The Delphi Murders: Attorney Mark Inman on Richard Allen's Sentencing and Appeals

Summary

The Delphi Murders: Attorney Mark Inman on Richard Allen's Sentencing and Appeals

Released: November 27, 2024
Hosts: Áine Cain (Journalist) and Kevin Greenlee (Attorney)
Guest: Mark Inman (Experienced Criminal Defense Attorney)

---

Introduction

In this episode of Murder Sheet, hosts Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee welcome back attorney Mark Inman to discuss the intricate legal proceedings surrounding the Delphi murders case. With his extensive background in criminal defense, including nine death penalty cases, Inman provides a nuanced perspective on Richard Allen's sentencing and the potential for appeals following his guilty verdict for the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German.

---

Mark Inman's Background and Initial Impressions [04:48]

Mark Inman begins by outlining his long-standing career in criminal law, highlighting his experience as a public defender in Marion County and his transition to federal court work in Southern Indiana. His expertise, particularly in high-stakes cases like death penalty trials, positions him well to dissect the complexities of the Delphi case.

Notable Quote:
"I've done nine death penalty cases. I've done murder trials. And that's kind of what I've always done, always concentrated on as you've been."
— Mark Inman [04:48]

---

Impact of Media Sensationalization [10:42]

The discussion shifts to the overwhelming media and social media attention the Delphi case received. Inman observes that heightened public interest often leads to increased speculation and bias, which can undermine the judicial process.

Notable Quote:
"The more popular a case is, the more there's willingness to believe that the accused is innocent."
— Mark Inman [11:05]

He criticizes the rampant speculation fueled by media coverage, emphasizing that such noise can distract from objective evaluation of the facts.

---

Richard Allen's Confessions and Plea Considerations [14:25]

A key focus is Allen's 61 confessions. Inman explores whether these statements indicate a desire to plead guilty and discusses the strategic implications if Allen had approached his attorneys with such intentions.

Notable Quote:
"If Alan told me he wanted to plead guilty... the least that McClellan would have offered, my guess, is 90 years."
— Mark Inman [14:25]

Inman explains that without a plea offer that avoids life imprisonment, a guilty plea would not have been strategically advantageous for Allen, suggesting that such decisions are often driven by personal reasons rather than legal strategy.

---

Trial Proceedings and Defense Strategies [21:03]

Inman evaluates the trial's progression, commending the prosecution's ability to cohesively present circumstantial evidence despite the challenges posed by Allen's numerous statements. He notes the rarity of certain defense motions, such as introducing Odinism as a potential defense, and praises the judge's management of the courtroom environment.

Notable Quote:
"The prosecution did an excellent job putting all that stuff together in the face of a lot of pressure."
— Mark Inman [21:03]

He also remarks on the judge's effective handling of the jury, ensuring they were not rushed and remained focused on the evidence presented.

---

Sentencing Hearing Expectations [27:38]

Looking ahead to the sentencing phase scheduled for December 20th, Inman outlines the procedural steps involved, including the pre-sentence investigation and the factors that may influence the final sentence. He anticipates that the judge will impose consecutive sentences for each murder count, resulting in a substantial cumulative sentence that effectively ensures Allen remains incarcerated for life.

Notable Quote:
"He’s not getting out. You know, why create another issue?"
— Mark Inman [30:50]

Inman emphasizes that the sentencing is likely to follow standard guidelines, balancing mitigating and aggravating circumstances without unnecessarily escalating the punishment, thereby minimizing grounds for appeal.

---

Potential for Appeals and Appellate Issues [34:01]

Inman discusses the avenues for appeal that Allen might pursue, primarily focusing on procedural aspects such as the Franks motions and the introduction of Odinism as a defense. He expresses skepticism about the likelihood of success, citing the rigorous standards appellate courts uphold regarding abuse of discretion by trial judges.

Notable Quote:
"It's rare that any abuse of discretion standard is overturned and goal made. You know, the record has been made by Judge Cole. I would be shocked if that wins."
— Mark Inman [35:47]

He also touches on the complexities of post-conviction petitions, particularly concerning claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, and underscores the challenges appellate courts face in overturning well-documented trial records.

---

Ethical Considerations and Judicial Conduct [40:28]

A segment of the conversation delves into the ethical dimensions of the trial, specifically addressing accusations that Judge Francis Gull was harsh on the original defense team. Inman defends the judge's conduct, arguing that her primary responsibility was to protect the integrity of the courtroom and ensure a fair trial, rather than exhibiting personal bias.

Notable Quote:
"She was trying to protect the proceedings... that's not being mean. That's just being a judge."
— Mark Inman [42:29]

He emphasizes that judicial decisions to maintain order and uphold legal standards are often misconstrued as personal antagonism.

---

Public Perception and Legal Realities [44:53]

In response to public claims that the trial was fundamentally flawed, leading to an automatic appeal, Inman dismisses such assertions as unfounded. He stresses the importance of adhering to established legal processes and cautions against allowing uninformed opinions to distort the public's understanding of the case.

Notable Quote:
"There's nothing automatic about an appeal. I don't know where that idea could come from."
— Mark Inman [45:50]

Inman advocates for informed discussions based on legal facts rather than sensationalized narratives.

---

Conclusion and Final Thoughts [49:27]

As the episode wraps up, Inman expresses frustration over the tendency to spotlight singular cases amidst countless others that receive little attention. He underscores the necessity of separating legal realities from media-induced noise and commends all parties involved in the Delphi case for their professional conduct under intense scrutiny.

Notable Quote:
"We've lost getting back to the reality. And I think that's what you saw here."
— Mark Inman [51:14]

---

Key Takeaways

• Media Influence: High-profile cases like the Delphi murders can distort public perception, leading to biased opinions and undermining the judicial process.

• Legal Strategy: Richard Allen's numerous confessions complicate the defense's position, and any desire to plead guilty must be carefully managed within the constraints of possible legal outcomes.

