Why Delphi Police & Prosecutors Deny Accountability For Richard Allen’s Wrongful Conviction

Añadido: 2026-05-13

[00:00:02]This is Hidden Killers Live with Tony Bruski and Robin Green.

[00:00:09]Well, welcome back to the party. Uh if uh if you have not been uh part of the the Deli Richard Allen saga over the last several years. Uh well, there's a lot to take in. Uh if you're new, there's plenty of time to consume it.

[00:00:23]We're going to go through where things are at today. Richard Allen's appeal is now fully briefed. Three judges in Indianapolis are reading the state's response and the defense's reply. And the most striking thing about the state's response isn't what it argues, isn't what it does. The defense raises a van timeline contradicted by FBI cell data, a confession to shooting two girls that were killed with a blade, and an alternative suspect whose interview was allegedly recorded over. The state's answer to most of it, which these are rather large things, they don't just seem like it. they actually are. The state says, uh, harmless error, paperwork waiver, nothing to see here.

[00:01:05]Move along, everybody. When the prosecution, uh, is sitting on a conviction, uh, they they have to win on procedure rather than facts. The question then stops being whether Allen got a fair trial and starts being whether the state is even trying to defend the trial that it has. Bob Ma, defense attorney, as always is with us, who's uh been with us from the beginning on this case, has educated us on this case a thousand ways. Uh and the saga just continues. Robin Drake, retired FBI special agency for the counter intelligence behavioral analysis program with us as well. Uh Bob, state's response is built on harmless error and waiver, not on actually answering facts that the defense raised. Uh so when you have uh a conviction in hand and and you're fighting back with procedure rather than evidence, what does that tell us about what's going on here?

[00:02:02]>> Uh that the evidence is the worst place for them to fight.

[00:02:05]>> Yeah.

[00:02:05]>> I mean, it's that simple. when a when they've got that conviction unlock, you know, their their playbook is going to be to keep the judge's panel a far as far away from the trial record as humanly possible >> because when you start throwing the waiver thing out there, the harmless error, that's going to require them to get into the weeds a bit, right? They're going to have to they're gonna have to get into the record in order to determine, okay, yeah, there was an error here. G should have let this in.

[00:02:36]But the fact of the matter is is it's harmless because it wouldn't have changed anything with uh with respect to what the jury ended up doing in terms of coming back with a guilty uh verdict.

[00:02:46]So, but the waiver thing, the waiver thing is a whole thing like that. Like when you're reading through that brief, if you haven't if you haven't read their response brief, just keep that in mind when you're reading it. when you get into kind of every single section that addresses uh Allen's brief and they start it with waiver that tells you all you need to know.

[00:03:13]>> Let's talk about the waiver. Help the audience understand what the waiver is and what it means here. Okay. So, waiver is essentially the argument that at trial that because the defense failed to object to either certain things being introduced into evidence or uh certain things being said and if they didn't do that at trial, they didn't renew the objection. Okay? Because if you follow Deli from the beginning, you have a clear understanding that they litigated all this stuff. We litigated, you know, the third party culprit stuff. They they did all the motions in lemonade about trying to get the composite sketch in.

[00:03:52]All that stuff was litigated pre-trial.

[00:03:55]What the state is saying, well, that's well and good, but the fact of the matter is that you have to renew that objection at trial, otherwise it's waved. And when we use the word waved, that means it goes away and the court, the appellet court can't address it because it's no longer an issue because it was not properly preserved.

[00:04:18]>> Okay.

[00:04:18]>> Yeah. Bob, the the thing that keeps striking me with this because again, I do not have the the massive legal brain that you do on this. We h I know we as a collective, you probably have seen more that are that have kind of come to this level of incompetence, but maybe not.

[00:04:35]How come there's not better checks and balances in here for what looks to be and again is this subjectively gross negligence it looks like or was it is this really as bad as it looks from the outside as it as it as it is on the inside? How come there's not a better lever they can pull on this? Because as I'm looking again I can be off on this but when I'm looking at the probabilities of success of retrial it's still extremely low even though it looks so high or am I way off? No, I mean if you're looking at it kind of just as a lay person and kind of No, I mean look, you're you're pretty learned in a lot of different ways when it comes to the law, but in terms of kind of like a pellet law, it's a different breed. It's different than watching a trial. It's completely there's different rules.

[00:05:22]There's there's different standards.

[00:05:24]Everything's different when you're shifting from trial to the appeals process. So, if you're looking at it obstensively and you're like, "Wow, man." You know, they really should have objected to this, this, and that because every old evidence law professor is going to tell you, you know, if you fall asleep at your council table, the first thing you do when you wake up is you object, right? I mean, you're just it's a cover your ass type of thing. Um, ultimately with respect to the waiver issue, and I don't know if you guys have been able to get to the reply brief, which was recently filed as well, I think that the defense handled that with great a plum.

[00:06:05]So, I don't think that that's going to be an issue. Uh, I think they're going to have to get to the merits because that's what this boils down to >> is are they going to get to the merits of the case? meaning are they going to get to the the errors that the defense is saying cumulatively all resulted in Richard Allen not getting a fair trial. So, and and I think that that the defense uh in terms of the appellet defense did an excellent job addressing kind of blowby-blow all the different waiver issues that the state put forward because I mean, look at it like this.

[00:06:41]Like, if you're making a waiver argument, you're telling the appellet court, look, we just saved you a whole bunch of time. You don't even have to get to the issues because you could just say, you know what, sorry, you didn't preserve it. we don't have to address it next, >> you know, and just go down the line and then ultimately, >> you know, they end upholding the the conviction and and then it gets appealed up to the Indiana Supreme Court. So, but I I think that the the waiver issue, which when you read, you know, the the state's response, you're like, "Wow, man, they they just [ __ ] the bed." But then when you re uh read the reply brief, what they did is they went into the the record and they showed that there were certainly uh sidebars that took place where where issues were absolutely preserved and you know they make very strong arguments that the law doesn't really support that that position because if we're trying to get to the truth and I'm talking about the position of waiver that you don't have to get to the merits you you want in the search for the truth for them to be able to get to the merits and see whether or not the guy got a fair trial. You you don't want them taking the easy way out if they if they look at it and they say, "Okay, well, this is the easy way out. This is a hot button uh case and and you know, we know that there's a lot of eyes on it and and we don't really want to deal with it.

