The Defense Reply to Prosecution's Response to 3rd Franks Memorandum hit the Internet earlier, but it's a weighty read. If you want to know the key arguments, here is a summary of the filing.

Richard Allen's defense team argues that a Franks hearing is necessary due to alleged false information and omissions in the search warrant affidavit, as well as a pattern of concealing evidence by law enforcement and the prosecution.

Key Points:

  • False Information in Affidavit: The defense claims the affidavit contains false information regarding witness statements, specifically about the color of a jacket and the presence of blood. They argue this misinformation impacted the timeline presented by the prosecution.
  • Omission of Crucial Information: The defense highlights the omission of witness descriptions of the suspect and vehicle, which they believe do not match Richard Allen and his car. They argue these omissions were intentional and crucial to establishing the timeline.
  • Pattern of Concealing Evidence: The defense presents several instances where they believe law enforcement and the prosecution concealed or misrepresented evidence, including:
    • Misrepresenting statements by a Purdue professor regarding Odinism.
    • Delaying the disclosure of exculpatory evidence supporting the defense's theory of Odinism involvement.
    • Providing conflicting testimonies about the number of individuals involved in the crime.
    • Late disclosure of geofencing data and refusal to identify the expert who analyzed it.
  • Defense's Theory: The defense maintains their theory that individuals involved in Odinism committed the murders, supported by evidence and the findings of some investigators.
  • Late Discovery: The defense emphasizes the prosecution's late disclosure of crucial evidence, hindering their ability to prepare for trial and depositions.

Key Quotes:

  • "The defense has provided evidence that throughout the history of this case, but particularly in 2023, law enforcement and/or the prosecution have presented false information or attempted to conceal evidence."
  • "If this Court expects or requires that law enforcement admit to intentionality or reckless disregard for the truth, then a Franks hearing is nothing more than a legal fiction."
  • "Clearly, by September 6, 2023, McLeland had been fully aware for over 3 weeks that Holeman had learned the possible identity of the Purdue Professor (Jeffrey Turco) and by then had even received the unsigned 2017 report of that professor. Yet McLeland claimed to the defense that the FBI and Purdue Police had not yet responded to Holeman when clearly both had, even providing the name Turco to Holeman."

Requested Action:

The defense urges the court to grant a Franks hearing to assess the validity of the search warrant based on the alleged false information and omissions, and the pattern of concealing evidence.