• Sentencing Projections: Given the nature of the crimes, Allen is likely to receive consecutive sentences that ensure a life-long incarceration without the need for further appeals.

• Appellate Challenges: Potential appeals face significant hurdles, especially concerning procedural issues like Franks motions and the introduction of unconventional defenses.

• Judicial Conduct: Judges play a crucial role in maintaining courtroom integrity, and their decisions to manage trials effectively are often misinterpreted as personal biases.

---

This episode provides a comprehensive analysis of the Delphi murders case from a seasoned defense attorney's perspective, offering listeners an informed understanding of the legal intricacies involved in high-profile criminal cases.

Transcript

[Carl]

They told me this was the worst name for a weight loss workout program in history. Tell me what you think. I'm Carl CEO of bodi.com that's b o d I.com I had an idea for a super short daily fitness program that would burn off a layer of fat every morning for 100 straight days. I named it Morning Meltdown 100. The head of marketing hated it. She said some people don't want to work out in the morning and nobody likes a meltdown. Well, she was wrong. People are dropping weight like clockwork. In fact, people love it so much they've done it over 50 million times. So now I'm going to offer you permanent digital access to the entire collection of 100 workouts for just 60 cents a workout. If you go to morningmeltdown100.com do one 20 to 30 minute workout a day and if the scale's not dropping fast after 30 days, I'll give you a full refund. But you need to get it before we increase the price. This is your chance. Go to morningmeltdown100.com that' Morning Meltdown in the number 100.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Com Audible's best of 2024 picks are here.

[Mark Inman]

Discover the year's top audiobooks, podcasts and.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Originals in all your favorite genres, from.

[Mark Inman]

Memoirs and sci fi to mysteries and thrillers. Audible's curated list in every category is.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The best way to hear 2024's best.

[Mark Inman]

In audio entertainment, like a stunning new.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Full cast production of George Orwell's 1984.

[Mark Inman]

Heartfelt memoirs like Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's lovely one. The year's best fiction like the Women.

[Kevin Greenlee]

By Kristin Hannah and Percival Everett's brilliantly subversive James Audible.

[Mark Inman]

There's more to imagine when you listen. Go to audible.com imagine and discover all.

[Kevin Greenlee]

The year's best waiting for you.

[Carl]

The holidays are all about sharing with.

[Anya Kane]

Family meals, couches, stories, Grandma's secret pecan pie recipe, and now you can also share a cart with Instacart family carts. Everyone can add what they want to one group cart from wherever they are so you don't have to go from room to room to find out who wants cranberry sauce or whether you should get mini marshmallows for the yams or collecting votes for sugar cookies versus shortbread. Just share a cart and then share the meals.

[Carl]

In the moments, download the Instacart app.

[Anya Kane]

And get delivery in as fast as 30 minutes. Plus enjoy free delivery on your first three orders, service fees and Terms apply.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Content WARNING this episode includes discussion of the murder of two children and profanity.

[Anya Kane]

So today on the Murder Sheet, we're really thrilled to have back a familiar face, a familiar name. To those of you who've been listening, we're going to be speaking with attorney Mark Inman. Mark is a longtime defense attorney. He's very experienced in criminal defense and he's kind enough to chat with us sometimes about topics in cases, specifically the Delphi murders case. And so today we thought it would be interesting to ask him essentially, what can we all expect going forward in the Delphi murders case? On the one hand, trial is over. The verdict was rendered. Richard Allen is guilty of murdering Abigail Williams and Liberty German. On the other hand, just because that phase is over doesn't mean we're totally done. We have the sentencing hearing on December 20, and after that there's the strong possibility that appeals will be filed. So Mark today is going to just talk us through that process and tell us basically what we can all expect. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[Kevin Greenlee]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[Anya Kane]

And this is the Murder Sheet, a.

[Kevin Greenlee]

True crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[Anya Kane]

We're the Murder Sheet and this is the Delphi Murders. Attorney Mark Inman on Richard Allen's sentencing and appeals. I guess to start off with Mark, our audience knows you, but can you just tell us a little bit again about your background and sort of just your career? A little bit?

[Mark Inman]

Yes. I've always practiced a criminal law and I have 1982. I did a lot of work as a public defender in Marion County. I was head of what's called the Marriott, the conflict panel for the Marion County Public Defender Agency. And then I did a lot of work later on in federal court instead of state court. And back when I was doing PD work, there were a lot more part time contracts. I also had my own practice, took private cases, but I've done cases in many counties and then obviously in the federal courts mostly in southern Indiana, done it for a long time. And I've, I've done nine death penalty cases. I've done murder trials. And that's kind of what I've always done, always concentrated on as you've been.

[Anya Kane]

Watching the Delphi murders case unfold. And I know we've talked to you on the show about that case a few times. But what sort of things have stood out to you as a defense attorney, as somebody who has so much experience in that space.

[Mark Inman]

