Delphi unsealed documents

=A i \ SE 1) = wo oe ic ER Er 5A) Te : Ea£5 FEESEm SZgE 4&Sy SE \ %87d/ ro { ¥ w ke \ A i 24 = a =i ¢ } EXHIBIT "B" eM & YY i % oH 2 Re ee Fea: soacas 221 pw Carrol Oreo Carel County, dana STATEOFINDIANA ~~) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Jss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 | staTE OF INDIANA ) ) | ws ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA | THE STATE OF INDIANA, TO THE SHERIFF, GREETINGS: | ‘You are hereby commanded to summon the Indiana Department of Corrections, c/o Westville Correctional Facility, 5501 § 1100 W, Westville, IN 46391,to permit Attomey, Bradley A. Rozzi, Attorney, Andrew J. Baldwin, and their | | agentsto enter onto the Westville Correctional Facility for the purposeof inspecting, ‘measuring, surveying, and photographing the individual cell block(s), and surounding facility, wherein Defendant Richard Allen has been continuously incarcerated since Novemberof2022. Said event shall occur within thirty (30) daysofthe issuance of this Subpoena as referenced below. WITNESS, this (Rayof iy, 2023. | HILLIS, HILLS; R0ZZ1 & DEAN 5 JIA.oCRozzi, Ajtorney fof Defendant gt Fourth Stree fogansport, IX46947 §74-12240560 Hnas, Hrs Rozat & DEAN. 110 | STATE OF INDIANA |) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT | ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) ‘CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 | | STATE OF INDIANA ) | ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO NON-PARTY Pursuant to Trial Rule 34 (A)(2)ofthe Indiana RulesofTrial Procedure, | attomey Bradley A. Rozzi requests, Indiana Department of Corrections, clo | Westville Correctional Facility, 5501 S 1100 W, Westville, IN 46391, a Non-Party, to produce and permit the examinationofthe following: To permit entry onto designated land or other property in the possession or | controlofthe Indiana Departmentof Corrections (c/o Westville Correctional | Facility) for the purposeofinspecting, measuring, surveying, and | ‘photographing the individual cell block(s), and surrounding facility, wherein Defendant Allen has been continuously incarcerated since Novemberof 2022 pursuant to the Safekeeping Order entered herein on November 3, 2022. Attorney, Bradley A. Rozzi, Attorney, AndrewJ. Baldwin, andtheiragent are available to inspect the premises, upon reasonable notice, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.or on any other time convenientfor the DepartmentofCorrections and Movants. Bradley A. Rozzi requests that such production be made to Bradley A. Rozzi, | by mailinga copyofsaid documents to Bradley A. Rozzi, 200 Fourth Street, Logansport, Indiana 46947. This Request for Production is made pursuant to Trial Rule 34(C), and the producing party is entitled to security against damages or paymentofdamages resulting from this request and may respond to this request by submitting to its terms, — by proposing different terms, by objecting specifically or generally to this request by Roza & Drax. iic| serving a written response or by moving to quash as permitted by Trial Rule 45(B). soe Failure to respond to this Request for Production or to object to it or to move to xara. quash, as provided by the Indiana Rulesof Civil Procedure within (30) days from its e— receipt, may subject producing party to a Motion for Sanctions, pursuant to Trial Rule BravesA Bown 37ofthe Indiana RulesofTrial Procedure. I HILLIS, HILLIS, ROZZI & By: TN ’ (BradiegA. Rozz Attonfey forDefendant 30 Furth Str Logansport, IN 46947 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that I have served acopyofthis document byfirstclass U.S. Mail, postage prepaid upon Indiana Departmentof Corrections, c/o Westville Correctional Easily 5501 100 ¢ Westville, IN 46391 and he Caroll Cony Prosstor's Office,the | 1¥ayofMay, 2023. dey Rozz, A A)#2346549 [ILLIS, HILLIS/ROZZ] & DEAN Huss, Huss, Roza & Drax, tho Filed: 972023 120 P10 Camo Creu Court arti County, Indiana STATEOFINDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) TO: Robert P. Baston, #209210 clo Westville Correctional Facility 5501S 1100 W Westville, IN 46391-0473 SUBPOENA ‘The State of Indiana, to the Sheriff ofsaid County, Greetings: Youarehereby commanded to summon Robert P. Baston, #209210, c/o Westville Correctional Facility, 5501 S. 1100 W., Westville, IN 46391-0437, to appear for a hearing on Thursday, June 15, 2023, at 7:30 a.m. in the Carroll Circuit Court, 101 W. Main Street, #206, Delphi, IN 46923 to testify in the above captioned cause and return this summons. WITNESS, Clerkofsaid Court, this 9% dayofJune, 2023. HILLIS, HILLIS, ROZZI & DEAN \ gic A. Rozzi, Aglorney for Defendant Huss, His, LS, HILLISAKOZA & DEAN ar 200 Fousth Sieet Pde Logsmpon, IN 4322 A LAPORIDKYDIVSNY INDIANASTATEFOLICE peeves vias am Bnd Cacao SE CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS earlre Cot ZPBEAR 1ninspots Regions! Laborstory Telephone: (317) 921-5300 i Li DOREY 550 W. 16th Street, SuiteC Toll Free: (866) 855-2840 REREIRY ers sin: ox ametses GY oconer 19,202 HA SI M. JAY HARPER INDIANA STATE POLICE/ DISTRICT 14 5921 STATE ROAD 43 NORTH WEST LAFAYETTE, IN 47906 Laboratory Case Numbers 17K-00066 Roquest Number: 002s Roquest Type: Firearms Agency Case Number: imispeooizas Laboratory activites were performed between 10/14/2022 and 10/19/2022. DESCRIPTION OF ITEMS: Laboratory Item 016 Sealed paper bag containing a sealed envelope containing a Agency Item 122 40 Saw cartridge. RESULTS/OPINIONS/INTERPRETATIONS: The cartridge In item 016 was identified as having been cycled in the firearm in item 314 from Tndians State Police Laboratory Case Number 19K-00157 (indana State Police Agency Case Number 17ISPC001748-2). REMARKS: Identification: An identification opinion Is reached when the evidence exhibits an agreement of class characteristics and a sufficient agreement of individual marks. Sufficient agreement is related to the significant. duplication of random striated/impressed marks as evidenced by the correspondence of a pattern or Zombination of pattems of surface contours. The Interpretation of dentfication s cubjective in nature, and based on relevant scientific research and th reporting examiner’ training and experience. METHODOLOGY USED TO REACHRESULTS/OPINIONS/ INTERPRETATIONS: Microscopic Comparison rorue 08 notes tir rentarcoAD. Ato me abs ismapi tic vier ostA INDIANA STATE POLICE LABORATORY DIVISION CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Melissa Oberg Forensic Sdentist Firearms Unk LabonteCombe 1 006 neo Revive675 Acero AVS odAionBord OVA) Aled ie 91. Re coy eswd,ostLyTtitl eres li en. A INDIANA STATE POLICE LABORATORY DIVISION 4 Fem asa 4 \ Carrol Gircun Court Pp ozsAY CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS cuca cre cout PEERY odinapis Region Labortory Telephone: (317) 921-5300 Z| FA PURER] 550 W. 16th Street, SuiteC Toll Free: (866)855-2840 ot IBY incianapolis, I 46202 FAX: (IS21-566 —v VW Ooiober 15,2022 0B EEAR SEA M. JAY HARPER INDIANA STATE POLICE / DISTRICT 14 5921 STATE ROAD 43 NORTH WEST LAFAYETTE, IN 47906 Laboratory Case Number: 19K-00197 Request Number: 0008 RequestType: Firearms. Agency Case Number: 17159C001748-2 Laboratory activities were performed between 10/14/2022 and 10/19/2022. DESCRIPTION OFITEMS: Laboratory Item 314 ‘Sealed cardboard box containing one Sig Sauer, Model P226, Agency Item MCB 40 SAW callber pistol, serial numberU 625 627. Laboratory Item 31471 Sealed manila envelope containing test fired and cycled ammunition from the firearm in item 314. Laboratory Item 31472 ‘Sealed manila envelope containing test fired and cycled ‘ammunition from the firearm in item 314. Laboratory Item 31473 Sealed manila envelopecontainingtest fired and cycled ammunition from the firearm in item 314. Laboratory Item 315 Sealed plastic beg containing one cartridge. Agency Item MC9 Laboratory Item 316 ‘Sealed plastic bag containing one cartridge. Agency Item MCL0 Laboratory Item 317 Sealed plastic bag containing one magazine containing elght Agency Item MC11 cartridges and another magazine containing nine cartridges. RESULTS/OPINIONS/INTERPRETATIONS: The firearm In item 314 was examined for functional defects and test fired. No functional defects were found. LrCaen 0197 pias Root75 Jestty Sr Buse(ANA) Acids91 et oy oe ovine Tkesbo RS INDIANA STATE POLICE LABORATORY DIVISION CERTIFICATE OFANALYSIS Examinationofthe cartridge in item 315 revealed it to be a 40 S&W caliber cartridge manufactured by or marketed as Winchester. Examination of the cartridge in item 316 revealed it to be a 40 S&W caliber cartridge manufactured by or marketed as Blazer. Examination of the two magazines In item 317 revealed each to be a 40 S&W caliber staggered box magazine manufactured by or marketed as Sig Sauer having a capacity of ten cartridges. Examination of the seventeen cartridges in item 317 revealed each to be a 40 SBW caliber cartridge manufactured by or marketed as Blazer. The cartridge in item 016 from Indiana State Police Laboratory Case Number 17K-00066 (Indiana State Police Agency Case Number 17ISPC001748) was identified as having been cycled in the firearm in item 314. A test fired cartridge case from item 314T1 was entered into the IBIS database. Images of item 314T1 were sent to the BATF National Correlation and Training Center for review. The test fires in items 314T1, 31472, and 31473 will be returned to the contributor. It is recommended that the test fires are retained for a periodofat least five years. REMARKS: Identification: An Identification opinion is reached when the evidence exhibits an ‘agreement of class characteristics and a sufficient agreement of individual marks. Sufficient agreement is related to thesignificant duplication of random striated/impressed marks as evidenced by the correspondence of apattern or combination of patterns of surface contours. The interpretation of identification is subjective In nature, and based on relevant scientific research and the reporting ‘examiner's training and experience. METHODOLOGY USED TO REACH RESULTS/OPINIONS/INTERPRETATIONS Physical Examination and Classification of Firearms. Function Test Barrel and Overall Length Measurement Test Firing Ammunition Component Characterization Microscopic Comparison NIBIN Lotomory CoeNanber 196.0057 P2013 Revit by4575 ceiyANSIKato AcaiBou (NAB). Acct 191. Rests eel heesc.Devi ro aor TsMelos re portof wl spi. INDIANA STATE POLICE LABORATORY DIVISION CERTIFICATE OF ANALYSIS Melissa Oberg Forensic Sdentist Firearms Unk LubyCueober 190097 Pesan) Revive575 ectionBd(ANA). Acidne9. Reto be er ied Deisom Ik Te ih esefepaloa lspci. Fila: s19r2023 2:21 pit Carrol Circa Carrol County. 5 | STATEOF INDIANA ©) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Jsst | COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) NOTICE OF DISCOVERY. ComesnowtheDefendant, Richard Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, and serves upon the Indiana Departmentof Corrections, c/o Westville Correctional Facility, 5501 S 1100 W, Westville, IN 46391, 2 Subpoena and Request for Production to Non-Party to be answered within thirty (30) days from the date of service. See attached. ols ralafney for Defendant | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1certify that 1 have served a copyofthis document by first lass U.S. Mail, ‘postage prepaid upon Indiana DepartmentofCorrections, c/o Westville Correctional Facility, 5501 S$ 1100 W, Westville, IN 46391 and by the County c-filing system upon the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin, the 19" dayofMay, 2023. yo￾116, Hse, Biley Aji, 12336509 CEa PEEaveh GoeTour See Soosmmoen i ner LogansporN6947 | STATE OF INDIANA ] IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Jes COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) w ) ) RICHARD M_ ALLEN ) ORDER Comesnow the Court and having coramumicated with the parties onDefendant Allen's Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure of Defendant's Mental Health Records, now grants said Mbtion and orders the Indiana DepartmentofComections ‘andlorany othe departments, aw enforcement agencies, andlor individusls assuring Jumisdictionoverthe careand the custody ofRichardM.Allen (DIO/B: 99/72) to release to Attomey BradleyA. Rozzi andlorAndrew Baldwin, upon the vaitten request oreither, any and ollmentalhealthrecordsassociated with RichardM. Allen, without the necessity ofthe execution of consents andlor waivers byDefendant Allen or his agents. Ordered FRANCES C. GULL, SPECIAL JUDGE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA STATEOF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL Fr CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) = ) RICHARD M. ALLEN } SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON SAFEKEEPING Comes now the Honorable Frances C. Gull, Special Judge in the above captioned cause, and orders the Indiana Department of Corrections, through its Commissioner, to transport Defendant Allen to the Cass County Jail, Cass County, Indiana, and release DefendantAllen to thecareand custodyofthe Cass County Sheriff, Edward Schroder. Defendant Allen shall remain in thecareand custodyofthe Cass County Sheriff atthe Cass County Jail, pending a resolutionofthis cause. The Court further orders the to facilitate the transferofDefendantAllento and from all scheduled hearings in this cause unless otherwise ordered by this Court. All ofwhich is Ordered. : FRANCESC.GULL,SPECIALJUDGE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA STATEOF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ; ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER Comes now the Court and having reviewed Defendant Allen's Verified Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction, finds that immediate and ireparable injury, los, or damage will result in the absenceofan order pending a hearing inthis cause. As such, the Court grant said Order and herein directs the Indiana Departmentof Corrections, by and through is staff from video taping any further attorney-client conferences between Defendant Allen and his legal team. The Court further orders that Defendant Allen's legal team shall be afforded the opportunity to utilizetheir aptop computers and cellphones in the course of conducting conferences with Defendant Allen at the Westville Correctional Facility and/or any other DepartmentofCorrection facilities wherein Defendant Allen may be housed. Further, this mater shall be scheduled for hearing on Defendant Allen's request for preliminary injunction on Ordered — FRANCESC.GULL,SPECIALJUDGE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA STATEOF INDIANA ~~) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Jsst COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ORDER Comes now the Court and having reviewed Defendant Allens Motion for Order on Continuing DisclosureofDefendant’s Mental Health Records, now grants said Motion and orders the Indiana DepartmentofCorrections and/or any other Departments and/or individuals assuming jurisdiction over the care and the custody of Richard M. Allen to release to Attorneys Rozzi and Baldwin, upon their written request, any and all ‘mental health records associated with Richard M. Allen without the necessityofthe excautionoffurther Contents and Waivers by Defendant Allen. Ordered 9 . FRANCES C. GULL, SPECIAL JUDGE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA Fld:452023 10:39 AM PE | STATEOF INDIANA ~~) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Jss: | COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 | STATE OF INDIANA ) ) | vs. ) | ) | memes atams ) EMEGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY SAFEKEEPING ORDER ‘Comesnowthe Defendant, Richard M. Allen, by and through his Attorney, Bradley A. Rozz, and respectfully requests that this Court modify the Court Order (“Safekeeping Order”) entered on November 3, 2022, in this cause. Tn support ofsaid | Motion, Attomey Rozzi states as follows: | 1. On or about October 28, 2022, Mr. Allen was charged with two (2) ‘Counts of Murder. Mr. Allen’sbondwas set in the amountof20 million dollars; 2. On November 3, 2022, prior to Counsel being assigned to Mr. Allen, the Carroll County Sheriff, via formal Motion, filed his Request by the Sheriff of Carroll County, Indiana, to Transfer Inmatefrom the Custodyofthe Sheriffo the Custody of the Indiana DepartmentofCorrectionsfor Safekeeping; 3. On the same day, November 3, 2022, the Honorable Benjamin A. Diener, Judgeofthe Carroll Cireuit Court, executed a Court Order granting the Sheriff’s request and further ordered the Carroll County Sheriffto transfer Mr. Allen to a facility, within | the Indiana Department of Corrections, as designated by the Commissionerofthe Departmentof Corrections, suitable for Mr. Allen’s safekeeping. All decisions regarding Mr.Allen'sdetention circumstances were made prior to Counsel being en | assigned to Mr. Allen to speak on his behalf. No formal hearing regardingthe Sheriffs tom & Drax. rio| safekeeping request have been conducted asofthe dateoffilingofthis motion; oarmavons insone 4. Mr. Allen is currently incarceratedin the Westville Correctional Facility saris | where he has been detained since November, 2022; some ozs | 5. The Westville Correctional Facility is a maximun:-security prison operated by the Indiana Departmentof Corrections wherein thousandsofindividuals convicted ofthe most serious crimes such as murder, rape, robbery and child molesting arc confined as a result oftheir convictions. To the bestofCounsel knowledge, Westville Correctional Facility does not routinely house offender’ awaiting tral, who are presumed innocent,a the presumption should be with Mr. Allen; 6. Its further noteworthy that Mr. Allenhasbeen continuously assigned to a separate maximum security segregation unit within the Westville Correctional Facility wherein the most dangerous offenders are held. Counsel has investigated and confirmed with prison officials, that said unit routinely houses individuals serving | sentencesof life without parole and others who have committed someofthe most heinous crimes known to our society or have been transferred to this unit after committing further crimes within the Departmentof Corrections. Counsel was informed by prison employees that said employeeswerenot awareofany other circumstance wherein a human, facing trial under circumstances such asthese,has been housed in said facility. Finally, Counsel has discovered that Westville Correctional Facilityhasbeen the centerofmuch attention, intherecent past, in matters involving unequal andinhumanetreatmentofoffenders. '; 7. “The requirementofequal protection dictates, as appellees here agree, that pretrial detainees maynotbe treated less favorably than convicted persons, unless the difference in treatment is justified by a legitimate government interest. Briefof appellees at43. As the Second Circuit indicated in Rhem v. Malcolm, 507 F.2d 333 (2d | Cir.1974), “The demandsofequal protection ofthe lawsandof due process ... prevent | unjustifiable confinement ofdetainees under worse condition than convicted prisoners.” Id.at336, See also, InmatesofSuffolk Co. Jai v. Eisenstadt, 360 F.Supp. ere nse,| 676-686 (0Mass.1973) afd 494 F.2d 1196 (1st Cir) cert. denied sub nom. Hallv. tor & Drax.ic| Inmatesof Suffolk County Jail, 419 U.S. 977,95 $.C1. 239, 42 LEA2d 189 onze|| (1974); Jones v. Wittenberg, 323 F.Supp. 93, 99-100 (\.D>.Ohio 1971), afd sub »¥siiisss | nom. Jones v. Metzger, 456 F.2d 854 (6th Cir. 1972); Brenneman v. Madigan, 343 a Son *Inmate kept in solitary will get $400Kfromstate,lawyers say (indystar.com). | | F.Supp. 128. 138 (N.D.Cal.1972); Seale v. Manson, 326 F.Supp. 1375 D.Conn.1971);Tyler v. Ciccone, 299F.Supp. 684 (W.D.Mo.1969).”; 8. Counsel recently visited the prison and was deniedofhis request to inspect his client’s cell block and living circumstances. Despite this, Counsel has reason to believe that Mr. Allen has been required to endure the following conditions, over the course ofhis five-plus month detainment at the facility: a. Mr. Allen’s hasbeenentombed in acellas smallas a 6ft in width by 10ft in length, a space no larger than that ofa dog kennel. b. Mr. Allen is sleeping on a pad on a concrete floor. c. Mr. Allen is afforded showers only one to two timesperweek. d. Mr. Allen isrequiredto wear the same clothes, including underwear, for | days and days on end, allofwhich are soiled, stained, tattered and torn. e. Mr. Allen, who is a constitutionally innocent man and maintains his factual innocence as well, has not been afforded any opportunity to visit his Wife or other family members during the last 5 monthsofincarceration during which time he has been subjected to conditions akin to those of a prisoner of war. £. Mr. Allen is allowed only an electronic tablet through which he can make calls to family members, all ofwhich is monitored by prison officials, with thecostofall phone callsbeingborne byRickand his family. & Mr. Allen is routinely supervised by other inmates (“companions”as. referred to within the confinesof the prison) who sit on watch outsideofhis cell dooron a daily basis. h. Mr. Allen is afforded very little, ifany, recreation time outsideofhis cold, concrete, and metal quarters. i. Attorneys for Mr. Allen delivered nearly 1,000 pagesofpolice reports to Mr. Allen on Friday, March 24, 2023, with the intentionofsecking their client's cooperation in his own defense. As of Monday, April 3", 2023, said Hieis, HiLuis, information has yet to be provided to Mr. Allen; toa do DEAN. 110 prety 9. The locationofMr. Allen’s detention is such that he is isolated ee “|| geographically, not only from his family but also from his Attorneys, who are required I | | | to travel for hours to speak with him in confidence regarding his case. Said visits also require making logistical arrangements with prison officials in advanceofvisits. 