The Delphi Murders: The Appeal: Oral Arguments Preview

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] Here at the Murder Sheet, we both wear glasses. But since buying glasses is a hassle, we hang on to ours for way too long. Like we've both held on to pairs that have definitely seen way better days. Anything to avoid having to pay hundreds of dollars for a replacement.

[00:00:14] [SPEAKER_00] Those days are over thanks to Zenni Optical. Zenni is an online eyewear shop. They offer up stylish prescription glasses, sunglasses and customizable lens options, all starting at under $30.

[00:00:27] [SPEAKER_01] I've been wearing my Zenni Sausalito sunglasses everywhere. Bright light gives me headaches and bothers me when I'm driving. But through Zenni, I got to order these super cute, classy prescription sunglasses for just like $77. I'd expect these to be hundreds of bucks. But I was able to just put together my order easily online, uploading my prescription, then I was done. I was even able to use their virtual try-on technology to see how the frame looked on me.

[00:00:53] [SPEAKER_00] I've been wearing my full rim black stainless steel square eyeglass frames for reading. I'm currently reading a collection of vintage true crime unsolved cases. These glasses were only $68. That's a great deal. I love that Zenni lets you buy special pairs of glasses for whatever you want to do.

[00:01:11] [SPEAKER_01] That scratched up pair has done its job. Upgrade today with Zenni. Go to zenni.com slash podcast and use code podcast15 for 15% off your first order. Plus free shipping on all U.S. orders over $65. The styles sell out, so don't sit on it.

[00:01:29] [SPEAKER_01] That's Z-E-N-N-I dot com slash podcast, promo code podcast15. At The Murder Sheet, we're a small two-person business run out of our home office with the help, or should we say sabotage, of our dogs Nick and Nora. When it comes to running a business, or better yet, growing and scaling a business, expertise matters. We know that for a fact.

[00:01:51] [SPEAKER_01] That's where Upwork comes in. Upwork is a platform for finding, hiring, and paying expert freelancers. These are the folks who can help take your business to the next level.

[00:02:01] [SPEAKER_00] Upwork works because it's a one-stop shop. Recruit talent across software development, creative writing, data and analytics, marketing, business operations, and more. Whatever line of work you need, Upwork's got it across 125 categories.

[00:02:19] [SPEAKER_01] Now, I myself was on Upwork for years as a freelancer. I anonymously wrote a ton of romance novels for my clients. It was great. Super seamless, convenient, and easy. I took pride in my work and helping my clients scale their small publishing businesses. Plus, it was super fun.

[00:02:37] [SPEAKER_00] Sign up for Upwork today. It is totally free and easy. All you have to do is post a job you want done. Upwork takes care of recruiting posts, contracts, and payments. Join the thousands of businesses who already trust Upwork to help them attract top talent and get important work done.

[00:02:55] [SPEAKER_01] Upwork works. I know. I was on Upwork for years. Try Upwork today.

[00:03:01] [SPEAKER_00] Visit Upwork.com right now and post your job for free. That is Upwork.com to connect with top talent ready to help your business grow. That's U-P-W-O-R-K dot com. Upwork dot com. I'm Kevin. Today we're going to talk about what's coming up in the Richard Allen case, the case of the Delphi murders, namely the fact that there's going to be an oral argument in his appeal next Monday.

[00:03:28] [SPEAKER_01] Content warning. This episode contains discussion of the murder of two girls.

[00:03:34] [SPEAKER_00] So, Anya, what I thought we would do is we would talk briefly. What is an oral argument? We would refresh our memory about what some of the issues are that are going to be discussed in this oral argument. Give a little bit of an idea of what might happen, what you should expect, what you shouldn't expect, what our coverage plans are, how you can watch it yourself if you're so inclined.

[00:03:56] [SPEAKER_00] And then I thought at the end, just for the heck of it, I thought I'd give an example of a case where a murder conviction was overturned in the state of Indiana. It does not happen often. I don't think it's going to happen in this case, but let's look at an example.

[00:04:12] [SPEAKER_01] Absolutely. Let's get into it. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:04:17] [SPEAKER_00] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney. And this is The Murder Sheet. We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases. We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:04:29] [SPEAKER_01] And this is The Delphi Murders, The Appeal, oral arguments preview.