I suppose one thing that stood out to me was that the way it was, you know, was already so popular by the time charges were filed that there was an extra amount of precaution on the part of the court in appointing two attorneys. Normally if it's not a death penalty case, you don't get two attorneys. But from the beginning it was treated like a death penalty case which has specific requirements of counsel and then of funding by the county for experts and things like that. Obviously right away the judge reduced himself pretty. It was pretty quickly decided from what I could tell that it would be venued out as far as at least bringing a jury in. Those types of things happening quickly, I think was unique. And then just the barrage of motions that were repetitive. I thought the unique parsing together of evidence, I mean you've got a bullet that has nothing to do with positive death. You have the lack of public access at the beginning, which has caused all kinds of speculation as to what the cause of death was. I, it's rare that I've seen information like that steal and for so long, especially when there was so much interest in it. And I still can't figure out why exactly. But so that gave rise to a lot of speculation and then, you know, then you, it just, it goes on and I see a case go to the Supreme Court on an interlocutory appeal. Is it having to do with the qualification of counsel and, or the judge? I don't know that I've ever seen that. So that was, those are all unique things. And then a three day hearing about whatever that hearing was about, I'm assuming most of it was about Odinism and whether or not they were going to be allowed to use that as a defense, I think that's very rare. If maybe for the first time that Odinism has ever popped up as a defense and had a three day hearing and then once the trial started, you know, I thought the judge gave the, gave council a lot of leeway as far as arguing that Alan was, was pressured into giving all of these different statements. Being allowed to show all those videos from the jail or from the prison. You know, that's another unique thing. And that's. There are other unique things I know, but those struck me. And you know, one thing is, I know this has taken seven some years since these girls were killed, but the legal case itself took two. And for this type of case with all of the things going on with that, I mean, obviously it's not expedited, but I thought it was within the timeframes that I've seen other major murder cases get tried. So from that perspective, I didn't think it was unique in that it just took two years from the time the charges were filed. And I know people got frustrated with the time. Oh my God, this took seven years, but it took five years to arrest the person. So those are just thoughts off the top of my head about what I saw. What I Credit Karma is your evolved financial assistant making managing your finances simpler and more tailored to you. Join [e-mail] to start your personalized financial journey today and continue to grow with our innovations. Credit Karma Evolve your finances. It's better over here at&T customers Switching to T Mobile has never been easier. We'll pay off your existing phone and give you a new one free. All on America's largest 5G network. Visit t mobile.com carrier freedom to switch today pay off up to $650 via virtual prepaid MasterCard in 15 days. Free phone up to 830 $30 via.

[Anya Kane]

24 monthly bill credits plus tax qualifying port in trade and service on go 5G next and credit required. Contact us before canceling entire account to continue bill credits or credit stop and.

[Mark Inman]

Balance and required finance agreement is due. You know that feeling when your favorite brand really gets you. Deliver that feeling to your customers every time. Memorable moments like these are key to building your business and your brand. Klaviyo turns your customer data into real time connections across AI powered email, SMS and more. Making every moment count so you can continue to build smarter, more meaningful relationships with your customers. Build smarter digital relationships with your customers and make every moment count with Klaviyo. Learn more at K l a v I-Y-O.com BFCM one of the things that.

[Anya Kane]

You mentioned, and one of the things we've certainly observed is just how sensationalized this case was. How much the media, mainstream media and social media got ahold of it. And you know, I'm just curious, what are your thoughts on that? How can that affect a case, especially around in your experience, like people's willingness to believe that the accused could be guilty?

[Mark Inman]

Well, my observation is generally the more popular a case is, the more there's willingness to believe that the accused is innocent. I don't know if it's because especially in this day and age that the rise of popularity gives rise to unbridled speculation with no ethical guardrail like journalism, that people are willing to believe whatever is out there. And once they start speculating and paying attention. Some people like to play a Lot of. No one really wants to play prosecutors. They like to play investigator or defense attorney when they start speculating about those things or about gathering what they believe to be the information and then coming up with an opinion. So I think that's what happened here. And then you had five years where everybody's trying to solve the case in the first place online or what have you. And that. That just. There was already so much fuel on the fire by the time the charge, that file, that. That's where that came up. And it always kind of irks me to some. Some extent because I've done so many cases where nobody cared about it, where other people died. Right. And they just go into oblivion because it's so common. I mean, killings are unfortunately common. Especially. That's one thing about this killing, was that it was out in. It was in Delphi. It wasn't in downtown Indianapolis.

[Anya Kane]

Right, right.

[Mark Inman]

That gave rise to a lot of. A lot more interest.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, this case got a lot of interest and was really sensationalized. How do you think that level of interest affected people's beliefs about the case?

[Mark Inman]

There just seems to be some relationship between popularity almost, or information being out there, and people's willingness to look at both sides or to create a defense or to create some way to look at it. You've got probably a lot of people out there still not believing that the Odinists didn't do it or that are believing that the Odinists did do it or something. I. I don't. I don't. And there's so many cases that you can't pay attention to every one of them. So when you latch on to one or you latch onto a few, people's minds, start to pay attention, to read up about all the different facts and then to put together a different point of view. And I don't quite understand why that is. I can't explain that. But it happens. I mean, you obviously, you know, that happens.

[Anya Kane]

Oh, yeah, it definitely. It definitely happens. And I think there's probably a number of factors at play there.

[Mark Inman]

Yeah.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Another thing that's unusual about this case is that the defendant confessed 61 times. And people wonder, is this an indication that he may have wanted to plead guilty? You know, what would have happened if he had told his attorneys he wanted to plead guilty?

[Mark Inman]

Well, I tell you, that's. You had brought that up more than one time. Just. Just kind of thinking out loud, I think, on. On your podcast that I've listened to. And first of all, there could. There could not have been. I don't even know if there was a plea offer. But there was no plea offer that would have kept him from spending the rest of his life in prison. As we kind of briefly discussed before, if Alan told. If I was representing Allen and he told me he wanted to plead guilty, I would go to McClelland, the prosecutor, and say, look, he wants to see what are you going to offer? And the least that McClellan would have offered, my guess, is 90 years, because each murder count carries 45 to 65, and they're going to run consecutive to each other. That would be 45 plus 45, which equals 90. But if Alan's telling me this is what he wants to do because he wants either to come to terms with God or he wants to just at least be able to express remorse. I mean, there would be no strategic reason for pleading. It would be purely Allen's decision from a. I guess, moralistic. Well, within that he wanted to get this off his chest. I wouldn't rarely tell him not to do that. Now, whether they've ever had that conversation, I don't know. I mean, he could have walked in and fled straight up, as, you know, without a plea agreement, knowing full well that he's going to be sentenced to life in prison. And if he had that, if he ever expressed that to his attorneys, which I don't know if he did or not. I mean, he's expressed that to his family. His family kept telling him that he. He was lying to them. Right. They refused to believe that anyone that they knew would kill somebody, which was a normal human reaction. Right. I mean, I've had that happen before. Not on a case this huge where someone just said, look, I just want to get this done. Give me the best deal you can, and let's get this done. But that deal wasn't a life in prison deal, which is what his is. From an ethical standpoint, though, I think if a client is telling you that he wants to plead, he doesn't want to go to trial, he wants to get it over with, and you lay it out to him that you means you're going to spend the rest of your life in prison, and he says, I don't care. I want to admit to what I did, then I. I think you got to really think about doing it.

