The Delphi Murders: The Appeal: Oral Arguments Granted

Summary

Podcast Summary

Podcast: Murder Sheet
Episode: The Delphi Murders: The Appeal: Oral Arguments Granted
Date: May 19, 2026
Hosts: Áine Cain (Journalist) & Kevin Greenlee (Attorney)

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee discuss a major development in the Delphi murders case: the Indiana Court of Appeals has granted an oral argument on the appeal of Richard Allen, who was convicted of murdering Liberty German and Abigail Williams. The hosts break down what the granting of oral arguments means, provide background on the panel of judges involved, critique the defense briefs, and discuss the process of appellate arguments and potential next steps.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Granting of Oral Argument – What Does It Mean?

Timestamps: [00:58], [03:25], [04:49]

• The Indiana Court of Appeals has granted the defense's request for oral arguments in Richard Allen's appeal.

• Many in the public have interpreted this as a major win for Allen, but Kevin clarifies:

  "No, this is basically more or less a routine thing... this is a very high profile case." – Kevin [03:25]

• Oral arguments in appellate courts are uncommon, but in cases of high public interest like this, they're almost expected.

• Granting oral argument does not imply the court is leaning toward a particular outcome.

• Áine and Kevin emphasize not to "read too many tea leaves" into this—it's just part of the due process in a notable case.

  "A lot of things that people kind of think is a big deal is kind of more pro forma than you'd think..." – Áine [05:43]

---

2. Meet the Judges

Timestamps: [06:13] to [18:24]

• Judge Nancy H. Vaidik

  • Appointed by Governor Frank O'Bannon.
  • Formerly a deputy and chief deputy prosecutor in Porter County, Indiana.
  • Has overseen and prosecuted numerous serious cases, including those involving juveniles, domestic violence, and murder.

• Judge Elaine B. Brown

  • Appointed in 2008, from Ferdinand, Indiana.
  • Founded Dubois County's drug court; background in both education and law.
  • Experience as a trial judge and attorney.

• Judge Robert R. Altice, Jr.

  • Appointed by Governor Mike Pence, started serving in 2015.
  • Background as both a prosecutor in Missouri and Indiana, and as a judge on serious felony cases, including death penalty work.

Both hosts stress that while the judges' backgrounds are interesting, they should not be used to predict which way they will rule.

> "They're going to be applying the law... appellate cases are largely about the law." – Áine [07:50]

---

3. How Oral Arguments Work in Appeals

Timestamps: [19:39] to [21:34]

• The lawyers for each side will have a set time to present arguments; judges often interrupt to ask probing questions to test their logic.

• Sometimes, these questions can provide limited insight into the judges' thinking, but it's not always clear.

  "Sometimes in these oral arguments you can get an idea of where the judges' heads are by what kind of questions they are asking." – Kevin [20:53]

• Both Allen’s current appellate attorneys, Mr. Lehman and Ms. Uliana, are experienced, though Áine critiques the substance and style of their recent filings.

  "I've not been impressed with the writing from them so far. I'm just going to be honest..." – Áine [21:34]

---

4. Quality of Defense Briefs

Timestamps: [21:34] to [24:58]

• Both hosts critique the current appellate briefs filed by Allen’s team as overly emotional and lacking substantial legal arguments.

  "This is just a bunch of emotional, you know, tripe. I mean, it's just...this kind of like over-the-top rhetoric..." – Áine [22:22]

• Kevin references a classic law joke:

  "If the facts are on your side, you pound the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound the law. If neither is on your side, you pound the table." – Kevin [22:43]

• He feels Allen's team is "pounding the table," suggesting their arguments are not strong on the law or facts.

---

5. Appeals Process and Next Steps

Timestamps: [26:17] to [33:03]

• After oral argument, the three-judge panel will deliberate and issue a written decision, which could take weeks or months.

• Either side, if dissatisfied, may petition the Indiana Supreme Court to review the case. The Supreme Court is not required to take it.

  "No matter what the ruling is, it will be appealed." – Kevin [28:30]

• If the Indiana Supreme Court declines, parties may, in theory, petition the U.S. Supreme Court if there's a federal issue, but this is considered extremely unlikely.

• Further, if all criminal appeals are exhausted, Allen could pursue post-conviction relief.

---

6. Hosts’ Perspective on Allen’s Chances & Higher Principles

Timestamps: [32:13], [33:03], [34:06]

• Both Kevin and Áine strongly believe in Allen’s guilt. However, they stress the importance of fair legal process—even for those they believe are guilty.

  "If his rights were violated ... that's not justice. So ... if I felt like I saw issues like that in this case, I would also, you know, be like, well, that stinks. But even though he's guilty, gotta give him a new trial." – Áine [34:17]

• They distinguish their reporting from “truthers” who manipulate or cherry-pick the facts. Their approach is to remain intellectually honest, even if their conclusions are unpopular.