[00:05:19] [SPEAKER_00] Well, I know this is super, super basic, but I think it's important to start at the basic level. And let's talk a little bit about what happens at each stage of the legal process. We have, at least in this case, we had a jury trial. What happens in a jury trial? Well, the jury has the job of determining the facts of what happened.

[00:05:42] [SPEAKER_00] Namely, oh, John Smith was charged with this particular crime. Was he guilty or was he innocent? That's what the focus of the jury trial is, determining the facts. Now, when a case is brought up on appeal, the focus is not so much on what the charged person or the convicted person, what they may or may not have done.

[00:06:10] [SPEAKER_00] The focus is instead on whether or not the process that led to the conviction was fair. So, when you have an appeal, you're not seeing people arguing, oh, my client is innocent. You're seeing people argue, oh, the process that convicted him was unfair. Does that make sense?

[00:06:28] [SPEAKER_01] That makes perfect sense, and I think it's really important to distinguish. In a case that has been as controversial as Delphi, where a lot of people have a lot of theories, many of them quite stupid, this isn't about that. This is not about saying, no, it was the odinous. This is about saying he did not get a fair trial, and here's exactly why.

[00:06:48] [SPEAKER_00] Here's why we think he didn't get a fair trial. We've gone through the record. We found the things that we think are most unfair that jeopardize his right to a fair trial, and we are highlighting them. Let me talk a little bit about that, and I apologize if I'm repeating myself. We are, everybody listening to the sound of my voice right now and understanding what I'm saying is a human being. I'm sure there's some dogs and cats listening.

[00:07:18] [SPEAKER_01] There might be dogs and cats.

[00:07:19] [SPEAKER_00] But they're not really understanding.

[00:07:20] [SPEAKER_01] Goats, maybe?

[00:07:22] [SPEAKER_00] They're not understanding what I'm saying. If you can understand what I'm saying, you're a human being, and one thing all of us as human beings have in common, one thing that unites us in brotherhood and sisterhood is we were all imperfect. That means that anything we do is bound to be imperfect. There's always going to be mistakes. So why do I say that? I say that because there is no such thing as a perfect trial.

[00:07:50] [SPEAKER_00] There's no such thing as a trial that a defendant, that everything happens absolutely perfectly for that defendant. There's always going to be mistakes. And if our standard is anytime there's a mistake, there needs to be a new trial, we would just be having retrials and retrials of retrials and retrials of retrials just over and over again.

[00:08:13] [SPEAKER_00] So what we instead do is we look at errors that actually are significant enough that they may affect the verdict. So you may hear us talk about a harmless error. A harmless error is an error. Well, maybe that shouldn't have happened. It didn't affect the verdict. So we're going to let it go. An error that affects the verdict, that's what appellate lawyers want to focus on.

[00:08:43] [SPEAKER_00] That's what they want to point to and say this is an error. Maybe the other side is going to say this is a harmless error. No way. This is an error that affected the verdict. And because of that, my client needs to get a new trial. So his appellate attorneys, they go through the record and they find errors that they think are significant enough to have affected the verdict. And they highlight them in their brief. And I'm going to go through,

[00:09:13] [SPEAKER_00] I'm going to mention what they said. I'm going to mention what the other side said in response. And these are the issues that are going to be discussed in much greater detail during these oral arguments on Monday. First thing they say is, the trial court committed reversible error. Reversible error, by the way, that's an error that is so significant. It affects the verdict. That means we need to reverse it. We need to do it over again.

[00:09:43] [SPEAKER_00] So they're saying, the trial court admitted reversible error by admitting evidence seized from the unconstitutional search of Allen's home and denying a Frank's hearing. Their contention is that some of the law enforcement officers investigating this case gave false or misleading information to a judge in order to get a search warrant. The state said,

[00:10:08] [SPEAKER_00] no, the information given did not contain any false statements. Do you have any observations or comments or incisive analysis on that point?