[Anya Kane]

I want to drill down on that a little bit because I think this is something that, you know, I've been curious about. So what you're saying is essentially that if, if, If I'm your client and I say, mark, I. I really want to Just plead guilty and be done. I feel bad about what I did and whatnot. You. It's your job to say, well, you know, I'm probably not going to be able to get you a very good deal on you, but it's not your job to, like, bully me out of that. Is that. Is that fair to say? I mean, look, what are the parameters around that?

[Mark Inman]

Well, I mean, in this case, yeah, there is no way that he would have been offered a police agreement that would keep him from doing life in prison. I mean, that's not. That's 100%. So I think you got to make that perfectly clear. And I would think that Alan would know that. I don't know what he seemed to be at least aware of what, competent to stand trial. I mean, he was confident to stand trial. They never even brought up confidence. He just. In trial, I don't think they brought up the confidence. He. They brought up to him being bullied into making 61 different statements, which is all they had to work with. But it's somewhat preposterous. You know, you've got a. You might. I mean, he had some psychoanalysis, right? He'd had some observations by the doc people. I think you got to double check to make sure that he knows what he's doing. And it's hard in the death penalty world, you know, if you. There are people who will volunteer to plead guilty and they want the death penalty, that's a little different situation because you're setting someone up to die, that's different to me, you have to talk him off the ledge and not let them, quote, unquote, volunteers what the phrase is in the death penalty world, right? But in this situation, when you're dealing with as many times as he said that and the way that he said that and the fact that the fact that there were several times that he gave facts that only the killer could have known. Right. I mean, I think that got lost in the number of statements was that there were several statements that only the killer could have made. For instance, I thought tying the guy in the white van into a statement that Allen made. You know, the guy that had been at work and clocked out, I can't remember his name, that was Brad Weber. I mean, I thought that was amazing work by the prosecutor's office. You know, they had these little pieces of evidence that they tied into in the most convincing fashion they could have. So I think, you know, you do an independent check on whether or not this. Or whether or not he. Whether or not it's true. Right. Whether or not, whether or not it corroborates what he said, corroborates with what is out there. And it sure enough did, from what I can tell. I think you got to go through all those steps, but I don't think that you suggest a defense to him that doesn't exist. I think that could profit a lot me so. And we're speculating that he's telling these guys that he wants to plead.

[Anya Kane]

Right.

[Mark Inman]

All right. So if he's telling me, if he's telling me he wants to plead then and I'm telling him that I've got an Odinist theory, I think that's not how I would handle.

[Anya Kane]

Yeah, I was. You know, you're, you're a defense attorney. That's your background. And I'm just curious, just speaking generally when you're, you know, when, like in the pre trial stuff, but especially during trial, as you, as you're reading and listening and learning about some of the stuff that they're doing for their defense, what are your impressions of that? Were there things that you thought they did a good job with? Were there. Were there things that you were not so impressed with? And I guess is it a situation where you kind of see it from the perspective of like, well, their hands were kind of tied by their client?

[Mark Inman]

Yeah, I mean, I think I didn't realize how strong the state's circumstantial case was. And it wasn't the strongest case ever. But the way that they put together the bullet and the uniqueness of the car, didn't it like one. The one set of wheels in Carroll county or something and the white van thing and the way the bridge guy information all tied in and made sense. I thought they did a phenomenal job of melding all that together. And then you take step two, which is all of these statements that Allen made and that made it very difficult. You know, I think the defense attorneys tried everything they possibly could. I think there's a point though where you have to take no for an answer, you know, to file for Frank's motions. When the number of Frank's motions that result in a hearing nationwide is probably less than 05. It's not very many that you just, you understand. And then the same thing about the oldness thing for them to. They kind of over. I think at times they could have presented things maybe more streamlined than. But I wasn't there, you know, and this. They were listening. They tried everything they could think of and possibly could. I mean they were not ineffective. I Just think what it all boiled down to in the end is that the state had a stronger case than I think a lot of people gave them credit for, independent of the statements. I thought for them to be able to at least argue that Allen was pressured into these statements because it's very set of circumstances and the way that the judge let them really riff on that, I thought it was great work. It would be interesting to see whether or not it backfired on him. So the jury's sitting there watching this guy be kind of crazy. They might think he was crazy enough to kill somebody, but, you know, I'll give them that. That they tried with that. I think the oldest thing they gave a shot at. They didn't have an expert that helped them. So they. I think they should have. Once again, they. Sometimes you gotta take no for an answer and move on. I will say this. They created the best record they possibly could. Probably. I don't know how valid those issues are, but at least they made the office proof and everything that they need to do to preserve that record.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Before we move on to the next steps and what lie I had, namely sentencing and the possibility of appeals, I wonder, is there anything else you wanted to say about the trial in specific?

[Mark Inman]

Well, I mean, you know, a lot of what I know about the trial is you're all about survivors.

[Anya Kane]

Oh, no.