• The appeals process, they note, often rehashes old ground and rarely changes outcomes in cases like this unless serious errors are found.

---

7. Accessibility of Oral Arguments

Timestamps: [35:59] to [38:39]

• The oral arguments will be live-streamed, and the hosts encourage interested listeners to watch from home rather than attempting to attend in person.

  "You don't have to come to the courthouse and stand in line for hours. You can stay at home. It's going to be live streamed." – Kevin [35:59]

• The session is scheduled for September, at the Indiana State Capitol, likely due to space considerations.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On Reading Too Much Into Oral Arguments:

  "I just want to say right here at the top, no, this is basically more or less a routine thing..." – Kevin [03:25]

• Acknowledging Both Sides’ Ability to Appeal:

  "Either side can do this." – Kevin [28:28]

• On Their Approach vs. Online Speculation:

  "I would just encourage you, like, if you see Richard Allen truthers, like, screaming about anything...they don't really understand how anything works and they never have." – Áine [39:20]

• On Proper Legal Representation and Fairness:

  "If we felt like there was something here that was unfair to him, I would be very honest about it...You gotta be intellectually honest at the end of the day, or you don't deserve to be saying anything." – Áine [34:17]

---

Important Timestamps

• [00:58] — Content warning, episode topic announcement
• [03:25] — What the granting of oral arguments signifies
• [06:13] — Introduction to the appellate judges
• [19:39] — How oral arguments function and their role
• [21:34] — Critique of defense's written arguments
• [28:07] — Appellate process: next steps after decision
• [35:59] — Public access to oral arguments and live streaming
• [37:59] — Oral argument date and location details

---

Summary & Takeaways

• The granting of oral argument in Richard Allen’s appeal is due process for a highly publicized case—not an indicator of court bias or possible overturning of the conviction.
• The appellate panel consists of seasoned judges with backgrounds mostly in prosecution and criminal justice.
• The defense team's filings have been criticized by the hosts for lacking substance and relying too heavily on emotion rather than law or fact.
• Whatever the outcome of the oral argument, further appeals are likely, and any Supreme Court involvement—state or federal—is unlikely to change the case’s trajectory.
• The oral arguments will be publicly accessible via livestream.
• Throughout, the hosts reaffirm their commitment to evidence-based, intellectually honest coverage, even as they personally believe in Richard Allen's guilt.

---

This summary was designed to capture the essence, structure, and major insights of the episode, making it accessible and informative for listeners and non-listeners alike.

Transcript

[A]

Nemo, Gabo, then Doug.

[B]

There's nowhere I wouldn't go to help someone customize and save on car insurance with Liberty Mutual, even if it means sitting front row at a comedy show. Hey, everyone. Check out this guy and his bird. What is this, your first date? Oh, no.

[A]

We help people customize and save on

[B]

car insurance with Liberty Mutual together. We're married. Me to a human, him to a bird. Yeah, the bird looks out of your league. Anyways, get a'@libertymutual.com or with your local agent. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. Liberty. So here's how you can save up to 70% on your favorite brands from rebel.com has everything for your home, family and life, from strollers to skincare at unbeatable prices. Every day, REBBL drops thousands of new products for up to 70% off. It's a constant stream of endless deals from brands like Uppababy, Nuna, Baby Bjorn, Nespresso, Breville, Wilson, Dyson, Caraway and more. Every listing is one of a kind, and the best things go first, so you have to move fast. Save big on your favorite brands. Shop now for up to 70% at.

[A]

From rebel.com I'm Kevin, and today we're going to be talking about the recent decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals to grant an oral argument in the ongoing Delphi murders case, or more specifically, the conviction of Richard Allen. Content Warning this episode includes discussion of murder, including the murder of children. So before we get started, yeah, I think we probably most of us saw the news last week that an oral argument had been granted in the ongoing appeal of Richard Allen. Mr. Allen was convicted of the murder of Liberty German and Abigail Williams, and he. His attorneys, as is their right, have filed a number. They filed an appeal on his behalf in which they made a number of arguments as to why they think that his case was handled in an unfair way and why they think he deserves a new trial. And in their most recent filing, they said, we. We don't just want the Court of Appeals of Indiana. We don't just want them to make a decision. We want to have an oral argument. And Indiana Court of Appeals said, sure, we'll do it. So what does all that mean? We'll talk about it in a minute.

[B]

My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[A]

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

[B]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[A]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[B]

We're the Murder Sheet.

[A]

And this is the Delphi Murders the appeal. Oral arguments granted.

[B]

Sam.