[00:10:21] [SPEAKER_01] I'm going to say, I don't agree with this at all. I don't believe that this search warrant was obtained fraudulently. I think their arguments are things that we've seen trotted out again and again and again. I don't find it compelling. I don't find their rehashing of it compelling. I'm not faulting the appellate team for going where they may feel like they have to go.

[00:10:46] [SPEAKER_00] So this is probably one of their strongest arguments. And the fact that one of their strongest arguments is pretty weak in our mind is in and of itself pretty telling.

[00:10:55] [SPEAKER_01] In no universe does a law enforcement officer have to include every piece of information in a probable cause affidavit for a search warrant. In no universe.

[00:11:14] [SPEAKER_00] When you provide an affidavit to try to get a search warrant, you need to provide a fair accounting of the evidence that makes you believe you have probable cause to believe particular evidence is in a particular location. You do not need to provide like a thousand page report summarizing all the evidence in the case.

[00:11:37] [SPEAKER_01] No, it's preposterous. I'm sorry. And I'm like, you know, again, like I'm not, I get that they're doing what they're supposed to do and I'm not trying to be negative about everything because I really think that in my personal view, there's a weak case for an appeal here. I don't think, I don't think there's much of a case for an appeal on any grounds. So they have, they have what they have to work with and if they're working with this, fine. But I'm telling you as somebody,

[00:12:06] [SPEAKER_01] we were people who also like attacked the probable cause affidavit when we first covered it. Because I think we thought it was confusingly written and we didn't really understand it. But there's a difference between saying, okay, well I don't get this to now being here like post-trial. I don't know. It's just, do you find it compelling? Is there something I'm not being fair with or that I'm missing here that maybe is giving you more pause?

[00:12:29] [SPEAKER_00] No, it's always kind of a fool's game to try to predict what an appeals court is going to do. I think the case that the appellate team for Mr. Allen makes, I think it's a pretty weak case. I don't expect it to prevail. So I don't find any of these particularly compelling. But again, these are the best things they felt they had. Chad, these are the questions and issues that they are going to be discussing

[00:12:58] [SPEAKER_00] in oral argument just in a few days now. Should I move on to the next one? Hit me. Get ready for this. So Mr. Allen's team says, The trial court aired by admitting statements Allen made while gravely disabled during his unprecedented pre-trial solitary confinement in a maximum security prison. The state responds by saying, No, we properly admitted them. His confessions were voluntary.

[00:13:27] [SPEAKER_00] There was no coercive state action to get him to confess. Mr. Allen rather famously confessed or made incriminating statements at least, at least 61 times. That's a pretty tough hurdle for a defense team to get over. And so their claim is, well, he was crazy at the time. Or he was coerced because he was in solitary confinement.

[00:13:53] [SPEAKER_00] And usually when we think of the state coercing someone to say something that's not true, I mean, we were recently doing some 9-11 episodes. I think of 9-11 or I think of the show 24 where people are like tortured in order to give coercive statements while being interrogated. That's not what happened here. What happened here is he was kept in solitary confinement for his own protection.

[00:14:20] [SPEAKER_00] And during phone calls he made to his wife and his mother and others, he freely chose to confess.

[00:14:28] [SPEAKER_01] You know, I will say like I think it's important to stress that a untrue confession, a false confession can happen whether someone is coerced or not. And a coerced confession doesn't necessarily require like 24-level torture. You know, you don't have to be stringing up, you know, your man Jack Bauer.

[00:14:49] [SPEAKER_01] But I think when we see coerced confessions, what that typically involves is an agent of the state pressing somebody in some capacity. It doesn't have to be physical abuse. It can be forcing someone to be in the interview room for eight hours and pressing them and bullying them and getting in their face. It can be all manner of things, but it usually looks like a state actor coming at you. In this case, the only one coercing people into hearing his confessions was Richard Allen himself. He's going around.

[00:15:19] [SPEAKER_01] He's telling his wife and mother as they hang up on him what he did. He's trying to tell his psychologist, Dr. Monica Walla. He's trying to get John Gallupo, then warden, into his cell to confess to him. Nobody wants to hear it. They're all trying to avoid him. They're all telling him, talk to your lawyers. What are you doing? I mean, to say that these are coerced is silly. Their argument is, well, they put him in prison, so that was coercive.