[Mark Inman]

Well. Well, I mean, you know, you can read about it, but, I mean, you were in there, you know, you know, you. You and I. You know, what. What the different testimonies were and all that. Yeah, I read a lot of it too, from. From just the mainstream media reports. Once again, I think the prosecution did an excellent job putting all that stuff together in the face of a lot of pressure. You know, I mean, we gotta applaud the jury for taking this much time out of their life and then taking the time to deliberate. It looks like they. The judge did a good job of not rushing them. You know, you gotta spend 12 hours or try to spend the money on you staying in a hotel. Wherever they were, she let them take their time and look at things and be fresh when they're looking at things. I was impressed by that. I think. I wish the judge would have let there be some sort of camera feed to an auditorium somewhere in Delphi. I don't. I don't understand why that wasn't done, but to her. But what. I think what was important there was to keep as many distractions out of the courtroom, because that's where the case was. Trials in the courtroom, not not anywhere else. And I think she made things uncomfortable for people who wanted to report on it and see it. But I think her overriding concern was that. And I, I can understand that. Like I said, I thought just generally all over. The prosecution did a great job of piecing all that stuff together because once I started reading about it and what you guys did an episode on, just coalescing the evidence as to what it meant, it made a lot of sense as to how they did what they did. I just thought they did a great job. And it was a tough, tough case to tell. You got 61 statements and the only. You do you know, you, you. They did, I thought, I mean, they did what they could with that, but that was, that was a hard thing to overcome. And I don't think, you know, when. When this case first came out, when it first got filed, obviously that didn't exist. Right. So, you know, I. Once they had that in hand, it became very strong. And this isn't the first case that got worse because somebody was in jail. I mean, I can't tell you the number of cases I've had where, you know, two months before a trial date, all of a sudden there's two jailhouse snitches ready to talk about how my client had told them everything he did. That. That was not completely unique. The videoing of him, I thought was. But he was on suicide watch. I assume that's why that was done.

[Anya Kane]

Yeah, that's our, that's our understanding.

[Mark Inman]

I mean, those are my general impressions about it.

[Anya Kane]

Maybe we could, we can go on to the sentencing then. I'd be curious what your thoughts are. What should people expect for a sentencing like this?

[Mark Inman]

You know, the process of sentencing is there has to be. By law, there has to be done what's called a pre sentence investigation by the probation department in Carroll County. And so they'll put together a picture of Alan, just his social history, family history, employment history, educational history. There's a part of a present report now that's called a risk assessment about recidivism. Most presentences are fairly perfunctory and they'll outline just generally what was in the. Probably just in the probable cause affidavit. I don't think they'll write some sort of huge version of events. Now the prosecutor can submit a version of events if they want to. Not really a version of events, but just kind of a synopsis trial. But I don't think that's necessary in this case. I doubt that they'll do that. Then the, you know, each side has the right to prepare a memorandum and file. Now the question is, and you know, to present, the defense has the right to have family members write letters or testify. The victim impact comes after the sentencing. So the families will be heard, but it'll be after the sentence. They'll be able to write letters to the court and attach to the pre sentence as far as testimony, it comes after the sentence, the sentencing. It's now, you know, you have to look at what the parameters of what this sentence is going to be and what is it that the defense can do that either side can do that's going to affect the outcome and the practical outcome is going to be, well, okay, so murder carries 45 to 65 years. Now technically the judge could run each count concurrent so that you got 45 and 45, you got 45 running with each other. So for a minimum of 45 years, that's not going to happen. Whatever sentence there is on will be up for each victim will be run consecutively if the judge is smart. And when you do a sentence, there's a presumptive sentence. It's got a different name now, but in the old days it was a presumptive advisory that you start at 55 on a murder, maybe 50, and then you either go down to 45 or you go up to 65, depending on what are called mitigating and aggravating circumstances. But if the judge is smart, she doesn't aggravate the sentence itself. She just runs the two sentences concurrently or consecutively. Right. Does that make sense?

[Anya Kane]

It does make sense.

[Mark Inman]

And give each, give 50 years on each victim, that's 100 years. You gotta do 80 to 85% of your time in Indiana. He's not getting out. You know, why create another issue? You know, if the judge aggravates the sentences to the maximum of what she can, then she might create an issue for appeal. There's no need to do that. You know, Alan doesn't have a criminal history, I don't think, for whatever that's worth in this context. So why, why create a problem? You absolutely don't need to. And I think she probably realizes that. But you know, you know, I don't know if Alan's attorneys are going to put on another two day show or not. It's just, it's not necessary. And you know, he can't. What's he going to do, apologize? I mean, he can if he wants. You know, he's got the absolute right of what's called allocution which is the right to say whatever he wants, but that's not going to have any impact.

[Anya Kane]

I want to ask you if he alexutes and says, I'm so sorry for doing this to your kids, I mean, this is probably a dumb legal question. Kevin may roll his eyes, but would that hurt him on appeal?

[Mark Inman]

No, because the appeal is confined to. Well, I mean, they're not going to be able to. I mean, the questions on appeal are whether or not the state proved their case to be under reasonable doubt, that sufficiency of the evidence, which in this case they did. You know, you can raise efficiency on an appeal, but it's really successful. And just because he says that doesn't change what was presented at the trial. So you can apologize and you can still win on appeal, if that makes sense. I mean, what's. What his appeal issues are going to be? Well, I'm getting ahead of ourselves, but yeah, Happy stands up and says, I tried to tell my attorney for two years that I wanted to plead guilty, that that's going to cause a problem down the road. If he stands up and allocates that he's been trying to do that for two years down the road, that it's not gonna affect the appeal. But it might after the appeal. You know, there's another process after an appeal. So anyway, that's my view of the sentencing is that I think if judge, Judge Gol just placed close to hip, gives him no more than the advisory sentence and runs them consecutively, what more do you need to do?

[Anya Kane]

That makes sense. And just to drill down on this a little bit, if he gets up and says, I didn't want to do this, my attorneys made me. That's more of a problem for the attorneys as opposed to. Yeah, okay, yeah, that makes sense.

