The upcoming three days of hearings in the Delphi Murders trial, set to begin today 30 July, 2024, will be crucial for both the prosecution and the defense. A series of motions filed by both parties will be heard, potentially impacting the course of the trial and influencing the evidence presented to the jury. 

Here’s a breakdown of all the motions being heard, and what they entail:

State’s Motion for Admissibility:

  • Key Issue: This motion concerns the admissibility of statements made by the defendant, Richard Allen, to a psychologist at the Indiana Department of Corrections where he is currently held for safekeeping.
  • Details: The prosecution argues that these statements fall under an exception to confidentiality, allowing them to be introduced in court as evidence, as they relate directly to the homicide charges.
  • Importance: The potential admission of these statements could offer crucial insights into the defendant's mental state, motivations, and potential involvement in the murders.

Defense Motion to Suppress Second Statement:

  • Key Issue: This motion aims to suppress statements made by Richard Allen during a second interrogation conducted by Indiana State Police Trooper Jerry Holeman on October 26, 2022.
  • Details: The defense claims that Holeman violated Allen’s Miranda rights during this interrogation, as he didn’t read him his Miranda warning and made false statements about the evidence against him. Additionally, the beginning portion of the interrogation video provided to the defense is missing, adding to the suspicions surrounding the interrogation.
  • Importance: If the court grants this motion, Allen’s statements from the second interrogation would be excluded as evidence, significantly weakening the prosecution’s case.

State’s Objection to Defendant’s Motion to Suppress:

  • Key Issue: This response by the prosecution counters the defense’s motion to suppress the second statement.
  • Details: The state asserts that the interview was non-custodial as Allen arrived voluntarily and was informed that he was free to leave. The prosecution emphasizes that the interrogation wasn’t coerced, highlighting Allen’s calm demeanor and continued participation, despite occasional accusatory remarks by Holeman.
  • Importance: This argument aims to convince the court that the interrogation was conducted appropriately, and Allen's statements are therefore admissible.

Defendant’s Motion to Compel and Motion for Sanctions:

  • Key Issue: The defense requests the court to compel the state to produce specific evidence they claim has been withheld, including data extracted from victims’ phones and evidence related to potential third-party suspects. They also demand sanctions against the prosecution for the late disclosure of evidence, which they allege has significantly hampered their ability to mount a proper defense.
  • Details: The defense argues that the delayed and incomplete discovery provided by the prosecution has compromised their preparation for the trial. They specifically cite the withheld phone extraction data from third-party suspect Brad Holder, who they believe is central to the case, and the exculpatory information from the Rushville Police Chief's report, which was not provided for several months after its creation.
  • Importance: The granting of this motion would potentially significantly expand the defense's access to crucial evidence and force the prosecution to provide adequate information in a timely manner.

Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Safekeeping Order:

  • Key Issue: The defense requests that the court overturn the safekeeping order, which requires Richard Allen to be held in a high-security unit of the Indiana Department of Corrections instead of a county jail.
  • Details: The defense argues that the original concerns about transport and safety issues have been resolved, and the defendant poses no threat to the safety of others.
  • Importance: If granted, this motion could lead to a transfer of Allen to a less restrictive environment, potentially improving his mental and physical condition while awaiting trial.

State’s Motion in Limine:

  • Key Issue: This motion seeks to prevent the defense from mentioning specific evidence or arguments that the state deems irrelevant or prejudicial to the trial.
  • Details: The motion specifically targets mentions of Odinism, cult activities, the names of several individuals investigated as potential suspects (including Brad Holder, Patrick Westfall, and Elvis Fields), as well as evidence related to the geofencing investigation.
  • Importance: This motion seeks to tightly control the scope of evidence presented to the jury, preventing the defense from introducing arguments that could create confusion or bias.

Defense Response to State’s Motion in Limine:

  • Key Issue: This response challenges the state's attempt to limit the presentation of evidence, particularly regarding potential third-party perpetrators.
  • Details: The defense argues that their ability to present evidence of possible third-party involvement is essential for their case and their Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. They argue that the prosecution’s attempts to limit this evidence is an overreach that will only hinder a fair trial and judicial efficiency.
  • Importance: The outcome of this response could dramatically impact the defendant’s ability to introduce evidence that supports alternative theories about the murders, directly impacting the jury's understanding of the case.

Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss:

  • Key Issue: The defense argues for dismissal of the charges against Richard Allen based on the destruction and/or withholding of exculpatory evidence, particularly concerning potential third-party suspects Brad Holder and Odinism.
  • Details: The motion argues that various items of evidence have been intentionally lost or destroyed by law enforcement, specifically highlighting the missing Brad Holder phone extraction data, the absence of his second interview with authorities, and the missing images of a mimicked crime scene found on Holder’s social media. The defense argues that this evidence is highly exculpatory and crucial to their ability to mount a robust defense.
  • Importance: The potential dismissal of the charges based on prosecutorial misconduct is a significant legal hurdle for the prosecution to overcome. It highlights the severe consequences of losing or withholding potentially critical evidence, raising concerns about fairness and the integrity of the legal process.

State’s Response to Defendant’s Second Motion to Dismiss:

  • Key Issue: This response directly challenges the defense's claim of lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence, arguing that the claims lack any substantive evidence and that Brad Holder is not a third-party suspect.
  • Details: The state argues that the defense's allegations of intentional destruction and concealment are unfounded. They maintain that Brad Holder’s involvement in the murders is unsubstantiated and the evidence they have already provided is sufficient.
  • Importance: This response attempts to dismiss the defense's allegations, arguing that the state has not engaged in prosecutorial misconduct and that the evidence they have presented adequately proves Richard Allen’s involvement in the murders.

Beyond being a fascinating week for true crime and legal folks who have followed the case, the outcomes of these hearings is likely to set the tone for the remaining period between now and the start of the trial in October. For context, it's unprecedented in Richard Allen's proceedings so far to have this many hearings - or actually many hearings at all - and I'm personally not sure if Judge Gull realises that she's ordered herself a huge plate of hearing, that she will now have to consume. 

Of course it's possible that nothing will be ruled on this week and that the Judge will take everything under advisement, for her to consider while she's on vacation this Summer. However it's also possible that she will make key findings here and now. Many will be watching to see if her posture has changed at all since the recent "lazy judge" motion.

Stay tuned, I guess...