[00:15:48] [SPEAKER_00] Their argument is just the fact. Just the fact that he was in solitary confinement for his own protection, that in itself counts as coercive action.

[00:15:59] [SPEAKER_01] That's silly.

[00:15:59] [SPEAKER_00] And I think if you start broadening the definition of coercive action to that extent, you're going to get very quickly to the point where anything that a person says while they're in custody could be considered coercive. What's next?

[00:16:12] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, it's coerced because he had depression? It's coerced because he was having a bad day that day? It's coerced because it made him sad? I mean, come on. Like, it's embarrassing and frankly, I find it insulting to instances where there are actual coerced confessions where people have been through the ringer and said whatever to get it to stop. That's not what happened here. The people trying to get him to stop were the people hearing the confession, not the one giving it. It's, it's, I think it's preposterous.

[00:16:40] [SPEAKER_01] I think this is one of their weaker arguments. I'm surprised they even made it. I get that they don't really have a lot to go on, right? Because again, he's doing it of his own volition, but I don't know. It just seems like kind of embarrassing to have to make this argument. We've been on a real kick lately to improve our health and that means getting good sleep and rest. For us, that starts with amazing, comfortable bedding.

[00:17:07] [SPEAKER_00] That's why we love our sponsor, Bowlin Branch. They create everything you need to help your bed feel like the coziest, most relaxing place in the world. Luxurious comforters, cozy blankets, supportive pillows, and of course, their signature sheets.

[00:17:21] [SPEAKER_01] Bull and Branch has the preferred sheets of the murder sheets. We just got Bull and Branch's signature hemmed sheet set in dusty rows.

[00:17:29] [SPEAKER_00] We broke those out and immediately felt as if we were sleeping on those really comfortable hotel sheets. We got amazing sleep on these. No sliding fitted sheets, no issues, just rest and relaxation.

[00:17:41] [SPEAKER_01] These sheets are breathable. They're soft and comforting. Our bedroom routine is after we tuck Nick and Nora into their doggy beds, we both read for a while and then drift off. Both of us have struggled with insomnia at times. But with these sheets, with Bull and Branch, you just sort of melt off to sleep. And somehow, these sheets have only gotten softer as we've washed them. Since we've got these sheets, we've even had a few lazy Saturdays where we spent most of the day in bed reading crime fiction. It was heavenly and so comfortable.

[00:18:10] [SPEAKER_00] We adore our Bull and Branch sheets and will never, ever go back to regular bedding. I forbid it.

[00:18:16] [SPEAKER_01] Upgrade your sleep with Bull and Branch. Get 15% off your first order plus free shipping at bullandbranch.com slash msheet with code msheet. That's bullandbranch.com slash msheet to unlock 15% off. Exclusions apply. It's always great when you get clothing that you just can't stop wearing. It just looks that good. It's just that comfortable.

[00:18:44] [SPEAKER_01] That's the kind of clothing our wonderful sponsor, Quince, specializes in crafting for you. That's why we love Quince and are constantly shopping there to restock and refresh our wardrobes.

[00:18:55] [SPEAKER_00] You are going to adore your new Quince pieces. We certainly do. Even more so because they're 50% to 80% less than similar brands because Quince cuts out the middleman.

[00:19:06] [SPEAKER_01] I recently purchased a 100% European linen fit and flare midi dress in chile red. I love it. We recently went abroad for a loved one's wedding and I wore it to the welcome party with my red shoes and I got a lot of compliments. I'm not really known for being super stylish so I feel Quince is my cheat code for looking effortlessly polished without breaking the bank.

[00:19:26] [SPEAKER_00] I got a pearl snap denim western shirt in denim blue that I wore to the same event. I love how it feels especially as the seasons change. I'm big on comfort and wearability and Quince always delivers.

[00:19:39] [SPEAKER_01] Or if you want you can try their soft luxurious 100% Mongolian cashmere sweaters that we also love. Those are starting at just 60 bucks. Don't just have to stick to clothing either. Try their hotel quality bedding and furniture to up your home style for less.