[00:08:06]we're going to have the the conviction stand and and we've got the ability to be able to do it through the waiver issues and the law tends to not really look kindly on that. I mean, the law wants us to get to the issues. So, I think there was enough done in the reply brief. And I'm not going to be surprised if this thing gets >> uh upheld by the appellet court, but then I think where they might make their hay is up up with the Indiana Supreme Court, especially when it comes to the confession stuff. I think the confession stuff is going to be uh of the of great interest to because I mean it's such a slippery slope and I know we're going to get to it so so I won't belabor the point now.

[00:08:50]>> I just want to make sure I'm understanding this you know the same way that the audience is understanding it.

[00:08:55]Basically it's being argued right now from the state's point of like well you know you waved your rights to bring these things up. you didn't bring him up effectively or or the way you should have procedurally during the trial. And because you didn't do that doesn't mean you can do it now later. The argument from the defense is saying, "Oh, no, no, no. We did. You just didn't register this or accept this the way that you should have uh for it to be valid." So, you saying we didn't do it is not a full truth. It's it's it's basically they're arguing schematics to a certain extent right now to say uh well I want to tell the full story but are you allowed to tell the full story because according to the rules you kind of did you kind of didn't we say you did we didn't say it's it's it's it's kind of stuck right there at this moment and the state can still say well we didn't follow the rules or you didn't follow the rules exactly and we think you're right so move on folks and then that move on might be to the Supreme Court right if if if on the where it's sitting right now. The state doesn't go, "Okay, let's hear you out.

[00:09:55]Let's hear some of those oral arguments," which they might do.

[00:09:58]>> Ultim Well, they're going to do it.

[00:10:00]They're going to They're It's definitely The oral arguments are going to happen.

[00:10:03]Defense requests it. They're going to grant it. It's definitely going to go to oral arguments, but I mean, when you're talking about oral arguments, you're talking about 15 minutes per side, basically. You know, it's very limited period of time.

[00:10:16]>> You get a YouTube short to argue your >> essentially. Essentially, that's exactly what it is because and as soon as you're the appellet lawyer and you're kind of getting into your just as you're getting into your rhythm, they start hammering you with questions. They call it a hot bench. I I love watching appellet cases argued because it it's such a back and forth. You know, this isn't a situation where you're going to have a lawyer standing up there yapping for 15 minutes. You're going to get maybe a minute, a minute and a half, and then the judges are going to start coming at you with the things that they want addressed. When they read the first the brief and then the response and then the reply, and they're left with some questions that they want addressed, that's what they start coming at the lawyers with. It's really, if you're interested in in the court system in general, I highly recommend that you go and start watching some appellet arguments because they're fascinating. I mean, it really gets down to the nitty-gritty of the law. And you know, what we're talking about here is just procedural strictly. We're not even getting into the the merits of it where you're talking about, you know, what the applicable laws that's come down from the US Supreme Court and what applies and does this reach the the you know, kind of the level to where the judges are going to have to say, look, you know, again, cumulative cumulatively, Richard Allen didn't get a fair trial.

[00:11:37]It's like if we're if we're peacemealing everything, maybe one thing on its own didn't amount to that. But when we look at all all of it together, it's pretty obvious he didn't get a fair trial. And again, how they're going to address the very complex issue of the confessions >> is going to be the most fascinating part of it. I I think that that's where the oral arguments are really going to live in that particular uh that particular issue. Um because I I think with the third party culprit stuff, um you know, they're either going to agree with G that there wasn't a Nexus, which to me is insane, you know, I mean, I I I don't I don't see how that's thing and you know, and but the the confession thing because at the end of the day, and we've only heard from one juror, maybe two, so we don't really know what they're hanging their hat on when they decided that Richard Allen was guilty of this.

[00:12:32]in the one that I I read a transcript for uh was was saying that the the confessions to her weren't that important. I don't believe that. I think that I think the the confessions sit as the background to everything else. And you know, like ultimately at the end of the day, if they're like, "Oh, well, it was the van thing." The van thing is what pushed me there. But if the confessions aren't sitting there in the background, if they're not just ruminating in the back of their skulls, it's it's a different trial. It just is.

[00:13:06]>> Yeah. Because once you have that confession out there, then what you have is you have confirmation bias of them trying to prove what they've already come to conclusion on because they didn't do a deeper dive, understand how that confession came about, what his state of mind was. And that's where and that's where everything lives. Like you said, everything's going to live when they go at those confessions. And I'm curious, Bob, with all I mean, you've been practicing a long time. I can't even probably estimate how many cases you've seen and you've seen appeals. How would you rank this as a just cause for an appeal and out of all the cases you've covered? I I mean I I thought from the get like my entire coverage which I think Alice and I were really you know and then frankly Tony um when he'd have me on the show were the only creators out there that were following this thing throughout the entire pre-trial thing which is where all the nightmares happen. I mean, I saw it early on that there were going to be legitimate issues, you know, that that were going to have to be addressed. And ultimately, you know, the problem, Robin, is that it is really, really, really hard to overturn a conviction in this country. It just is. They what they do a lot of times is they defend the conviction the appellet courts as opposed to kind of looking at it objectively which is what they're supposed to do but the the way that it typically plays out is they go out of their way and I'm talking about not Indiana specifically I'm talking about all appellet courts they really fight very hard to uphold convictions and ultimately it's going to go up again to the Indiana Supreme Court and I that the issues are so flagrant in terms of what they did with Richard Allen during his 13 months of incarceration pre-trial that they have to address it. It is not something that that can become the norm because if this thing slips through the cracks and this this conviction is upheld and the Indiana Supreme Court says, "You know what? We're good with it." And then that it moves into postconviction act world. Um post uh post postconviction relief act world.

