detained in the Carroll

County Jail. Allen was thereafter transferred to the White County Jail and ultimately charged with two counts offelony murder. The charges were lodged against him on October 28, 2022.

On November 3rd, 2023, the Carroll County Sherifi'petitioned the Court for an order

transferring jurisdiction ofAllen's custody

from the Carroll County Shefifito the Indiana

Department of Corrections ("IDOC"). On the same day, and without the formality of hearing

on the Sheriff's request, Judge Benjamin Diener signed an Order ("Safekeeping Order")

transferring Allen's custody to the IDOC, without Allen or his legal representativesl having any

input

into his pretrial detainment. Allen was then shipped ofi' to the Westville Correctional

Facility and placed in maximum-security segregation unit referred to by prison officials as

((WCU'9,

The records suggest

that just prior

to his transfer to the WCU, Allen may have made

brief stop at the Reception Diagnostic Center ("RDC") where some sort ofintake procedure may

have taken place, but it does not appear

that Allen underwent any

formal mental health

assessment or testing to establish baseline in terms ofhis mental health history or needs.

At the time the Court signed the Safekeeping Order, Allen had yet

to be appointed counsel. In fact, Allen's Court

appointed Public Defenders, Rozzi and Baldwin, did not enter their appearances until November 14, 2022 and

therefore, Allen had no input as to his pre-trial detention circumstances. The record should also reflect that the

Safekeeping Order and all other exhibits referenced herein have been personally served on the court in the form of

supplemental appendix.

Page 2 of 11

From approximately November 15', 2022, through December of 2023, Allen remained

incarcerated in the WCU. Allen's attorneys are unaware of any other pre-trial detainee that has

ever been housed in the WCU in the history ofthe facility and most certainly not in the five or so

years preceding his placement?

Allen's attorneys have conducted depositions, watched video from Allen's cell and other

video from within the prison, reviewed prison records regarding Allen's detention, reviewed

Allen's medical and psychiatric records, and listened to audio interviews of prison inmates and

guards conducted by law enforcement 'officials. Through this process, Allen's attorneys have

learned that Allen has been accused of making incriminating statements to both inmates and

guards. Nearly all ofthese statements appear

to have occurred between mid-March of 2023 and

June of 2023. During this time frame, there also exists medical/psychiatric

records suggesting

that Allen was in state ofpsychosis. (See attached Report ofTreatment Review Committee

RC) Hearing).

Allen's defense team has learned that Allen was not only detained in an isolation cell in WCU, but that prison officials chose to post

inmates at Allen's cell door and required the inmates

to keep logs of all ofAllen's actions, statements, and behaviors. This appears

to have occurred

during all hours ofthe day and continued over the course ofmuch ofAllen's stay

in the WCU.

These inmates, all of whom are convicted felons, were not only actively engaged in surveilling Allen's activities, but were also communicating with him from time-to-time. Allen's attorneys

have also learned that at some point

in early April of 2023, prison officials deliberately pulled the

inmates from Allen's cell door and replaced them with prison guards. Allen's attorneys have

learned that this appears

to have been prompted by an inmate or inmates engaging Allen

regarding his pending charges and communicating Allen's thoughts and words to the families of

these inmates, thereby violating any sense of confidentiality that might exist within the walls of

the penitentiary.

Warden John Galipeau was deposed by the Defense on Friday, March 22, 2024, where he acknowledged he had worked in the IDOC for 28 years and was the Warden at Westville for approximately years leading up to Allen's

placement. Warden Galipeau acknowledged that during his entire tenure, he was unaware of any other

circumstance involving the pretrial detention of man who had not yet been convicted of crime. (See attached Galipeau depo transcript p. 2426).

Page 3 of 11

Most notably, Allen's living circumstances within the prison appear

to have been

designed (whether intentionally or unintentionally) to expose him to some ofthe harshest

conditions that even the most heinous of convicted offenders have not endured. This coercive

environment was initially the product ofAllen being detained in an observation cell used for

convicted inmates with suicidal ideations. This single cell,

located in "A-pod",

is one of

approximately sixty individual segregation cells, all containing felons convicted of crimes such

as burglary, robbery, child molestation and murder. (Galipeau depo p. I3). Each and every one

ofthese inmates had the ability to communicate with Allen, by yelling at him at all hours ofthe

day and night and by chastising him every time he was removed fi'om his cell for purposes of

recreation, showering, or other administrative reasons. Allen's attorneys have learned that he was referred to as "baby killer" and that he was the target of other similar accusations during

his stay

in the WCU. (see attached statement ofC/O Michael Roberts at 22:30 23:00).