[00:19:52] [SPEAKER_00] Find your next fall favorites at Quince. Download the Quince app for app exclusive offers or go to quince.com slash msheet. Get free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E dot com slash msheet. I think you have to make it because certainly when you talk to most people who haven't followed the case,

[00:20:21] [SPEAKER_00] just hearing the fact that he confessed or made an incriminating statement 61 times seems pretty damning.

[00:20:27] [SPEAKER_01] You know, I'm not one of those people though. I think someone can lie 61 times.

[00:20:31] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah.

[00:20:31] [SPEAKER_01] If they're mentally ill and in active psychosis, if they're having issues, if they want attention, there's just something wrong with them. All manner, if they're trying to take the rap for someone else, all those things. Certainly doesn't put you like in the mindset of the killer where you have like specific knowledge of the crime, which he did. But setting that aside, I'm not one of those people. I just know the case and I think this is stupid.

[00:20:58] [SPEAKER_00] Their final big argument, which will be discussed in greater detail on Monday during the oral arguments, is the court denied Allen his right to present a complete defense to explain the scene and impeach the investigation. And they are specifically saying things like they did not allow in the sketches of Bridgeguy. There was an expert they wanted to bring in, Tobin, on firearms who wasn't allowed in.

[00:21:27] [SPEAKER_00] And of course the Odinism defense. The state's contention is there were valid reasons to exclude all of those things. Tobin didn't really have anything of relevance to add. And certainly the question of whether or not they should discuss and bring in Odinism was something that was extensively litigated. There was a three-day hearing largely devoted to that.

[00:21:52] [SPEAKER_00] And the defense was unable to meet their burden to be able to present that defense. So that is going to be a major issue. I think that's probably the sexiest issue in a lot of people's minds because of the Odinism angle. What are your thoughts, if any?

[00:22:10] [SPEAKER_01] I think for me this is their best argument. For me if I'm ranking the arguments, it's this one, the first one we discussed, then the whole, he was coerced because he was in a prison. I think those are the things. This is what, when I look at this, I can see what they're talking about. And I think for a lot of people, understandably when you hear this, you might say, oh wow, that is bad. Why wouldn't they allow him the best shot he could to defend himself?

[00:22:39] [SPEAKER_01] Why wouldn't they allow him to present evidence of other people doing it? You know, people want someone to blame in a case of two girls getting murdered. And if you're just doing the some other dude did it defense, people might perceive that as being a step down from being able to point and redirect the jury's anger to other individuals. I understand this. This one to me is their strongest argument.

[00:23:03] [SPEAKER_01] We can go into it and I can tell you why I ultimately disagree with it or certainly disagree that it should get him a new trial. But this is the one I can respect the most. What do you think?

[00:23:16] [SPEAKER_00] Again, I understand why they're making it. I don't think there's much to it. I think all these things were extensively litigated and discussed at the time. I don't think those witnesses brought anything of importance. I think they had an excellent opportunity to explain what connection Odinism had to the crime during that three-day hearing. The record shows they completely failed to do so and to establish any connection whatsoever.

[00:23:45] [SPEAKER_00] And so Judge Gold made the appropriate decision there. So I don't find it particularly compelling. It's also important to keep in mind if you're on trial for murder, it's not like the only way you can be acquitted is if you go out and solve the crime yourself.

[00:24:02] [SPEAKER_01] I mean, naturally.

[00:24:03] [SPEAKER_00] So you could, even if you didn't have sufficient evidence to prove it was Odinism, even if you didn't have sufficient evidence to even mention Odinism, there are still arguments you could make for your own innocence.

[00:24:16] [SPEAKER_01] I'm not saying there aren't. I'm saying just I can understand this one and trying to redirect the jury's anger. The thing, though, about it is, yes, the reason why I don't buy this is because I was there. I was at the, I suffered through the three-day hearing with you. You remember, we went out to get a grilled cheese in the middle of it. I was like a pocket, I was losing it. I was like, am I seeing, what are we seeing? I remember at one point, like at the end, just like turning around to one of the other reporters and they were like, what is this?

[00:24:45] [SPEAKER_01] Like it was, it was surreal. Have you ever seen someone bomb at like an open mic night? Have you ever seen like a band do a really bad job on stage? When I see something like that, I get secondhand embarrassment. And let me just say, I got that in spades at this thing. The two, I want to just be very clear. They didn't just talk about Odinism there. They mostly talked about it. They glossed over two additional angles.