[00:15:23]We're we're talking about a different thing because that that moves it out of the appellet court world. And it creates a very very slippery slope in terms of what law enforcement and prosecutor's offices are going to say is allowable because essentially what they did is they put that guy in in a in a solitary confinement for 13 months until he went mad, you know, and and they used that to extract confessions out of him. How it was done, you know, cuz people are always like, "Oh, well, you know, he just started confessing." I'm like, all it had to have been is as simple as when he's eating his own feces and smashing his head against the cell walls and they've cut him off from personto person contact with the person that matters most to him in the world, which is his wife.

[00:16:14]All you have to do is say, "Hey man, you want this [ __ ] to end? Just just say you did it."

[00:16:18]>> I know. And and this is and this is from someone who's already suffering from from what we're getting from hearsay anyway, right? And you know, Nelson Mandela said it in his book, The Long Walk to Freedom, because he was incarcerated unjustly in South Africa for so long. He goes, "You can judge a country by how it treats it incarcerated." Um, and the fact that Richard Allen wasn't even convicted and he was treated like this while awaiting trial. It's just the most absurd abhorrent thing that again and it's just like we were saying it's just one massive data point which inspired confessions not for his own benefit but for his families and that's just one plus the police mishandling of [ __ ] they kept losing over writing. I mean it's just it's a >> it's unbelievable.

[00:17:06]>> And so you're saying that they're defending the process more than the outcome or the evidence or anything else. So they're just been determined to defend that the process was correct.

[00:17:15]Yes.

[00:17:16]>> Yeah. Look, I mean, when I read the reply or the response rather from the state, I I don't see them really addressing the issues in in a a substantive type of way, you know, which is ultimately going to be potentially their downfall because they didn't address it in the way that they should have because they're relying on the fact that they waved all these issues. That's not to say that they didn't write some some uh you know, some of the brief wasn't dedicated to to trying to address the issues, but it it's not the kind of analysis, legal analysis that you'd want to see uh if you're rooting for this guy to be uh remain convicted. You know, it's like you want them defend defending their position, defending the rulings that were made by the judge and why they were the right rulings, you know, because ultimately I just think that cumulatively that they're going to end up looking at it and saying there there's just too much here. there there's too much that went on with this this particular trial for us to feel confident in the conviction and in order for them to get there you know and I mean if we really want to get into the weeds and I don't know if we do or if we don't you know when you have the Nepoui issue which we'll probably get to on a different live maybe as the appellet uh process moves forward and we get the oral arguments it would probably be cool to do another live like leading into that where we can kind of like pinpoint point some of the issues. But the Nepoui thing is is a really interesting one and that's a structural error. Structural error means we don't need to get to the analysis. You screwed up so massively that everything that uh that took place after it has been tainted that there's no way he could have gotten a fair trial because you made this kind of a grievous error up front. And like I I think that that's a very powerful argument. Whether or not it's something that the appellet court's going to be able to uh you know sleep at night by just saying okay we're giving them a new trial just based on that is is where this thing lays you know because I mean you're dealing with human beings you know you're dealing with >> appellet court judges that are up there and you know it's it's a thing where they've got people in their ears. We don't know what they're seeing or not seeing online.

[00:19:36]You know, it's one of those thing because you kind of hope that some of the appellet court justices are up there and they're seeing some of the stuff, some of the coverage on this case, you know, even though they have to limit >> Yeah.

[00:19:48]>> what what their their, you know, response is going to be to the record.

[00:19:53]That's not how human beings operate.

[00:19:55]>> When we're talking about this being a human being issue, I want I want to ask one more question in this segment before we go to the next one and something we had just talked about. Um, we're we're talking about the jurors and and and very few have come out and said anything um from this trial. Very few. A lot of cases, high-profile cases like this, you see them kind of scatter out all over and they tell their story. Very few have said, "Jack, I know >> this." Um, reading the tea leaves, this is just pure conjecture. Bob, when when when they they got off the jury trials done, they got a chance to really absorb the information. Hopefully, some of them did in its entirety without the uh the filter of gull in between. Um and they probably saw a case that looked very different than what was presented in that courtroom. That would be my opinion of what any objective person might see when they look at this. Why do you think not many of them are saying anything public?

[00:20:51]>> I I don't know. I always kind of wonder that when it's a high-profile case and you you're not hearing from the jurors and where there's a lot of coverage out there that's that's really kind of highlighting a lot of the issues that they didn't hear or see at trial.

[00:21:12]You are left wondering, well, why aren't they coming forward? And you know, you could obviously make the argument that that's an issue for them that they're not willing to address because if they ultimately start to feel like they made the wrong decision and they ended up putting this guy in prison for 130 years based on things that they didn't see or hear.

[00:21:36]>> Yeah.

[00:21:37]>> It's a hard question to answer place to be in. I mean cuz I mean and I'm I'm not I'm not trying to shame them. Um and and I they don't deserve shame. they they did the job based on the information they were given.

[00:21:49]>> Um, and if you're only given a very blinder, half-ass version of the truth, I get how they got to where they got to.

[00:21:57]Um, and I'm not but I but at the same point, you know, it's almost like someone it's like they've been victimized to a certain extent, too.

[00:22:07]Victims of of of different crimes and things like that. Predatory type behavior. And I almost feel like this is predatory in a way. the way this was presented to a jury um and said, "Okay, your your decision matters. Uh never mind. It's getting we're only going to give you half the truth and then you're the ones that have to deal with this the rest of your life for making this choice." Um to me that is predatory. Um and and shame comes along with that. Not necessarily rightfully so, but shame comes along with that. And I could see a lot of them having shame about it. and also for their own best interest. I wouldn't want to throw my hat into the ring and have these discussions if I'm one of the people who made the decision to put this guy away forever and realize, "Oh [ __ ] I didn't see all that." It's not their fault they didn't see it. I don't blame them. They didn't get it. But but I could see that being like, "Yeah, I don't want to I I want to pretend this moment never happened to me if I were that."

[00:22:58]>> I mean, because you're sitting there.

[00:23:00]Imagine you're a juror and they're interviewing you and and they start throwing all these things at them and they're like, "Well, you know, had you heard this, would that have changed your mind? Had you heard this, would that have changed your mind?" A and you're you're kind of forced to sit there because if you talk to jurors in high-profile cases that ultimately get flipped on their head somewhere down the road or something comes out like DNA that that is pretty definitive in terms of that this wasn't the person who committed the crime and then they're forced to kind of address that with themselves.