10. 1t is difficult, if not impossible, for Mr. Allen's Attomeys to share confidential and sensitive information with Mr. Allen due to the logistical challenges associated with Mr. Allen's segregation and isolation to the extent that Mr. Allen is | being deprivedofhis constitutional right toassistin his defense. Tn contrast, the State: | ofIndiana, through its prosecutorial and law enforcement divisions, sit in the comfort oftheir own command center planning and preparing to prosecute Mr. Allen to the | fullest extentofthe law; 11. Tn sum, Mr. Allen isbeing treated far less favorably than a convicted person, ‘manyofwhich arc housed in less secureareasofthe prison, are offered programming, therapy, and mental health services, routine recreation, and contact visits with family ‘and friends; 12. To further complicate matters, Mr. Allen has suffered from depression dating back to his early years. Upon his incarceration, Mr. Allen was presumably evaluated and medicated by prison medical staff. Up untila visit with Mr. Allen on April 4,2023, counsel for Mr. Allen found him to be polite, communicative with great eye contact, generally responsive to our questions and exhibiting a good senseofhumor on occasion in spiteofhis false arrest and circumstances. However, Mr. Allen's deteriorating physical conditionhasbeen observed by Counseldatingbacktothe beginningofthe new year. As recently as Friday, April 24% 2023, Attorney Andrew Baldwin met with Mr. Allen with optimistic news abou the directionofthe case, and Mr. Allen was inquisitive about the information, was thankful about the information and optimistic about the information. Only ten days later (April 3, 2023), Attorneys for Mr. Allen etn sess,| Observed stecp decline in Mr. Allen's demeanor, ability to communicate, ability to tossDeav. vie| comprehend and ability to assist in his defense. Simply put, this version of Richard Aa 2 Counselwouldnote that Westville prison officials have been more than accommodating and courteous sos mnssn |to counsel during vist with Mr. Allen (othe than the recent denialofou request 0 visit Allen's cel), men| despite the harsh and usssonabe condions under which ir Ale is curently dead. Sao Dea | || ‘Allen was a very different version than counsel for Mr. Allen had interacted with over the past five months. Mr. Allen appearedto be suffering from various psychotic symptoms which counsel would describe as schizophrenic and delusional. Counsel further believes that in our April 4, 2023 interaction, Mr. Allen seems to be suffering from memory loss and is demonstrating an overall inability to communicate rationally | with counsel and family members. Counsel experienced, these symptoms, firsthand, | ‘upon visiting Mr. Allen on Monday, April 4, 2023; | 13. Mr. Allen's physical condition is deteriorating rapidly. Attached Exhibit | “Ais a photoof Mr. Allen,taken by Counsel at the correctional facility, on April 4%, 2023. Said photo reflects the significant tollofhis current incarceration on his physical | person and by extension, his mental capacity. By contrast, see attached Exhibit “B” ‘which reflects his condition a year ortwo prior to his incarceration. The conditions | under which Mr. Allen has beenforcedto endureare akin to thatof a prisoner ofwar; [ 14. The test for determining the constitutionality oftreatmentofpretrial detaineesalleged to deprive themofliberty without due process of law is “whether those conditions amount to punishmentofthe etaince.”s Bell v. Wolfish, 441 US. | 520,535.99 S.Ct. 1861, 1872, 60 L.Ed.2d 447 (1979). Here, Mr. Allen is being ‘punished to the fullest extentofthe law. The conditions he is curently enduring have | been thrust upon him without any judicial analysisofthe need for such a deprivation of | his liberty. Further, counsel is unawareofany facts, outsideofthose generally alleged. | in the SherifF's safekeeping petition which support the need to detain Mr. Allen on what | could casually be referredtoas “death row.”; 15. Approximately 2 months prior to the flingofthis Petition, Attomey Rozzi was ableto secure a more traditional bed space in the Cass County Jail, a newly erected ‘modern jail facility with the most advanced security measures, located directly across tes sass, | the street from Attomey Rozzi’s officeandonly approximately 20 miles from the Roza &Drax. 112| Carroll County Courthouse. Said modificationofMr. Allen’s incarceration would tooasewontiss| result in amore humane living environment in which Mr. Allen would be afforded Sie |immediate access tohis attomeysand more importantly, would allow Mr. Allen to have SOmEEE™ |regular contact visits with his family, i.c. this detention circumstance would afford Mr. Allen due processoflaw. Under these circumstances, Mr. Allen would be treated like other inmates awaiting trial in the criminal justice system, as opposed to being punished | based only on the meritsofuntested charging information and probable cause affidavit; 16. Intheprocess of facilitating Mr. Allen’s removal from Westville Correctional Facility, Attorney Rozzi communicated with Prosecutor, Nicholas MeLeland, who articulated that he had no objection to a modification of Mr. Allen's detention circumstances toa facility closer to Carroll County; | 17. Attomey Rozzi was recently informed that the Carroll County SherifP’s | Department declined Attorney Rozzi’s request to have Mr. Allen removed from the | harsh conditions under which he is currently detained to a more traditional County jail | near Mr. Allen's Attorneys and family. Mr. Allen asserts that said denial is a deliberate attempt to impose conditions upon him that are intended to frustrate his purpose in | defending against the charged allegations and create a hardship on him which would [ drive any humantomental breakdown. Said approach to his pre-trial detention is a | direct infringement on his 6" Amendments rights under the U.S. Constitution; 18. Fromapractical standpoint, it is also worth noting that the raw volume of discovery offered up by the State of Indiana in this case, is overwhelming. For example, there exists nearly 3,000 pagesof law enforcement reports that need to be examined in this cause. In addition, there exists thousands of hoursofsurveillance video and video interviewsofpotential suspects, witnesses, and other interested parties. The discovery suggests that law enforcement authorities have processed over 31,000 tips during the courseofthe investigation, allofwhich must be reviewed by the Defense. Reasonable access to Mr. Allen, is necessary as he is needed to assist with the processofreviewing discovery. His current detention situation does not provide this convenience; spccneiian | 19. As a further practical matter, both co-counsel for Mr. Allen arehavingto Roza &Dax. cic| drive hours away from their respective law offices in order to talk ith Mr. Allen, and room,»| the time spent on the road is much more costly for Carroll County taxpayers than sires | housing Mr. Allen in Cass County where everyone (except the Carroll County Sheriff) Fors | is onboardwith Mr. Allen being housed during the pendencyofthis case; and. abDat bea | | 20. Attorney Rozzibelievesan emergency exists and time isofthe essence | based upon the dramatic change in Mr. Allen's condition including his change in | demeanor, change in appearance, and change in his overall mental health satus, and respectfully requests that this Honorable Court modify the Safekeeping Order (as permitted by LC. 35-33-11-1)and order Richard Allen tobetransported andhousedat the Cass County jail or somewhere nearer to his family and lawyers, and to do so without hearing, or (in the alternative) to conduct a hearing as soon as possible before Mr. Allens placed in further jeopardy due to his current placement, andalsoso that Mr. Allen may assist his lawyers in addressing Mr. Allen's mental health concerns as well as allowing Mr. Allen to participate in the preparation ofhis defense, and for all other just andproperrelief in thepremises. Respectfully Submitted, P6509 CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE I certify that I have served a copyofthis document by the County e-filing ‘system upon the Carroll County Prosecutor’ Office and Andrew J. Baldwin the S* dayof April, 2023. | us AKG7z, 12136509 SALLIS, ROZZI & DEAN 0 ourth Sirce Derg soap, IN46947 pectoris 5747224560 Besos Duan | FeCaroincu Gout arti County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA ~~) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL > CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) - } ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) VERIFIED MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER AND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Comes now Attorney, Bradley A. Rozzi, and in support of his Motion for Temporary Restraining Orderand Preliminary Injunction, now swears and affirms as follows: 1. On or about November 14, 2022, Attomey Rozzi entered his appearance on behalf ofDefendant Allen; 2. On or about November 14, 2022, Attorney Baldwin entered his appearance on behalf ofDefendant Allen; 3. Both Attorney Baldwin and Attorney Rozzi continue to represent Defendant Allen asofthe dateofthis Motion; 4. Defendant Allen is currently incarcerated in the Westville Correctional Facility pursuant to the November 3, 2022, and April 14, 2023, Safekeeping Orders; 5. Defendant Allen remains incarcerated in the maximum-sccurity unitofthe Westville Correctional Facility where Attomneys Rozzi and Baldwin are required to travel to engage in in-person attomey-client communications; 6. At various times between Novemberof2022 and April of 2023, both Hovis, mcs, | Attomey Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin visited Defendant Allen in the maximun-security Retry unit at Westville Correctional Facility. During the visits, Attormey Rozzi and Attomey woasnamorn1x oet| Baldwin were allowed to possess their cellphonesandcomputers to assist with their ry ean attorney-client dealings. Said visits typically occurredinthe officeof the Captainofthe mn "| Westvite Comectional Facility or other office spaces which appeared tobe reserved for administrative uses. Other than the presenceofan officer placed immediately outside the door ofthe various meeting spaces, until a visit on or about Friday April 21, 2023, some semblanceofprivacy was offered up to the Attorney(s) and Defendant Allen; 7. On or about April 5%, 2023, Attorneys for Richard Allen, filed an Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order. Said Motion contained various allegations regarding the unacceptable conditions under which Defendant Allen has and continues to be detained. In response to this Motion, the Court essentially, re-afirmed the original Safekeeping Order, deferring matters of Defendant Allen's incarceration to the Indiana Departmentof Corrections; 8. Onorabout Friday, April 21%, 2023, Attorney Baldwin and his staff’ ‘member, visited Defendant Allen at the Westville Correctional Facility. At all times during the visit, Attorney Baldwin, hisstaff member and Defendant Allen were under the constant surveillanceofcorrectionalstaffwho also videotaped the attorney-client conference, through a window, just outsideofthe meeting room under conditions similar tothat which are referenced in paragraph “9” below. Additionally, unlike the previous visits that occurred before filing the April 5, 2023 Motion, Attorney Baldwin was prohibited from bringing his cellphone into the visit; 9. OnMay 4, 2023, Attorney Rozziandhisstaff member visited Defendant Allen at the Westville Correctional Facility. Attomey Rozzi and hisstaffmember were placed inside an administrative office which was approximately 12 feet by 8feetin size. ‘The room contained approximately four separate padded chairs and a desk. On one end ofthe room, there were windowsfacingthe outsideand on the other endofthe room, there was a window facing the interior hallwayof the maximum-sccurity unit. Attorney Rozzi offered upto DefendantAllen one ofthe padded seatsinthe room. The correctionalstaffrequired that Defendant Allen sit in a plastic chair, in the centerof the tess suas,| 00M facing the interior window. Defendant Allen was approximately 8 feet from the Rozzi&DEax.110| window. The chair was situated such that Defendant Allen wasfacingdirectly at the wounarores ser| interior window (and directly into the video camera). A correctional officer was then miéremsus | stationed on the opposite sideofthe window, in the hallway, witha video camera which Bo pointed directly at Defendant Allen and alsointhe directionofAttorney Rozzi and his | staff member who were sitting rightnextto Defendant Allen. Attomey Rozzi isofthe beliefthat the entire visit, which lasted approximately one hour, was videotaped by prison staff. Never before has Attomey Rozzi experienced such an infringement on an accused’srightto confidential communications with counsel; 10. It is also noteworthy that Attorney Rozzi was prohibited from possessing his cellphone and laptop computer during the visit. As a resultofthis, Attorney Rozzi had no ability to discuss with Defendant Allen, any partofthe voluminous discovery that has been offered up to the defense in this case; 11. Accordingly, Attorney Rozz respectfully requests that this Court issue a temporary restraining order, pursuant to Rule 65(B), prohibiting the Indiana Department ofCorrections from videotaping the attorney-client visits as well as authorizing Attomey Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin to have access to their laptop computers and cellphones during said visits. Attorney Rozzi alleges the following in supportofhis request: a. that immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to. Defendant Allen in the absence ofthe issuance of such an Order; b. the moving party is reasonably likelyto prevail on the merits as the Defendant has a fundamental right to confidential attorney-client ‘communications at all times during the pendencyofhis case; c. thethreatened injury to the moving partyifan injunction is denied outweighs the threatened harm to theadversepartyifthe injunction is granted; and d. the public interest will be disserved if injunctivereliefis not granted. Attomey Rozzi further certifies that he has provided a copy ofthis notice to Elise Gallagher, Attorney for the DOC, simultaneously with the filingofthis [r— request; WomarbDsan06 12. Attorney Rozzi further requests that this Court issue a preliminary Loonnarons i weer| injunction, affording thereliefrequested in paragraph “11 above, after notice to the »S5nites | adverse party and a hearing on the meritsofsaid request; | I 13. The actionsofthe Indiana DepartmentofCorrections, referenced above, run afoulofthe attomey-client privilege and Defendant Allen's Sixth Amendment Right to counsel. In addition, the prohibitions and restrictions placed upon Attorney Rozzi and Attomey Baldwin have significantly impaired their ability to share information with Defendant Allen regarding the charges and allegations in this case; and 1 14. The actionsofthe Indiana DepartmentofCorrectionsstaffare inconsistent | and far more intrusive than those privileges afforded other individuals who are awaiting | | trial in the Department of Corrections and County Jail in the Stateof Indians. | ZZ od) !— ‘Bradlg¢ A-Rozzi,#23363-09 | 1 swearandaffirm underihe pentiesSor per heforegoing representations are true. ZZ > EZ EN 72, #27/465-09 | . | Andrews J. Baldwin Andrew J. Baldwin, #17851-41 1 swear and affirm underthepenalties forperjury thattheforegoing representationsaretrue. And dg. Delores l AndrewJ. Baldwin, #17851-41 | CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE | T certify that have served a copyofthis documentbythe County filing | | system upon the Carroll County tor’s Office andAndrewJ. Baldwinandby | email upon lise Gallagher the day of Myy, 2023. so aera | | pr _ = / | a Bd 3355.09 Sine | ean sespoer o posTN46947 gat | PohCoeu Got Canon omy. wit | STATEOF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL 3 CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) > ) | ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) MOTION FOR ORDER ON CONTINUING DISCLOSURE OF | "DEFENDANT'S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS ‘Comes now, the Defendant, Richard M. Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, and respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order directing the Indiana Departmentof Corrections, Carroll County Sheriff's Departmen, and any other authorities detaining Defendant Allen to release to Defendant Allen's Attorneys, Bradley A. Rozzi and AndrewJ. Baldwin, copies ofany and all mental health records associated with Defendant Allen. In supportofsaid Motion, Defendant Allen tates as follows:1. Defendant Allen is currently housed in the Indiana Department of Corrections pursuant tothe Safekeeping Order in this cause; 2. Prior to Defendant Allen's incarceration, Defendant Allen did excete a PowerofAttorney in favor his Wife, Kathy Allen. However, no healthcare representative directives were executed by Defendant Allen; 3. Defendant Allen's Attorneys are in need of reviewing Defendant Allen's mental health records, mostofwhich are in possessionofthe Indiana Deparment of Cormectons, o aid in preparationofhis defense, managementofhis mental and physical state, and to restore his mental and physical health so that he may assist in his own defense; ResaDae nae 4. Attomey Rozzi has attempted to obtain Defendant Allen's information miami”| through the DOC but s required to exceute a HIPPA Waiver. Said Waiver will require Raton DefendantAllen’ssignature; | | 5. Defendant Allen is currently in a deteriorating state, both mentally and physically, and therefore Attomey Rozzi has concerns regarding Defendant Allen's | ability to execute a knowing and voluntary waiver; 6. Defendant Allen is also incarcerated approximately 1 % hours away from | Attomey Rozzi and therefore, obtaining signatures on a routine basis is burdensome; 7. There is no legal and/or practical reason why Attomeys for Defendant Allen should not be entitled to his mental health records; and. 8. Defendant Allen respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order directing the Indiana Departmentof Corrections and/or any other agencies in charge of defendant Allen’careand custody to release to Attomey Rozzi and Attorney Baldwin, Defendant Allen's mental health records, upon their written request. Respectfully submitted, | o</ BHA, 36a (2336509 Afforpes Tor Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that I have served acopyofthis document by the County e-fling seg vpen tis Caml Cosy Poses’ Offic nd Ado. Bldviniie th day ofJune, 2023. Brgy A. REZATS365, WILLIS, RILEIS ROZZI & DEAN Hass, Hrs Jnom sn ruiptn ogatspor, IN 46547 Fld: 1372023 1125 Alt Carrol Gincun Court arti County, Indiana STATEOF INDIANA ~~) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Jos: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) | vs. ) [ ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING BALLISTICS The Defendant, Richard M. Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozz, respectfully ‘moves this Court as follows: I 1. Defendant Allen is charged with two separate CountsofFelony Murder pursuant 0 1.C. 35-42-1-1(2). 2. There is no tral date set asofthe dateofth filing ofthis Motion. 3. Counsel for Defendant Allen, upon information and belief, has reasonable: cause to believe that the prosecution intends to introduce as evidence the following: a. Testimony from Laboratory Analyst, Melissa Oberg and/or her agent, supporting the findings referenced in Indiana State Police Laboratory Division Certificate of Analysis attached hereto as Exhibit “A”. b. Testimony from Laboratory Analyst, Melissa Oberg and/or her agent, supporting the findings referenced in Indiana State Police Laboratory Division Certificateof Analysis attached hereto as Exhibit “B” c. Bench notes and other literature and information in support of conclusions generated in the attached Exhibits “A” and “B”. 