Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The Indiana Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Monday for the case of Richard Allen, the man convicted in November 2024 for the 2017 murders of two teenage girls in Delphi.
Mark Leeman, one of Allen’s appeals attorneys, told the court that initial proceedings against Allen were unprecedented, unfair, unreliable and unconstitutional from beginning to end.
His argument repeated claims Allen’s attorneys made when they filed an appeal to his case in March 2025. They brought three issues to oral arguments, according to court documents.
They said a search of his home in 2022 was unconstitutional. That made evidence used in the trial inadmissible, as law enforcement omitted or altered important facts in their warrant application.
His attorneys argued that statements Allen made during pretrial solitary confinement were involuntary and inadmissible because they were made while he was experiencing psychosis during an unconstitutional detention.
They also argued that the trial court denied his right to a fair trial by denying the inclusion of certain pieces of evidence to support his innocence.
One of the biggest points of contention in Allen’s case is his experience in solitary confinement. Upon his arrest in November 2022, Allen was held in solitary confinement in the Westville Correctional Unit for approximately 13 months. This confinement exceeds Indiana Department of Corrections policy, which caps solitary confinement at 30 days.
His appeals team argued that the state was “deliberately indifferent” to Allen’s mental health and caused him psychological pain by fighting to keep him in solitary confinement, despite him displaying evidence of psychosis.
Leeman said Monday that the state mischaracterized Allen’s condition as being “colorful and dramatic,” convincing the judge in his case to keep him in place and deny the defense’s emergency request to transfer him.
Leeman reasoned that none of the confessions Allen made during this time were reliable due to his psychosis.
But Ellen Meilaender, an attorney for the state, said Allen was kept in solitary confinement for his own safety, and transferring him would’ve done more harm than good. Further, Allen wasn’t completely without resources during his confinement and was able to communicate with loved ones.
Meilaender also argued that several of the confessions Allen made, including to his wife, mother and doctor, were not when Allen was actively in psychosis.
Leeman also argued that the court committed an error by not allowing certain pieces of evidence into trial, including the possibility that someone else committed the crimes. The attorney emphasized the possibility of a suspect who partook in Pagan rituals that were depicted at the crime scene. Leeman said police had ample evidence to investigate this other suspect but chose not to pursue it.
The state responded to Leeman’s argument by emphasizing that the man they were referring to had an airtight alibi during the time of the murders. Ultimately, the state said, Allen identified himself to police as being on the trail that day, which trumps suspicion of other suspects.
On the topic of the appellant’s argument that police did not have concrete evidence to support a search of Allen’s home, the state argued that Allen’s admission to being on the bridge around the time of the murders was enough to pursue a search warrant.
Oral arguments were heard by appellate judges Nancy Vaidik, Elaine Brown and Robert Altice Jr.
The judges will issue an opinion once they’ve determined whether to uphold or reverse the lower court’s decision. That can take months in some cases.
The case is Richard Allen v. State of Indiana, 25A-CR-00591.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.