[00:23:40]>> Yeah. because people take that that civic duty very very seriously and the weight of what they're doing in that room ultimately when they utter the words guilty or write it down on the verdict slip. They feel that >> because they understand that they have fundamentally changed just not one person's life forever, but everybody that's involved with that person, like their lives have been forever changed and altered in the worst way possible.

[00:24:12]And so for them to find out down the road after the fact, and again like you said, to no fault of their own, they can't intuit it things that weren't addressed at trial, right? And if they were being honest that they didn't know anything about the case or very little about the case coming in, >> then, you know, I mean, that's a lot to process for a jur, you know, and and I I I get it. Like I I probably wouldn't be running if if I was in that position. I probably would be keeping quiet myself.

[00:24:44]>> I mean, it's really it's how humans behave. I mean, it's why you have people that still defend predatory churches.

[00:24:50]It's why you have people that defend all sorts of institutions that, you know, in theory uh when operating as, you know, constructed are not bad things. But when they go off the rails and you still think they're operating as they should be uh and you're bamboozled into it.

[00:25:07]Yeah, you I mean it is good to stand up and say this is wrong. I was bamboozled here too. And I do see the comment there of like cowardice cowardice self-preservation.

[00:25:18]Um these people have lives too. They that they didn't necessarily say, "Hey, let me dedicate the rest of my life to Richard Allen's defense." They stood up and said, "I'm going to be a juror on this trial." And were essentially bamboozled. So, I I don't blame them if they don't want to continue down this path uh and be a spokesperson for Richard Allen. Um but that that is the reality. It's self-preservation. People don't like being wrong at the end of the day. Uh and and sometimes the solution to that is not necessarily dive into the pool again to see just how wrong you are. It's been to that pool before. I don't like the water. I'm good.

[00:25:52]>> Yeah. The water was not the right temperature.

[00:25:54]>> So, and so Bob, again, I just want to clarify and definitely understand. So, and they were instructed, this is beyond reasonable doubt, correct, that they had to vote that they thought he's >> guilty.

[00:26:04]>> So, and that's and that's where I love giving grace. I am extremely empathetic too. But, and that's why I think if I was having my conjecture about why we have silence is because they had to vote beyond reasonable doubt they thought he was guilty. And all you have to do is is peek behind the curtain of what is going on outside that courtroom seeing that there is nothing but reasonable doubt.

[00:26:32]And so facing the fact that you'll now have to confront people and try to defend how you had no that that you made your choice beyond a reasonable doubt.

[00:26:41]It's it's easily assa assaulted and hard to defend. So I would say I'd stay silent too >> 100%. And the other part of it is if we take into consideration if if they did dive in to all the content online, they quickly realize that there's two waring factions here.

[00:27:01]>> Yeah.

[00:27:01]>> You know, and and and they're ugly. But, you know, both sides are very ugly on this case. Both sides are adamant about the way that they feel. And you know, that that's a that's a big lever to pull if you're a juror, >> which comes down to the one confession.

[00:27:16]Seriously, is that where that dividing line is? Because I think everything else submitted was real complete [ __ ] when it comes to evidence. It really, as I understand it, it really get came down to half the world believing that confession that he made, multiple ones kind of varying a lot on details and not believing it. Is that is that really at the crux of what you think that they based it on or is there other like the the shell casing that had nothing to do with anything? Yeah. I look to me >> bullets, not casing bullet, right?

[00:27:48]>> Yeah. When I when I look at this thing, this is what I would would classify as a narrative win for the state. Like they they won on a narrative. They won on a story, >> you know, and the way that it shook out is that Gull protected that story. G didn't allow for the defense to bring in certain evidence that would have made that story questionable >> because when you got the story that they have which is oh well Richard Allen you know uh he admitted he was out to the bridge and and words matter right it's like Richard Allen volunteered the fact that he was out there he didn't admit it but that's that's a tricky word right because when you when you say admit That that's that's uh in addition >> that's like you're like in a DARK ROOM.

[00:28:39]WERE YOU THERE? Like no, he actually called and said, "Hey guys, I was there.

[00:28:42]Can I help you?"

[00:28:44]>> Right. And then and then if >> you watch that first if you watch his first interview that he did with the law enforcement guys, that was someone that was completely transparent, truthful, had a cell phone right in front of him.

[00:28:53]That was not someone covering his story.

[00:28:56]I mean I like and I I love to hear someone who's skilled in the ways of interrogations who who can look at that and you know I'm sure Robin when you were first watching those videos you probably didn't know a [ __ ] ton about the case.

[00:29:12]>> No when I the first thing I saw really guys was that interview. I you know I knew about the case. I heard about it briefly. I was gonna cover it on Tonyy's show and the first thing I looked at was that interview of him with the Gops >> and before I even knew anything else, I said that's not someone who's guilty.

[00:29:28]>> That's what I'm saying. Nope.

[00:29:30]>> Like like and like I I don't have nearly the skill set that you do with respect to uh being able to objectively look at an interview, but I I do have the skill set of having dealt with defendants in criminal cases for decades to know what they typically look like when they're guilty and and how they respond to questions without even getting into the, you know, kind of the body language aspect of it. I'm just listening to the words.

[00:29:56]>> Yeah, me too. I'm, believe it or not, body language can be extremely deceptive to people and I'm not a I'm a I'm a whole picture kind of guy. I'm I'm I because it's very specific to the individual and you're looking for specity of and you're always trying and and you do it as a lawyer. You're looking what's the intent? What's the intent of the individual being interviewed and what's the intent of the interviewees, right?

[00:30:18]>> You know, and the intent of Richard Allen when he was in there, his intent was to be transparent. If he was feeling guilty in any way, his intent would not be transparency. It'd be obserating.

[00:30:30]It'd be maneuver in this way. And then when you look at the intent was with his phone calls with his wife. I keep going back to that. His intent was for her, not for self, not for self-preservation, is pre preservation for her. And then you get into the messy crap of the stupid confessions, which if anyone spent even half a quarter of a semester in college looking at social psychology, you'd be like, "That is completely BS."