4. This evidence is inadmissible for the following reasons: a. The items analyzed and the conclusions drawn by the Indiana State Police Laboratory Division are irrelevant and therefore inadmissible under Rule 401 and Rule 402 of the Indiana RulesofEvidence. Hive, nse Roz&Dax, Lio b. The probative valueofsaid evidence is substantially outweighed by a eee the dangerof unfair prejudice. Furthermore, admissionofsuch information will confuse and mislead the jury all of which is in er violation of Rule 403ofthe Indiana RulesofEvidence. Les ¢. Testimony regarding theanalysisand conclusions referenced in pra Exhibits “A” and “B” runs afoulof Rule 702ofthe Indiana Rules of [rye Evidence in that the examiner is not qualified to draw the referenced conclusions and in addition, the examiner's testimony does not rest upon reliable scientific principles. | 5. Such evidence is not necessary for a full and fair determinationofthe facts | ofthe instant case. ‘WHEREFORE, the Defendant, by Counsel, respectfully requests that this. Motion in Limine be granted; and request the Courtto order the State of Indiana, I through its prosecutors, and its witnesses not to mention, refer to, interrogate | concerning, or attempt to convey to the jury in any manner, either directlyor indirectly | the existenceofany analysis conducted with regard to the items referenced in Exhibits “A” and “B” as well as any conclusions drawn therefrom without first obtaining permissionofthe Court outsidethepresenceofthe jury; further instruct the State of Indiana and its witnesses not to make any referenceto the fact that this Motion has been filed and granted and to warn and caution each and every oneof their witnesses to. strictly follow these same instructions; and order allrelief justand proper in the premises. Jes Rozzi, #5335509 fomey/ for Bfendart CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that T have served acopyofthis document by the County e-filing Hive, Huss, System upon the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office gad Andrew J. Baldwin the Bp De IyofJune, 2023. =) Jom Hsin (BradicyAKoz, #233809 Soma ass HETTS| HILLIS, ROZZ1 & DEAN i 200 Fouts Sires NEAT LDA Logansport, IN 46947 Filed: 32023 2:89 Pit Cart Gicun. carroll County, Indiana | STATEOF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Z Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Comes now the Defendant, Richard Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, and ‘pursuant to Rule 45(B) of the Indiana RulesofTrial Procedure, requests that this Honorable Court quash the Subpoena issued by Carroll County Prosecutor, Nicholas MeLeland, on or about the 20 dayof April, 2023,inthe above captioned mater. In supportofsaid Motion, Defendant Allen states as follows: 1. On or about April 20, 2023, Defendant Allen was served withaMotion for Leaveof Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records; 2. Attachedto said Motion was a Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility, a divisionofthe Indiana DepartmentofCorrections; 3. More specifically, said Subpoena referenced the following documents and records to be produced: (8) Any mental health records that you may have concerning Richard M. Allen, including all records from any physician that has evaluated or examined Richard M. Allen from the beginningofhis stay at Westville Correctional Facility, on or about November 3°, 2022 until preset. (b) The results ofany mental health evaluation and/or exams performed on Richard M. Allen while he has been incarcerated atWestville Correctional Facility, on or about November 3, 2022 until present. (©) Any other documents, records, notes, videos and/or writings that Huse, Hiss the facility may have pertaining to Richard M. Allen mental health Rosai & Drax. Lio during his time of incarceration at Westville Correctional Facility, oro. on or about November 3%, 2022 until present. Yowres Hegom 4. The Subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive for the following reasons: mores a. Disclosureofthe documents violates Defendant Allen’s privacy nao Bean rights under 45 CFR. 164, etal; and b. Prosecutor McLeland is requesting records which are irrelevant as there are no pending matters pertaining to Defendant Allen's competency to stand trial, nor has Defendant Allen raised the defenseofinsanity. 5. Defendant Alen respectfully requests that this Cout issuean Order quashing the Subpoena and for all other just and properreliefin the premises. Respectfully Submitted, 25 BragleyA. R6zzi, #27465-09 HILLIS, (0771 & DEAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1certify thatI have served acopy ofthis document bytheCounty e-filing. system upon the Caroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin the_Sr. dayof May, 2023. Bradley a ® HIL ROZZ1 & DEAN 200th Stree Logansport, IN 46947 574-722-4560 Huase, Hus, Tova Dram tie Sonamt Filed: 32023 2:89 Pit arr Oreo cartll Couny, Indiana STATEOF INDIANA) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. )) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Comes now the Defendant, Richard Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, and pursuant to Rule 45(B)ofthe Indiana RulesofTrial Procedure, requests that this Honorable Court quash the Subpoena issued by Carroll County Prosecutor, Nicholas MoLeland, on or about the 20° dayofApril, 2023, in the above captioned matter. In Supportofsaid Motion, Defendant Allen states as follows: 1. On or about April 20, 2023, Defendant Allen was served with a Motion for Leaveof Court to Subpoena Third-Party Records; 2. Attached to said Motion was a Subpoena Duces Tecun directed to Westville Correctional Facility, a divisionofthe Indiana Departmentof Corrections; 3. More specifically, said Subpoena referenced the following documents and records to be produced: (&) Any medical documents that you may have concerning Richard M. ‘Allen, including all records from any physician that has evaluated or examined Richard M. Allenfromthe beginningofhis stay at Westville Correctional Facility, on or about November 3, 2022 until preset. (b) The resultsofany medical evaluation performed on Richard M. Allen while he has been incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility, on or about November 3%, 2022 until present. (¢) Any other documents, records, notes, videos and/or writings that the facility may have pertaining to Richard M. Allen medical health Hus, Hiss, during his timeofincarceration at Westville Correctional Facility, Rouzi &Dax. ito on or about November 3%, 2022 until present. T— 4. The Subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive for the following reasons: Joma R.Huan a. Disclosureofthe documents violates Defendant Allen’s privacy rights under 45 CF.R. 164, etal; and b. Prosecutor McLeland is requesting records which are relevant as | thereare no pending matters pertaining to Defendant Allen's competency to stand trial, nor has Defendant Allen raised the defenseofinsanity. 5. Defendant Allen respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order quashing the Subpoena and for all other just and properreliefin the premises. Respectfully Submitted, (oer25)23(423365-00 LIS, ROZZI & DEAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE certify that I have served a copyofthis document by the County e-filing system upon the Caroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin the $C. dayofMay, 2023. Bradle§ A. Rofzi, #2336509 HI i487 ROZJ & DEAN 200 Fourth Street Logansport IN-46947 574-722-4360 Hiuus, Hise, Roa & DEAN, 110 Filed: 32023 2:89 Pit Cart ican Cort carroll County, Indiana STATEOF INDIANA) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) | RICHARD M. ALLEN ) MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Comesnowthe Defendant, Richard Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, and pursuant to Rule 45(B) of the Indiana RulesofTrial Procedure, requests that this Honorable Court quash the Subpoena issued by Carroll County Prosecutor, Nicholas MeLeland, on or about the 20% day of April, 2023, in the above captioned matter. Tn support of said Motion, Defendant Allen states as follows: 1. On or about April 20, 2023, DefendantAllenwas served witha Motion for LeaveofCourt to Subpoena Third-Party Records; 2. Attached to said Motion was a Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to ‘Westville Correctional Facility, a divisionofthe Indiana Departmentof Corrections; 3. More specifically, said Subpoena referenced the following documents and records to be produced: (@) Any and all audio/video recordingsofRichard M. Allen while he is in his cell or being moved from his cell to recreational area for the time period ofhis incarceration at Westville Correctional Facility. (6) Any notes from any guards, inmates or other Westville personnel that have made written observationsofRichard M. Allen, cither while he is in his cell or when he is being moved from one place to another for the time periodofhis incarceration at Westville Correctional Facility. (©) Recordingsofany interviews done with Richard M. Allen by anyone at the facility while he has been incarcerated at Westville Hus, His, Correctional Facility. Roat & DEAN. Lhe pil ite (d) Copiesofany recorded phone calls, outsideof phone calls made to RotFeces his attomeys, while he was incarcerated in the facility. some azn (&) Any written requests made by Richard M. Allen while he was at ma Westville Correctional Facility. | | (f) Any other documents, records, notes, videos and/or writings that the facility may have pertaining to Richard M. Allen forhis incarceration at that facility. 4. The Subpoena is unreasonable and oppressive for the following reasons: a. Therequested documents may contain medical and/or psychiatric information associated with Defendant Allen and therefore, are protected under 45 CF.R. 164, etal; and b. Any information derived from interviews done with Defendant ‘Allen by membersofthe Westville Correctional Facility amount to a violation of Defendant Allen’s Fifth and Sixth Amendment Rights under the United States Constitution and Article I § 13and Article I § 14ofthe Indiana Constitution. 5. Defendant Allen respectfully requests that this Court issue an Order quashing the Subpoena and for all other just and properreliefin the premises. Respectfully Submitted, Bréd o 65.09 8 HILLIS, ROZ21& DEAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that 1 have served a copyofthis document by the County e-filing system upon the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin the %. < day of May, 2023. Hive, Hiss, Rozzi &Dea, tic pe Se BradleyA. Bez, #23365-09) er HILI Lis, ROZZ1 §/DEAN, grils 200th Stree ania A ors Logansport, IN 46 en 574-722-4560 Filed: 32023 2:89 Pit Cart Gicun. arti County, Indiana STATEOFINDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA Comes now the Defendant, Richard Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, and ‘pursuant to Rule 45(B)ofthe Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure, requests that this Honorable Court quash the Subpoena issued by Carroll County Prosecutor, Nicholas MeLeland, on or about the 20° dayof April, 2023, in the above captioned matter. In supportofsaid Motion, Defendant Allen states as follows: 1. On or about April 20,2023, Defendant Allen was served with a Motion for LeaveofCourt to Subpoena Third-Party Records; 2. Attachedtosaid Motion was a Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to CVS Headquarters; 3. More specifically, said Subpoena referenced the following documents and records to be produced: (8) The work records for Richard Allen. (b) Copiesofal work records for Richard Allen, including attendance records for those days. (©) Personal files for Richard Allen 4. The Subpoena is unreasonable and oppressiveforthe following reasons: nea tn, a. Therecordsare irrelevant and not likely to leadtothe discovery of Roar & DEAN, 110 admissible evidence; and Soaamanonn i sor b. The files may contain information protected under 45 C.F.R. 164, et xo 4. a 5. Defendant Allen respectfully requests that this Courtissuean Order Epo quashing the Subpoena and for all other just and properreliefin the premises. Respectfully Submitted, JZ)rr Brydiey 28 bos-0 4 0171 & BEAN CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 cerify that1 have servedacopyofthis document bythe County e-filing systemupon the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. BaldwintheZC} dayofMay, 2023 Bradley A. Rog 12336509 HILL, HyA15, ROZZ1 & DEA 200 Foust Stef Logansport, INA6S4T 5747224560 [rr ourDraki sem Caron Coun. nana STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL } = STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) STATE'S MOTION REQUESTING PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING DISCOVERY Now comes the State of Indians, by Prosecuting Attomey Nicholas C. McLeland, and advises tha the State has fled charges against the Defendant, under the above referenced cause number. That pursuant to Rule 26 of the Indiana RulesofTrial Procedure, the Defendant is entitled to discovery which includes materials of a sensitive nature. Therefore, pursuant to the provisionof Rule 26(C), the State requests that the Court issue a protective Order governing these materials as follow: 1. That one copyofthe discovery material shall be provided to Counsel for the Defendant. 2. Thatthe discovery material shal not be used for any purposeother than to prepare forthe defense in the above referenced cause number: 3. Thatthe discovery mateial shall not be publicly exhibited, displayed, shown, used for educational, research or demonstrative purposesor used in any other manner, except in judicial proceedings in the above referenced action. 4. Thatthe discovery material may be viewed only by partis, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts. 5. Thatif copies ofthe discovery materialare madeand provided to the Defendant, investigators or experts for the Defense, that sensitive and private information contained in the discovery shall be redacted, including any social security numbers, IDAC information or NCIC information, any information related to the personal informationofjuveniles, including social security mumbers, names and dateofbirth and any FB sentinel information. 6. That discovery material shall not be distributed to any person not authorized fo view it, including witnesses, family members, relatives and friendsofthe Defendant. 7 ‘Thatno person other than the Defendant, Counsel for the Defendant and those persons listedinparagraph 5 shall be granted access to said discovery material, or the substanceofany portion thereof unless that person has signed an agreement in writing that heorshe has received acopyofthis Orderand that he or she submits tothe Courtricoand autrity with sect to he tea; ges be subject to the Court’s contempt powers for any violation ofthis Order; and is ‘granted prior permission by this Court to access said discovery material. 8. That upon final dispositionof the case, the discovery material referred to in paragraph 1andany and all transcripts shall bereturnedto the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office or maintained by Defense Counsel pursuant to the terms herein. 9. That Counsel for the Defendant shall be responsible to ensure that all persons involved in the defenseofthis case comply with this Order. 10. Thatthe written documents/records provided by the State with the discovery ‘material fall under the same rules as described above. Wherefore the State respectfully asks that the Court to issue an Order protecting the ‘sensitive material distributed to the Defense and for allother just and properrelief in the premises. ; C Attomey #28300-08 Prosecuting Attorney Fr Teutonscopy of he tring ramsveseedapo Deadstor of record, through personally delivery, ordinary mail withproperpostage affixedorbyservice throughth eflingsystem and filed with Carroll Circuit Cour, this 13%_ day ofFebruary, 2 A k lot] a Se Liarti County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) MOTION TO RECONSIDER AND REQUEST FOR DUE PROCESS HEARING ‘Comes now the Defendant, Richard Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, and respectfully requests that this Court reconsider the Order on Judgmentofthe Court entered on April 14, 2023 and further, schedule a due process hearing in this cause. In supportofsaid Motion, Defendant Allen states as follows: 1. Defendant Allen is currently incarcerated in the Indiana Department of Corrections pursuant to the Court Order of November 3, 2022, wherein the Honorable Benjamin A. Diener ordered the transferofDefendant Allen pursuant to 1.C. 35-33-11-1 (Safekeeping Statute); 2. Atno time prior to the issuanceofthe November 3, 2022, Safekeeping Order was there any evidentiary hearing to support the issuanceofsaid Order; 3. Defendant Allen has been continuously incarcerated inthe maximum security unitofthe Westville Correctional Facility since November of 2022; 4. During the courseofhis incarceration, Defendant Allen has been subjected 10 oppressive conditions to the extent he has been treated less favorably than other inmates in similar circumstances. Defendant Allen incorporates herein, the allegations contained in Defendant's April 5, 2023, Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Rnbeau| Osten coma 5. The Emergency Motion filed on April 5, 2023, requested that this Honorable “arias”| Court schedule hearing soa to allow Defendant Allen to offer up evidence in support SomerEnzi ofhis request. No hearingwasafforded to Defendant Allen; 6. On April 14,2023, the Court, sua sponte, issued an Order for Judgment of the Court essentially, reinforcing the safekeeping Order that was previously issued by the Honorable Judge Benjamin A. Diener; 7. 1.C.35-33-11-1 holds that the “Court shall determine whether the inmate is in imminent danger ofserious bodily injury or death, or represents a substantial threat to the safetyofothers.” Article 1, Section 12ofthe Indiana Constitution provides that “all Courts shall be open; and every person, for injury done to him in hsperson, property, or reputation, shall have remedy by due course oflaw justice shall be administeredfreely and without purchase; completely, and without denial; speedily, and without delay.” Ledbetter v. Hunter, 652 N.E.2d 543 (June 1995). There has been no showing, either prior to the November 2022 Safekeeping Order and/or prior to the issuanceofthe Order for Judgment ofthe CourtofApril 14, 2023, which supports the need to confine Defendant Allen in the Indiana Departmentof Corrections, under his current conditions; 8. Defendant Allen further believes that his Sixth Amendment right tocounsel and corresponding rights under Article I, Section 12ofthe Indiana Constitution have been violated for reasons including,but not limitedto,the following: a. Defendant incorporates the allegations containedin the Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order file-marked April 5, 2023; b. All ofDefendant Allen’s movements, including his meetings with his. attorneys are videotaped by Departmentof Correction officials; c. Information regarding Defendant Allen’s medical and psychiatric condition may have been disclosed without his consent; and d. Defendant Allen is unable to discuss the merits ofhis case, or anything associated therewith, other than through his lawyers on a limited and restricted basis due to logistical challenges with his FrtinEiliie current detention and due to the distance between he and his lawyers. in 9. Defendant Alen respectfully requests that this Court set an evidentiary voasxspous.i 44042| hearing in this matter and after hearing evidence, modify and/or rescind the Safekeeping TRI Oder previously issued in this cause, an for all othr just and proper relief inthe TomeRoms | penises Respectfully Submitted, A)~ BANE AR Sei, 25365 69 CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE 1 certify that have served acopyofthis document by the County e-filing system upon the Carroll County Prosecutor'sOfficeand Andrew J. Baldwin the 31 day of May, 2023. Bradief A Rozic #2336 HILLS, HILVAS, ROZ2) & 200 Street Logansport, IN6947 574-722-4560 Mics, Hiss, Rossi & Deax. Lio STATEOF INDIANA) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ORDER ‘The Court having reviewed Defendant's Motion to Continue Bail Hearing and Jury Trial Setting, now grants said Motion and resetsthismatter fora bail hearing on JAJE BW BFR5 «SE and Jury Trial on at m. Ordered . FRANCES C. GULL, SPECIAL JUDGE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA STATE OF INDIANA ] IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Jos COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) w ) ) RICHARD M_ ALLEN ) ORDER The Court havingreviewed Defendant’s Motion fo Reconsider and Request for Due Process Hearing, now sets said matter for hearing on Ordered _ FRANCES C. GULL, SPECIAL JUDGE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA Fie: s32023 288M Carl Ccun Cartoll Gouny, nd STATEOF INDIANA ~~) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS TO A COURT RECORD Bradley A. Rozzi, Counsel for Defendant Allen, being first duly sworn upon his oath, requests the Court to prohibit public access to four separate Motions to Quash Subpoena, filed simultaneously herewith, and in supportofsaid request states as follows: 1. Access or disseminationofthe Court Record will create significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general public; and 2. Attorney Rozzi makes said request inan effort 0 remain in compliance with the Order or Judgment of the Court (Gag Order) entered in this cause on December2, 2022. affirm under penalty of perjury as specified by LC. 35-44.1-2-1, that the foregoing representations are true. Dated this 3" day of May, 2023. Z <) » (Bey Regt 7335309 Aitomgy fop Defendant Hass, His, HILLISAHILLIS, ROZZI & DEAN Brae 200 Fourth Street tr Logansport, IN 46947 | Fie: saz 290m rac Som Caro Coun indiana STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) v ) | ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS "TO A COURT RECORD Bradley A. Rozzi, Counsel for Defendant Allen, being firs duly sworn upon his oath, requests the Court to prohibit publi accesstothe Motion to Reconsider and | Request for Due Process Hearing, filed simultaneously herewith, and in support ofsaid request states as follows: 1. Access or disseminationofthe Court Record wil create significant risk of substantial harm 10 the requestor, other persons, of the general public; and 2. Attomey Rozzi makes said request in an effort to emain in compliance with the Order or Judgmentofthe Court (Gag Order) entered in this cause on December 2, 2002. affirm under penaltyofperjury as specified by LC. 3544.1-2-1, that the foregoing representations are tr. Dated this 34 dayofMay, 2023. Z = . Bradicy A. Rozz, #2336500 frm Re Busse, Hn, LIS, HILLISTROZZI &DEAN mr 200 FourdrSireet tam Logansport, IN 46947 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL = STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ORDER Comes now the Court, the Sate of Indiana, by Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attorney, having fled its’ Motion Requesting Protective Order Governing Discovery, and the Court being duly advisedinthe premises, now grants sid Motion and the State, the Defendant and Counsel for the Defendant, are now instructed and ORDERED as follows: 1. Thatone copyofthe discovery material shall be provided to Counsel forthe Defendant. 