Prison records reflect that Allen was placed on "suicide watch" during the majority ofhis

stay at the WCU, including upon his initial detention in November of 2022. (see attachedAdult Mental Health Order of11/3/22). This occurred despite the fact there were no underlying

findings

to suggest he was suicidal. Allen's designation as "suicidal" subjected him to even

harsher circumstances than those of other offenders on the unit. For example, Allen's bed

consisted of metal plate with thin mattress, all of which was just

few inches from the

concrete floor. (Galipeau depo p. 55-56). Allen was issued an anti-suicide smock which covered

his body no better than that of the garment of caveman. (see attachedAdult Mental Health Order of11/3/22 and video #M2U00987). Allen's food was served to him through cuffportal

and his dining habits involved him sitting on his bed or on the floor, as his cell was not equipped with table or chair that would otherwise serve even as rudimentary dining arrangement.

(Gahpeau p. 54-56). Allen's cell also contained steel toilet and sink; both in direct lineof- sight of the inmates and guards assigned to his surveil. The toilet bowl was located

approximately 24 inches from his bed. (see video M2U00987 at the 4555 sec. mark). Allen's

attorneys

learned that Allen was not only under constant surveillance, but that the lights

remained on in his cell for many days and nights. It is also true that due to his "suicide watch"

designation, he was afforded less or no recreation time and less of an opportunity

for showers.

(see attached audio ofC/O Timothy Weist at 3-4 min. mark). In essence, his suicide designation was the cause for the removal of additional privileges, to the extent the word "privilege" even

Page 4 of 11

applies, which in turn further fostered an environment that led to the deterioration ofAllen's mental and physical health.3 In all, for nearly

thirteen months at the WCU, Allen was deprived of any social interaction, very little to no privacy, limited recreation time, and was left to

entertain himself.

Unfortunately, Allen's unusual detention circumstances would extend beyond the door of

his isolation cell. Whenever Allen was removed from the confines of his 12 steel and

concrete box (a/k/a "cell"), he was shackled with ankle cuffs, belly chain, box cuffs on his

hands, and guided around by guards with "lead", or what most people refer to as "leash."

(Galz'peau depo pp. 55-56, 96, 160161). As ifthis restriction ofhis basic freedom ofmovement was not enough, prison ofiicials assigned videographer

to Allen to record his movements

around the prison, including when he would meet with his lawyers. (Galipeau depo pp 93-94). During all the meetings between Allen and his attorneys, he remained shackled (as

referenced

above) making simple tasks difficult, such as taking drink of water from water bottle. Allen would not be able to communicate as much as hand gesture due to his shackled state. During

other meetings, prison officials placed Video camera outside of window in the visitation room

and required Allen to sit on hard plastic

chair directly in line with the video camera, which was

less than ten feet away. (Galipeau depo pp. 95-96).

Allen's highly unusual detention circumstance extended even to Visits with his wife.

During one visit, Allen was transported outside of the WCU to building reserved for visitation

for those inmates in general population. Allen again, was shackled and confined during the

transport and ultimately re-robed into green jumpsuit before seeing his wife. He was however,

unshackled during the visit. His embrace with his wife was controlled by prison protocol, which

permitted only few brief seconds of contact despite the fact that Allen had not seen his wife for

the better part of six months. Allen was required to sit on the opposite side of the table from his wife and had two prison guards

stationed within ear-shot of each end ofhis table. They were left with absolutely no privacy. The room was completely empty, except

for his lawyers and few

other prison guards who were also stationed within the building. This provided no background

noise, whatsoever, which might offer up some aspect ofprivacy as he and his wife tried to

Allen's intake records with the DOC reflect that he was 5'5" tall and 175 lbs at admission in November of 2022. His weight by April of 2023 had dropped to below 135 lbs.


Page 5 of 11

communicate. And his restrictions did not end here. Allen and his wife were also denied the

simple concession of getting drink of water during this Visit, despite the fact that there were

number of vending machines and water fountain within 10-20 feet from his table. (Galipeau

depo pp. 77-78).