[A]

You know, Anya, I think it's only natural. Whenever you have a process that is long, and God knows, anything that happens in the criminal justice system is a long process, it's very natural for people to look for signs as to what it means, because we're all impatient for what the final result is going to be. And so people have certainly been doing that in this case, even though I think we all know what the ultimate final conclusion of this story is going to be. Richard Allen is going to die in prison. But it's only natural, of course, for us to want to follow this appeals process. And we're all looking at the tea leaves, trying to figure out what it means. And I've seen a number of people saying, oh, golly, the fact that oral arguments were granted in this case, that's a big win for Richard Allen, and that's like a huge sign that they're going to vote his way. I just want to say right here at the top, no, this is basically more or less a routine thing. I mean, oral arguments aren't granted in every case, or they're granted in very few cases, but this is a very high principal profile case.

[B]

It's like the Indiana trial of the century. Like, I mean. Yeah.

[A]

And I want to tell people candidly that ever since this appeal was filed and ever since Mr. Allen's attorneys requested oral arguments, we've asked a lot of people what they think was going to happen. We talked to people who have no strong opinion on the case. We talked to people who think Mr. Allen is innocent. We talked to people who are convinced, as we are, that he is guilty. And all of them, all of them told us we think there's going to be oral arguments granted.

[B]

Yeah. Because this is the kind of case that would be granted in.

[A]

Yeah. It doesn't really mean anything. So I don't want people on either side of this to jump to any unwarranted conclusions.

[B]

I think it's important to just not read too many tea leaves into anything.

[A]

I don't know.

[B]

Like, I just, you know, I. I just, I. I don't know. I just think that happens too often in true crime. And a lot of things that people kind of think is a big deal is kind of more pro forma than you'd think, because there's, like, a system and there's a process and, you know, a case that's this big of a deal, I mean, you would. I think the appeals court would rightly be like, well, this one, this one's definitely a big one. We should probably hear him out.

[A]

I'll tell you in a minute. At what stage. I think maybe we can read a few tea leaves at least a little bit. Before I do that, I want to talk about the Indiana Court of Appeals. There are 15 judges on this court, but cases are not heard by all 15 judges. Cases are heard by a three judge panel and that judge panel has been chosen in this case. And Anya is going to talk about it in a moment, meet the judges. And that's, that's very interesting. God bless Anya.

[B]

We're not doing profile episodes. These are not profiles. We're just talking about what I found about them on newspapers dot com. We're never doing profile. We're never doing profile episodes.

[A]

Again, God bless Anya for doing that research. But again, no disrespect to the able, Ms. Kane.

[B]

The able. Was that a biblical pun?

[A]

Yeah, I'm doing like five level stuff

[B]

over here, playing 5D chess against me.

[A]

But I think we're used to the things happening in the US Supreme Court where no matter what your political leanings are, you know, oh, this judge is reliably conservative. We know how he's going to vote in this case. This justice is reliably liberal. We know how he's going to vote in this case. The information Anya is going to share with us is interesting, but I don't think it's going to offer any indication of how these people were going to vote.

[B]

I completely agree. And it offering it is not meant as such to be like, well, this guy used to be a prosecutor, so therefore he's going to side with all the prosecutor. That's not how, you know, that's that they're going to be applying the law. As we've talked about, appellate cases are largely about the law. And looking at was this a fair trial, was this defendant's rights violated?

[A]

So I was going to talk a little bit about what oral argument is like, but maybe before we do that, since I kind of clumsily brought it up.

[B]

5D chess moves.

[A]

I know. Why don't we meet the judges?

[B]

Yeah, sure. And again, never doing profile episodes. Again, this Delphi coverage, I'm embarrassed by those profile episodes.

[A]

See.

[B]

But yeah, you mentioned the appeals and I'm, I kind of just did a quick like, search about like, who are they, what cases were they on? Like just things like that. So first is, and I'm really terribly sorry if I do say her name wrong. I'm going to try my best, but honestly, I get on the Mic and I start pronouncing all words wrong and saying the wrong thing. So it's. It's the podcasters curse. Judge Nancy H. Vatic. She is a judge on the Indiana Court of Appeals. My understanding is she was appointed originally by Governor Frank o', Bannon, and then she was at some point, like, I think, served as chief judge. She's somebody who went to Valparaiso University as for undergraduate, but also for law school. And her most notable sort of professional experience prior to becoming a judge was being the deputy prosecutor and then chief deputy prosecutor in Indiana's Porter County. She was very involved in cases of juveniles, cases of domestic violence, cases of sexual assaults, cases of, I think, you know, victims assistance, things like that. And I looked up a couple cases. She did. She got a conviction in the case of Clifton Garth Driver, who is found guilty of involuntary manslaughter in the July 1980 shooting of his neighbor Ricky Good, who is 21. She got a conviction in the trial, murder trial of Richard Kirby, who was then 36 and was convicted of murdering his young son Jason, who was only five years old. That was in the middle of a divorce between Jason's parents. You know, Richard Kirby, I think, continued to proclaim his innocence. But I think basically my summary of the story, just from reading a couple newspaper articles, was that the story was like, he kind of took Jason out for the day, and then the kid ended up dead in a ditch, shot to death. And, you know, he got 60 years, but ultimately he got out after 28, which is just ridiculous, frankly. And those are some of the cases she did. So, you know, kind of some gritty murder cases. She's kind of has that prosecutorial experience and has. Yeah. Then has many years of being a judge. So that is the first judge on the list. The next one is Judge Elaine B. Brown. And my understanding is she was appointed in 2008, and she is. Is somebody who was an attorney and was a judge for many years in Dubois county in Indiana. Is that. Am I saying that right?