2. Thatuo additional copiesofthe discovery material shall be made by the Defendant, Defendant's Counsel, investigator, expert or any other representative or agentofthe Defendant for any reason. 3. Thatthe discovery material shall not be used for any purposeother than o prepare forthe defense in the above referenced cause number. 4. That the discovery material shall not be publicly exhibited, displayed, shown, used for educational, rescarch or demonstrative purposes or used in any other mammer, except in judicial proceedings in the above referenced action. 5. That the discovery material may be viewed only by partis, counsel and counsel's investigators and experts. 6. Thatif copies ofthe discovery materialaremade and provided tothe Defendant, investigators or experts for the Defense, that sensitive and private information contained in the discovery shall be redacted, including any social security numbers, IDAC information or NCIC information, any information related fo the personal informationofjuveniles, including social security numbers, names and dateof birth and any FBI sentinel information. 7. That noneofthediscovery material shall be divulged to any person not authorized to view the discovery material; this includes other witnesses, family members, relatives and friendsofthe Defendant. 8. Thatno person other than the Defendant, Counsel for the Defendant and those: persons listed in paragraph shallbegranted access to said discovery material, or the substanceofany portionthereofunless that person has signed an agreement in writing that he or she has received a copyofthis Order and that he or she submits 10 the Cour’s jurisdiction and authority with respect to the discovery; agrees to be subject to the Court's contempt powers for any violationof this Order; and is ‘granted prior permission bythisCourt to access said discovery. 9. That upon final dispositionofthecase, the discovery material referred to in paragraph 1 and any and all transcripts shall be returned to the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office or maintained by Defense Counsel pursuant to the terms herein. 10. That Counsel for the Defendant shallberesponsible to ensurethatall persons involvedinthe defenseofthis case comply with this Order. 11. That the written documents/records provided by the State with the discovery material fall under thesamerules as described above. IT IS SO ORDERED this. dayof February, 2023. FrancesGull, Special Judge ~~ Carroll Circuit Court Copy: State Rozzi Baldwin Fld: 2192023 1:08 Al Carrol Cincun Court aral County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ys: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE BAIL HEARING AND JURY TRIAL SETTING Now comes the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. McLeland, and respectfully informs the Court that the State does not object to theDefendant's Motion to Continue Bail Hearing and Jury Trial Setting and in supportofsaid motion states the following: 1. That Counsel for the Defendant fled a Motionto Continue Bail Hearing and Jury Trial Setting on February 7%, 2023. 2. Thatthe State has no objection to continuing the Bail Hearing currently set for February 17%, 2023. 3. Thatthe State has no objection to continuing the Jury Trial currently set for ‘March 20% 2023. 4. Thatthe State has no objection to having thosemattersreset to adateandtime that is convenient for all parties. ‘Wherefore, now comes the StateofIndiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C MeLeland, and file their response to the Defendant's Motionand has no objection to the Court granting said Motion to continue the Bail Hearing and the Jury Trial for this matter to atime convenient for all parties and for all other just and properreliefin the premises. eCMad Nicholas C. McLeland Atiomey #28300-08 Prosecuting Atiomey CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ‘The undersigned certifies that acopyoftheforegoinginstrumentwasservedupon the Defendant's attorney of record, throughpersonallydelivery, ordinary mail withproperpostage affixedorbyservice through th efilng system ‘and filed with Carroll Circuit Cou, this __13th_dayofFebruary, 2033. / k C Mt Nicholas C. MeLeland Attomey #2830008 Prosecuting Attomey Filed: 1912023 126 Pit Carol Creu Cou aral County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL } * STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) STATE'SRESPONSETO DEFENSE'S PETITION TO LET TO BAIL Now comes the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attomey, NicholasC. MeL.eland, and respectfully files it's response to the Defendant's Petition to Letto Bail and would ask the Court to deny the same. The State of Indiana would ask the Court 0 not set bail or 10 release the Defendant on his own recognizance and would ask the Court to continue to hold the Defendant without bond. In support the following request, the State shows the following: 1. That charges were filed against the Defendant, Richard Allen, on October 28, 2022, for2 counts of Murder, in violation of LC. 35-42-1-1(2) 2. Thatat the inital hearing, held on October 28", 2022, the State of Indiana asked that the Defendant be held without bail and the Court ordered that the Defendant is to be held without bond. 3. That the Defendant filed a Petition to Let Bail on November 21° 2022, stating that theproofof guilt is not evident, nor is the presumptionofguilt strong that the Defendant s guiltyof Murder. 4. Thatthe Defense is asking that the Defendant be released on his own recognizance or that a reasonable bail be se. 5. That per the Carroll County Local Rules, the Defendant is presumed to be held without bond on the offense of Murder. 6. That the State believes there is competent evidence that the Court can rely on and from which the Court can make it's own independent determination that the admissible evidence agains the accused adds up to strong and evident proofof guilt. 7. That the State believes the evidence shows culpability ofthe actual crime of 8. That the State believes this evidence shows by a preponderanceofthe evidence that the Defendant committed the crime of Murder. 9. Under 1.C. 35-33-8-2, the crime of Murder is not bailableif the State proves by a preponderanceof the evidence that the proof is evident or the presumption strong that the Defendant committed the offense. ‘Wherefore, now comes the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C McLeland, and files their response to the Defendant's Petition and asks the Courtto deny the request, find that the State has met it's burden, and to hold the Defendant without bail until a trial NicholasC.McLeland Prosecuting Attorney CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE bateeeeet kc af FleCoroCircusGout arti County, Indiana STATEOF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL > CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) . RICHARD M. ALLEN } SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR DISCOVERY AND REQUEST FOR RULE 404 AND 405 EVIDENCE ‘The Defendant, by counsel, moves the State of Indiana to produce the following with regard to the above captioned causeofaction to-wit: 1. The names and last known addressesofpersons whom the State of Indiana intends to call as witnesses together with their written statements, recorded or taped statements, video taped statements, memoranda containing substantially verbatim reportsoftheir oral statements and memoranda reporting or summarizing their oral statements, including but not limited to any person referred to as a "confidential informant" who offered up information that ‘may lead to the discoveryof relevant information in this cause. 2. The names and last known addressesof persons known by the StateofIndiana to have knowledge pertinent to this cause ofaction but who the StateofIndiana does not intend to call as witnesses. 3. Anyandall written or recorded statements and the substanceofany oral Statements made by the accused, or by any other person alleging statements made by the Defendant, regardlessof whether the State of Indiana intends to call such persons as a Witness or indicates the person is a confidential informant, and a listofwitnesses to the making and acknowledgmentof such statements. 4. Anyand all reports or statementsof experts or other individuals who conducted any test, experiment, examination, or comparison, made in connection with this particular case, including resultsofphysical or mental examinations andofscientific tests, experiments or comparisons, whether the State intends to use these reports or statements or not. 5. Astatementas to whether the Defendant, or any other person who participated in the alleged crime, was acting directly or indirectly at the investigation, or on thebehalfof the State of Indiana, or oneofits agents, andif so,statethe names and addressesofsaid individuals. 6. A statementas to any consideration and benefits incurred or offered, the State of Indiana has given or intends to give any witness, in exchange for his/her testimony, including but not limited to monies paid, a changeofprison accommodations and/or work station, or any state action that could reasonably effect the witness'bias, and disclosureof any and all State action its agents actions taken during the time the witness Was cooperating. 7. The names and last known addressesof persons not intended to be called as the Stateof Indiana's witnesses but who have been questioned or interviewed by the State of Indiana orits agents in preparationofthis case, together with their relevant written or recorded statements, including memoranda reporting or summarizing their oral statements and any record ofprior criminal convictions. 8. Grand jury testimony ofa witness, once he/she has testified. Lockridge v. State, 263 Ind. 678, 338 N.E.2d 275 (1975). 9. A summaryofany statement or conversation made by or engaged in by the Defendant and overheard by any persons known to the State of Indiana and a list ofany ‘witnesses who overheard such statements or conversations, together with any and all reports, documents, correspondence and/or videotapes made or received, together with a statement in writing as to whether there has been any electronic surveillance or recordingsofconversation to ‘which the Defendant was a party. 10. A statement as to whether any telephone calls were made by the Defendant following his arrest and whether the calls were taped or overheard by any persons known to the State of Indiana. Ifthe call was taped, produce the tape recording orif the conversation was. overheard, then produce a memorandumof the conversation overheard together with the names. ‘and addressesofall persons overhearing such conversation or conversations. 11. All phone records, books, papers, records, tapes, documents, photographs, video tapes and other tangible objects and evidence which the State of Indianamayuse in the prosecutionof this matter or which were obtained from or belonged to the Defendant, or any witness, whether as substantive or demonstrative evidence. 12. A record ofarrests, criminal convictions and juvenile records which may be used ofany witness who may becalledby the Stateof Indiana, including but not limited to, the Defendant. 13. A recordofarrests, criminal convictions and juvenile records which maybeused ofany witness whoi listed on the defense witness lst, including but not limited to, the Defendant. 14. True copiesofal written case reports and all other written reports, notes, ‘memoranda, maps, drawings ordiagrams, written, drawn or otherwise prepared by the County Sheriff's Department, City Police Department, Indiana State Police Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the County Medical Examiner's Office, and any other law enforcement agency or any private individual in connection with or pertaining to the investigationof the crime charged against the Defendant 15. Alistofdates and timesthatthe Defendant appeared in any lincups either in person or inaphoto array, the names and addressesofpersons who appeared in eachofthe lineups or photo arrays with the Defendant, the names and addresses ofany persons who viewed the lineups or photo array as alleged witnesses or victims and what eachof those persons stated regarding identification afterviewingthe lineups or photo arrays. 16. A statement as to whether or not the Defendant, any vehicle in whichhehadan interest or his residence were searched following his arrest either with or withouta Search ‘Warrant and, ifso, a statement of information contained and the items seized as a resultofthe search. In addition,if the search was made pursuant to aCourt authorized Search Warrant, produce a copyof the Search Warrant together with a copyofthe Return. Furthera statement regarding all arcas searched in the investigationofthis case, and a statementofinformation contained and the items seized as a resultof the search. Ifthesearchwas made by a court authorized search warrant, produce a copyof the warrant together with a copyofthe return and a transcriptionoftestimony at the probable cause hearing to obtain the scarch warrant. Ifany search was made by consent, produce a copyofthe consent to search form. With regards to all searches made in connection with this investigation, produce ll reports, receipts, inventories, documents, tapes, and other tangible objects and evidence collected, along with a statement concerning where the evidence is currently stored. 17. A statement in writing by the Prosecuting Attomey that he hasorhas no information touching upon any matterof Taw or fact favorable to and/or exculpatoryofthe Defendant or a written memorandum of such favorable or exculpatory information. 18. Any and all evidence in the possession or controlof the State of Indiana or its agents which may be favorable to the Defendant and material to the issueofguilt or punishment or could reasonably weaken or affect any evidence proposed to be introduced against the Defendant or is relevant to the subject matter or thecharge filed herein or which in any manner may aid the Defendant in the ascertainmentof the truth. 19. Any and all demonstrative exhibits prepared by the State, its agents or experts, including but not limited to animations, charts, experiments, maps, Feenactments. 20. Any report by any cellular carrier whose records were obtained to determine the location ofwhere calls originated or were received by the identificationofcellular tower sites. 21. Copiesofany and all documents and audio/video records pertainingto any completed or ongoing litigation (whether threatened or filed in a courtof law) involving the Carroll County SherifP’s Department, Tobe Leazenby, Tony Liggett, Michael Thomas or any other law enforcement or civilian employee who was named as a potential witness or participant in said litigation including, butnotlimited to, any negotiated settlement agreements resulting from said litigation. 22. Copies of any and all personnel filesofTobe Leazenby, Tony Liggett, and Michael Thomas related to their employment with the Carroll County Sheriff Department. 23. Copies of any and all documents and audio/video records pertaining to any ‘completed or ongoing litigation (whether threatened or filed in a court of law) involving the Carroll County Sheriff's Department and the processing ofany evidence in any criminal investigation dating back to February 13, 2017. 24. A complete listofany individuals who assisted in any way, with the investigation associated with the crimes alleged in this case, including the name, address and contact informationofall individuals. 25. Documentation, photos, videos and/or audio recordings associated with any viewings facilitated by law enforcement authorities at or near the Freedom Bridge/Monon Trail involving persons of interest, suspects, or witnesses associated with the criminal charges lodged against Richard Allen in this matter. 26. Pursuant to Rule 404ofthe Indiana Rules of Evidence, you are requested to state the general nature ofany evidenceof other crimes, wrongs, or actsofthe Defendant or any anticipated defense witness which the State intends to offer for any purpose, and state which exception the State would rely upon as contained in the Indiana Rulesof Evidence Rule 404(b), for its admission. You are also requested to supply the names and last known addresses ofall witnesses that may be called to testify as to any evidence of other crimes, wrongs or actsofthe Defendant or any defense witness, and specifytheothercrime, wrong or act to which cach witness may be testifying. 27. Pursuantto Rule 404ofthe Indiana RulesofEvidence, youarerequested to state the general nature ofany evidenceofother crimes, wrongs, or actsof any witness which the State may call to testify in this matter for any purpose. 28. Pursuant to Rule 405ofthe Indiana RulesofEvidence you are requested to provide the undersigned with any and all relevant specific instances ofconduct to be used by the State in cross examination relative to evidence ofcharacter or a traitof characterofany person ‘which is material to any of the criminal charges in this cause. 29. A copyofany information collected by or in the possessionofthe Prosecutor o ‘his/her office pertaining to or informing him/her regarding any prospective jurors that might be called to serve in this case. The disclosure and production shall be made without regard to whether the evidence to be disclosed and produced is deemed admissible at the trial herein. All responses shall be reasonably supplemented, corrected or amended when additional and/or different information and material becomes available. Bradley A. Rozzi, #2336309 Counsel for Defend CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that I have served a copyofthis document by the County e-filing system upon the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin the ¢/tiay 2) ofDecember, - Lf Bradley A Rozz, 123365-09 HILLIS;FILLIS, ROZZL& DEAX {260 burth Street Logdusporl AN46947 574-722-4560 Filed: 2772023 7:54 At Carrol Circa arti County, Indiana | STATEOF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL > CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 | STATE OF INDIANA ) ee ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CONTINUE BAIL HEARING | | ANDJURYTRIALSETTING Comes now the Defendant, Richard M. Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, | and respectfully requests that this Court continue the bail hearing and jury trial currently | scheduled in this matter. In supportofsaid Motion, Defendant Allen states as follows: 1. OnNovember21, 2022, Defendant Allen filed his Petitionto Let Bail. Said Petition is scheduled forhearing on February 17, 2023, at 10:00 am. 2. The defense has yet to receive the entiretyofdiscovery from the State and therefore, is not yet prepared to proceed with the bail hearing; 3. The defense anticipates receiving the remaining discovery by the endofthis week; 4. Defense Counselbelicvesthat the volumeofdiscovery issuch that there will not be adequate time to review the discovery in preparation for the bail hearing; 5. Defendant Allen respectfully requests that the bail hearing scheduled on February 17, 2023, be lifted and reset on adate and time convenient for the Court and the parties; 6. Defendant Allen also acknowledges that the jury trial is scheduled in this cause on March 20, 2023. The exchange and reviewofdiscovery, as referenced above, Ros:|will necessitate that the jury trial be lifted and reset on a date and time convenient for all Tah stone: en 7. Wherefore, Defendant Allen requests that both the bail hearing and jurytrial son Tussn dates be lifted and reset on dates and times convenientforthe Court and the parties. Respectfully Submitted, py ' (beachyo 35%509 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE certifythat [ haveserved acopyof this documentbythe County--fiing ‘system upontheCarroll County Prosecutor’ Office and And 78 dayof February, 2023. TS fradiey 4 Rozzi, #23365-09 7 'HILEHS; HILLS, ROZZT& DEAN 200 Fourth Str Logansport, IN 46947 574-722-4560 HisHus, Rossi + Dia, tho Fl: 6192023 0.48 PM. Cara Circuit Court artl Couny, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLLCIRCUIT COURT )ss; COUNTY OF CARROLL ) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA, ) N ) Plaintiff, y ) = ) se, } Deen ) APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEYS IN A CIVIL CASE 1. The undersigned attomeys now appear in this case for the following non-party member(s): Indiana DepartmentofCorrection Name, address, and telephone number ofparty (see Question #5 belowifthis case involves a protectionfrom abuse order, a workplace violence restraining order, or a no-contact order): Name: Indiana DepartmentofCorrection Address: 302 W. Washington Street, Rm. W341 Indianapolis, IN 46204 Telephone: 317-234-9515 2. Attomey information for service as required by Trial Rule S(B)2): Name: Aaron M. Ridlen Attorney No.: 3148149 ‘Address: OFFICE OF INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA Indiana Government Center South, 5" Fl 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN’ 46204-2770 Telephone: (317) 232-2826 Fax: (317) 232-7979 E-Mail: [email protected]. Each attomey listed on this appearance: (a) certifies that the contact information listedfor him/her on the Indiana Supreme Court Rollof Attomeys is current and accurate as to the date of this appearance; (b) acknowledges that all orders, opinions, and notices from the court in this matter that are served under Trial Rule 86(B) will be sent to the attomey at the e-mail address(es) specified by the attomey on the Roll of Attorneys regardlessofthe contact information listed above for the attomey; and (€) understands that he/she is solely responsible for keeping his her Roll of Attomeys contact information current and accurate, see Ind. Admis. Disc. R. 2(A). 3. This is a MR Case Type under Administrative Rule 8(B)3). 4. This case involves support issues: No. 5. This case involves a protection from abuse order, a workplace violence restraining order, or a no-contact order: No. 6. This case involves apetition for involuntary commitment: No, 7. There are related cases: No. 8. Additional information requiredbyLocal Rule: Not applicable 9. There areotherparty members: No. 10. This form has been served on all other parties and Certificate of Service is attached: Yes. Respectfully submitted, THEODOREE. ROKITA Attomey General of Indiana Attorney No. 1857-49 Date: June 19,2023 By: o/ AaronM. Ridlen Aaron M. Ridlen Deputy Attomey General Attorney No. 31481-49 By: HannahM. Deters Hannah M. Deters Deputy Attomey General Attorney No. 36303-29 OFFICE OF INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA 302 West Washington Street~ IGCS— 5™ Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 Telephone: (317) 232-2826 Facsimile: (317) 232-7979 E-mail: [email protected] 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that on June 19, 2023, the foregoing document was served upon the following person(s) via IEFS,if Registered Users, or by depositing the foregoing document in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid,if exempt ornon-registered user. Bradley Anthony Rozzi Nicholas C. McLeland 200 Fourth St Carroll County Prosecutor Logansport, IN 46947 101 W. Main Street Attorneyfor Defendant Delphi, IN 46923 Andrew Joseph Baldwin BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, P.C. 150 N Main Street Franklin, IN 46131 Attorneyfor Defendant By: s/AaronM. Ridien Aaron M. Ridlen Deputy Attomey General Attorney No. 31481-49 OFFICE OF INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA 302 West Washington Street— IGCS— 5" Floor Indianapolis, IN_ 46204-2770 “Telephone: (317) 232-2826 Facsimile: (317) 232-7979 E-mail: Aaron [email protected] gov 3 APPEARANCE FORM ~CONTINUATION PAGE Case Number: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 First Name in Case Caption: STATE OF INDIANA Continuation of Item # 2: Name: ‘Hannah M. Deters Attorney No.: 3630329 Address: OFFICE OF INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA Indiana Government Center South, 5th Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN” 46204-2770 Telephone: (317) 234-8634 Fax: (317)232:7979 E-Mail: Hannah [email protected] 4 Firefox — APPEARANCE FORM Case Number: 08CO1-2210-MR- | 1. Nameof Defendant: Richard M. Allen 2. Case Typeofproceeding: Murder 3. Prosecuting Attomey information: Wammer Nicholas C. McLeland Attomey No. ~~ 28300-08 - Shane M. Evans Attomey No. ~~ 34582-08 Address: Courthouse, 2nd Floor Phone (765) 564-4514 101 W. Main Street, Suite 205 ~~ FAX: (765) 564-1871 Delphi, IN 46923 4. Wil the State accept service by FAX: Yes 5. Arrest report number (Originating Agency Case Number): Not Available 6. Transaction Control Number: Not Available State LD. Number: Not Available 7. Additional information required by sate or local rules: FILID NOV 28 2072 CLERK CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Tort 11232022, 9:19 AM Fila: 11142022 2:49 PH. ‘Camo Circuit Court artl Couny, Indiana APPEARANCE (PUBLIC DEFENDER) Case Number: 08C01-2210-MR-000001 Caption: STATEOF INDIANA VS. RICHARD M. ALLEN 11 Checkif ProSe. NOTE:Thisform is not required forproseprotective orders. I. RICHARD M. ALLEN (Nameor names ofresponding partypartis) 2. Address of pro seresponding party or parties (as applicable for serviceofprocess): Name: Name: Address: Address: 3. Attomey information (as applicable for service of process) Name: Bradley A. Rozzi Atty Number: 23365-09 Address: 200 Fourth St Telephone: 574-722-4560 Logansport, IN46947 Fax 574-722-2659 Computer Address: [email protected] 4 Will accept FAX service: Yes No X /s/ Bradley A. Rozzi Bradley A. Rozzi, LD. 7 23365-09 HILLIS, HILLIS, ROZZI & DEAN certify that I have served a copyofthis document by the County e-filing system upon the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office the 14" dayofNovember, 2022 / Bradley A. Rozzi Bradley A. Rozzi 200 Fourth Street Logansport, IN 46947 ST4722-4560 mua sumaon sm alGirt out aon Cou. mans STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Jos COUNTY OF GARROLL ) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-00001 STATE OF INDIANA) ) v ) ) RICHARD ALLEN ~~) Comes now the cused, Richard Allen, by and through counsel Brad Rozzi andAndrew J. Baldwinand pursuant to Criminal Rule 12(4) of the Indiana Rules of Criminal Procedure, requests that this court change venue from Carroll County. In support of said motion, the cused and his counsel swears and affirms the following 1. On October 28, 2022 the Stateof Indiana filed a probable cause affidarit andcharging information alleging that RichardAllen murdered “Victim 1 and Victim 2° on or about February 13%, 2017. 2. That the allegations stem from the highly publicized death of two Carroll County teenagers. 3. That even beforeRichard Allen had been accused of these crimes, the matter had been highly publicized. 4. The extensive media attention began while the victims were missing. 5. The extensive media attention continued after the victims were found 6. The extensive media attentioncontinuedfor the next 80 months (5+ years) in a variety of formats, untilRichardAllen was arrested a. Coverage on local, statewide, and national television media b. Coverage on local, statewide and national print media c. Coverage on several podeasts that reach local, state, national and international audiences. d. Coverage on the internet in a variety of social media platforms, including Twitter, Reddit, YouTube and Farebook 7. The mediacoverage included multiple press conferencesby state and local authorities, including press conferences in which the electsd prosscutor participated. 8 The extensive media attention continued after Richard Allen was arrested, including the following: a Coverage on local, statewide andnational television media b. Coverage on local, statewic, nationaland international print media c. Coverage on a variety of sxcial media platforms, including Twitter, ‘YouTube, Reddit and Facebook 9. After the arrestof Richard Allen, a press conference was held by state and local authorities. 10 Although itcould be argued that the amount of publicity that this particular case has received in the past 5+ yearswill make it difficult to find a jury that has not heard of this case, Richard Allerfs defense team has gleaned statistical data that would strongly indicate that moving the caseltrial just 150 miles away would significantly reduce the likelihood of obtainingatainted jury pool 11 That since his arrest, data procured from “Google Trends” and "Google Ads" details the amount of internet interest through Google searches for “Richard Allen” and the data is quite telling: a. During the month of October, the searchfor “Richard Allen” in Carroll County ranged between 1,000 and 10,000 searches for a countywith just over 20,000 residents. b. On average, around one in every two (50%) of Carroll County residents have conducted on-line searches of Richard Allen during the month of October following his arrest ¢. Comparatively speaking, Fort Wayne is a city with over 260,000 residents, roughly thirteen times the size of Carroll County. In the ‘monthof October, following his arrest, the average monthly searches for Richard Allen” in Fort Wayne ranged between 1,000 and 10,000 searches. d. On average, therefore, 1in every 26 (3.8462%) residents in Fort Wayne have performedanon-linessarchof “Richard Allen” compared to onein every two (50%) residents of Carroll County conducting the same internet ssarch of Richard Allen” after his arrest. e. Fort Wayne is less than 100 miles from Delphi but in that 100 ‘miles, internet searches fell from roughly 50%ofresidentsin Carrull County googling “Richard Allen” to less than 5%ofresidents googling Richard Allen. This would mean that Carroll County residents have searched ‘Richard Allen” over ten times more often than those residents in Fort Wayne, acity less than 100 miles from Delphi. Presumably, jury pools from counties even farther away wouldhave searched “Richard Allen” 12.In addition, according to various sources, as many as 300 people were actively involvedin the searchofthe two victims while they were missing. 13 The 2022 population of Delphi Indiana is under 3,000 residents and therefore it may be the case that as much as roughly 10% of the Delphi population was atively involvedin participating for thesearch of the victims and presumably, therefore, arguably heavilyinvestedin the matter and the outcome of the case. 14 Those involved in the search for the victims, in addition to showing a strong investment in the case, arguably could be called as a witnesses, or (at a minimum) their involvement in the searchshouldprevent them from serving on the jury as they may haveinformation concerning the layout of the area searched that could infect the jury, and have opinionsbased upon their involvement in the search for the victims 15. Additionally, arguably any of the family and friends of anyone involved in the search for the victimscouldbe tainted as well from serving on a jury. 16 Additionally, many Carroll County residents have been involved in some aspect ofthis case, whether it be in an investigative capacity (police), or as fact-witnesses that could be called as witnessesin the case,or those that searched for the victims, or residents who simply are interested in the matter and have conducted their oun independent investigation 17 Additionally, because of the small number of residents in Carroll County, juxtaposed against the large perventage of the population that may have been involvedin one of the capacitiesdetailed in the previous paragragh, the likelihood fr a tainted jury pool is excessive. 18 During the five years following the disappearance of the victims, the Indiana State Police and other law enforcement agencies establisheda active command post in Delphit conduct interviews and press conferences, all of which increased the interest in the investigation. This increased exposure lends itselfto the tainting of jurors and increased possibility of a biased jury panel 19 While it is impossible for the defense toaccuratelypredict (having received only minimal discovery), it is likely that the law enforcement investigation has conducted possibly hundredsof interviews of potential witnesses and other community members that may ormaynot have information regarding the crime. Again, the raw number of people in the Carroll County community directly or indirectly involved with the investigation, juxtaposed with the small numberofresidentsin Carroll County, renderit impossible to find jurors without connection to the case or to someone involved in the case or without pre conceived notions about Richard Allerfs guilt or innocence. 20 Presumably,residents from other counties around Indiana (especially further away from Carroll County) will not include any residents who are fact witnesses or friends and family of fact witnesses or those involvedin the investigation or those that have conducted their own investigation or participated in the search of the victimsor who have entrenched opinions on the case based upon, in part, their knowledge of witnesses or facts from the case. 21Itiscommon sense to presume that residents fromcountiesfurther away from Carroll County will not have the same level of investment in the case and therefore will be able to more fairly decide the matter without concern about howtheir verdict may affect their relationships with other Carroll County residents 22 Additionally, the amount of media coverage of the case has been = extensive that the Court was compelled to engage numerous law enforcement personnel to ensure the safety and security of all actors, including the accused, from any avtual orperceived threatsof harm that swrounded a somewhat simple pretrial hearing in this cass. Subjcting potential jurors to such an environment in what may be a multi-week trial wouldundoubtedly distract jurors to a point that impartiality could not be obtained 23. Additionally, the fact that the prosecutor requested that the probable Trine, recused himself from the case, is anecdotal evidence that both the prosecutor and prior judge also recognize the magnitudeofinterest and publicity in this case and the practical problems associated with the Fotoent ani publics m Corel County 24. Additionally, Richard Allen was a community member who, for many years, worked at CVS in Delphi. As CVS is the type of business that is commonly visited by the general public, Richard Allen would have come in close contact with many of the Delphi and Carroll County citizens, creating another real concern ofa high probability of bias among potential jurors in Carroll County. 25. That Richard Allen's defense team believes the best means to avoid a tainted jury pool and to receive a fair venire for both sides would be to venue the matter to a county at least 150 miles from Carroll County and to conduct the jury trial in the chosen county. Iswear underpenalties ofperjury that the statements contained in this pleading. Ee ma,2) A Rig dllen JAAN =)[i IN Fairens Gini “Attorne) Richard Allen CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE “This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing pleadinghas been provided to all counsel of record for the opposing “7 v7ryf day of fling. I LU[0 £27 Is fron [= £5 — EC———————— Fog: suuaa rs on ‘Cama Grew Court aonCoury, haar CO-COUNSEL APPEARANCE FORM (CRIMINAL) Defondsmt COURT: CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT CABE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-000001 1 Name of Defendant(s):RichardMAllan 2. Defense attorney information (as applicable for service) CO:COUNSEL/ Andrew J. Baldwin Atty. No. 17851-41 andrew®criminaldefenseteam com BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, P.C. 150 N. Main Street Franklin, Indiana 46131 Phone: 317-736-0053 Fax: 317-816-4791 8. Will Defendant accept fax service: You 4 Additional information required by Stats or Local Rule: NIA Respectfully submitted, BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, P.C. {sl Andrew Baldwin Andrew Baldwin Attorney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE This is to certify that a copy of the foregoing pleading has been provided to all counsel of record via[EFS this same day of filing {sl Andrew Baldwin BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, P.C. STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE GARROLL CIRCUIT COURT 88: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 ) STATE OF INDIANA ) ) v ) ) RICHARD ALLEN ~~) ORDER Gomesnow Defendant, by counsel, having filed Moton to Convert Let Bail Hearing into Suppression Hearing, and the Court being duly advised in the premises, nowfinds that this motion should be GRANTED IT 1S THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Let Bail Hearing scheduled for June 16, 2023 at 8:30 am. beconverted into a Suppression Hearing. Date: .,, EE Frances C. Gull, Special Judge Carroll Circuit Court Distribution: Carroll County Prosecutor's Office BALDWIN PERRY & WILEY, P.C STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE GARROLL GIRGUIT COURT COUNTY OF carRoLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATEA OF INDIANA } ) RICHARD ALLEN ~~) MOTIONTOCONVERTLETBAILHEARING INTOSUPPRESSIONHEARING Comes now the Accused, by counsel, and moves this Court to convert the hearing, that is currently scheduled for June 15, 2023, from a Let Bail Hearing into a Suppression Hearing. In support of this motion, the Accused states the following: 1. That currently, this matter is set for aLet Bail Hearing on June 15, 2023 2. For avariety or reasons, counsel for theAccusedrequests that the Let Bail Hearing be converted to a Suppression Hearing 3. That the Accused files contemporaneously his Motion to Suppress Fruits of the Search of 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Indiana 4. That counsel for the Accused believes that a hearing on said motion should last no more than four (4) hours in terms of testimony and argument that the defense will be presenting WHEREFORE, theAccused requests this Court to convert the hearing currently scheduled for June 15, 2023 from aLet Bail Hearing to a Suppression Hearing Respectfully submitted, {sl Andrew Baldwin Andrew Baldwin, Atty. No 17851-41 Counsel for Defendant BALDWIN PERRY & WILEY, P.C 150 N. Main St Franklin, Indiana 46131 317-736-0083 CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE. This is to certify a copy of the foregoing pleading has been provided to all counsel of record for the opposing party, via [EFS this same day of filing. {sl Andrew Baidwin BALDWIN PERRY & WILEY, F.C | ILE ge F Nov we D 3 |T5 Larne] Coreuit Lor?and shorestilton RELunlh ovpravio-glfl | Tnthe canse foredabove I,Rderd WAM, | Herdy +hee nyseh.at the mercy od CortsI % ee am “begging 7 baprovide withlegalasistence in |e fattened iita Lt | Arn llrcn Sea JasToll ee g Lhndrepresentation frmy. Z,Hoare ot-rheAime | TLhed nedue hawesporsveidwould defireFl ar e npe T5 immediate. SLI Lirncial Lrtneds hg Ta tile fect tambien edt ent, aprelfdie Hosncarceration Gnd.oy whe or ‘herpepsanalsofetyeShehushad Fo abandon | our ooheraunsafes,WherLileraserse i! ain ZL Fhrow myselt o the ercy of JTT pa, Please he vetsras 7nce este veld Met, iE, i———————————— Then you for your Fim in Hismest eh urgent. small,CF Es ——Brepl LT Tdi AeiE Rid 11. len MAILED" wisn co (ENERGY Ger IEEE + Pondicell: TW 47966 Sa —_— RIANEDFROM Uae:oa Lowct A Delphi, AETW H¢23 ~ Jal a ea aa 9 Cy— . : F I LE D APR 28 7023 Sree R Clerk ofCotspen iE RiI) 023 SA erereen rere iti Dtiimnde AtGlEsh We Com bre... SE ls the. same_um't Hint Richord Alles be. JSR | berlag Aouscol ilo. penitg, Bitlooo [— | Riharet Allen is. beikig. nduseed ame mit=. i a conven LIES (Rated AG feConte ons oh /thri't otherResthoithive moi.Meosiege...J ...... om| KER ARE ColRoplOFRERS Spd rhRe — de Bien puitny _RuchagelBle sKSKithey_ I{lg 4 GatKeAns fh \isib FRom As... ——_ Ahm,PhonE_IS Rigby. on BisETLREl varsacalls BI +12R Lesa. Osboopre, i. rr =“R07 umm Rileydurante CEDRY esNB3AOE RENs1 0g to KTRichanod fear... I lh 4) ah KHAsstf AseHese ee Manns Apis made_HestcommentsfoFont... LL OEtt de Galfer,Annis los, Ce ee 00]THURS| THESHH ApisRecokdid ow... ee. | CrmHe55thorntes.malig hese heen a. welsyggashinis fo Kl]Ass mol ns I ont otha Aestopta as feJ I id ZLAne proof prosuiblincs oF Ce sspolts by Ranking offers And offers oN dima,AEOSEpredprslidbes ates LtGrivnnce avethe Governor's OF lof Ombudsmmn Borne Hat noe beer Ahpiiclleed ppd Covered=n becouse He ee | TryADept OF CoRR.Ls.MorsFo | Polkeel nilBekOffe of Co Tarveshorton RB Zaklhoemae. |Z ReceAlysont [elinsdo the US Dette OF Tashi from Taclihun. Stk. Reontcsahhbe______ ceADR ROR)Go SHAdFrom Hh lSSewhte | Tesoltihpy. mmscoucsrmity he pod — laidFBT michael compli on Ihe. | Thrcliinh bipts. OF CogRech onAudPER sr facihHes.. 