[Mark Inman]

Yeah. On what's called a post conviction petition. But that would. After the appeal.

[Kevin Greenlee]

So what are the issues you would expect to see raised in an appeal in this case?

[Mark Inman]

Well, I mean, I mean, I think they. I don't think there's any secrets. Right. I mean, it's what they. They didn't get a Franks hearing and. But you know, that's the standard for a Franks hearing. The judge repeated every time she made a ruling. And that standard, her application of that standard is challenged for abuse and discretion. And that's the hurdle they're going to have to clear to win that issue on appeal. And I. It's rare that any abuse of discretion standard is overturned and goal made. You know, the record has been made by Judge Cole. I would be shocked if that wins. I mean, then the presentation of the Odinism defense, it's the same thing that they've, they've repeated that and they've made their record on it. And she has been consistent on how she ruled on that. And I think she's, she knows she made all the rulings. I think she made all the rulings in writing. And once again, that's an abusive discretion standard. And once again, that's going to be difficult to overcome. I mean, those are the two main issues. There's no appellate issue as far as their ability to present evidence as to his mental state when he gave all these statements because they were able to do that as much as they wanted to. Pretty much from what I could tell. I'm sure there were a couple of other pretrial issues that they litigated. I'm not sure what they are off the top of my head and I don't know what came up at trial. It didn't sound like there were any big. Were there any motions for mistrial at the trial?

[Anya Kane]

No.

[Mark Inman]

Yeah. So you don't have that? I mean, I think that's the general basis of their appeal from what I've observed. Are those the Odinism issue, the Franks issue? I don't know that there's. I guess. Was there a suppression. Was there actually ever a suppression hearing? I don't think there was. I think it was all couched with the Frank's motions. Right.

[Anya Kane]

I vaguely recall a motion to suppress, but I don't think it was a hearing result in a hearing.

[Mark Inman]

Okay, so if they made a record on the suppression issue, then they might throw that in. I mean, you know, as far as the processes, I mean, there's nothing with the public access thing and all of that. That's not an appeal issue. That didn't affect the safety of the trial.

[Anya Kane]

Yes.

[Mark Inman]

So, I mean, I think they pretty much flagged what they're going to be able to present for somebody to present it the best they can. I don't know if they'll do the appeal or somebody else does.

[Anya Kane]

Would it be normal for the trial attorneys to do the appeal or is it typical that you'd get more of an appellate expert?

[Mark Inman]

I think you should. I don't think you should do your own appeals. I would hope that they have someone that does appeals regarding. I mean, I've done appeals before, but not my own. So I think it's better to have a set of eyes. So, you know, what happens is, as far as the appeal is concerned for the sentencing is set at the end of the year, right?

[Anya Kane]

It's December 20th. Yep.

[Mark Inman]

And I doubt that'll be continued. You have 30 days to file. That's. So that's the judgment. The sentencing is the judgment. Then you have 30 days to file a notice of appeal. And that's just a perfunctory notice. And then that kicks in some timelines about preparation of the record. And you know, the clerk and the court reporter and the attorneys are responsible for coordinating and getting the transcript ready, getting the exhibits ready, getting everything over to the appellate court. That's the next step after the notice of appeal. And if you look at the Indiana appellate rules and it lays out what the timelines are, and those timelines can be extended for good reason. And there's a lot of stuff here. So it may take a while to actually put the record together. We can file it with the Indiana Court of Appeals. This goes to the Indiana Court of Appeals, not to the Supreme Court. From the date of that filing of the record kicks in timeframes for the preparation of brief. Obviously the appellant will file their brief first, then the state responds, and then the appellant could file a reply. And once again, those, the preparation of those brief, time frames on those can be extended for good cause. Once again, there's, there's good cause probably for that to give someone extra time to prepare what they need to prepare. And then after the briefs are done, then the court can settle oral argument. They don't, they don't have to. That's kind of up to them. And then you wait for a decision. So it's going to take a little while because of the length of the trial and, you know, the, just the volume of information, both trial transcripts and, you know, all the other pleadings that were done pre trial and then the number of exhibits. So it would still take a year, I would think, maybe even a little more.

[Anya Kane]

So here's. I have two questions, kind of a two parter for you about appeals. One is one thing we get asked a lot about is one of the most dramatic, I think legal moments in this case came when Judge Francis Gull had the confrontation with the original defense team and they withdrew. And that, you know, was obviously litigated and whatnot. And they came back after the Supreme Court weighed in the Indiana Supreme Court. And I guess I'm just curious for you, we have our own interpretation of that whole situation. But for you, is that something that could come up on appeal or is that something that essentially the highest court in Indiana basically Said, hey, she didn't do anything wrong.

[Mark Inman]

That's a good question. Well, that's a hard first part. What's the second part? No.

[Anya Kane]

We'Ll clear that hurdle later.

[Mark Inman]

I mean, let's think about the context of that. Right. It. And I think I brought this up when we talked back in January. She was concerned that they didn't know what they were doing for whatever reason that I think at that point they kept filing the same motion all over again with the frank stuff, among other things. And by way of the category. And so how do you bring that up on appeal that they were allowed to remain as attorneys? You would have to appeal saying that the Supreme Court and Allen never asked that they be fired. But I don't know that Alan ever. Did Allen ever actually come into court and say that? Didn't they prepare a letter with his signature on it that said that they wanted. That he wanted them to remain as his attorney?

[Kevin Greenlee]

Yeah, that is correct.

[Mark Inman]

I think that. I think that was. I don't want to. I don't. I don't want to just hear it from him. But as far as an appeal issue is concerned, you would have to say that the Supreme Court made a mistake by allowing those guys to remain on when there was no record of Allen protesting that they remain on. So I don't see how that's an appellate issue.

[Anya Kane]

This is. People say, basically. And when I say people, I mean sort of online critics and whatever. You know, there's a lot of like, oh, well, that means that Gull was mean to the defense team and therefore they were at a disadvantage. Can you explain why? That's not really something that you can appeal over.