[00:25:12] [SPEAKER_01] The Kleins, Kagan Klein and Tony Klein, those suspects, glossed over them. I think they had Detective David Vito on the stand talking about those, but like they didn't really get into it. And then Ron Logan, they did like a little laundry list thing about him and moved on. So like those were two suspects where I felt like, okay, well at least we can have a conversation about that. Will they come in?

[00:25:39] [SPEAKER_01] Not necessarily, but do I think there's like, do I think that's worth a shot? Certainly much more so than the Odinist cult of white supremacists sacrifice two white girls in the woods with no one seeing them. Just stupid. I mean, it was just stupid. They did a bad job. I don't think they're good lawyers. I mean, and listen, you could say that maybe that works in Allen's favor down the road. I don't know.

[00:26:05] [SPEAKER_01] That would be in the post-conviction relief, you know, where they would be turning on them and going from saying that they're the modern day Clarence Darrow's to a bunch of clowns, which I think the clown aspect is more close to reality than the Darrow aspect. But whatever. We're getting ahead of ourselves there. The whole, you can't, under Indiana law, you can't just say whatever you want.

[00:26:29] [SPEAKER_01] You know, you don't want a situation where you're sitting in trial and the defense attorney is like, huh, who can I blame for this? And just picks out some guy in the gallery. It's that guy. You know, you want facts to be presented to the jury. And that goes both ways. Okay? That's why there's a whole extensive process for vetting what evidence comes in and what evidence stays out before you even get to trial.

[00:26:54] [SPEAKER_01] Pointing the finger at people you can't even place in Delphi on the day of the murders is not good enough. Also, for all the people on the sort of wrongful conviction innocence side of things, I would ask you, if you can't even put the guy in the area at the time, like, is that a case that you think is really sound? Is that a case that you think people should be supporting? Or is that, is that like maybe recipe for wrongful conviction being like they have weird beliefs that I don't understand and therefore they must have done it?

[00:27:24] [SPEAKER_01] Because that's pretty much what I heard at this thing. I heard a bunch of conjecture. I heard a bunch of, I guess, hearsay. Oh, this guy told me something suspicious. Okay, well, where is he? You know? I mean, it just, there's nothing to this third party. Again, the fact that they picked the one that was going to be the big media splash versus, like, what's actually realistic, I think is very telling about these attorneys. But whatever.

[00:27:52] [SPEAKER_01] You know, I think Andrew Baldwin had a lot of fun putting this out there and, you know, acting like he's, you know, going to, you remember he was acting to people, he was telling people, oh, they're going to come after me, the Odinus. Like, you're just a nut job, you know? Like, I just, I think they're clowns and I think this is, again, but I don't blame the appellate attorneys for doing something with this because I think this to me is the factor. Because there is a line. There is a line.

[00:28:21] [SPEAKER_01] You don't want to deprive someone of a vigorous defense. And if these appellate attorneys feel like this crossed the line, that could get them a new trial. Even though the law is very clear. You know, you need a nexus. And there wasn't one, according to Judge Gull. I tend to think the judges have a lot of discretion in this and they tend to, I would imagine most higher courts tend to give the judges, the trial judge, a wide berth in this. But to me, it's the one that comes closest.

[00:28:48] [SPEAKER_00] So then Mr. Allen's appellate attorneys requested an oral argument saying that, quote, an oral argument will put facts in context and answer any questions. Or an oral argument basically is an attorney for each side is going to stand in front of a panel of judges. He's going to start making a presentation. Here's why I see things this way. The judges will interrupt with a lot of questions, which then the attorney has to answer.

[00:29:18] [SPEAKER_00] And it lasts, I believe, an hour. You should know. We will be there. We're going to cover it. And we will present our coverage of the hearing, probably releasing that sometime late in the day on Monday by early evening at the latest. And you should also know it will be available to stream. Any other comments about that, Angle, before I?

[00:29:39] [SPEAKER_01] Well, I think, you know, I would just set everyone's expectations. This is not a trial, as we've talked about. I'm going to be very blunt here. This is a lot more boring than a trial.