Allen's unusual detention involves an even stranger set of circumstances. During the

course of their representation ofAllen, his attorneys discovered the existence of dozens and

dozens of police reports, audio interviews and other investigative findings that centered on

group of suspects associated with Pagan Norse spiritual/religious practices. These suspects

considered themselves "Odinists," all of which were referenced in the Frank's motion and memorandum and second Frank's motion and memorandum previously filed with this Court.4 Allen incorporates herein, the details referenced in the Frank's filings rather than re-stating the

lengthy details in this memorandum. Allen's lawyers also discovered that at least two guards

assigned to his pod and/or his movements around the facility also held themselves out to be

afiiliated with the Pagan Norse God known as "Odin." (See Aflidavits ofJoshua Robinson and

Randy Jones). The Guards proudly displayed their Odinistic beliefs on their own prison

uniforms, despite the fact that such display was in direct violation oftheir uniform policy.

(Galipeau depo pp. 97-109). And on at least one occasion, one ofthese guards

tased Allen after

he was placed into his secured 12 cell because Allen refused to remove his hands from the

cuff-port

in the door of his cell; cuffport that is barely large enough through which to slide meal tray. (see video #MZU01] 6). Allen posed absolutely no risk to anyone at the time he was

tased.

Allen had also battled depression throughout most ofhis adult life. He was medicated

over the course of his life and in fact, had sought out therapeutic

resources to treat and manage

his depression. (see pp. 45 ofINE).5 The IDOC gave very little consideration to Allen's

condition at the time of his intake and initial incarceration in the WCU, especially given the

unusual circumstances in which he was detained. It is also believed that Allen's medications were administered in less than consistent fashion while he was on the unit, all of which would

The facts and circumstances surround the possibility that these individuals, otherwise known as Odinists, are

specifically referenced in the Frank's motion and memo filed with this Court on September 18, 2023 and October 2, 2023.

Independent Neuropsychological Evaluation dated 3/31/24 offered up to the court in appendix form.

Page 6 of 11

have contributed to his inability to endure his living environment during his pre-trial detention at

the WCU.

Issue:

The issue in this case is whether the State violated Allen's Fifth and Sixth Amendment

Rights and Federal and State Due Process rights by detaining him in solitary confinement in maximum-security prison segregation unit while he was awaiting trial? Allen's statements were

involuntary and should be suppressed.

Rule:

Coercive police activity is necessary predicate to finding that confession is

involuntary within the meaning ofthe Due Process Clause. Colorado v. Connellv, 479 U.S. 157

(1986). However, coercive police activity is not necessary prerequisite to challenge the

voluntariness of defendant's statement under Article l, Section 14 ofthe Indiana Constitution,

as there may be other elements that would tend to support finding ofinvoluntariness. Bligh, N.E.3d 71 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013). The proper standard under the Indiana Constitution is whether the confession was "freely self-determined and the product of rational intellect and

free will." Hurt v. State, 594 N.E.Zd 1212, 1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998). Thus, courts look to the

totality of the circumstances to determine ifthe confession was voluntary, taking into account many factors, including: (1) whether the statement was made under court order; (2) use of

police trickery; (3)

threats or promises by police; (4) defendant's race, age, or disability; (5)

State v.

length of detention; (6) physical coercion; or (7) illegal police practices.

Analysis: Notwithstanding the lower standard for showing involuntariness set by the Indiana

Constitution, it is indisputable that Allen's detention circumstances were manufactured by the

Carroll County Sheriff, purposefiJlly, and without the existence of any sense of due process, as

the Court signed the safekeeping order without requiring the State to establish the burden of

proofrequired by the statute. But this was just

the beginning. Allen was then shipped off to WCU and immediately placed on suicide watch in detention cell where he had little to no

accommodations, not even those offered up to the other two thousand convicted inmates housed

across the prison yard. (see entiretjz ofGalzpeau depo). Almost simultaneous with Allen's

Page 7 of 11

isolation from human contact, prison "companions" were placed at his doorstep and tasked with

the duty ofreporting his every move and recording his every word. (Galzpeau depo pp. 125-126).

