Richard Allen's Own Prison Doctor Walked Into His Cell and Saw This

Tony Brueski (0:01)

This is HiddenKillers Live with Tony Brueski and Robin Drake.

Tony Brueski (0:08)

The Delphi case, big, big hearing just the other day, and we're going to dive into it with Bob Motta, who's been in the courtroom, and Robin Drake with his expert analysis. Before we get into that, and we're going to watch some of what happened in front of the Indiana Supreme Court, you've got to think here. When we think about justice for Abby and Libby, we expect the police to build a rock-solid case, at least, you know, if that's your goal.

But what happens when the foundation of that case is a confession pulled from a man who has completely lost his mind? For 13 months, Richard Allen was locked in solitary confinement, completely isolated.

Bob Motta is here to help us break down how this happens in an American prison. But first, let's listen to how the defense describes the horrific reality of the confinement that Richard Allen was in. This is in front of the Indiana Supreme Court Defense Attorney. Leeman starts by describing the unprecedented move of throwing a man who hasn't been convicted of anything straight into the hole. And how the state actively exploited his mental collapse.

Mark Leeman (1:24)

Let's take a look.

This against Rick Allen were unprecedented, unfair and unconstitutional. Unprecedented because for the first time in Indiana's modern history, the state took a pretrial detainee directly to a cell known as the hole, kept him there as he descended to psychosis and became gravely disabled, treated him worse than anyone else in his situation, and procured statements by exploiting his decompensation. Unfair and unreliable because the jury heard only one story, the trial court systematically barred Allen from proving that he was not the man on the bridge, not the man in the woods killing the girls, and not the man who left that bizarre and deliberate scene. And unconstitutional because the state told the judge a story to get the warrant for Allen's house. The warrant, its entire case was built on. This is not how a system should work, it is how a system fails.

Robin Drake (2:21)

What's your strongest issue?

Mark Leeman (2:24)

Judge, I think the unfair, the suppression issue and the unfair trial are both strong issues, but I would say it really depends on the judge. There are certain issues that if you want to write a very narrow opinion that seems to me to be very simple and easy to write, is the motion to correct errors, NAPU error. That if you want to say that this behavior stops here in Indiana, and that you want to draw a line that this should never happen to another Hoosier again, then the confessions issue is sitting there.

If this court wants to address the very unique.

Tony Brueski (3:04)

Bob Motta, you were there in the courtroom when this was going on. Take us there. What was it like? How do you think some of these initial arguments to the Indiana Supreme Court were received by Richard Allen's folks?

Bob Motta (3:18)

Yeah, it was a fascinating day. It was a good day.

I got there, I stayed the night in Indianapolis the night before, and got to the courthouse.

I had been given a media credential, so I didn't have to worry about the line, which took a lot of pressure off me, because you want to make sure that you're going to get in, and I've been covering this longer than anybody, and I deserve to be in that room. I wanted to be in that room. It did not disappoint. You got your hot bench, which if you guys out there are used to watching trials, appellate arguments are very different. I just want to clarify, T, it was held at the Supreme Court, but that was not the Supreme Court judges, so that will be the next step. Those were appellate level judges, but it was held in the Supreme Court courtroom, like that was the exact room that I did sit and watch the Supreme Court justices reinstate the attorneys back in. So I just want to be clear on that. So, you know, you get a hot bench, and a hot bench refers to, you have a lawyer making argument, and all of a sudden, he starts getting peppered, or she starts getting peppered with questions in the middle of their statement or their argument. That's normal, that happens in every appellate case. It's an entirely different thing than when you're dealing with a trial, right? That's a completely different process, a completely different argument style, and this is one of those, hold on man, pause me for a second, my dog is going nuts. Come there.