[00:29:50] [SPEAKER_00] You know, and no witnesses or anything like that.

[00:29:53] [SPEAKER_01] This is not the dramatics of a trial. Frankly, a trial is often more boring than people think it's going to be because there's a lot of basically minutiae that people don't find interesting as far as story. We find it interesting because we're nerds. You might find it interesting because you're very respectable. But I think it's a situation where it's not going to be this kind of performance and whatnot. It's more like close legal issues and whatnot.

[00:30:22] [SPEAKER_01] And so, you know, streaming it, you know, you might be interested or maybe you're not. And that's OK. We're going to cover it. But I'm just saying, like, I think people in this case who are Richard Allen truthers tend to be people who view true crime as entertainment above all else and don't really think about anything beyond that.

[00:30:43] [SPEAKER_01] They can wrap up whatever they're doing in some sort of nonsensical, insincere social justice language or libertarian freedom language or whatever their priors prompt them to do. But, like, I don't think they actually care about the process or care about any of this stuff. So we've seen a lot of people, you know, talking about it from that angle. And I'm just like, you're not going to understand what's going on, frankly.

[00:31:10] [SPEAKER_01] And, you know, some of the things that have been said in this online discourse just make me think, like, do you even understand what this is?

[00:31:19] [SPEAKER_00] I wanted to mention it's pretty rare for a murder conviction to be thrown out. It does happen.

[00:31:26] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, yeah.

[00:31:27] [SPEAKER_00] It's relatively rare. I thought just for the heck of it I'd give you an example of one that happened in the state of Indiana. I won't go into a lot of the details, but I'll give you the big picture. This involves a woman named Sabrina Dunn who at one time is married to a man named Bill Dunn. He gets started using drugs and becomes pretty abusive.

[00:31:53] [SPEAKER_00] There's a long history of him beating her, her calling 911, him threatening her that she's going to end up in a body bag. They end up getting divorced. She, though, has nowhere to stay other than a guest house on his property. He continues to threaten her. He gets upset after he sees her having sex with her boyfriend.

[00:32:23] [SPEAKER_00] He wakes her up. He comes over to her property. She says, I don't want to be tortured anymore. Leave me alone. He goes away. An hour later, he comes back to the residence, opens the door, comes in with a flashlight. There's a videotape recording that shows just a few seconds. After that, there's the sound of gunfire.

[00:32:53] [SPEAKER_00] And she fires a total of ten times and kills him.

[00:32:59] [SPEAKER_01] Why was she charged?

[00:33:01] [SPEAKER_00] She is charged. The prosecutor thinks that she was lying in wait to kill him. Her defense that she uses, that her team uses, is in Indiana, you have a right to protect your property. So she was there protecting her home. So the judge in the case takes it upon himself to add in another defense.

[00:33:25] [SPEAKER_00] He wants to add in the defense that, well, maybe she was acting in self-defense. And her attorney said, no, we don't want to add that. We just want to focus on whether or not she was protecting her property. He says, no, I think this self-defense thing, got to protect her rights. And so he gives the jury an instruction. The jury instruction, it's up to the jury, I should say, to establish the facts of the case.

[00:33:53] [SPEAKER_00] But they have to apply the law. And so that means it's very important that the law be explained to them in these so-called jury instructions. And he tells, the judge tells the jury, the state has the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant did not act in self-defense and or act in defense of her dwelling. That and or is confusing.

[00:34:19] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, it is.

[00:34:20] [SPEAKER_00] Because it's unclear, do they need to prove both those things or only one of those things? She ends up getting convicted. The courts say that and or is really, really confusing because it makes, it's just too confusing. It's unfair to Sabrina Dunn. She's given a new trial. Her conviction is tossed out. And in the new trial, she's acquitted.

[00:34:44] [SPEAKER_00] So I just throw that in there as an example of it is hard to get a new trial. But it is possible if the courts, if the appellate courts find that a fundamental right is violated. If there is such an error, a fundamental error made that it potentially affects the verdict, then there's no choice but to give a new trial, which was done here.

[00:35:13] [SPEAKER_00] And to the benefit of Sabrina Dunn.