[A]

I think so.

[B]

Who knows? It's Indiana. We like to. We like to mix things up. Right. Versus Vers. What looks like Versailles is Versailles. Well, it looks like Milan is Milan, which is fun. Keeps you guessing. She's from Ferdinand, Indiana. She got her, like, Kevin got her undergraduate and law degrees at Indiana University in Bloomington. Go Hoosiers. And was actually a teacher in Jasper for a bit and then went into law as a judge. She founded Dubois County's drug court. She was a trial judge from 1987 to 1998 and then again from 2005 to 2008. I think it's cool that she founded the county's drug court. I think drug courts are a very worthwhile enterprise and seek to address addiction issues in defendants, seek maybe even some mental health issues sometimes and you know, try to keep people out of the system as much as possible and offer them treatment for these diseases. And I think that's wonderful. And she was, she presided over a trial where Jeffrey Allen SE was found not guilty of criminal deviant conduct against a 17 year old girl who was 15 years old at the time he allegedly sexually assaulted her. And he was not found not guilty of that. But then the jury deadlocked, I think on the rape charge. Prosecutor Bill Weikert asked Judge Brown to take the not guilty verdict under advisement. Ultimately, this Siegfried guy was sentenced to eight years for sexual misconduct. That was part of a plea deal. So that was one case I found that she worked on. And then the third and final judge, and again, I'm sorry if I'm saying his name wrong, is Judge Robert R. Althais Jr. He is, he was appointed by Governor Mike Pence and I believe started serving in 2015 and then his colleagues selected him to serve as chief judge for a time. So he got his bachelor's from Miami University of Ohio and has a master's in criminal justice from the University of Central Missouri and a J.D. from the University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law. He was a deputy and chief deputy prosecutor in Jackson County, Missouri. Then I think he went into civil. He went into like private practice for a while and then he went came to Marion County, Indiana. Marion county, for those of you who don't know, is where Indianapolis is and he became a deputy prosecutor here. So he did that for a while and then ultimately I believe in 2000 he was elected to the Marion Superior Court benchmark. He's worked a lot of pretty serious murder felony cases. I think he's done a couple of death penalty cases. From what I could see as a prosecutor, one thing he rather as a judge, one thing he was presiding over. In 2006, David W. Brown pled guilty but mentally ill in Marion county for murdering his 15 year old son Harley and shooting his daughter Ashley. And So Judge Altai Jr. Was on the case for that one. And in 1994 as a prosecutor, Altais was on a case of Robert Wilbert Wilberto Rivera, and that was a case where he was accused of shooting a guy. Judge Paula E. La Pasa overturned the whole thing. Basically acquitted him by saying that a witness kind of collapsed and couldn't like kind of fell apart on the state and she said it could not be proved that this was not self defense. So that case collapsed and Eltice was in the newspaper saying he was disappointed. In 1992 there was a murder, a man named Gary A. Moore. On February 23, 1992 he was murdered by a guy named Lance A. Wilson. This was like a cocaine dispute and Altai's got a conviction on that one. We stay busy with the podcast so I like my wardrobe to stay comfortable, easy and intentional. Something that I could put on that feels great while also looking super put together when we're going out to court or to an interview.

[A]

So thank goodness for our sponsor Quint's. We both love quints. They've got high quality products that we can actually afford. They help us elevate our look without breaking the bank.

[B]

These are the kinds of premium everyday essentials that you can wear all the time and incorporate into your wardrobe seamlessly. All their pieces are 50 to 80% less expensive than what you'd find at competitors. They keep costs low by cutting out middlemen and partnering directly with ethical factories and artisans.

[A]

100% European linen shorts and shirts to keep you cool this spring and summer from $34 clean 100% Pima cotton tees that are super soft to the touch.

[B]

I myself love wearing Quince's 100% European linen button front dress in blue chambray stripe. It's so light and airy. We're actually going to go out and hang out with friends soon and I'm probably going to put that on. It's the perfect going out outfit and it's just so comfortable. I wear it all the time.

[A]

Refresh your everyday with luxury you'll actually use. Head to Quince.com msheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.com msheet for free shipping and 365 day returns. Quince.com msheet

[B]

Day or night, Vrbocare is here 247 to help make every part of your stay seamless. If anything comes up or you send need a little guidance? Support is ready whenever you reach out from the moment you book to the moment you head home. We're here to help things run smoothly because a great trip starts with the right support. And hey, a good playlist doesn't hurt either.