The companions appear

to have gone above and beyond this duty by communicating with Allen

about his case and even praying with him as he struggled to withstand the rigors of his

incarceration. (See audio statement ofGuard Michael R0berts...minute 38:00). Their mere

presence at his doorstep is akin to Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201 (1964), where police

obtained incriminating statements from jailhouse informant who engaged the defendant in

conversation and developed relationship oftrust and confidence with the defendant such that he

revealed incriminating information about the charged crime when counsel was not present. Id. at

203. The Court held that this was improper and suppressed the statements. Id. at 206, 207. This

trial court should do the same.

The trial court's decision regarding admissibility of confession or incriminating

statement is controlled by determining from the totality ofthe circumstances whether the

statement was given voluntarily, rather than induced through violence, threats, coercion or other

improper

influence so as to overcome the defendant's free will. Hartman v. State,_988 N.E.2d

785, 78788 (Ind. 2013); see also Treadwaz, 924 N.E.2d 621, 635 (Ind. 2010); Griflzth v.

State 788 N.E.2d 835, 841 (Ind.2003)). Standard indicators for voluntariness include whether

the confession was freely self-determined, the product of rational intellect and free will, without compulsion or inducement of any sort, and whether the accused's will was overborne. Id.

at 841.

Here, Allen's free will was overcome by the forces ofhis environment, all ofwhich were

placed upon him by the government and its actors. Allen, man with bona fide pre-existing mental health issues, was detained in an isolation cell, entirely

isolated from any sense of meaningful human contact, and then offered up the most basic amenities of life through cuff

port (hole)

in his door. He was reduced to sleeping on mattress that was placed on top of

steel plate just

few inches from the floor. This same mattress, and floor, also doubled as his

dining table because his cell had no such accommodation. His attire was reduced to nothing more than suicide smock covering only portion ofhis body. Allen's healthiest

accommodations came in the form ofrecreation time not to exceed hours per week. (Galipeau

depo p. 30). In this space, there was not enough room to jog or run, only an exercise bike and

Page 8 of 11

pull-up bar. (Galipeau depo pp. 32-34). Allen's other "accommodation" would have been window slit that was inside his cell. His View of anything outside of the boundaries of the

penitentiary would have been impaired by the rusty chain link and razor wire of at least two

separate fences between him and any sense of freedom. To the extent Allen was ever allowed to

be removed from his cell, he was shackled at the ankles, wrists, further confined by belly chain

and cuff port, and guided around the prison on leash; all ideal ways to confine and control the movements of convicted killer or some other convict who in addition to his conviction, posed

threat to himself or the prison staff. Allen, at feet inches tall and 173 lbs, soaking wet, and with not one single criminal conviction on his rap sheet, met none of these conditions.6 (See WC suicideform of11/8/22). As ifthis treatment wasn't enough, Allen was forced to endure

the intimacies ofhis restraint systems even while he was meeting with his court appointed

lawyers inside the confines ofthe maximum-security segregation unit located inside ofthe Westville Correctional Facility. And to add insult to injury, Allen's meetings with his attorneys

occurred while he had video camera aimed at his face, recording sessions that should have been

afforded the most private of environments so as to protect

the relationship between attorney and

client. All ofthis occurred while Allen's medications were being adjusted by the prison medical

team, the combination of which factors reduced him to nothing more than human experiment. Allen's free will was overcome.

Under the Indiana Constitution, the voluntariness of confession must be proved beyond

reasonable doubt, and in reviewing voluntariness, the courts look at the totality of

circumstances, reviewing all the evidence in the record rather than focusing only on the evidence

supporting

the finding of voluntariness. Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90, 114-15 (Ind. 2005). Under the U.S. Constitution, the prosecution only has to prove by preponderance of the

evidence that the confession was voluntary. Smith v. State, 689 N.E.2d 1238 (Ind. 1997); Egg

v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477 (1972)). As explained below, the State cannot meet its burden of

showing voluntariness here, even applying the lower standard of preponderance. The federal

courts have long history ofregulating the admission of "confessions" that have been product

Page 125, subsection "c." of the INA references Richard Allen's physical deterioration from 173 lbs on 11/8/22 to

130 lbs on 8/3/23.

Page 9 of 11

of state action that exploits

the weak and compromised through interrogatory and custodial

pI'OCCSSeS.