0oe oOIIREA 21,2033 Hissho The Amb _ oNaibas Rilbhnrol Mer Tabempled ee \Serk ole pred spent TREJ3LyE teA Co \besprl dus to sh ane offenadose CAawdmistreatneat, OwApr) 9, 3033 Z. | othmphd cotitle pdsped Four[Hyd as fos talSstenssisee ant es TTT REAR SUT oT Js] hier Ah ooopmOEFf ooo LLpRouller As CA pagevtolicd mm POS 1health SeppoktRsnthmenls TZ compsspond cohh New Sor |TimesZuvsshondle Report smdfem WN _Lbepmod the Ips ERSs Schoolol law). = pndIIE madeShem lreennc of dhe ssl i alos, ordmistratmenitgoAngons heme bol ope Rf TheG ere)ee Aeed CTPherse berionned thisLefen Aobe Judea Richprd Blfns chspod CkA pheugysdecrutsiz Aneomete te heoRgemiambonsmekbmed Ho | Sxposs The pssavlfs, pboss, andmik￾LTrar Repeat J Selmi ob AShereyy, | Rb Bd Cl Rodent Po BaskFzosan eh Goan fro ARdes Felsooth foo west _ CC weshulle,Tiocktum a 39) pluses £mtreated, fo ThE. NECHS.MELT mel Bedpo Emergency Pehbowfyfhe Gowrie webobet! 2Bates, ” ©Somei COILS USFOSTAGE ros 000 BODRIE nniOt sesom aozeerr SAGAS OfSHES o—EE. ILE ESI 2ehon $000.60° i BREE 238% rasa hon 25 2023 1Som vest APR 28 213 TSTem DENTIFESTHISCORRESPONDENCEAS Shootin etna tr. CARRE County Cloak OFCourts ee / BREETER lol wi, mpi $+ § Delph), Zu, #323 - " 48923-159556 Hype ofp ap eggs I Leagnly NL { N Flo: 141292022 8:49 A EXHIBIT ‘Carol Circuit Court 1 ‘Carol County, Indiana STATEOFINDIANA ~~) IN THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT )8S: COUNTY OF MARION) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ) Defendant ) MEDIA INTERVENORS® POST-HEARING BRIEF SEEKING PUBLIC ACCESS TO PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT AND CHARGING INFORMATION ‘The Media Itervenors' submit this Post-Hearing Brief following the November 22, 2022 public hearing (the “Public Hearing”) on the State’s Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record (the “Motion”). This Post-Hearing Brief addresses three points in response to the State’s arguments presented at the Public Hearing. I Media Intervenors Are Not Looking for A “Soundbite.” During the Public Hearing, the State trivialized the media's interests by referring to “extraordinary lengths” taken to get a “soundbite.” The Media Intervenors” interests are not so trivial —quite the opposite. The media, as the Fourth Estate, serves the public by reporting on matters of keen public interest (such as the Defendants arrest and charges). promoting transparency, and holding the govemment accountable. See Cox Broad. Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S, 469, 495 (1975) (emphasis added) (“With respect to judicial proceedings in particular, the function The term “Media Intervenors” refers to the following entities collectively: Indiana Broadcasters Association, Inc.; Hoosier State Press Association, Inc; The Associated Press; Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC d/b/a WISH-TV; EW. Scripps Company d/b/a WRTV; Nexstar Media Inc. bla WXIN/WTTV; NeuhoflMedia Lafayette, LLC; Woof BoomRadio LLC; TEGNA Inc. d/b/a WTHR; Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC d/b/a The Indianapolis Star; and American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. d/b/a ABC News. 1 ofthe press serves fo guaran the faimessoffiaks and fo bring tobear fhe beneficial effects of public serutiny upon the adinistrationof justice "). When the govenuaent denies access to full information, it is not only the media's job, but its rasponsbilay, 1seek what little information it can obtain. Full access would ixprove thedephofreporting, avoid misinformation, and promote accountability. In sum, the Media Itervenors” newsgathering efforts should notbe cast as a nuisance, or wonse,sotivelydiscouraged. Doing 50 would undermine the Media Intervenors”federaland sate constitutional rightsand Indiana's publicpolicyfavoring access. IL Concerns RegardingSafetyand Further Investigations Do Not Warrant Exclusion. The State during the Public Hearing acknowledged the public’s “ght to know” but suggested that the “cost” wastoo highto allow. Insodoing, theState downplayed thesignificant costs of nondisclosure, as outlinedabove,whichare central to democratic society. In any event, the State’s arguments regarding the “costs”ofdisclosure do not rebut the presumption of access. Soe Commentary fo Rule 6 (explaining that Rule § “incorporates a ‘resumptionof openness and requires compelling evidence to overcome this presumption”). First, as to the State's concer for the ongoing investigation: Though the State indicated that actors other then the Defendant mayhave be involved in the alleged crimes, the State apparentlyhes conducted sufficient investigation as fo the Defendant himselfto charge him vith doublefelony murder. The Statemay continue investigating otheractors while disclosing whythe Defendantwas charged. The supportinginfortea ion should not be kept under the rug for months or ees on-end Second, to the extent there is& conse for witness harassmentoxcourtioom decorum, the couseofthe Public Hearingdemonstiated that the Courtendlaw enforcement werewellequipped 2 0 implement appropriate security measures, and the public was able 10 abide bythe Court's rules for decorum. As for witnesses outside the courtroom setting, the State has already provided the Courtacopyof the Probable Cause Affidavitwiththeirnames redacted. At minim, the Court can (and should) release theredacted copywithout corapromising witness privacy. IO. These Proceedings Should Not Be Cloaked in Secrecy UntilA Verdict. Finally, the States concem for witness privacy suggests that the State may ask for future. ‘hearings—or even the trial itself—to be blocked from public access. If the public is to accept the ultimate resultofanytrial, this is nota realistic solution. See Richmond, 443 US. at 572 (“People in an opensocietydo not demandinfallibilityfroma their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited fiom cbmrving”). A public trial and public proceedings are essential fo ensure justice for the victis, faimess to the accused, and overall legitimacy of the process. No rater the ultimate result, the public needs to be apprised of the process along the way.Ifthe Defendant is acquitted or enters into aplea agreement, the public needs to know why 10 ensure the government is doing its job. If the Defendant is found guilty, the public needs to ‘know why to ensure that the governmentis delivering justice. There are 00many instances in our ‘nation’s short history of criminal sanctions being handed dom without appropriate process and public oversight. This is not an occasion toretum to that practice. Respectfully submitted, fr MargaretM. Chuistensen, # 27061.49 Jessica Lawn Meek, #34677-53 DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEB4MLLP 2700 Market Tower 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900 3 Telephone: (317) 635-2900 Facsimile: (317) 236-9907 danbyron@denions com ‘margaret cluistensen@dentons com jessica ueek@dentons com Attorneysfor Indiana Broadcasters Association, Inc.; Hoosier State Press Association, Inc.; The Associated Press; Circle City Broadcasting|, LLCdfbla WISH TV; EW, Senipps Company dfbla WRTY Norstar Media hue. dibia WITNWITY; ‘Nuhof)Media Lafapette, LLC;Woof Boom Tadio LLC; TEGNA nc. dibla WEE; Gannett Satallte Information diana Newspapers, LLC dfiva The Indianapolis Star, andAmerican Broadcasting Compania Tc. dlbla ABC News CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hexsby certify that on Noveraez 23, 2022, the foregoing was filed vith the Clerk. ofthe Caroll CountyCircuitCourtandserved to all counsel ofrecordvia IEFS, 1s/ MargaretM. Christansan 4 EXHIBIT A | STATE OF INDIANA | ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ss COUNTY OF CARROLL) (CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA )) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) NOTICE OF DISCOVERY ‘ComesnowtheDefendant, Richard Allen, by Counsel, Bradley A. Rozzi, and serves upon the Indiana Department of Corrections, ¢/o Westville Correctional | Facility, 5501 S 1100 W, Westville, IN 46391, a Subpoena and Request for Production to Non-Party to be answered within thirty (30) days from the date of sevice. Se atached. os ‘Ayefney for Defendant CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that have serveda copyofthis document by first class U.S. Mail, ‘postage prepaid upon Indiana DepartmentofCorrections, c/o Westville:Correctional Facility, 5501 S 1100 W, Westville, IN 46391 and by the County e-filing system upon the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office and Andrew J. Baldwin, the 19% day of May, 2023. re ps9 Byflicy Apr, #2336508 roms ea tac| sat ROZz¢& DEA pro Goof Stet PEL Loganspois FeA6947 EXHIBIT A | STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT | ys: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA ‘THE STATE OF INDIANA, TO THE SHERIFF, GREETINGS: You are hereby commanded to summon the Indiana Department of Corrections, c/o Westville Correctional Facility, 5501 S 1100 W, Westville, IN 46391, to permit Attomey, Bradley A. Rozzi, Attorney, Andrew J. Baldwin, and their | agents to enter onto the Westville Correctional Facility for the purposeofinspecting, | ‘measuring, surveying, and photographing the individual cell block(s), and surrounding. facility, wherein Defendant Richard Allen has been continuously incarcerated since ‘Novemberof2022. Said event shall occur within thirty (30) daysofthe issuance of this Subpoena as referenced below. WITNESS, this [Fday of May, 2023. HILLIS, HILLIS: ay ZN dK. Rozzi, Aflommey fof Defendant 8 Fourth Stree fogansport, IX46947 p74-7224560 Hvis, Hussas, Rozar & DEAN. ti EXHIBIT A | STATEOF INDIANA, ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT | Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 | STATE OF INDIANA ) ) vs. ) ) | RICHARD M. ALLEN ) REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION TO NON-PARTY Pursuantto Trial Rule 34 (A)(2)ofthe Indiana RulesofTrial Procedure, | attomey Bradiey A. Roz requests, Indiana Department of Corrections, c/o | | Westville Correctional Facility, 5501S 1100 W, Westville, IN 46391,aNon-Party, | to produce and permit the examinationofthe following: | To permit eniry onto designated land or other property in the possession or control of the Indiana DepartmentofCorrections (c/o Westville Correctional Facility) for the purposeofinspecting, measuring, surveying, and ‘photographing the individual cell block(s), and surrounding facility, wherein | Defendant Allen has been continuously incarcerated since November of 2022 | pursuant to the Safekeeping Order entered herein on November 3, 2022. Attorney, Bradley A. Rozzi, Attomey, AndrewJ. Baldwin, and theiragentare available to inspect the premises, upon reasonable notice, Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. or on any other time convenient for the Departmentof Corrections and Movants. | Bradley A. Rozzi requests that such production be made to Bradley A. Rozzi, | by mailinga copyofsaid documents to Bradley A. Rozzi, 200 Fourth Street, | Logansport, Indiana 46947. ‘This Request for Production is made pursuant to Trial Rule 34(C), and the producing party isentitled to security against damages or paymentofdamages resulting from this request and may respond to this request by submitting 10 its terms, Dene sans, | BY Proposing different terms, by objecting specifcaly or generally to tis request by Rosai & Dex. iic| serving a written response or by moving to quash as permitied by Trial Rule 45(B) CoommanonTim ener Failure to respond to this Request for Production or to object to it ortomove to Pei | quash, as provided by the Indiana Rulesof Civil Procedure within (30) days from its ee receipt, may subject producing party to a Motion for Sanctions, pursuant to Trial Rule Pe r— 37ofthe Indiana RulesofTrial Procedure. EXHIBIT A J | HILLIS, HILLIS, ROZZI & D Weary NS / ! GradiehRog A ttorey for Defendant 70 Furth Street Logansport, IN 46947 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 certify that have served a copyofthis document by first class U.S. Mail, postage prepaid upon Indiana DepartmentofCorrections, c/o Westville Correctional Roi S501 F300 3 0 oli, 5 4685 mee Cormcll Cony Frosssiot’s Office,the |¢Nay of May, 2023. 2) i {65409 | ILL +ROZZi & DEAN Hiss, Hous. Rozzi & Deav. Lio EXHIBIT A STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL $8: CAUSE NUMBER 08C01-2210-MR- | STATE OF INDIANA INFORMATION vs RICHARD M. ALLEN ry FILED SSN: XXX-XX-3934 ‘oct 282m ] } : COUNT 1: CaaS MURDER afelony LC. 35-42-1-12) Nicholas C_ Misteland, being frst duly som upon is ath savhat on or about February 13,2017, in the County of Carroll, the Stateof Indiana, Richard M. Allen, did Kill another human being, t6 wit: Vietim 1: while committing or atiempiing to commit kidnapping of Victim 1. Allof which is contrary to the form ofthe statute in such cases made and provided, to-wit: 1.C. 35242-1-1(2). and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana. affirm, under the penaltyofperjury as specified in .C. 35-44.1-2-1, tha the foregoing representations are rue Js/ Nicholas C. MeLeland NicholasC-Meleland Approved by me this date, October 27, 2022. My term expires: December31, 2022 1s Nicholas C. MeLeland Meleland Nicholas C Witnesses: Kathy Allen Betsy Blair Sarah Cabaugh Kel German Stephen Buckley Matthew Clemans Jeremy Clinton” ~~ Dan C. Dulin Josh Edwards Jay Harper Brian Harshman~~ Jerry Holeman William Kauffers Tony Liggett Wesley McWhirter Stephen Mullin Melissa Oberg Terry Wilson A. Smith David Vido Bench Warrant to issue; bond is setatS____ AS RY. BW. fudge. Carroll CircuitCourt STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL. 5: CAUSE NUMBER 08C01-2210-MR- | STATE OF INDIANA INFORMATION vs RICHARD M. ALLEN > DOB: 9/9/1972 F ILE D SSN: XXX-XX-3034 ocT 28272 COUNT MURDER2: CLERKDeCARROLL CIRGL T COURT afelony L.C. 3342-112) Nichola Melcand being rs ul swomupon sca. sav hat ono about February 13,2017 in © the County of Caroll, the State ofIndiana. Richard M. Allen. did kill another human being. wit: Vietim 2: | While committing o atempling to commit kidnapping of Viciim 2. All ofwhich is contrary to the formofthe statute in such cases made and provided, o-wit: LC. 35:42-1-1(2). and against the peace and dignity of the State of Indiana. 1 ffi, under the penaltyofperjury as specified in .C. 35-4.1-2-1, that the foregoing representations arc true. Nicholas C. MeLeland Nicholas MeLeland C￾Approved by me this date, October 27, 2022. My term expires: December 31, 2022 / Nicholas C. MeLeland Melelnd NicholasC Witnesses: Kathy Allen Betsy Blair Suh Cab Kel Geman Stephen Buckley Matthew Clemans Jeremy Clinton” Dan C. Dulin Josh Edwards Jay Harper Brian Harshman ~~ Jerry Holeman Willa Kauflers Ton Ligget Wesley McWhirter Stephen Mullin Melista Oberg Terry Wilson AJ. Smith David Vido AS. RV. Bench Warrant to issue: bond is set at. BW Fudge, Carroll Circuit Court STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ’ COUNTY OF CARROLL, S85: CAUSENUMBER08C01-2210-MR-01 STATE OF INDIANA INFORMATION vi . RICHARD M. ALLEN . DOB: 9/9/1972 SSN: XXX-XX-3934 . COUNT 1: MURDER aFelony1.C. 3542-112) ‘Nicholas C,MeLeland, beingfirstduly swornupon hisoath, says thatonorabout February 13,2017, in the Countyof Carroll, the StateofIndiana,2, RindM. en anotherhunTeme,wit: Viotim 1; hilecommittingorattempting to commitkidnappingofVictim 1. * Allofwhich iscontrarytotheform ofthestatutein suchcases made and. to-wit:LC, 3542-1-1(2), and.Sonate peace and dignity ho StateofIndlann. eae Lf,unde thepal ofpy speedin.C. 3544.1-2:1 at tofreon eprosnaions IsNickolas C. MoLeland NeBomSC.MeleRsd Approvedbymethisdate,October27, 2022. ‘My term expires:December31, 2022 I8/ Nicholas C. MeLeland Witnesses: : ‘BenchWarrantto issue; bond is set at $. Tofgs, Camo CiroaieCont STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT : COUNTY OF CARROLL, 58: CAUSENUMBER 08C01-2210-MR-01 STATEOFINDIANA INFORMATION : vs RICHARD M. ALLEN DOB: 99/1572 SSN: JOOKKK3934 : COUNT 2: : MURDER aFeloay1.C. 3542112) he Nicholas C, MoLeland, beingfirst kis haonor bout February 13,2017,i eh ane esBataanbea 1 wit VicAin25 hile commiting oF atemptingto commitKduappingofVickm 2. Allofwhich iconary otho form of thestatute i suchcasesmadeand to-wit LC. 3540110), an Sgainst thepeacean. gayofthe Stato ofdiana. ali ffi,underthe perlof pry specienC. 3-4141, toTrgprs aro tue. 1Nicholas C. McLeland ~~ . REC Approvedbymetidat,October27, 2022. Mytoc expires: December 31, 2022 JsNicholas C. MeLeland ‘Nichols C. MeLeland : Witnesses: BeachWarranttoissue; bond ssetat, Teige, CarollCea Come mua suztaom sso om GalGirt out aonCou. mans STATEOFINDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT 358 COUNTY OF MARION CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) Plaintifl, ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ) Defendants ) LIMITED APPEARANCE BY ATTORNEYS Party Classification: hifisting __ Responding _ Intervening _X_ Substitution_ 1. Theundersigned attorneyandallatiorneyslistedon thisformnowappearinthis case for theLimiiedpupose challengingthe provisional sealingofthe probable cause affidavit and charging information in the above-captioned cause pending the November 22, 2022 public hearing on the matter. This limited appearance i on hehalfof thefollowingparty member(s): INDIANA BROADCASTERS ASSOCIATION; HOOSIER STATE PRESS ASSOCIATION, INC.; ‘THE ASSOCIATED PRESS; CIRCLE CITY BROADCASTING I, LLCD/B/AWISH.TV; EW. SCRIPPS COMPANY D/B/A WRTY; NEXSTAR MEDIA INC. D/B/A WXIN'WTTY; TEGNA INC. DIBA WTHR; GANNETT SATELLITE INFORMATIONINDIANA NEWSPAPERS, LLC D/B/A THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR; AMERICAN BROADCASTING COMPANIES, INC. D/BIA ABC NEWS; NEUHOFF MEDIA LAFAYETTE, LLC; and WOOF BOOM RADIO LLC 2. Applicable attomey information for service os requiredby Trial Rule S(B)(2) and for case information as required byTrial Rules 3.1 and THE) is as follows: Name: DanielP.Byron Attorney No.: 3067-49 MargaretM. Christensen. Attorney No.: 2706149 Jessica Laurin Meek Attorney No.: 34677-53 Address: DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEBAUM LLP 2700 Market Tower 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204 Phone: 317-635-8900 ami Fax: 317-236-9907 [email protected] [email protected] 3. There are other party members: Yes _ No X_ (If yes, list on continuation page.) 4. IF first initiating party filing this case, the Clerk is requested to assign this case the following Case Type under Administrative Rule 8(b)(3): 5. Twill accept service by FAX at the above noted number: Yes __ No_X 6. This case involves support issues. Yes __ No X._ (If yes, supply social security numbers forall family members on continuation page.) 7. There are related cases: Yes __ No X_ (If yes, list on continuation page.) 8 This form has been served on all other parties. Yes. 9. Additional information required by local rule: Not applicable. Respectfully submitted, 5/Margaret M. Christensen Daniel P. Byron, #3067.49 Margaret M. Christensen, # 27061-49 Jessica L. Meck, £34677-53 Dentons Bingham Greenebaum LLP 2700 Market Tower 10 West Market Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900 Telephone: (317) 635-8900 Facsimile: (317) 236-9907 dan [email protected] margaret christensen @dentons.com jessica meck@dentons com Attorneys for Indiana Broadcasters Association, Inc.; Hoosier State Press Association, Inc.; The Associated Press; Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC dba WISH-TV; EW. Seripps Company d'b/a WRTV; Nexstar Media Inc. d/b/a WXINWTTV; TEGNA Inc. d/b/a WIHR; Gannett Satellite Information Indiana Newspapers, LLC d/b/a The Indianapolis Star; American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. d/b/a ABC News: Neuhoff Media Lafayette. LLC; and Woof Boom Radio LLC 2 CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE 1 hereby certify thaton November 21, 2022, the foregoing was filed with the Clerkofthe Canoll CountyCircuit Court andservedvia [EFS. {of Margaret M_ Christensen 3 Rasmans co om ‘Grr Ge Court Camel Court, naam STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CIRCUITCOURT )88: CARROLLCOUNTY) OFCARROLLCOUNTY STATE OFINDIANA ) ) v. ) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 ) RICHARDALLEN ) LIMITEDAPPEARANCEBYATTORNEY PartyClosalication: Inftiting_ Responding _ IntarveningX_Substhution 1.Tha undersignedatiameylisiad on thisfarm nowappears In tha case farthe Imiiedpurpose ofrequesting public accesstocourt racords. Thisliked appearance i onbehallofthe follwing partymember: MYBTERY SHEETLLCdoing business as MURDERSHEET 2.Applicableatiomey Informationforservice araquiredbyTrial Rus S(B)Z) and forcass Information aa requiredbyTrial Rules 3.1 and 77(2} aaafalaws: Name:Kevin Greenlee 9783E110th Sime #141 Flohora, IN 48037 Isvingreenissgmall.com (317) 40-2252 3.Therear other partymembers: Yes__No Xfyes,Bton continuationpage.) 