The Delphi Case

The prosecution rested its case after presenting evidence like prison phone calls where Allen confessed, while the defense challenged the reliability of the confession due to Allen’s mental state and lack of strong corroborating evidence. The judge made key rulings on admissibility of evidence, notably excluding a jail video but allowing Allen's Google search history.

Witness Testimonies:

Brian Harshman (Indiana State Police Master Trooper):

• Testified about phone calls made by Richard Allen from prison.
• Described Allen’s demeanor in these calls as agitated, anxious, stressed, crying, and different from his demeanor in prior interviews.
• Confirmed the authenticity of the calls and that they were subject to monitoring and recording.
• Confirmed that Allen had stated he would “tell them whatever they want” in a call to his wife, but noted he had also proclaimed his innocence in a separate call shortly after.
• Addressed concerns regarding Allen’s voice changing due to medication (Haldol), but stated he did not consult medical staff about this possibility.
• Revealed that Allen expressed feelings of being broken down and feeling like he was in Guantanamo Bay.
• Stated he believed the voice on the video captured by Libby German was Allen’s voice.
• Acknowledged that Allen mentioned a van in his confession but not specifics about it, and connected this detail to a potential sighting of a van owned by Brad Weber.
• Revealed that he had not previously reviewed a report by another agent that contained contradictory information regarding Brad Weber’s presence.
• Maintained his theory that the van sighting was a factual detail corroborating Allen’s confession, despite challenges from the defense.

Cheyenne Mill:

• Testified about being at the Monon High Bridge trail on the day of the murders at approximately 2:50 PM, parking at the same entrance as the victims.
• Stated that she passed a man on the trail but could not remember details of his appearance after seven years.
• Recalled that she reached the bridge and encountered other people, including Shelby Dicks and Daniel, and that she and Shelby Duncan (her friend) walked across the bridge and back without seeing the victims or anything suspicious.
• Presented a timeline that indicated she and her friend were on the bridge at a time when the prosecution believes the girls were already deceased.
• Confirmed seeing a frantic scene with a man and a woman upon returning to the entrance.
• Highlighted negative interactions with law enforcement, suggesting they initially disregarded her information.

Teresa Lebert:

• Testified that at 8:30 AM on the morning of the murders, she saw an unknown individual standing by the mailboxes on the same road (albeit a different section) where Brad Weber lived.
• Stated that this person could have potentially walked to the High Bridge.
• Explained that she could no longer describe the person seven years later.

Legal Arguments:

Defense:

• Argued for the “rule of completeness” to be applied to the presentation of Allen’s phone calls, emphasizing the need for context from surrounding conversations.
• Stressed that the confessions were made during a period of significant mental deterioration, highlighting Allen’s actions such as eating feces and drinking toilet water, arguing they cannot be deemed reliable.
• Suggested that Allen’s confession details could have been gleaned from the discovery materials he received, specifically mentioning the detail about the van potentially being planted after learning about Weber’s van through discovery.
• Questioned the thoroughness of the investigation, highlighting the potential involvement of other suspects like Brad Weber and law enforcement’s seeming disregard of some witness information.
• Challenged Harshman’s qualifications to assess Allen’s speech patterns and the potential impacts of medication on his voice.
• Objected strongly to the introduction of the Cass County Jail video, arguing it was irrelevant and prejudicial.
• Successfully argued against the admissibility of undated photographs of the defendant.

Prosecution:

• Argued for the admissibility of the select phone calls, stating they presented complete calls without omitting misleading information.
• Attributed Allen’s confessions to his newfound religious faith, rather than mental deterioration, claiming his conscience led him to confess after reading the Bible.
• Pointed to the van detail as a key fact known only to the killer and used it to support the validity of the confession, suggesting it could not have been fabricated from discovery.
• Attempted to introduce the Cass County Jail video to demonstrate Allen’s supposed violent tendencies and counter the defense’s arguments about mental instability, suggesting his outbursts were merely attention-seeking behavior.
• Sought to admit undated photographs of the defendant for comparison to the “Bridge Guy” video, but this was denied.

Judge’s Rulings:

• Allowed the prosecution to present select portions of Allen’s phone calls, overruling the defense’s “rule of completeness” argument.
• Overruled defense objections regarding Harshman’s testimony about voice patterns and medication impacts.
• Sustained defense objections and ruled against the admissibility of the Cass County Jail video, deeming it irrelevant and potentially prejudicial.
• Denied the admissibility of the undated photographs due to lack of authentication and connection to the relevant time period.
• Allowed the introduction of Allen’s Google search history into evidence.

Notable Courtroom Exchanges:

• Harshman’s acknowledgement that he had not reviewed the report containing information about Brad Weber’s potential whereabouts during the murders raised questions about the thoroughness of the investigation.
• The heated debate over the admissibility of the Cass County Jail video led to a sidebar, revealing strong disagreement between the prosecution and the defense.
• Rozzi’s decision to not cross-examine Harshman after the judge ruled in their favor regarding the jail video indicated a strategic awareness of preserving the favorable outcome.
• The direct examination of Harshman concluded with a direct challenge from Rozzi highlighting that only one supposed fact (the van) corroborated the confession.
• The prosecution rested its case, shifting the focus to the defense.

Overall Summary:

October 31, 2024, saw the prosecution rest its case. The primary focus of the proceedings was on the phone calls Richard Allen made from prison. While the prosecution used these calls to establish a narrative of confession, the defense emphasized the inconsistencies within the calls, the mental state of the defendant, and a lack of substantial corroborating evidence. The defense also pointed to a failure by the prosecution to thoroughly investigate other potential suspects. The judge’s rulings on evidentiary issues had a significant impact on the proceedings, including denying the admissibility of a video showcasing an incident in the Cass County Jail. The defense began their case with the goal of questioning the validity of the confessions and proposing alternative scenarios.