[00:35:17] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. I mean, I'm surprised, honestly.

[00:35:20] [SPEAKER_00] I'm surprised that was charged.

[00:35:21] [SPEAKER_01] I'm surprised that was charged, honestly. I feel like, again, I guess I get it. I'm not necessarily even faulting the prosecutor necessarily. But to me, that is so ambiguous. And given her property, given the abuse and the history, it just seems like, I don't know if I would have wanted that to be charged, frankly. Because I'm not saying you have to give, just because someone was abused doesn't give them a pass to cold-bloodedly murder somebody. I'm not saying that. But it just seems like the situation there is very ambiguous.

[00:35:52] [SPEAKER_01] And seems kind of like a weak case, frankly. Because of the ambiguity. Because it is so hard to know. Yes. Do you agree with that one being overturned?

[00:36:04] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, that seems very, very confusing. And or, does that mean you have to disprove both of them or only one of them? It's very, very confusing. I don't think there's arguments of that quality to be made on behalf of Richard Allen. I don't think his team is going to succeed. I could be wrong. It's impossible to predict what judges do. One thing to remember, it's not like a baseball game or something.

[00:36:33] [SPEAKER_00] We're not going to know the result of all of this on Monday. It'll likely be at the very least a few months before we do. And then no matter what the decision is, it'll probably be appealed by whichever side doesn't prevail. So it's a long, long process. And these are just some of the beginning steps on it.

[00:36:56] [SPEAKER_01] And basically it's going to be like both sides get like 30 minutes to make their arguments. Yeah, something like that. And they're being kind of peppered with questions by the justices and all this stuff. So it'll be interesting. It's just, you know, I think people should be aware that we're going to be really focusing probably on those specific issues. I didn't feel like it was a very compelling appeal. I mean, listen, I'm very much in the camp that Richard Allen is guilty and needs to be exactly where he is.

[00:37:23] [SPEAKER_01] But at the same time, I'm certainly, I feel like I'm intellectually honest enough to like see an appeal and say, OK, well, this is actually a pretty good point. And I just didn't really have that reaction to this. I thought a lot of it was just adjudicated before. It doesn't seem particularly compelling or had the ghost of the trial attorneys kind of over the top pizzazz or whatever you want to call it all over it. You know, kind of histrionic language and stuff. And it's like, I don't, I'm allergic to that now.

[00:37:52] [SPEAKER_01] I got enough of that. I got enough of that in Delafi. I don't need that anymore. Now, whenever I see that in another case and like you have some bombastic defense attorney and everyone's swooning over them. Oh, wow. They're doing such a good job. I'm like, I hate this. I think it stinks. Give me a defense attorney who's just like attacking the facts and is really like just kind of, I don't know, even keeled and like logical. And I'm, I'm there. I don't know if I'm there. That's how you get me. Just in case anyone ever cares enough about that.

[00:38:21] [SPEAKER_01] But I'm not going to land on a jury no matter what. Cause I, I'm a true crime podcaster and both sides should want me out of there. But I don't know. So you don't think it's going to lead to a new trial. I guess it sounds like the stat, the statistics are, you know, odds are very strongly against it. You know, I am, you know, like we're not, we're not like amazing predictors of everything. I mean, they could surprise us and they could call for a new trial.

[00:38:49] [SPEAKER_01] I know a lot of people, you know, we hear from people, oh, a lot of people behind the scenes are saying it's definitely going to be a new trial. We're not really convinced by that, but it's like, it is kind of a binary. Either it will be or it won't be. So we don't know. We could be wrong. We could be right. It's just, you know, it, it, it doesn't really, uh, it, we don't know, but I, I just personally, I don't find this super compelling. And it sounds like you don't either.

[00:39:12] [SPEAKER_00] I don't, but we will be there on Monday and then we will come back and tell you all what we saw and heard.

[00:39:18] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, we will. Thanks for listening.

[00:39:20] [SPEAKER_00] Thanks. Thanks so much for listening to the murder sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:39:42] [SPEAKER_01] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:40:05] [SPEAKER_00] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the murder sheet and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:40:14] [SPEAKER_01] If you're looking to talk with other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet Discussion Group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.