[00:30:54]>> And that's what we're going to be getting into here. I know in in our next segment it's amazing. It's amazing what you can do when you hold somebody in solitary for 13 months, even when the state has rules saying the limit's 30 days. It's it's amazing the magic that you can have happen. That's coming up next. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube. Be sure to weigh in there. The links are in the description. The Indiana Department of Correction has written a written policy.

[00:31:25]Inmates with serious mental illness, the kind Richard Allen was documented as having before he ever went into Westville, are not supposed to be held in solitary confinement beyond 30 days.

[00:31:35]Richard Allen was there for 13 months.

[00:31:37]In that time, a man who arrived at 180 lbs dropped to 135. He stopped recognizing whether he was actually alive or not. He wasn't quite sure. He tore up his own legal male. Then he confessed into a crime that really wasn't quite committed the way he confessed it. Uh, and there's a litany.

[00:31:55]He's eating his own poop. He's running head first into a wall. The state's argument on appeal is that none of this adds up to coercion. uh and a religious conversion is actually what uh what explains the rest. Uh nothing to do with uh being run mad for 13 months. Uh the collision between Idok's own rule book and what the state is now asking three judges to bless may be the biggest fight in this entire appeal. Uh Bob Ma, defense attorney, uh is with us, host of the podcast Defense Diaries and Robin Drake, retired FBI special agent chief of the counter intelligence behavioral analysis program. Bob, the Indiana Department of Corrections own policy. It caps solitary at 30 days for inmates with mental illness. Allen's there 13 months. Um, so this is their this isn't Allen going, "Keep me in solitary, guys.

[00:32:43]I really think it's nifty." It's you have no choice. You are there 13 months.

[00:32:48]It goes against their own damn policy.

[00:32:50]But a policy, as we've learned in so many cases, is a suggestion, a mere suggestion, a rule, maybe rule that's meant to be broken when there's not truly legislation or laws that uh that enforce said rules. I guess you can kind of do whatever you want. Um I mean, how does the the state explain this to a three judges with a straight face without just saying, "Well, you know, it's a suggestion. We thought otherwise."

[00:33:19]No, Bob, your mic's off.

[00:33:22]>> I was drinking coffee. I didn't want you to hear that. Cleaning up the ice. My ice coffee. Uh, I mean, they relabel it.

[00:33:29]>> You know what what they call it is it was it was safekeeping.

[00:33:32]>> Oh, >> they were trying to keep Richard Allen alive because, you know, they couldn't have him out in Genpop because he's accused of killing two little girls. And we all know what happens to to guys that do that in prison. They they get got. So I mean that that's the way that they they would frame it and that's the way that they have framed it. They've framed everything. Oh, he wasn't in solitary.

[00:33:55]He was in a single person's cell, >> you know, like >> just like drinking a cup of bleach is a refreshing cleansing experience.

[00:34:03]>> Yeah. I mean, if you look at at the people that listen to podcasts like the prosecutors or the murder sheet and and they're like, "Oh, well, he was treated better than uh the other people in Westville." Well, the other people in Westville were convicted felons. Yeah.

[00:34:17]Like the the part like when I hear people say that it shows such a a gross misunderstanding of how this thing works. Anybody who's been arrested and then is charged and is going to stand trial is presumed innocent in this country. Period. End of conversation. I see people like, "Oh, well that's a thing for the jurors." No, it's not.

[00:34:39]It's a mindset that as Americans we need to understand because the entire burden lays with the state. The defendant doesn't have to show anything. If the state is going to accuse you of something, it is their duty and their burden alone to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you did that thing. So when you take a guy who's presumed innocent and you stick him in the most secure cell in the most secure prison in the state of Indiana and hole him away for 23 hours a day for 13 months. If you don't think that that's a problem, then I suggest you haul yourself up in your bathroom for 30 days and let yourself out for an hour a day to go into a 3x3 cage to talk to somebody who's obstensively supposed to be helping you. But it turns out that that person is some kind of true crime weirdo who's a digger and was actively researching the case for the very person she's treating. Everything about what happened to Richard Allen should make your skin crawl if you live in this country. It should terrify you because if that's what we're going to start doing with people, if you don't think that you would because it's an issue of voluntariness. That's what what the confessions come down to. This isn't when you're watching an old cop show and they have the light, you know, shining in your face and the cops screaming in your face and, you know, they have you in there for 18, 22 hours straight, no sleep, no food, they're not giving you anything to drink. This isn't that. This was farious.

[00:36:24]That's illegal. I mean like this this is this was something that was done in a way so that he would break mentally and it's exactly what happened. He broke mentally you know and like I actually see people making comments that he was malingering which means faking it.

[00:36:45]>> There are people that actually exist on the world in this planet in social media that are like oh well he was faking eating his own feces. He was trying to make himself seem crazy to >> and those are what we call non-critical thinkers. I >> I mean, man, dude, I like I I mean, how do you argue with somebody like that?

[00:37:04]>> You can't >> because what what is the like what what is the endgame for a guy pretending that he's crazy?

[00:37:12]>> I know you're not that I want to understand like what where is that land?

[00:37:18]Like, okay, so you're you're claiming that he's faking that he's he's gone insane. So, but to what end for him?

[00:37:25]Like, what where is the malingering?

[00:37:27]Like, what what does that bring to him >> if he's if he's thought about this?

[00:37:31]Okay. Like, are you are you thinking that he's going to they were never going with an insanity defense? And and the problem is starting with the safekeeping order from the very first time that this case was in court after Judge Diner issued the arrest warrant and then recused himself because of the bloodlust surrounding this case. So the the initial judge steps back, but before he does, they go into court without giving Richard Allen notice because the safekeeping uh is a statute. Okay? And the defendant has an absolute right to be present or at least at the very least have his attorney present. They skulked in without Allen being there, without his attorney, and he did have an attorney at that time that had been paid. And it wasn't uh you know, Rosie or Baldwin or any of those guys. It was a lawyer that Kathy, his wife, had found. As soon as she found out that they were that he was in custody, paid him paid him money and they skulk in and this guy's reaching out to them to the state. So they can't claim that they didn't know that he had counsel because the problem for the state on this safekeeping issue is that Richard Allen, if they're saying, "We're we're looking to keep you safe. We're not hauling you away because we're worried about you hurting others. We're worried about you getting hurt." And there was no credible threat. It was just a feeling. It was that thing that I'm talking about like, well, you know what they do to child killers in jail?