In Blackburn State ofAlabama, 80 S..Ct. 274, 279-80 (1960), the United States

Supreme Court noted that it had recognized:

"[T]hat coercion can be mental as well as physical, and that the blood of the accused is

not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition. number of cases have demonstrated, if

demonstration were needed, that the efficiency of the rack and the thumbscrew can be matched,

given the proper subject, by more sophisticated modes of 'persuasion.' prolonged

interrogation of an accused who is ignorant of his rights and who has been cut ofi' from the moral

support offriends and relatives is not infrequently an effective technique of terror. Thus the

range ofinquiry in this type of case must be broad, and this Court has insisted that the judgment

in each instance be based upon consideration of 'the totality of the circumstances.' (citation

omitted 1."

Allen's case falls within these federal parameters. In Blackburn, the Defendant had

documented history of mental illness, having served in the military, which ultimately resulted in

his discharge because of medical finding that he suffered from some fonn ofpsychosis. Id. at

200-201. He was in the process ofbeing treated in the days and weeks leading up to the

commission ofthe crime and his ultimate apprehension. Id. at 201. After enduring an 8-10 hour

interrogation, Blackburn was given prepared written statement with admissions offered up by him in the course ofthe interrogation, and he ultimately signed the written statement two days

later. Id. at 204.

Here, Allen endured longer, more sustained form ofinterrogation; one that lasted more

than five months before he was finally broken. Already suffering from bona fide mental health

disorder, and then having been cut offfrom the moral support of his wife, mother, and daughter, Allen was weakened to the point where he slipped into state of psychosis plagued with grossly

disorganized, delusional, paranoid and highly dysfunctional behavior. (INEp. 124). These

behaviors were manifested through verbal confessions that he may have been drugged, verbal

confessions to the double homicide (inconsistent with known facts about the crime scene),

periods of not sleeping for days, paranoia, stripping off his clothes, drinking toilet water,

Page 10 of 11

covering himself with and eating his own feces, and many other socially unacceptable behaviors.

(INEp. 124). On one occasion Allen "confessed" to "molesting [those] two young girls and

shooting them in the back." (see attached transcribed statement of

inmate companion Lacy

Patton, Jr., p. 3, lines 16-1 7). On another occasion, he professed his sorrow for molesting Abby,

Libby and others which he specifically named. (C/O Michael Roberts statement between 15-16 min. mark). These facts are known to be falsities, none ofwhich are supported by the autopsy

findings by Dr. Roland Kohr as to the cause of death ofthe girls and unsupported by the absence

of any evidence that either one ofthe girls were sexually assaulted near or before the time of

their deaths. (see attached autopsy reports

re: Abigail Williams and Liberty German). At the

time Allen uttered these falsities, the State's actors were in the "ready position" with pen in hand,

documenting the entirety ofAllen's mental and physical deterioration and actions stemming

therefrom. The infringements on Allen's legal rights didn't stop here. Inmate companions

then

spread the "good word" ofAllen's "confessions" to inmates in general population at Westville,

prompting these imnates to then share the information with their respective family members in

public. (see attached transcripts ofLacy Patton, Jr. (inmate) and Jason Elliott (inmate). Proof ofthese leaks were ofiered up by the State in the form of audio recorded interviews and

accompanying transcripts and included in large volumes of discovery dumps

received by the Defense in the recent past. However, neither Allen nor his legal team are aware of any self- reporting of said leaks by the State to the Defense, or by the State to the Court, despite the fact

that the State was aware ofthis information as early as May 12, 2023, when Patton and Elliot were interviewed by law enforcement investigators. Allen's due process rights have been all but

ignored.

It is also established that the Fourteenth Amendment forbids 'fundamental unfairness in

the use of evidence whether true or false.' Lisenba v. People ofState ofCalifornia, 314 U.S. 219,

236, 62 S. Ct. 280, 290. As important as it is that persons who have committed crimes be

convicted, there are considerations that transcend the question of guilt or innocence. Thus, in

cases involving involuntary confessions, this Court enforces the strongly felt attitude of our

society that important human values are sacrificed where an agency of the government, in the

course of securing conviction, wrings confession out of an accused against his will. This

insistence upon putting the government

to the task of proving guilt by means other than

inquisition was engendered by historical abuses which are quite familiar. See Chambers v. State