[A]

Dish has been connecting communities like yours for the last 45 years, providing the TV you love at a price you can trust. Watch live sports news and the latest movies plus your favorite streaming apps, all in one place. Switch to DISH today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV starting at $89.99 a month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888-D dish or visit dish.com today.

[B]

And there was also a pretty heinous case in January 11th, 1996. There was two, two gentlemen where they were essentially like robbed, tied up, beaten and then shot. Like one of them went in to check on the other. Like it was a whole thing with these kind of two guys named Alfonso Harris and Kelly Elmore. Now he got convictions. They got 85 and 45 years. But Altais was in the newspaper saying he was disappointed by the 45 years because he want, he felt that was the minimum and he wanted the accomplice to get more. So that's just a brief snapshot of aspects of their careers. They're kind of seeing different things. You're seeing maybe some who, you know to two deputy prosecutors who had some pretty extensive experience on the prosecution side. One judge who is really more on the judge side and had her experience mostly in there. So Altice and Vadic are the prosecution. You know, that's their experience. But all of them have been judges of some kind for years. So very, very experienced panel here, Very experienced panel.

[A]

I, I know at one point we did a whole episode about oral arguments.

[B]

We did. And you should, honestly, people should listen to that because it's going to give you, that is actually an interview with a guy who is very experienced in giving oral arguments. So like listen to that. So you can kind of get more of a feel for this. We'll link to it in our show notes.

[A]

So I don't necessarily want to reinvent the wheel, but let's talk a little bit about what the oral argument in front of this three judge panel will be like. Basically the lawyers for each side will have an opportunity to present their case. And as they start talking, the judges will interrupt them and ask questions, usually tough, aggressive questions, trying to find the weaknesses in their cases, trying to poke and prod to get at the actual meat of the matter. And this is what I was referring to earlier when I said there is a point where maybe at least a little bit you can read tea leaves. Because sometimes in these oral arguments you can get an idea of where the judges heads are by what kind of questions they are asking. Is that fair to say?

[B]

Yes. It is. You can, you can kind of like see what you know. But like, I mean, it's not always that clear, in my opinion. It's not always that clear.

[A]

It's not always clear. That's why I said a little bit of maybe a tea leaf situation. Yeah, just a little bit.

[B]

Just a little bit.

[A]

I'll say. We don't know who on the defense side is going to handle the argument, but both, both of his attorneys, both of his appellate attorneys, Mr. Lehman and Ms. Uliana, have a lot of experience in this sort of venue. I'm sure whichever one gets the nod will do a fine job. We saw.

[B]

I've not been impressed with the writing from them so far. I'm just going to be honest, like, I was expecting a lot more. I felt like the Mark Lehman was on the case for getting Alan's trial team back together. You know, what a, what a Trojan horse of a gift that turned out to be. So that I, I felt, I felt like, with that, like the way they put those arguments together and filed those, I thought those were like, pretty what I would expect and kind of, that kind of like thoroughness and competency with this round. I've just not, I've not seen it. But maybe they will bring out, you know, something more impressive in person. So we got to be, you know, aware of that.

[A]

I would tend to agree that the brief in the earlier case was more. Was better handled.

[B]

It was way better handled. This is just a bunch of emotional, you know, tripe. I mean, it's just, I don't. It's not at all what I would expect from an appeals, you know, effort at all. It's. It's just this kind of like over the top rhetoric that feels like, frankly, Andrew Baldwin helped with that. And I mean that in the most derogatory way possible.

[A]

There is the classic law joke that I think I've referenced many times on this program, where if the facts are on your side, you pound the facts. If the law is on your side, you pound the law. If neither is on your side, you pound the table. And I felt that a lot of the briefs that Mr. Allen's team has produced so far in this appellate process have been pounding the table. They've just been kind of empty rhetoric like, oh, paper tigers, let's set a match to the paper tigers, blah, blah, blah. And I'm not sure how much of that is a reflection of the skills of the lawyers who handle this and how much of it is simply the fact that they didn't really have Very good arguments to make on behalf of Mr. Allen in this appeal, in my opinion.

[B]

What is the type of kryptonite that takes away Superman's powers? Is that gold kryptonite?

[A]

Gold kryptonite is the type of kryptonite that if Superman is exposed to it, he permanently loses his powers.

[B]

Okay, that's this case for a lot of people. And that's not just lawyers. That's not just lawyers. A lot of people come up against this case and they lose something. I don't know, maybe not permanently like Superman would, but I feel like this is the gold kryptonite of. Of cases for a lot of media people, for a lot of law people, too. I. I don't know what it is, but, yeah, I. I was not expecting this kind of like, you know, haranguing. It's just like, okay, just make your argument. You know what I mean? Why are you trying to pose for the cameras in your filing? I don't understand that. And frankly, I'm disgusted by it because it seems more like what. What you would do to benefit yourself rather than your own client, who, again, I think is guilty. But, like, I mean, that's neither here nor there. You got to get good representation. Maybe it's the best they felt they could do, though. I don't know.