[00:39:08]That was that was their basis for it. So they they they skullk into court and Richard Allen had the opportunity pursuant to the statute to say, "You know what? I'm fine. I I didn't do this.

[00:39:21]I I don't need you to to put me in Westville Penitentiary. I I'll stay in the county jail. I'll take my chances with it." Cuz that that was his option.

[00:39:30]That would have been something. And when they didn't give him that due process, >> it becomes a major issue. And then what happens is that months go by. So when you hit the April and May dates after he's been in since whenever November and he's now exhibiting the signs of psychosis like this is when he's eating the the his feces smashing his head against the cell walls or the cell door and >> they're filming inter dude >> as the state calls it finding religion.

[00:40:07]>> Yeah. Well, I mean, look, like the way they they they waffled on that. Yeah.

[00:40:11]>> They said that he found God or that it was as soon as he got his discovery >> and he knew that his goose was cooked that that's confessing >> between taking bites of the Bible and poop and drinking toilet water.

[00:40:24]>> So, but like what happens in June? So he's already exhibiting all the psychosis. And so his lawyers go in in June and and they had a safekeeping hearing in front of Judge Gaul and they put on the warden, they put on guards, they were showing pictures and and Nick McClean sitting there literally calling the defense liars. And at that point, they didn't have everything that they had at trial. They didn't have all the videos. They didn't have all of that. They had pictures that they took of Rick Allen and they had stories that Rick was telling them as to what was going on because they wouldn't let them tour the prison. They wouldn't let them look and I'm talking about them being his attorneys, what his cell and his confinement conditions were. They didn't they had no idea. So, all they're hearing from is is their client. Well, it turns out that everything that they were saying at that hearing was absolutely true. And the bigger issue was that Cass County, which is a county that is 10 minutes away from one of his attorney's offices and still instead of two hours or two plus hours to go visit his client for his massive trial that's coming up where they're filming every single interaction he has with his attorneys. and G denies it even though the the the sheriff for Cass County said, "Yeah, we could we don't want him, but we can we could take him. We could handle him because it's a it's a newer facility." And Gull denies it. So, he ends up sitting in there, and this is after he's already gone psychotic, but the state knows the state knows that he's gone psychotic. the state was privy to those videos and to the fact that he was eating his own feces and like where where's the morality in that?

[00:42:19]>> Where's the culpability, too? I mean, and that's what I've been looking up right now. I'm looking for on that cuz the the the lawsuit, the civil rights lawsuit was never even filed.

[00:42:28]>> That's what it's it's it's befuddling because I'm looking up, you know, inmates that are already convicted versus inmates that aren't convicted, threats to them. And and yeah, you're right, Bob. you know, they had the they had according to their policy the right to segregate them. But now I'm looking up, you know, well, what if they're displaying that mental instability because of the confinement? Um, and so where's their culpability for you see and are witnessed to and actually know the actions he's taken not in his own best interest or his own best self. I mean, he basically is hurting himself, potentially committing suicide by bad things he's doing to himself. You know, what are you going to do about that? And where's our culpability for that behavior?

[00:43:03]>> I mean, it feels like there's none. It feels more like it's like well if you think he's faking it then he must be faking it because you feel that >> incapable incapable of faking >> there's the checks and balances don't exist there for for any of this and then when you get really you unethical shitty people in these positions this is what you get what you got >> so bottom line facilities must evaluate treat and absent narrow exceptions remove the inmate from solitary once smi or significant instability is confirmed failure to act can lead to lawsuits or unconstitutional conditions. These steps are not discretionary once decompos uh decompensation is documented. They are required by current ID ID do policies and it cited it uh in federal constitutional standards for the most current facility. So yeah, they are legally obligated to do something about it.

[00:43:52]>> Well, and there was a lawsuit, the IPASS lawsuit. Yeah.

[00:43:56]>> And it was a settlement. It it settled and that's where those rules were laid out.

[00:44:01]>> How did they get around it? like they just ignored it.

[00:44:05]>> They just didn't. What do you mean? How do like they just ignored it? They pretended like it didn't exist. They didn't give a [ __ ] >> That like that's the kind of thing where if you're if you're a serious person and if you care about the health of our our judicial system and our criminal justice system in this country, you should care about this.

[00:44:23]>> Like put put aside everything else. Put it put aside the facts of the case and just think about if we think that that's okay. what was done to him was a war crime.

[00:44:34]>> Yeah.

[00:44:34]>> Like like unequivocally if we treated prisoners of war the way that they treated Richard Allen, those are absolute war crimes.

[00:44:43]>> Yeah.

[00:44:43]>> And this is a guy again who I'm going to say was presumed innocent. And and so and so as I know know one of the um listeners chimed in and said you know GMO much um you know even in situations where Guantanamo Bay the military is trying to use the excuse of not being US persons or US citizens and yet that still got outlawed and banned doing things just like this just solitary let alone waterboarding all the other crap they're accused of but literally just solitary like this was outlawed and banned in it's just like this and that's for non US persons, non- US citizens.

[00:45:18]This is a US person, US citizen.

[00:45:20]>> Yeah.

[00:45:21]>> Uh >> yeah, it's uh it's kind of insane. Your thoughts in the comments section on Substack and YouTube? There's more to come. Oral arguments at the Indiana Court of Appeals are described as rare, but frequently granted when one side asks for them. One side here is asking, the other side would clearly rather the panel. You know, this just sits in a file room somewhere. Uh that split. who wants to be in the room and who doesn't might be the loudest signal yet about how this appeal is actually positioned.

[00:45:50]Bob Ma, defense attorney, is with Robin and myself as we continue to break down the chaos of Richard Allen's deli case.