[Mark Inman]

That's like stacking the first grade basketball team against the other first grade basketball team. That's mean, I think, you know, I mean, defensive attorney's basketball. I know that, but I think she was trying to protect the proceedings. You know, I think at that point that she felt that between the violation of the gag order and this saying one thing back in chambers, going and doing something else, I think she just got tired of it. Put their feet to the fire. Was she mean to the defense team because you ruled against them on the Franks motions, which, like I said, rarely get a hearing, and the Odinist thing, which was she let them make their record and she had every right to not allow that in. That's not being mean. That's just being a judge. And then she threw them a bone at the trial by letting him bring in all this video. I mean, I thought that that Was. I thought that was unique and not. Definitely not being mean to the defense. I'm assuming McClelland objected to that. I mean, they got to bring in that stuff selectively. Yeah, right. They just got to play snippets. Right. So. No, I don't think so. It was a difficult case and I think I have to believe that she did the best she could and it, and you know, so. No. Mean. No, I don't get mean.

[Anya Kane]

Yeah, I strongly agree with what you're saying. And that's been our take here. I think people kind of don't understand how any of this works and they just sort of go based on vibes and that's not ever a. Not a good idea. But here's, here's my second part to the question. And this is more of just getting your take on something. You know, one thing that, you know, people who again are, you know, these self, self proclaimed critics of the case have said is that, you know, this is a practice trial. There's going to be an automatic new trial because it's so flawed and it was so unfair to Richard Allen's rights.

[Mark Inman]

I mean, that's ridiculous. Sorry. But I mean, you know, these, like I say, there, There's a catch 22 to have. For everyone to have access to everything in this trial, which is that you're going to have a lot of noise out there where people don't really understand what the system's supposed to be about. The more everyone has access to these things, the less truth is spoken in many different quarters or objective evaluation, let's put it that way. I don't know that anybody knows what the truth is anymore. I kind of lost track of what.

[Anya Kane]

No, no, no, you're. You're doing great. This is the idea that this trial was so flawed that there's going to be an automatic appeal. I guess. What are your just general. What's your general thoughts on Allen's chances for a successful appeal?

[Mark Inman]

I mean, there's no, nothing automatic about an appeal. I don't know where that idea could come from.

[Anya Kane]

Well, there's a whole little cottage industry that sprung up around, but I mean.

[Mark Inman]

I mean, I think, I think you gotta just take that for what it's worth and quit answering all their questions.

[Anya Kane]

Oh, no, I mean, we don't.

[Mark Inman]

I mean, I mean, I mean, but that, that cottage industry. Yes. They're gonna say what they're gonna say. I don't care. You could, you could. I could. We could talk for three hours about every fact and that's not Gonna change their mind.

[Anya Kane]

I think where we. Where we come in is that there's. There's a substantial large population of people who don't necessarily know everything about the law. And they can be influenced by that, but they also prefer the facts. And you can easily get to them by just explaining things, whereas there's a committed smaller group where they don't want to hear anything. Does that make sense? It's like.

[Mark Inman]

Yeah, it does. It does. And that group that doesn't want to.

[Anya Kane]

Hear anything, they're lost to reality. They're gone.

[Mark Inman]

Those that have to have. I think. I think we did a good job this morning of kind of covering what it appeals about. And there's a process. This process has been in place for a long, long time. And yeah, you're always going to find a case where it didn't work. And we're dealing with human beings trying to apply a process. So of course, there are times when it's not going to work where people make mistakes or people might have ulterior motives, but for the most part, it works. And I don't. If someone in this case had some secretly hidden ulterior motives to rope Allen into this, I don't know what the world could be. I mean, I really think everyone in the end should be complimented for their willingness to work within the parameters of the process. You know, I mean, that's attorney's job to stretch things out. They might have made some mistakes, but they did some good things. It was a difficult case. The prosecution, they didn't take the bait on some stuff that they could have made outlandish comments about or anything. They worked really hard, I think for a small county especially, put the case together. Gold did the best job she could. And keeping away the noise from the courtroom and protecting the jury sounds to me. So, you know, this is. This is what we tried to do. And I think. I think everyone involved did pretty much the best they could and that there's nothing. No sinister thing here. I think the defense. Well, the defense team talking about finding justice for the victims, I thought was over the top, but. And play to the media, the social media too much. They did, but they lost sight. I think sometimes, just like all of us do in this day and age of where truth matters and where it doesn't, or where you can find it, maybe, and where you can't. I mean, I've been doing it for 40 years. I got to have faith. For the most part, we've come out on the right, right way of how a case should have been handled and should be positive.

[Anya Kane]

That's so, that's so well said. I, I wanted to ask you, Mark, is there anything we didn't ask you about, about any of this that you think it's important to clarify?

[Mark Inman]

No, not about the case itself. I think what, what, what irritates me is that how many cases get resolved without anybody giving a. And then everyone finds one case to jump on board and become an expert about, you know, that's that to me. Yeah. I mean, there were, there were plenty, you know. Yeah. Plenty of cases where you could have got, you could have become just as upset about horrible murders, whatever. So my hope is that whenever a case gets a lot of attention that people involved in the process can separate the reality of the case and the parameters of the case from the noise. And I think, I think they did a good job of. I think the defense played to the noise too much with no value. The thing that gives you no value at all. You know, you got a sequester jury, you've got, you can create your own problems by doing that. But, you know, playing to the noise is the thing nowadays, not just in the legal system, but in a lot of things. And I think we've, we get, we get, we've lost getting back to the reality. And I think that's what you saw here. So to us, to a certain extent, I mean, there are ethics involved in the law, there are ethics involved in journalism. There are no ethics involved in TikTok.