4. fiat ntiotingperty fling thincase,theClark Irequestedtoassign thiscasethefolowing Cam Type under Adminisiative RulBEN: 5.1 wll ncoaptservice by EMAILa theabovenoted smalladdrses:Yas 6. ThiscaseInvolves supportIsause. Yea __ No_X (If yea,supplysockelsecurity numbersfor ail family members on continuation page.) 7. Therearerelated eses:Yes __NoX (tf yes, listan continustionpage.) Respectfullysubmitted, fad Kavi Gruoniss. Kevin Groenias2208303 $783 E 116thSweat#141 Fishers, IN46037 lpvingraeniss@gmal com B17) 40-2252 CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE 1 hereby certifythat a copy ofthe frngoing hanbeanserved antheStats ufIndians,by ‘eBervioe, an thedateoffiling. BevinGreenlee KovinGreenlee2298303 nna; 1asans a0an CalGritCourt CarmollCourt, tana. STATEOFINDIANA IN THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT )ss COUNTY OF MARION CAUSE NO. 03C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ) Defendant, ) MEDIA INTERVENORS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE ‘The Media Intervenors, by counsel,respectfully submit thisMotionforLeave fo Inervere intheabove-captionsd cause. In support, the Media Intervenors state the following; 1. OnMoverber2, 2022, the Cowtenteredits Order Acknowledging Public Hearing (“Public Hearing Order”) onthe State’s Verified Requestto Prohibit Public Access tothe Probable Cause &ffidavit and Charging Information 2. ThatPublic HearingOrderstated that the hearing would take place on November 22, 2022 (the “Public Hearing) and would “be conducted pursuant to Ind. Code§ 5-14.3-5 Send Indiana Rules ofCourt, Rules on Access to Court Records, Rule 67 * The “Media Intervenons” refer to the following entities collectively: Indiana Broadcasters Association, Inc, Hoosier State Press Association, Inc ; The Associated Press; Circle City Broadcasting I, LLC dibfa WISH-TV, EW. ScrippsCompanyd/ble WRTV; Nexstar Media Inc. dib/a WXINFWTTV , Neuhoff Media Lafayette, LLC, WoofBoora Radio LLC, TEGNA Inc. dibla WTHR; Genvett Satellits Information Network, LLC dia Tre Indianapolis Star; and Aerican Broadcasting Companies, nc. bia ABC News, Rule 6 apglies in “extraordinary circumstances” where a court record “that otherwisewould be publiclyaccessible” i requestec tobe excluded fiora public access. See Rule 6(4). Ind. Code§ 5- 143.55 applies when the cout receives a request 1 seal a public record that is “not declared confidentialunder Ind. Code § 5-14-3-4)]” (ie. public records that are mandatonily excepted from disclosure). 1 3. The Public Hearing Order further stated that “[p]arties or members of the general ‘public will be permitted to testify and submit written briefs, subject to reasonable time constraints imposed by the Court.” 4. Consistentwiththe Public Hearing Order, the Media Intervenors filed a Prehearing Brief and their counsel's Appearances on November 21, 2022, in anticipationofbeing heard at the Public Hearing based on (1) the permissive language of the Public Hearing Order and (2) Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.5(d), partofthe Indiana Access to Public Records Act (“APRA”), which gives “membersofthe general public” the right to “testify and submit written briefs” upon a request to seal public records not mandatorily excepted from disclosure. 5. Atthe beginning of the Public Hearing, however, the Court stated that the Public Hearing would be conducted pursuant to Rule 6 and not pursuant to APRA.’ therefore not permitting the Media Intervenors to present argument, 6. Accordingly, the Media Intervenors now formally request leave to intervene in this actionforthe limited purposeof challenging the State’s Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access filed on October 28, 2022 and the provisional exclusion of the Probable Cause Affidavit and Charging Information. See Richmond Newsp. Inc. v. Virginia, 448 US. 555, 573 (1980) (explaining that the media acts as “surrogates for the public” in seeking public access); see also Nixon v. Warner Comm'rs, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978) (“It is clear that the courtsof this 3 Media Itervenors now understandthat the Defendant and his counsel have indeed reviewed the State’s Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access and Probable Cause Affidavit. Access by the Defendant and his counsel indicates that the States Request was simplyto exclude the documents from public access rather than to seal the documents.See Access to Court Records Handbook at p. 53, QI (2020), available at: htips://www in gov/courts/ioes files PublicAccessHandbook pdf (explaining the difference between records “not accessible for public access” and those “sealed under statutory authority”). 2 country moognize a general right to inspect and copy public records and documents, including judicial reconds and documents”) 7. The Media Intervenors alsorespectfully request that the Court, inrecognitionof the. ‘media's unique access interests, consider (1) its Prehearing Brieffiled on November 21, 2022 and (2)theirtended Post-Hearing Brief(attachedto thisMotionas Exhubit 1). The tendered Post￾Hearing Briefs succinct anddoesnotre peat the points made inthe Pre-Hearing Brief, The purpose of theFostHearing Briefis to respondto certain arguments rade bythe State during the Public Hearing WHEREFORE, the Media Intervenorsrespectfllyrequest that the Court () Grant them leave to intervene in the above-captioned causeforthe linited purose of challenging the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access filed on October 23, 2022 and the provisional exclusion of the Probable Cause Affidavit andCharging Information; (i) Consider the Media Intervenors’ Prehearing Brief filed on November 21, 2022 and tendered Post Hearing Bef (attachedto this Mbtion)inruling on. the States Verified Request to Prokibit Public Access filed on October 28, 2022; 80d (i) All other justand appropriate relief. * On Noverdber 22, 2022 following the Public Hearing, the Court entered its Order or Judgment of the Court which “note[d] filingof a Limited Appearance by Attomeys” and the Pre-Heating Brief, further stating that the Court has taken this matter under advisement. 3 Respectfully submitted, fsfMargaret M_ Christensen Daniel P. Byron, # 3067-49 Margaret M. Chuistensen, # 27061.49 Jessica Laurin Meek, # 34677-53 DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEB4MLLP 2700 Market Tower 10 West Varket Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900 ‘Telephone: (317) 635-2900 Facsimile: (317) 236-9907 danbyron@dentons cor ‘margaret chyiste nsen@dentons cor jessica eek@dentons com. Attorneysfor Indiana Broadcasters Association, Inc.; Hoosier State Fress Association, Inc; The Associated Press; Circlo City Broadeasting|LLC dfbla WISH. TV; E17, Seripps Company dia WRIV, Nexstar Media Inc. ible WEINWITV, NouhoffMedia Lafayette, LLC; WoofBoom Radio LLC; TEGNA Inc. d/bfa WER; Gamt Satellite Information Netword; LIC dibfa The Indianapolis Star, LLCdba The Indianapolis Star;andAmerican ‘Broadcasting Companies, Ine. dfbia ABC News CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thersbycertify thaton Noverdber 23, 2022, the foregoing was filed with the Clerk ofthe Canoll County Circuit Court andservedto all counsel ofrecordvia EFS. If Margaret M Clristanson 4 Ang: 210203 £25 PH ‘Cir Ge Court Caron Cou. mans STATEOF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT )ss COUNTY OF MARION) CAUSENO. 03C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) Plant, ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M ALLEN, ) ) Defendant ) MEDIA INTERVENORS’' RENEWED MOTIONTO INTERVENE AND MOTIONTO GRANTPUBLIC ACCESS TO THESTATES VERIFIEDREQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS ‘The Media Intervenors,by counsel,respectfullysubmit this Renewed Mbtion to Intervene and Motion to Grant Public Access to the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access. In support, the Media Intervenors state the following A. RENEWEDMoTIONTO INTERVENE 1. On October 28, 2022, the State filed its Verified Request asking the Cowt fo ‘prokibit public access to the Affidavitof Probable Cause and Criminal Information pertaining to the Defendant's anest and criminal charges (the “Request”). The Request was filed asa confidential document and still emains confidential 2. Onlovember2, 2022, the Cowtenteredits CrderAcknowledging Public Hearing (“Public Hearing Order”)onthe Request. The Public Hearing Order stated that the hearing would * The “dia Intervenons” tefer to the following entities collectively: Indiana Broadcasters Association, Inc.; Hoosier State Press Association, Inc, The Associated Press; Circle City Broadcasting 1, LLC dibfa WISH-TV, EW. Scripps Company dfbla WRTV;NexstarMedia Inc dba WXIN/WTTV , Neuhof! Veda Lafayette, LLC;Woof BoomRadio LLC;TEGNAInc. dibia WTHR, GanvettSatellite Information Network, LLC doa Tre Indianapolis Star; and Averican Broadcasting Companies, Inc. dibja ABC News. 1 “be conducted pustantto Ind Code§ 5-14-3-5.5 and Indiana RulesofCou, Rules onAccess to Cout Records, Rule 6” and that “[ylerties or membexsofthe general publicwill be permitted to testify andsubreitwritten briefs, subject to reasonable tirae constraints iraposed bythe Court” 3. The hearing on the Request occuned on Noveber 22, 2022. At the hearing, the Court stated that Access to Court Records Rule 6 rather than Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.5(d), part ofthe Indiana Access o Public Records Act (“APRA”), govemed. The Media Intervenors therefore vere 20! permitted to prose argument at the hearing. Accordingly, following the hearing, the Media Intervenorsfiled their Mbtion for Leave to Intervenevith a Post HearingBriefattached. 4 On November 28, 2022, the Court issued its Order denying the Request, in part, and denied the Motion for Leave to Intervene os root 5. The MediaItervenorsnow renew that MbtionforLeave to Intervene vith respect to the public releaseofthe Request. See Richmond Newsp, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 US. 555, 573 (1980) (explaining that the mediaactsas “surrogatesfor the public”in seeking public access). B. MoTIONTO RELEASETHEREQUEST T0 THE PUBLIC 6. Inthe November 28, 2022 Onder, theCourtfourd that “the State hasfailedto pave by clear and convincing evidence that the Affidavit of Probable Cause and the Charging Information should be excluded from publicaccess”and that “the public interest is not served by. prohibiting access(]” The Court, however, found that “theprotection and safety of witesesscan be ensured by redacting their names from the Affidavit, and that the defendant's personal information canbe removed from the Charging Infomaatiors.” 7. The Cout therefore ordered public release of a redacted Affidavit for Probable Cause and Charging Information, submitted by the State at the hearing, with witness names and theDefendant'spereonalinformationredacted. 2 8 Shortly after, the redacted Affidavit for Probable Cause and Charging Information were released publicly. The Request itself, however, stil has not been released publicly and Ternains confidential on the docket. 9. AcossstoCourtRecords Rule6(4)permits the flingof“verified writen requests] to prohibit Public Access 10 a Court Record,”as the State did here in filing its Request 10. Rule 6(4) contemplates that requests to prohibit publi access should rot remain excluded from public view forever. Such rcuests are only tobe excluded @engorarily until the Court rules om the request: “When this resquest is mad, the request and the Court Record vill be sender confidential for reasonable periodoftime wniil the Court rules onthe request.” Rule 6(4) (eraphasis added) 11. Because the Court has alreadyruledonthe RequestanddeniedtheRecestin-part (with the exception of witness names and Defendant's personal information), the Request itself” now should be released. Theze is no longeranylegal basis or reason to exclude the Request—a quintessential court record—from the public eye ? Sug, e.g, Mxonv. Warner Comm ‘ns Jac, 435 11:5. 589,597 (1978) (“tis clear thatthe courtsofthis county recognize ageneral ightto inspect an copypublic recordsanddocuments, including judicial recordsanddocuaents”) WHEREFORE, the Media Intervenors respectfully request that the Cot grant them pemuission to intervene in this matter for the purpossof seeking release of the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to the public end order the clerk to release the Request 1 the public * The Media Intervenors acknowledge that the Request may contain witness nares and the Defendant's personal information.If that is the case, consistent with the Court's November 25, 2022 Onder, the Media Intervenors would not object to a public version of the Request that has witness names and personal information redacted only. 3 Respectfully submitted, [sf Margaret Mf Christensen DanielP. Byron, # 3067-40 MargaretI.Chaistenser, #2706149 Jessica Laurin Meek, #34677-53 DENTONS BINGHAM GREENES UM LLP 2700 Market Tower 10 WestMarket Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-4900 ‘Telephone: (317) 635-2900 Farsi: (317) 236-9907 [email protected] ‘margaret christensen@dentons con jessica ek@dentons com Attorneysor the Media Intervenors CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 hersbycertify that on February 10, 2023, the foregoing was filed with the Clerk of the Canoll County Circuit Courtandserved to all counselofrecordvia IEFS. 1Margaret M Christenson 4 mua suztaom sso om ClGritCourt Carmoll Court, tana. STATEOFINDIANA IN THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT )ss COUNTY OF MARION CAUSE NO. 03C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ) Defendant, ) MEDIA INTERVENORS' PRE-HEARING BRIEF SEEKING PUBLIC ACCESS TO PROBABLE CAUSE AFFIDAVIT AND CHARGING INFORMATION The Media Intervenors® submit this Pre-Hearing Brief pursuant to the Comt’s November 2, 2022 Grder Acknowledging Public Hearing and urge this Cot to grant public access to the Probable Cause Affidavit end Charging Information because the public interest is best served by public access to prosecutor'sbasis for filing criminal charges. Itis impossible toknow what basis the State has alleged to support its Verified Request fo Prohibit Public Access to a Cout Record (the “Motion because the Motion itself is excluded from public access pending the November 22, 2022 public hearing in this mater. However, it is unlikely that there is any justification to wanant sealing the entire factual basis for charging the Defendant—particulrly given the substantial publicconcern regarding the unsolved and high-profilemurderoftn minorsoverfive searsago. 1 The “Media Intervenors” refer to the following entities collectively: Indiana Broadcasters Association, Inc.; Hoosier State Press Association, Inc; The Associated Press, Cixcle City. Broadcasting I, LLC doje WISH-TY, EW. Scripps Company doa WRTV; Nexstar Media Inc diofa WXINIWTTY , NeuhoffMedia Lafayette, LLC, Woof Boom Radio LLC, TEGNA Inc. dib/a WTHR, Gannett Satellite Information Indiana Newspapers, LLC d/b/a The Indianapolis Star; and Arerican Proadcasting Corapanies, Inc. dloja ABC News 1 ‘This Court should grant public access and lift the provisional exclusion from public access. and sealingofthe Probable Cause Affidavit and Charging Information. Doing so would further the publics rightto access judicial records, which isparticularlyacute in these circumstances I ThePublic andthe MediaHave a SubstantialRight to Access JudicialRecords Based in Indiana Policy and the Federal and Indiana Constitutions. In seeking public access, the rediaacts as “sunogatesforthe public.” Richmond Newsp., Ire. v. Virginia, 448 US. 555, 573 (1980). The United States Supvere Court hasaptlyexplained the media's irportant role: [Mn a society in which each individual has but limited tire and resources with which to observe at first hand the operations of his goverment, he relies necessarily upon the Jess tobring to him in convenient form the factsofthose operations. Great responsiility is accordingly placed upon the news media to report fll and accurately the proceedingsof government,and official records and documents open to the public axe the basic dataof governmental opemtions. ‘With respect to judicial proceedingsin particular, thefunction ofthe press servesto guaranteethe fairnessoftrials andto bringohearthe beneficial effectsofpublicscrutiny won theadministration ofjustice. CoxBroad Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U.S, 469, 495(1975) (emphasis added). Media Intervenors, onthe public’s behalf, seekaccess to the Probable Cause Affidavitand Charging Informationto ensure government traxsparency andsccounthility—whichisespecially critical in criminal matters. Soo Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 US. 539, 560 (1976) (explaining that the press is “the ‘handmaiden of effective judicial administration, especially in the criminal field” and a “guard against the miscaniage of justice by subjecting the police, prosecutors, and judicial processes to extensive publicscrutinyand criticism”). Consistent with these principles, the General Asseibly expressly recognizes Indiana's “public policy.. that all persons are entitled tofulland coraplete information regarding the affairs of govemment and the official actsofthose who representthemas public officials and exaplogees.” 2 Ind. Code § 5-14:3-1 (further explaining thatthe Access fo Public Records ct (“APRA”)willbe “Uberally construed to implement this policy” and that theburden for nondisclosure fall on the ‘public agency). Accessto CourtRecords Rule6(hereinafler “Rule 67), provulgated bythe Indiara Suprerne Cout, Likewise “presume s] openness andl requires compelling evidence to overcome thispresumption”Corentary to Rule 6. spt fromvellreasoned policy considerations, the public inferest in accessing judicial econds has constitutional dimensions. Media Inervenors, ss members and representativesof the public, are preswnptively entided to judicial documents and proceedings under the Fist and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Ses, 0.g, Pross-Enter. Co. v. Supericr Court, 478 US. 1, 11-12 (1986); see also Nixon v. WarmerComme: ‘ns brc., 435 US. 589, 597 (1998) (“Tt is clear that the courtsofthis country recognize a general right to inspect and copy ‘public records and documents, including judicial records ard documents”) ‘The Indiana Constitution similarly (ene perhaps more so) protects public access and key newsgathering sctivities. Soa Ind. Const. Article 1, Section 9(“Nolaw shall be passed, restraining the fee interchangeofthoughtand opinion, or restricting the rightto speak write or print freely, onany subject whatsoever{]"); Mishlar v. MAC tems Jc. 771 NE2d 92,97 (Ind Ct. App 2002) (recognizing that the Indiana Constitution “more jeslowsly protects freedom of speech guarantees than does the United States Constitution’). In light of Indiana's Constitutional Protection ofthe free interchangeof ideas, the Supreme Courthas assumedthet a “materialbrurdext” on newsgathering ability couldviolate the Indiana Constitution. Jn re WTHRTV, 603NE2d 1, 15-16 (Ind. 1998) Considering Indiana’spolicyfivoring public access andl the constitutional inuplications of esticting access tojudicial econds, the public'sandmedia's interest inacossing judicial records 3 is not something to be taken lightly, and certainly should not be dismissed as a nuisance. This strong publicinterest must be & primary consideration inresolving the State's Motion IL ‘ThePublic InterestIs BestServedWhenProbable Cause Affidavits and Charging Information Are Made Available for Public Scrutiny. gains this backdiop ofdeepiyeooted public access rights, probable cause affidavits and associated charginginformation (such as those presently shiededinthiscase) are esential judicial seconds wniquely worthyofdisclosure. Theyconteinkeyfasts mooveredin crininal investigations which are insulted from public involvement and wlfimately result in the State’s charging decisions. The public hasa strong interest knowing wiy the State is charging aparticular member ofthe community forallegedcrimes. See Gresnwoodv.Wolchik, 544 4.24 1156, 1157 (V1. 1988) (“Public access to affidavits of probeble cause is al the more important becavse the Frocess of chargingbyinformation involvesno citizen involvement, suches i present with juriesandgrand juries(]"). Accessgivesthe public answers to these vital questions. Publiz access al srves as an important accountability tool, ensuring the fundamental Tequirementofprobable cause supports the amet. See Com v. Fanstermaler, 530 52d 414, 418 (Pa. 1987) (explaining that access to probable cause affidvits “would enhance the performance of police and prosecutorsby encouraging them to establish sufficient cause before an affidavit is filed,wouldactas a public check on discretionofissuing authorities thus discouraging erroneous decisionsanddecisionsbased on partiality, and would promote a public perception offsimess in the anest wamantprocess”);see also Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 421 US. 539, 587 (1976) (stating that “[decrecy of judicial action canonly breed ignorance and distrustof courts and suspicion conceming the competence and impartiality of judges” and “free and bust reporting, criticism, and debate can. subject{] [the criminal justice syste] to the cleansing 4 efforts of exposure and public accountability’) (Brennan, J, concuning). Accountability, in tum, ‘promotes public trust, whichiskeyto democratic society. The history leading to the Defendant's nest, coupled with the natwe of the underlying. alleged crimes (the murderoftn children), undererores the needfortransparency. Soe Matter of TE, 895N E2d 321,342 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (“[Tlhedeathof anychildis amatter ofthe keenest ‘public interest[]") intemal quotations omitted). Thesecries havegoneuntesolved for yearsand, apparently only recently, the investigation has gained traction. Yet the public has no ideahow ox why the Defendantwes anestedfor thealleged crimes, no less how the investigative process led othe Defendant's rest,oreven hovethe Stateallegesthe Defendant wasinvolvedinthe murders These arecritiza issuessquarely affecting the poblic interest. To the extent there is a concen that the Defendant's anest was an unwananted effort tosatisfy public demand, making the charging zecors available to the public wil promote continued accountability and public trust in the process. The public has a right to answers. Sse Richmond, 443 US. at 572 (‘People in an open societydonotdemandinfaliblity fromtheirinstitutions, but its difficult for thera to accept what theyare prohibited from observing”). IO. The State Cannot MeetIts BundentoSealthe RecordsorExclude themfrom Public Access. Rule 6 imposes a heevyburden on the State to exclude the Probable Couse Affidavit and Charging Information from public access. In these “extraordinarycircumstances,” the Stet must showby “clearandconvincing evidence” oneofthe following: ? Rule 6 applies in “extraordinary circumstances” where a court record “that otherwisewould be ‘publiclyaccessible” is requested to beexcluded from public access. See Rule 6(4). The Court's OrderAcknowledging Public Hoaring dated November 2, 2022 explainedthat the public hearing will be conducted pusuant to Rule 6 and Indiana Code§ 5-143-55, thelaterof which applies ‘when the court receives a request to seal a public recoxd that is “not declared confidential under [ind Code § 5-143-4)]” (Le. public records that aw: raandatorily excepted from disclosure). 