[00:45:59]Um Bob, the defense filed for oral arguments. The state did not. One side wants to stand in front of three judges, and you said earlier in our conversation, it's it's probably going to happen, but it's it's brief. the other would rather, you know, they decided on paper. Um, where uh where does this take us? What is the timeline going forward for oral arguments if they're to take place? And and just kind of give us an idea of of really next steps here, where where uh where where could we possibly be turning the pages in this choose your own adventure book in the coming months?

[00:46:34]>> So, ultimately, what's going to happen is the briefs have been all submitted.

[00:46:39]It's fully briefed. That's how they define it at this point. All the briefs are done. Now, now the justices that are they're that are going to be sitting on this case are are reading them. And at some point in the next probably two months, they'll set an uh oral an oral argument date. And people that I, you know, am friendly with that that practice in Indiana are telling me early fall is when we can expect to have uh the oral arguments take place. And then once oral arguments happen, it could be another two, three, four months after that before we get an opinion or a decision on it. So I mean, I think we're talking earliest >> maybe around Christmas.

[00:47:25]>> Yeah. you know, that we get some kind of decision on this thing and you know, and then what happens is if the appellet court turns around and says, "Okay, well, you know, we hear you. You know, there were some good arguments that were made by the defense.

[00:47:38]However, uh, we're hanging our hat on waiver. You know, if we didn't find that your arguments were compelling enough that you waved all these issues, unfortunately, we don't have to get to the merits." So, uh, we're >> If they make that decision, why is it convenience? Is is it because they're wanting to really parse out the letter of the law and get to the truth here or how are they making their choice on this if in fact they they just side with the state and say no everything's great even clearly when it has not is it just another court punting it down to the next court so it goes to the Supreme Court so they don't have to deal with it sort of like like we saw um earlier on in this when it went to uh what's her name uh shortly after Gaul um I and not I can't think of her name. Uh where it's just we're going to punt this down to the next court. I'm not going to truly deal with any of this myself.

[00:48:32]>> Yeah. I mean that's exactly what it would be, you know.

[00:48:34]>> Why do we have all these courts if nobody WANTS TO DO THEIR FREAKING JOBS?

[00:48:38]>> I mean that's that's a million dollar question.

[00:48:41]>> It's you know unfortunately this now we'll go to the laws of human nature here. It's I would I've been inside as and I know Bob's been around these government types too. I don't care whether it's local, state or federal.

[00:48:52]You know, I dealt with an entire career of you have some people that are doing the righteous work because it's the right thing to do because it's it's it's the right thing to do. Unfortunately, you also have people that are it's everything's a dichotomy, right?

[00:49:07]Dichotomy between self and others. Those that are that are balancing hardcore on others, which is the righteous work about, you know, good processes, good law, good procedures because it wants to be just, it wants to be fair. Those are people doing the righteous work. But these people are also balancing it with self, career, relationships, preservations of titles, positions, promotions. And when you have the self outweighing the other, that's when this [ __ ] happens. That's why it keeps getting punted. Sometimes, now granted, if it's a righteous punt because it's the right process, procedure, oh great.

[00:49:41]But a lot of times, I've been around this. I've I've had to strategize operational improvement for things basically waiting because I knew this guy would approve it but not execute it because it would potentially damage his career. He'd wait for the next guy to come in who can then blame the last guy but could take action on it then blame the last guy. I mean inside government you're constantly working the dichotoies of people and trying to figure out where they are. And that's unfortunately how the how the sausage sausage is made on some of these cases and unfortunately it looks like it might be going on here.

[00:50:11]Not accusing anyone of anything.

[00:50:13]>> Yeah. I I mean that that's gospel, you know, and ultimately I mean I'm gonna feel a certain kind of way if they end up punting in on the waiver [ __ ] you know. It's one thing for them to get to the merits and then and then, you know, uphold the conviction. At least there they did the work. You know, at least I thought that that was I I could say, "All right, well, I disagree, but it was an uh you know, it was an intellectually honest attempt at addressing the issues." If they punted based on the waiver, I don't feel like that. I'm like, "Wow, man." Like, like they they just took the easy way out. They won't even get to the to the things that matter about this case, the things that that actually have substance, the things that we need to address moving forward in the criminal justice system. Like these are things that have to be looked at because we need to figure out whether or not if these things are happening during a pre-trial and a trial, does it amount to a person getting a fair trial? Like if you don't get to those issues, you you're you're never going to get an answer in this case. So, but again, like I I base a lot of what I say in terms of how they operate in Indiana in terms of the appellet court based on what lawyers that I respect a whole hell of a lot that practice in that state are telling me what to expect. And and I have there's some varying opinions. uh you know, one of my favorite lawyers there.

[00:51:45]She's of the opinion that she thinks that this the Appellet court might do the right thing here. My other friend, who I really, really respect as well, he thinks that ultimately it's going to get kicked up to the Indiana Supreme Court, and they're going to be the ones to do the right thing. Both of them feel, having both practiced in habius work and appellet law in Indiana for a very long time and have been very successful at it, feel that this thing has a really good good shot at getting him a new trial. Like they they they both they both feel like that and they understand the politics that surround this case >> because that's a that's a part of this this piece of the puzzle that you cannot forget exists. Absolutely. You know, you've got Todd Rakita who's the attorney general. They they have a vested interest in keeping this conviction in place.

[00:52:38]>> Yeah.

[00:52:38]>> You know, the the state of Indiana has a a vested interest in keeping this conviction in place. The prosecutor's office in Carol County has a vested interest. You know, uh Indiana State Police, all they all want this conviction to stick.

[00:52:53]>> This is Yeah. You This is a great example of of the state as a whole working in tandem together. It's like THAT'S WHAT I'M ALWAYS TELLING PEOPLE.

[00:53:01]THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT.

[00:53:03]>> YEAH. Whenever I'm screaming about the government, it's them. It's all of those people. And what's so go ahead. All these all these different parts and pieces seemingly working together harmoniously to keep Richard Allen at bay and and and the truth of the story at bay because it doesn't benefit them. It's amazing quite honestly because the government never can do that. They can nevero like keep all their their plates spinning, but they keep doing it because they all have a vested interest in the truth not coming out and Richard Allen not suing the living [ __ ] out of all of them uh and and making millions of dollars at the end of the day, which could very likely happen. I kind of feel like they're more so weighing him out to death where well, he's already mentally compromised. Let's put him here. Let's not let anybody see him. Let's not talk about him. And eventually he'll die.