[Anya Kane]

No. So I would argue that ethics would hinder many people on TikTok. And, and that's what, you know, that's, that's what's so unfortunate about it. It's. And, you know, the best thing we can all do to a certain extent is, you know, you know, where we try to draw the line is if, if someone, if, if, if a tick tocker or whatnot is having an actual impact on a case, we want to talk about it. But otherwise it's really just best to ignore and not give them your clicks because that's kind of what keeps them in the game.

[Mark Inman]

Yeah, I agree. And so, I mean, like I said, I applaud the hard work of all the people involved and you know, for these jurors to come over here and do that and for the most, it seems to me that, and I'm sure the jurors. I don't know how she's going to handle questioning the jurors because just to go back real quick, but at the end of the appeal, and this goes Back to Gul ruling about them not being the attorneys after the appeal and assume, let's assume the appeal is that the conviction is uphill, which I think is a safe assumption. The next step, if you choose, is to follow what's called a post conviction petition. And a post conviction petition has two things that you can bring up. Newly discovered evidence and ineffective assistance of counsel. In Indiana, you do not bring up the question of effective representation on appeal. You bring it up post eviction. And that's from the sixth Amendment. You're entitled to effective representation of counsel. So goals saying that she thought they were essentially ineffective at that point may come back into play down the road. Does that make sense?

[Anya Kane]

It does, yeah.

[Mark Inman]

But the way that it was handled and the ruling that was made and the fact that Allen himself never made a record will hinder that greatly. You know, as long as you stay awake during the trial and ask three questions, you can be effective. That's all the cases down south. Yeah, so that's where that might come up. But that's, that's way far down the road, if at all. Yeah, but, but back to the jurors. If something happened to one of the jurors, if the jurors went outside the parameters of what they were supposed to be doing while they were there, if they looked online, you know, I mean, those kinds of things could get newly discovered. It might cause a problem. But that's just, that's pure supposition. I don't, no way knowing if that happened. I guess it didn't, but that makes sense.

[Anya Kane]

Well, Mark, thank you so much. It's really always a pleasure to speak with you and get your insights on this case. Is there, is there anything else that you wanted to mention or you think it's important for people to take away?

[Mark Inman]

No, I don't think so. I think we covered it. And once again, I applaud you guys for not a way to get in line every day and joining the two time hall of fame or whatever. Guys, cables, of course, is it. And you know, I think you did a great job of letting people know it's what happened, what actually happened in there. To the best, you know, how you interpreted it to a certain extent, but for the most part, just what was.

[Anya Kane]

Said, what was not, that means a lot. Thank you so much, Mark. And yeah, we had a lot of help and, and, and it's it that means a lot. So thank you.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Thank you so much.

[Mark Inman]

Yeah, anytime. Anytime you guys. Good luck with future broadcasts and hopefully we can talk again.

[Anya Kane]

Absolutely. We'd love that.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[Anya Kane]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at wwpatreon.com murdersheet if you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet we very much appreciate any support.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with.

[Anya Kane]

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. Thanks so much for sticking around to the end of this Murder Sheet episode. Just as a quick post roll ad, we wanted to tell you again about our friend Jason Blair's wonderful Silver Linings Handbook. This show is phenomenal. Whether you are interested in true crime, the criminal justice system, law, mental health, stories of marginalized people overcoming tragedy. Well, being like he does it all, this is a show for you. He has so many different conversations with interesting people, people whose loved ones have gone missing, other podcasters in the true crime space. Just interesting people with interesting life experiences. And Jason's gift, I think, is just being an incredibly empathetic and compassionate interviewer where he's really letting his guests tell their stories and asking really interesting questions along the way, guiding those conversations forward. I would liken it to like, you're kind of almost sitting down with friends and sort of just hearing these fascinating tales that you wouldn't get otherwise because he just has that ability as an interviewer to tease it out and really make it interesting for his audience.

[Kevin Greenlee]

On a personal level, Jason is frankly a great guy. Yes, he's been a really good friend to us and so it's fun to be able to hit a button on my phone and get a little dose of Jason talking to people whenever I want. It's a really terrific show. We really recommend it highly.

[Anya Kane]

Yeah, I think. I think our audience will like it. And you've already met Jason. If you listen consistently to our show, he's been on our show a couple times we've been on his show. He's a terrific guest. I, I say this in one of our ads about him, but I literally always, I'm like, oh, yeah, I remember when Jason said this. That really resonated. Like, I do quote him in, in, in conversation sometimes because he really has a good grasp of different, complicated.

[Kevin Greenlee]

She quotes them to me all the time.

[Anya Kane]

I do. I'm like, remember when Jason said this? That was so right. So, I mean, I think if we're doing that, I think. And you like us, you, you. I think you should give it a shot, give it a try. I think you'll really enjoy it. And again, he does a range of different topics, but they all kind of have the similar theme of compassion, of overcoming suffering, of dealing with suffering, of mental health, wellness, things like that. There's kind of a common through line of compassion and empathy there that I think we find very nice. And we work on a lot of stories that can be very tough and we try to bring compassion and empathy to it. But this is something that almost can be like if you're kind of feeling a little burned out by true crime. I think this is kind of the life affirming stuff that can, can be nice to listen to in a podcast.

[Kevin Greenlee]

It's, it's compassionate, it's affirming. But I, I also want to emphasize it's smart people. Jason is a very intelligent, articulate person. This is a smart show, but it's an accessible show. I think you'll all really enjoy it.

[Mark Inman]

Yeah.

[Anya Kane]

And he's got a great community that he's building, so we're really excited to be a part of that. We're really, we're fans of the show. We love it and we would strongly encourage you all just check it out, download some episodes, listen. I think you'll understand what we're talking about once you do. But anyways, you can listen to the Silver Linings Handbook wherever you listen to.

[Kevin Greenlee]

Podcasts, Wherever you listen to podcasts. Very easy to find.

[Anya Kane]

Absolutely.