Fearsome Franks: Lying to Obtain a Search Warrant (Delphi Murders)

The first batch of new defense motions in the STATE OF INDIANA v. #RICHARDALLEN have been filed. They include an AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS related to the October 13, 2022 search of Rick Allen’s home, as well as a MOTION FOR BROADCASTING ORDER.
__________

“AMENDED MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE FRUITS OF [RICHARD ALLEN’S HOME]:

On October 28, 2022, as a direct result of one firearm recovered from Defendant Allen’s home, the State of Indiana filed an Information alleging Defendant Allen committed two counts of Felony Murder. On the same day, the Court found probable cause for Defendant Allen’s arrest.

The search of Defendant Allen’s home was unconstitutional for the following reasons: (excerpt)

a. The issuance of the search warrant was a result of an improper ex-parte application for the search warrant in that the Affiant, Sheriff Tony Liggett, failed to advise the issuing Judge of material facts and made false and misleading representations with a reckless disregard for the truth. Without these false and misleading representations and omissions, a search warrant would not have been issued.”
__________

“MOTION FOR BROADCASTING ORDER:

Comes now the [Defendant, by Counsel], and pursuant to Rule 2.17 of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct, respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order authorizing the public broadcasting of future courtroom proceedings in this cause…

5. The recent pilot program, in which the Special Judge [JUDGE GULL] in this case participated, concluded during the Spring of 2022. Feedback from participating Judges and other relevant professionals includes, but was not limited to the following comments:

“The media has been patient with delays in the hearings, and for the most part has been unobtrusive and accommodating of the Sheriff’s security concerns regarding camera placement. They have been professional in their coverage and presence.”
https://times.courts.in.gov/2022/03/24/broadcast-pilot-project-allows-cameras-in-court

b. The sitting Judge in this cause has participated in the pilot program, communicated her positive experiences with cameras in the courtroom, and therefore, her past experiences with the process will instill a high degree of confidence that the process will be carried out with efficiency and will not hinder and/or materially alter the proceeding…
..
d. Throughout the investigation in this case, law enforcement authorities routinely sought out the help of the public through press conferences. Allowing the public to observe the proceedings to their finality, will build the trust of the public moving forward. In contrast, any attempts to maintain confidentiality with future proceedings would be inconsistent with the concept of transparency as recommended by COSCA and the Community Relations Committee of the Supreme Court of Indiana;

e. The passage of time since the commission of the crimes has resulted in the aging of the handful of child witnesses that once existed in this case. Therefore, Defendant Allen’s legal team anticipates there will be very few minors, if any, who will testify at the trial in this cause.

f. To the extent there is a need to shield the Victims’ family members from the public eye, such an intent is without merit as many of the family members have voluntarily taken to social media and other media outlets, with broad coverage areas, and participated in the media’s coverage of the investigation, over the past 6 years.

g. Counsel for the defense anticipates that many of the witnesses will be law enforcement officials and other experts who will likely testify regarding their specific areas of expertise and therefore, individuals who are generally comfortable in courtroom proceedings. This will reduce the risk of unpredictable behavior from witnesses and other participants; and

h. Many of the circumstances surrounding this case were kept confidential by law enforcement officials, leading up to the filing of charges against Defendant Allen. Early courtroom filings were also kept confidential by Order of this Court. Said Order on confidentiality has been lifted. Offering up transparency through the remainder of the case will increase the public trust in the judicial process.

7. In the alternative, Defendant Allen requests that the Court consider authorizing the broadcasting of pre trial proceedings to assess the practicality, advantages and disadvantages of broadcasting any future trial in this cause.”
__________

Check out THE UNRAVELING on:

🌐 https://www.facebook.com/groups/3078212139155406/
🐦 https://twitter.com/The_unraveling8
🕚 https://www.tiktok.com/@the_unraveling
📸 https://www.instagram.com/the_unraveling88/