10

Page 11 of 11

at Florida. supra, 309 U.S. at pages 235238, 60 S. Ct. S. Ct. at pages 477, 478; Watts v. State

01 Indiana, supra, 338 U.S. at pages 5455, 69 S. Ct. at page 1350. The truth or falsity of Allen's statements are of no consequence to this analysis. Allen has been treated unlike any other pretrial detainee in Indiana in recent history. The methodology employed by the justice

system is one of first impression, and therefore, the circumstances created by this methodology

should not be part of any consideration ofAllen's guilt or innocence. The system ofpre-trial detention employed against Allen runs afoul ofthe Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the United

States Constitution, and Article Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution. It is for these reasons,

any and all incriminating statements made by Allen while incarcerated should be suppressed.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

certify that have served copy ofthis document by the Co nty e-filing system upon

the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin the ofApril, 2024.

Bra ylA I{ i# 365-09 fiorney or enda

ay

Brad] A.R #23365-09 HI IS, LIS, ROZ DEA

Fourth Stre 6947

11

2024 4/11 Allen Memorandum.pdf.pdf

—-

Document #3:
Motion to Conduct Inmate Depositions:

2024 4/11 Motion for Leave.pdf.pdf
 
Last edited:
@Wienekelo

While we wait on a ruling as to whether Baldwin and Rozzi should be held in contempt of court when a confidant surreptitiously took photos from their conference room, we learn today that the prosecutor in #RichardAllen's case knew nearly a year ago that state actors (the inmates the D.O.C. had assigned to supervise Allen) were leaking information to the public. Yet the prosecutor failed to self-report this leak, all while accusing Baldwin and Rozzi of failing to self-report their own alleged leak.


4:46 PM · Apr 11, 2024


Assuming #RichardAllen's confessions are not suppressed, this poses an interesting situation at trial. Normally we all take great pains to ensure that the jury is never made aware that the defendant spent time in jail before trial. This is due to the obvious stigma attached to that.But in this case, Allen's pretrial incarceration MUST come out. Otherwise, it would be impossible to show why the confessions lack any reliability. And, of course, you have Odinist guards, a fact you probably want the jury to know.


Last edited4:52 PM · Apr 11, 2024
 
04/12/2024Notice Filed
Notice of mailing of transcript
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed:
Diener, Stacey Lynn
File Stamp:
04/12/2024
04/12/2024Order Granting
Order granting Motion for Leave of Court to Conduct inmate Depositions
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ

Order Signed:
04/12/2024
04/12/2024Correspondence to/from Court Filed
Letter received from the Journal & Courier.

File Stamp:
04/12/202
 
04/15/2024Order Issued
Ex parte communication from James Beverton and Savas Gunn ordered copied and sent to counsel of record and the Clerk of Carroll Circuit Court.
Judicial Officer:
Gull, Frances -SJ
Noticed:
McLeland, Nicholas Charles
Noticed:
Baldwin, Andrew Joseph
Noticed:
Rozzi, Bradley Anthony
Noticed:
Luttrull, James David JR
Noticed:
Diener, Stacey Lynn
Order Signed:
04/15/2024
 
CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — Attorneys for Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen are asking the court to block jurors from hearing a recorded police interrogation, claiming that Allen’s civil rights were violated.

...


To read Monday’s filing in whole, including statements that Allen’s attorneys allege are on the recorded interview, click here.

If interested, more at link...


Updated:
Apr 16, 2024 / 03:37 PM EDT
 
DELPHI, Ind. — Special Judge Frances Gull denied three news outlets' requests to video and audio record Delphi murder suspect Richard Allen's trial next month.

Gull issued three orders Tuesday that were published online Wednesday afternoon denying requests to record the trial. The denied requests were from News Media Coalition, an Indy TV station and a South Bend TV station. Earlier in the month, Gull denied another Indy TV station.

More at link...

 
The prosecutor in the Delphi murders case is fighting the defense team over whether or not the future jury will be told about Richard Allen's confession to the murders of two teen girls. I-Team 8's @KodyFisherTV reports.


Updated: Apr 23, 2024 / 08:07 PM EST
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
216
Guests online
1,746
Total visitors
1,962

Forum statistics

Threads
594,319
Messages
18,002,734
Members
229,366
Latest member
restfulmedsuk
Back
Top