[A]

I don't really think they had good arguments to make.

[B]

Maybe they didn't. And maybe then you gotta pound the table. I don't know.

[A]

Yeah, that's what that joke is. You don't have the facts or the law. You just pound.

[B]

I would prefer people not, because I just find it kind of insulting to everybody's intelligence, but I guess if that's all you can do, I just. I felt like. I don't know, I felt like these were weak arguments.

[A]

And if I recall correctly, when Mr. Lehman argued before the Indiana Supreme Court in his successful bid to have Mr. Rosie, Mr. Baldwin returned as Mr. Allen's attorneys. I think I thought he did a better job than you did.

[B]

I didn't care for his manner. It was very whiny. But I.

[A]

He won.

[B]

I. I give him credit for that. And I felt like his filings were good. I mean, you know, I don't know. I. I tend to have a. I tend to prefer and be biased. And this is probably different than a lot of people. I tend to be biased towards attorneys who are coming off as, like, more. Less emotional, which is probably ironic coming from the likes of me, but. But no, I do. I. Because it's like, okay, you know, we're taking this seriously. When you're like my clients, the saddest little guy in the world, it's like that makes me want to, like, just throw myself out a window. That's me personally. That. That doesn't mean that's ineffective. You know, other people might like that. In that case, that's what you should do in order to vigorously defend your client. I'm just talking about my personal personal preference.

[A]

And in my personal experience, I find that maybe juries can be swayed by the more emotional stuff.

[B]

But I agree.

[A]

I think when you're arguing before, it

[B]

makes me sad that that's the case.

[A]

When you're arguing before an appellate panel of judges, I think they're more likely to be persuaded by the actual facts and to disregard a lot of the emotionalism, which was another reason why I think both of us were a bit surprised by the tone of some of these filings from the defense team for Mr. Allen. So what happens after the oral argument? After both side has their presentation, they're both questioned. Oral argument is over. What happens then? Well, then the court considers the arguments and makes a decision. It's a three judge panel, so it's decided by simple majority vote. And then at some point after that, we'll find out what they decided when they issue an opinion. And the opinion may come out weeks, months, who knows?

[B]

Hopefully they'd expedite it. It's a pretty important case, but who knows? They may have a pretty, you know, crowded docket that they don't want to. I mean, I don't know.

[A]

So, Anya, do you think at that point, when the Court of Appeals issue issues its decision one way or the other, do you imagine then Ms. Kane, does the able, Ms. Kane imagine that at that point this will all be over?

[B]

No.

[A]

No. Because what would happen next is either side would have the option to request the Indiana Supreme Court court to review it. And that itself is on its own timeline. That's a long process that will take months before that court decides whether or not to hear it. And then things get scheduled, blah, blah, blah. So it's a very, very long process. And the oral arguments are by no means the end of the road.

[B]

So let me ask you something. So if the defense doesn't get what they want, if they don't get a new trial, if that's denied, they can go to the Supreme Court of Indiana and say, hey, can you give us another shot here?

[A]

Yes.

[B]

And if the state is told, yeah, you got a new, gotta go do another trial, they can also do the same.

[A]

They can ask the Supreme Court to review it.

[B]

Either side can do this.

[A]

Either side can do this.

[B]

Okay.

[A]

And I predict no matter what the ruling is, it will be appealed. It will be appealed. And I expect my own prediction. And I could be wrong because judges can always surprise you. I don't expect Mr. Allen's team to prevail.

[B]

No, I don't. I mean, but as you said, there can always be surprises. I would not have expected the Supreme Court of Indiana to put both Judge Francis Gull, the original trial court judge, and Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rosie, the original trial defense, on. Both on. Right. I would have expected, like, I think I thought that she would stay on and they would remain off. But ultimately I understood their reasoning. She didn't really make a proper record on that. And it wasn't the appropriate thing to just kind of unilaterally push them off, even if they technically withdrew. I think it's fair to say that, you know, that was kind of. She pushed him off, but I didn't think they'd be like, yeah, everyone get along or we're turning this car around. I did not expect that. So there are certain things that can happen that you don't expect.

[A]

Yes, definitely.

[B]

You know, but I think, yeah, it'll be interesting. One question I have for you is, okay, what if the Indiana Supreme Court, they get an appeal, whatever from either side. They're like, now we're not going to. Nope. Do what the appellate court said. What happens then? Can they go to the United States Supreme Court?

[A]

I guess in theory they can try.

[B]

Go to Washington, take it to D.C.

[A]

these are issues of national importance that somehow have something to do with federal rights or whatever or a dispute between the states. Let's take it to the U.S. supreme Court. They can always do that. But then at some point people will say, okay, there's no other places to appeal. Appeal this to. He is. He's lost. He's lost his criminal appeals. So at that point, then Mr. Allen can start pursuing his post conviction relief, which is a whole other kettle of fish that we probably should do an entire episode on. But when that happens, the government actor who will be in charge of representing the state's interests would be Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland.