[00:53:53]when he dies, well, no, the odds of us having to face the consequences for any of this or be held accountable significantly go down. Or if we do, it's significantly lower than what it would be if there's not the media circus of him walking out of prison one day and into a mansion with millions of dollars that he'll have because of the wrongful conviction. Uh it it just seems a scratch your back I'll scratch mine is alive and well uh through the departments of Indiana.

[00:54:23]>> Robin, I know you had something.

[00:54:24]>> Yeah. No, because I just want to highlight the beautiful phrase you keep saying on a lot of our shows, Bob, and that is do the work. You know, that's the simplest test ever. If someone can poke this many holes in what was done, then you didn't do the work. And when someone's life is on the line and their freedom is on the line, shame on you for not doing the work, that is complete laziness and selfcenter because think about this. Why wouldn't someone want to do the work? Because it impacts them.

[00:54:55]>> Oh god.

[00:54:56]>> And not and it's spot on. It was just the simplest phrase ever. And and if you're don't want to do the work, get the f out of the job because you're you're not meant for it. If if he gets a new trial, which I am of the firm belief he absolutely deserves, and he is walked, if he's found not guilty, because what happens in appeal is those errors that they made the first time are fixed. So that means a third c a third party culprit defense comes in.

[00:55:29]That means that uh if they're going to allow these confessions, if they find if they find that they were actually voluntary and they allow some of them in uh and they say, "Okay, but here's the thing. The one where uh the defense was trying to get in through the completeness doctrine, the phone call that preceded the one, the one where he's saying, "I feel like I'm in Guantanamo Bay."

[00:55:51]>> Oh, you mean context?

[00:55:53]>> Yeah, the context of everything. Uh you know, and they were like, "But we're going to play that before they hear the rest of it." uh you know because we're talking about hundreds of hours and and they cherrypicked uh you know maybe five minutes of sound out of hundreds of hours of whatever Richard Allen was rambling about which obviously include things about shooting the girls and the girls weren't shot you know about starting World War II about you know like all the terrible things that he was just puking out of his diseased mind none of that was heard by the jury and it doesn't necessarily mean that it'll ever will But if all of the issues are fixed and he gets a fair trial and he's walked out by a not guilty, imagine the abject horror that the state of Indiana, that the Indiana State Police, that the prosecutors of that all of those people are going to be feeling because when the P when the the Patty family comes in knocking and they're saying, "Hey, they walked him like I thought you told me he was the right guy. We believed he was the right guy.

[00:56:58]Who are we going after now?

[00:57:00]>> Yep.

[00:57:00]>> And you know what? They're going to have to throw their hands up because they can't turn around and go after the Brad Holders and the Elvis Fields cuz they're on record saying they didn't do it. We investigated that thoroughly. They they have [ __ ] this case up beyond all recognition from beginning to end. And the people that are paying the price ultimately if that happens >> are the victim's families.

[00:57:27]>> Yep. Victim's families which I've been screaming about since the day I started covering% >> and the people on the other side the murder sheet [ __ ] and the prosecutors tried to turn it on me like oh oh he doesn't like he's he's supporting a child. No, I'm trying to explain to people that deserve to know because the prosecutors aren't explaining to them that the process is being bastardized.

[00:57:50]What they're doing now, what the judge is doing now is not the way it's supposed to work. And ultimately, what this is going to result in is a second trial that you're going to have to sit through. And God forbid that it goes through from your perspective because you bought what you've been sold by the state. Most victim's families do. The law enforcement comes to them. the prosecutor comes to them and says, "Hey, like we got the guy. This is on lock, like I want you to rest easy. You have nothing to worry about. We've done the work here. This is the person. They're going to pay the price for what they did to your girls." And they believe it.

[00:58:26]People need to be able to believe that.

[00:58:28]They have to. Y >> and when that turns out to not be the case, uh it's a nightmare scenario. And like this, you want to kill the messenger and me being the messenger that something stinks about this case. I don't know how long I had to say that something stinks in Deli for it to finally hit the mark with somebody cuz I've I've asked every single person that's on the opposite side of this thing to come on to my show and debate me. Let's go. I've got the facts on my side. You've got a bunch of just narrative driven dril that's not actual evidence of a crime being committed by this individual that and and it's that simple >> because you did the work, Bob. You're doing the work and they're not. There you go.

[00:59:18]>> Yeah. It's it's it's a frustrating case for me, but all wrongful conviction cases are frustrating for me because you have people there are actually again people that exist in the world that don't think that wrongful convictions are a thing, >> which is so [ __ ] bizarre to me.

[00:59:35]>> I'm like, we're we're talking about, >> you know, police police departments where guys went to an academy for six months, maybe maybe they have a bachelor deal. We're not talking about like an armies of monks and Columbos out there that are solving cases, man. Like, it's not how this [ __ ] works.

[00:59:55]>> It's It's like somebody saying, "Fire's not hot. It just makes my marshmallows toasty." Like, like, no, it's [ __ ] hot. You just didn't put your hand in it yet. Your thoughts in the uh the comment section in Substack and YouTube. We'd love for you to uh to weigh in on this.

[01:00:11]And of course, we will continue to cover this as it continues to uh to evolve. Uh Bob M, a defense attorney, host of the podcast, Defense Diaries. Go check it out. And his other podcast >> buried inside the John Wayne Gasey investigation. It's a good one.

[01:00:26]>> It's available wherever you get podcasts. Go check it out. Bob's uh podcast and also on YouTube. Go check it out. And Robin Dri, it's not all about me. His latest book. Go and check it out. Available wherever books are sold.

[01:00:38]>> And leave a review, please.

[01:00:39]>> Yes. And leave a review, too. And for me, just press subscribe wherever you're listening. Greatly appreciate that.

[01:00:44]Until next time, for Bob, for Rob, for Todd, I'm Tony Bruski. We'll talk again real soon.

[01:00:49]>> Want more on this case and others? Then press subscribe now and don't miss a moment of true crime coverage from Tony Brui and the Hidden Killers podcast.