[B]

And hypothetically it would go back to the trial court judge. But Judge Gull may be very much resigned by then.

[A]

Yeah, I forget when exactly her term is up, but I think it's retired, not resigned, retired. I think she will be. Probably be out of office by the time it would Reach her desk with

[B]

the Supreme Court of the United States. They would not be under any obligation to hear an appeal in this case. They wouldn't be like, they gotta deal with it, right?

[A]

Yes. And also the Indiana Supreme Court would not be under any obligation. They're only obligated in theory to consider it.

[B]

I don't. We can't afford a trip to D.C. right now. I'm just kidding. I'm just kidding.

[A]

We.

[B]

You know, I don't know what would happen with that, but gas prices are pretty bad, folks. No, I'm just kidding. I think. Yeah. I mean, I don't really see going that far either. But again, things can always surprise you. This case always has had a lot of weird stuff happen with it. So I'm not necessarily as solid as you are about, like, oh, nothing. You know, there's the meme online where it's like the nothing ever happens people. Right? Where the people. Like, that's not gonna happen. That's not gonna happen. I think you're very much in that. And I'm more like, I don't know. Stuff can happen, but stuff can happen. I know you know that. But my.

[A]

But again. And I could be wrong. I'm a human being. But I think in the larger sense of things, Richard Allen is correct. When he told Jerry Holman before he was arrested, it doesn't matter. It's over. Richard Allen knew he was a guilty man. He knew that the machinery of justice, once it began to work in his case, it would succeed and he would be incarcerated for the rest of his life. And he's correct. So a lot of this stuff that we're going through now is very important. We all have the rights to appeals if we're convicted, and that's. That's important. And all these things should be considered, but I don't expect him to win any of these appeals.

[B]

Yeah, I mean, there's just. I. I don't know. It's not just because we think he's guilty, folks. I mean, we do. We're very, very convinced of his guilt. I know he's guilty, but it's. It's. It's less that. I mean, we talked recently about the Alec Murdoch case. Right. I think he's guilty, too. Now, I don't. I'm a little bit more open on that one, because I'm not. I don't consider myself like a case expert. We're kind of following it along at this point and trying to catch up. But, you know, I feel like he's guilty, but, like, that stuff that came out in that case with the, you know, the county clerk and what she was doing and whatever. I felt like there was a. Even if I thought he was guilty, I was like, yeah, that seems really inappropriate. And it feels like a higher court could take that very seriously.

[A]

And in another local case from my hometown, a woman named Sharon Myers was killed, was murdered. And I believe the right person was convicted in that crime. I believe he was a guilty man, but I believe he got an unfair trial.

[B]

So, yeah, that was Jason Hubble. He absolutely murdered that woman. He's a guilty murderer. But if his rights were violated, you. You can't. That. That can't stand.

[A]

You can't stand.

[B]

You can't stand. That's not justice. So. And then, you know, a lot of people have a hard time with that because it's like, well, what about the victim? Yeah, but unfortunately, I mean, not unfortunately correctly, our system is predicated on protecting the rights of the defendant. And that can feel really horrible to a lot of victims, families. And I understand that. I'm sympathetic with it, but I think it's the. The correct way to do things and. Because it also protects innocent people. But it's, you know, it's troubling. But if I felt like I saw issues like that in this case, I would also, you know, I'd be like, well, that stinks. But even though he's guilty, gotta give him a new trial. I mean, I. You gotta be intellectually honest at the end of the day, or you. You've got. Or you don't deserve to be saying anything. I mean, that's not the case amongst the Richard Allen truthers. For them, it's black and white thinking. It's everything, you know, everything, you know, that's evidence against Richard Allen I will lie about or ignore. And everything that makes him sound sympathetic or makes it sound like he's getting out, I will, you know, amplify. We're not. I don't. I. We don't operate like that. If we felt like there was something here that was unfair to him, I would be very honest about it. And I would be like, oh, man, that, you know, that's not good. But for this, it's just like so much of it is just like reheated leftovers for the billionth time.

[A]

Which to a certain extent is what the appeals process.

[B]

It's not. But it's like, but. But act. But, like, I guess I just didn't expect an appeals process to have so much like, half truth. And that's putting it very nicely in it. I thought there was some kind of commitment to, like, let's be honest, the

[A]

appeals process is all about rehashing things.

[B]

I get, I get the rehashing is not the problem, but the like, the like kind of omission is for me.

[A]

And then on a more practical level, I want to point out that if you are interested in this case, you know, God bless you, you don't have to worry if you're interested in seeing this. You don't have to come to the courthouse and stand in line for hours. You can stay at home. It's going to be live streamed.

[B]

We'll probably do that just on instinct. Right. That's what we're used to. Show up at 1am Wait, why are we doing this?

[A]

But the people. You don't have to do that.

[B]

Don't do it. Don't do it. You're going to wreck your mental health for a long time. Don't do it, kids. Don't try this at home. Yeah, don't do it. You can just, what? You can just stream it.

[A]

And I'm glad of that. I think it's a good thing when things like this are made available to the public so people can see things for themselves and not just have to rely on people like you and me to tell you what we think of it.

[B]

Yeah. And you might form a different opinion. That's okay. You might say, well, I found this compelling or that compelling or whatever. You know, I think it's better when more people have information. Typically, I mean, sometimes a trial gets sensationalized anyways. So I'm a little bit more. I'm a little bit less like optimistic about stuff like that because I've seen cases still go off the rails and it's like, why does everyone believe this? Oh, because that's how it's being spun on social media. Because a lot of people can watch stuff, but they don't necessarily have the background to interpret it. And that's, you know. But I think if you watch enough trials and if you watch enough legal proceedings, you develop those skills. I don't feel like I had the ability to do that in the beginning, but honestly, watching it with Kevin, asking him questions, what's going on has helped me, I feel like, be able to read the stuff a bit better. Not, not to the same extent a lawyer could, but I feel like I can, I can get through it more now than I could in the beginning, where I'd just be like, what is going on? Anything else about oral arguments? So what's this. When's this going down?

[A]

This is happening, I believe in September. And it's going to be at the Supreme Court's court room, which is in

[B]

the Indiana State Capitol.

[A]

Yeah. So they're probably choosing that location because it's a little bit bigger so more people who are interested can come. But again, you don't have to do that. You can stay at home.

[B]

Sounds like you're trying to convince them to stay at home. Ulterior motives.

[A]

You just stay at home in the comfort of your own home. You can have beverages with you.

[B]

That's important.

[A]

You can't do that in the courtroom.

[B]

Right. I remember the last time they did oral arguments here. You went. We got one press pass. You went in. I like, hung out in this weird phone booth thing, like, for the entirety of the duration.

[A]

And a number of people comment on how odd that was.

[B]

No one commented on that.

[A]

You were just hanging out in a phone booth.

[B]

I want to talk to people. Leave me being antisocial. Well, I wanted somewhere and then like, they had. It's. They actually had it on a screen outside the room. So I was kind of watching it. There wasn't really, like. I think there wasn't a lot of places to sit, but yeah. So I'll be curious to see what happens this time. You got September. I'm trying to think of if there was anything else, like, I had a question about for you, but, yeah, I think, you know, it's a case that will go through the process and we'll follow it as it does. But I would just encourage you, like, if you see Richard Allen truthers, like, screaming about anything. I just, I'm not trying to be mean here, although they certainly deserve it, but, like, I don't. They don't really understand how anything works and they never have. And a lot of the creators who know better who kind of feed into that sort of thing, you know, they're doing so in order to, you know, cement their position and get them to donate money to them. So I, I would just say, like, sometimes I think, like, the normal people who don't want to, like, be fanboying and girling over child murderer who's like a disgusting sex pest. I think they, they see this and they're like, oh, my gosh, like, this is a really big deal. And I would just say, like, few things are, you know, it would be a big deal if they granted him a new trial. But assigning oral arguments is not really much to go on.

[A]

Before we go. First of all, is there Anything you wanted, Me. Wanted to talk about before I conclude?

[B]

Well, no, we'll be covering it and we'll be, you know, looking at it before we go.

[A]

We would be remiss if we did not quickly mention that we are starting to make our premium services more robust. We have the Patreon where you get ad free and early episodes, a couple of extra episodes. Now we're also offering those same things on Apple. You can subscribe through Apple, you can get some extra episodes, get ad free episodes, early release. And Anya is cooking up ideas for even more new content and extra content for us to offer at those platforms. And it doesn't matter whether you sign up for Patreon or Apple, we'll make sure you get the same extra content.

[B]

Yeah, don't sign up for both.

[A]

Unless. Unless, again, unless you want to make me really happy.

[B]

Don't. I. Don't waste your money. Everyone, we gotta. I don't want anyone to get ripped off, so just don't.

[A]

Unless you want to make me.

[B]

You don't have to do that. You know, you could just. Let's not. Kevin's trying to, like, lean into some parasocial nonsense right now and I'm trying to de. Influence you. That's what's happening. If you, you know, if you. If you want to, don't do both. Don't. Don't waste your money. That's my take.

[A]

Are we done?

[B]

Yes. Thank you guys for listening. Bye.

[A]

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.

[B]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com/murder sheet. 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.

[A]

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

[B]

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. Tired of overpaying with DirecTV dish offers

[A]

a reliable low price every month without surprises. Get the TV you love and start watching live sports news and the latest movies, plus your favorite streaming apps, all in one place. Switch to DISH today and lock in the lowest price in satellite TV, starting at $89.99 a month with our two year price guarantee. Call 888 add dish or visit dish.com today.