4 (1) The public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access: (2) Access or dissemination of the Court Record will create a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons or the general public; or (3) Asubstantial prejudicial effect to on-going proceedings cannot be avoided without prohibiting Public Access. Rule 6(4), (DD). To the extent the State seeks to go beyond exclusion from public access and seal’ the records under the Indiana Access to Public Records Act, the State must demonstrate all five statutory factors by a preponderanceof the evidence: (1) apublic interest wil be secured by sealing the record; (2) dissemination of the information contained in the record will create a serious and imminent danger to that public interest; (3) any prejudicial effect created by disseminationofthe information cannotbe: avoided by any reasonable method other than sealing the record: (4) there is a substantial probability that sealing the record will be effective in protecting the public interest against the perceived danger; and (5) itis reasonably necessary for the record to remain sealed for a period of time. Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.5 (emphasis added): see also Ind. Code §5-14-3-1 (burden for nondisclosure falls on the public agency). Accordingly, Media Intervenors glean that the State is not claiming that the Probable Cause Affidavit and the Charging Information must be sealed pursuant to a mandatory statutory exception. The Indiana Public Access to Court Records Handbook explains the difference between records “not accessible for public access” and those “sealed under statutory authority” (such as under Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.5): “Records sealed under statute are more secure because no one is entitled to view the records without court authorization. Records “not accessible for public access” are only secure from public access but may be viewed by court or Clerk staffand the parties to the case and their lawyers.” Access to Court Records Handbook at p. 53, QI (2020), available at http://www. in. gov/courts/ioes/files/PublicAccessHandbook pdf. 6 ‘Though Media Intervenors do not have the benefit of reviewing the basis for the State's. Motion to Seal, the Media Intervenors highly doubt that the State could meet its burden under eitherRule 6orIndiana Code § 5-14-3-5.5fortwo reasons. First, forthe reasons stated above, the presumed public interest in disclosure is paramount. The State must presentclear end compelling evidence favoring nondisclosure to rebut the presumption of access. Second, the Motion to Seal apparently requests broad relief, the Probable Cause Affidavit ard Charging Information are cunenly excluded fiora public access andsealedin their entire tywithouteven aredacted, public version availble on the Cout’s docket. Vet both Rule 6 and Indiana Cods § 5143.55 conteraplate thatanyexclusion or sealing ondermust employ the least restrictive means, and only whenshaolutely necessary. See Rule 6(D) (onder prokibiting publi access must include, arong others, “fuses the least restrictive means ard duration when prohibiting access”); Ind. Code § 5- 143-553) (the State must show, araong others, that “any prejudicial effect created by disseraination ofthe infomation cannot beavoidedbyany reesonsble method other than sealing the record’). Even ifthe Court concludes thet clear and compelling evidence requires certain ‘portions ofthe Probsble Cause 4 Tidavit and Charging Information to be sealed, &public redacted version should be released to the extent possible IV. Media Intervenors Request Expeditious Unsealing. Should the Court cone ude tha the State has not rebutted thepresumptionofpublic access, the Media Infervenorsrespectfullyrequest that the Cot urseal the Probable Cans: Affidavit and Charging Information and make then available for public access as soon as possiile. & loss of First Araenelraent rights, “foreven minimal periodsof time,unquestionably constitutesineparable injury” Soe Elrod v. Burns, 4210S. 347, 373 (1976); see also Nob. Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 423 US. 1327, 139 (1975) (“Each passing day may constitute a seperate and coguizable 7 infringernentof the First Areedent ”). Accordingly, the Media Intervenors request expeditious sealing following the November22,2022 hearing Respectfully submited, As/ Margaret M. Christensen DarelP. Byron, # 3067-49 MargretM. Christensen, #27061-49 Jessica Laurin Meek, #34677-53 DENTONS BINGHAM GREENEE47M LLP 2700 Market Tower 10 WestMarket Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-4500 Telephone: (317) 635-8900 Farsi: (317) 236-9907 danbyron@denions com ‘margaret claistensen@dentons com jessica meek@dentons com Attorneysfor Indiana Broadcasters Association, nc; Hoosier State Press Association, Ine.; The Associated Pross; Circle City Broadcasting§LLC dfbla WISH. TV; EW, Senipps Company dfbla WRTY: Norstar Media nc. d/bla WATNWITY, Neuhefy Modia Lafayotts, LLC; WoofBoom Radio LLC; TEGNA hc. dibla WIE; Gannett Satellite Information Indiana Newspapers, LLC dfiva The Indianapolis Star; andAmerican Broadcasting Companiss Ine. dfbla ABCNews CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby certify that on Noverbez 21, 2022, the foregoing was filed with the Clerk ofthe Caroll CountyCircuitCourtandservedto all counsel ofrecordvia EFS. {sf Margaret M Christensen 3 onsen F D | w= seven County of Carroll ) Nov 03 2022 Stateof indiana ) 2 Shoo duans ) IK CARROLL CIR vs. ) Cause Number 08C01-2210-MR-000001 CUT GOURT : om | SassenI Seen—— forSafekeeping Tho desir sates trPees Teves EETA ISs SORT TIES Ra iFo oh h vimSinsgab ginapegnadh. Sat sre FR rm Tre SB EE 4 FgEE, nthe dennaa hee charged A sigh atl catn, 0 El oar re rmtome BAT Saatcoos Es aERTyEr SPIi ESa A EeeeSian BErr as Seonos, ——, reSEETa RTa rE Sm 2 spaTTR einAn onotele.2032 Beth fei l LE AE STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL ) ss STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) 1! E vs. ) F -E D RICHARDM. ALLEN } NOV 22 2022 MOTION FOR ORDER PROHIBITING THE PARTIES, COUNSEELTAW ©“U7 ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS. COURT PERSONNEL, CORONER, AND FAMILY MEMBERS FROM DISSEMINATING INFORMATION OR RELEASING ANY EXTRA-JUDICIAL STATEMENTSBYMEANSOFPUBLICCOMMUNICATION ‘Now comes Nicholas C. MeLeland, Carroll County Prosceuting Attorney, being first duly wom upon his oath, and requests the Court to prohibit the parties, counsel, law enforcement officials, court personnel, coroner and family members from disseminating information or releasing any extrajudicial statements by meansof public communication. In support ofsaid request, the State shows the following: 1. Thatthe State filed 2 countsof Murder against the Defendant on October 28%, 202 in Carroll County Circuit Court. 2. Thatthecasehas received extensive treatment inthe loca, nationalandinternational news media. 3. Thatthemediaaccounts concerningthiscause have containedan undue number of statements relating not only to the progress ofthe investigation, but conclusions ofthe investigation, someof which have been untrue. 4. Thatit is reasonable to believe that the media will continue to cover thiscause ofaction extensively and that the publicity will prejudice a fir trial. 5. That the additional statementsandmediacoverage nthe news is likely to produce prejudice in the community making it impossible to have a airand impartial jury to ensurethatalpartieshave afirtrial. 6. That an Order in place would ensurethatthe parties abide by Indiana Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3.6. ‘That now comes the StateofIndiana, by Nicholas C. McLeland, Carroll County Prosecuting Attomey, and requests the Court o probibit the parties, counsel, law enforcement. officials, court personnel, coroner andfamily members from disseminating information or releasing any extra-judicial statements by meansof public communication, until furtherOrder of theCourtandforallother justand properrelief inthe premises. Dated this QAM dayofNovember, 2022. UrW/L [ Atty. #28300-08 Carroll County Prosecuting Attorney ‘CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE ‘Theundersignedcertifiesthat acopy of theforegoinginstrumentwasservedupontheDefendant's attorneyofrecord,throughpersonallydelivery, ordinarymailwithproperpostageaffixedorbyservice through the efiling system and filed with Carroll County Circuit Court this __22% _ dayofNovember, 2022. Mec icholas C. MiLeland pad Attorney #28300-08 Prosecuting Atomey STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ) SS: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENU} ER: ™ 1-22] 00001 ) - vs. ) ) APR 20.2023 RICHARD M. ALLEN ) MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUBPOENA THIRD-PARTYRECORDS Comes now the State of Indiana, by Nicholas C. McLeland, Prosecuting Attorneyforthe 74" Judicial Circuit, and moves this Courtforan Order for Westville Correctional Facility, Attn: Elise Gallagher, 5501 S. 1100 W., Westville, IN 46391, to producetothe Carroll County Prosecutor's Office, Attn: Nicholas C. McLeland, 101 West Main Street, Delphi, IN 46923, any and all mental health records for Richard Allen, DOB: 09/09/1972, SSN: 303-82-3934, associated with his stay as an inmate at that facility, from November 3%, 2022 until present. ‘While working the Delphi investigation, Carroll County Sheriff's Department Detective Tony Liggett developed information that Richard Allen was involved in the murdersofVictim 1 and Victim 2. The investigationshowsthe following: That on February 14%, 2017 Victim 1 and Victim 2 werefound deceased in the woods approximately 0.2 miles northeastofthe Monon High Bridge in Carroll County. Their bodies were located on the north side ofthe Deer Creek. Atthe time, the MononHigh BridgeTrailwas an approximately I milegraveltrail terminating at the Monon High Bridge. The Monon High Bridge is an abandonedrailroad trestle approximately 0.25 miles long spanning the Deer Creek andDeer Creek valley on the southeast endofthe trail. Approximately 0.7 miles northwest on the trailfrom the northwestern edgeofthe Monon High Bridge is the Freedom Bridge, which is a pedestrian bridge spanning State Road 25. Approximately 350feet westofFreedom Bridge was aformer railroad overpass overOldState Road 25 (also known as County Road 300 North). The trail terminates just westoftheformer railroad overpass. The majorityofthetrailis in a wooded area with a steep embankment on the south sideof the trail. The entiretyofthe trail and the locationof the girls bodies wereand are located in Carroll County, Indiana. Through interviews, reviewsofelectronic records, and review of video at the Hoosier Harvestore, investigators believe Victim 1 and Victim 2 were droppedoffacross from the Mears Farm at 1:49 p.m. on February 13% 2017 by Kelsi German. The Mearsfarm is located on the north side of County Road 300 North near an entrance to the trails. A videofrom Victim 2's phone shows that at 2:13 p.m. Victim 1 and Victim 2 encountered a male subject on the southeast portionofthe Monon High Bridge. The male ordered the girls “Guys, Down the hill”. No witnesses saw them after this time. No outgoing communications werefound on Victim 2's phone after this time. Their bodies were discovered on February 14%, 2017. The video recoveredfrom Victim 2's phone shows Victim 1 walking southeast on the Monon High Bridge while a male subject wearing a darkjacket andjeans walksbehind her. As the male subject approaches Victim 1 and Victim 2, oneof the victims mentions, “gun”. Near the end ofthe video a male is seen and heard telling the girls, “Guys, Down the hill.” The girls then begin to proceed down the hill andthe video ends. Astillphotograph taken from the videoandthe “Guys, Down the hill” audio was subsequently released tothe public to assist investigators in identifying the male. Victim 1 and Victim 2’s deaths were ruled as homicides. Clothes werefound in the Deer Creek belonging to Victim 1 and Victim 2, southofwhere their bodies were located. There was also a.40 caliber unspent round less than twofeet awayfrom Victim 2’s body, between Victim I and Victim 2’s bodies. The round was unspent and hadextraction marks on it Interviews were conducted with 3 juveniles, R.V., B.W. and A.S.. They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Trail on February 13%, 2017. Theyadvisedthey were walking on the trail toward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered a male walkingfrom Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. A.S.describedthe male as “kindofcreepy” and advised he was wearing “like bluejeans a like really light bluejacket and hehishairwas gray maybe a litle brown and he did not reallyshow hisface.” She advised thejacket was a duck canvas typejacket. R.V.advised she said “Hi” to the male but hejustglared at them. She recalled him being in all black and had something covering his mouth. Shedescribed him as “not very tall” with a bigger build. She said he was not bigger than 510”. R.V.advised he was wearing a black hoodie, blackjeans, and black boots. She stated he had his hands in his pockets. B.W. showed investigators photographs she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. The photographs included a photoofthe Monon High Bridge taken at 12:43 pm.andanother one taken at 1:26 p.m.ofthe bench Eastofthe Freedom Bridge. B.W. advisedaftershe took the photoof the bench they started walking back toward Freedom Bridge. She advised that was when they encountered the man who matched the description of the photograph takenfrom Victim 2’ video. B.W. described the man she encountered on the trail as wearing a blue or black windbreakerjacket. She advised thejacket had a collar and he had his hood upfrom the clothing underneath his jacket. She advised he was wearing baggyjeans and was taller than her. She advised her head came up to approximately his shoulder. SheadvisedR.V. said “Hi” to the man and that he said nothing back. She stated he was walking with a purpose like he knew where he was going. Shestated he had his hands in his pockets and kept his head down. She advised she did not geta good look at hisface but believed him to be a white male. The girls advisedafter encountering the male they continued. their walk across Freedom Bridge and the old railroad bridge overOldState Road 25. Investigators spoke with Betsy Blair whoadvisedshe was on the trails on February 13%, 2017. Videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore captured Betsy's vehicle traveling eastbound at 1:46 p.m. toward the entrance acrossfrom the Mearsfarm. Betsyadvisedshe saw 4juvenile females walking on the bridge over OldState Road 25 as she was driving underneath on her way to park. Betsy advised there were no other cars parked acrossfrom the Mearsfarm when she parked. She advised she walked to the Monon High Bridge and observed a male matching theone from Victim 2's video. She described the male she saw as a white male, wearing blue Jjeans and a bluejean jacket. She advised he was standing on thefirstplatformofthe Monon ‘High Bridge, approximately 50feetfrom her. She advised she turned around at the bridge and continued her walk. She advised approximately halfway between the bridge and the parking area acrossfrom Mearsfarm, shepassed two girls walkingtoward Monon High ‘Bridge. She advised she believed the girls were Victim 1 and Victim 2. Videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore shows at 1:49 p.m. a white car matching Kelsi German's vehicle traveling away from the entrance acrossfrom the Mearsfarm. Betsy advised shefinished her walk and saw no other adults other than the male on the bridge. Her vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 2:14 p.m. leaving westboundfrom the trails. Betsy advised when she was leaving she noted a vehicle was parked in an odd manner at the old Child Protective Services building. She said it was not oddfor vehicles to be parked there but she noticed it was odd because ofthe manner it was parked, backed in near the building. Investigators receiveda tipfrom Terry Wilson in which he stated hewas on hiswaytoDelphi onState Road 25 around 2:10 p.m. on February 13%, 2017. He observed a purple PT Cruiser or a small SUVtype vehicle parked on the south sideofthe old CPS building. He stated itappearedas though it was backed in as to conceal the license plateofthe vehicle. Betsy and Terry both drew diagramsof where they saw the vehicleparked and their diagrams generally matched as 10 the area the vehicle was parked and the manner in which it was parked. Wesley McWhirter advised he remembered seeing a smaller dark colored car parked at the old CPS building. He described it as possibly being a “smart” car. McWhirter’s vehicle is seen leaving at 2:28 p.m. on the Hoosier Harvestore video. Investigators spoke with Sarah Carbaugh, who statedthatshe was travelingEaston 300 North on February 13% 2022 and observed a male subject walking west, on the North side f 300 North, awayfrom the Monon High Bridge. Sarah advisedthatthe male subject was wearing a blue coloredjacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. Shefurtherstated, that it appeared he had gotten into afight. Investigators were able to determinefrom watching the videofrom the Hoosier HarvestorethatSarah Carbaugh was traveling on CR 300 North at approximately3:57 p.m. Through interviews, electronic data, photographs, and videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore investigators determined that there were other people on the trail that day after 2:13 p.m. Those people were interviewed and noneofthose individuals encountered the male subject referenced above, witnessed by thejuvenile girls, Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh. Further noneofthose individuals witnessed Victim 1 and Victim 2. Investigators reviewing prior tips encountered a tip narrativefrom an officer who interviewed Richard M. Allen in 2017. That narrative stated: Mr. Allen was on the trail between 1330-1530. Heparked at the old Farm ‘Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. While at the Freedom Bridge he saw threefemales. He noted one was taller and had brown or black hair. He did not remember description nor didhespeak with them. He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. He did not see anybody, although hestated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked. He stated there were vehicles parked at the High Bridge trail head, however did notpay attention to them. He did not take any photos or video. Hiscell phone did not list an IMEI but did have thefollowing: MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495 MEIDHEX-9900247025797 Potentialfollow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area of Freedom Bridge? Investigators believe Mr. Allen was referring to theformer Child Protective Services building as there was not a Farm Bureau building in the area nor had there been. Investigators believe thefemales he saw included R.V., B.W. and A.S. due to the time they were leaving the trail, the time he reported getting to the trail, and the descriptions the three females gave. Investigators discoveredRichard Allenowned two vehicles in 2017 a 2016 black Ford Focus and a 2006 gray Ford S00. Investigators observed a vehicle thatresembledAllen's 2016 Ford Focus on the Hoosier Harvestore video at 1:27p.m traveling westbound on CR 300 North infrontofthe Hoosier Harvestore, which coincided with his statement that he arrived around 1:30 p.m. at the trails. Investigators note witnesses described the vehicle parked at the former Child Protective Services Building as a PT Cruiser, small SUV, or “Smart” car. Investigators believe those descriptions are similar in nature to a 2016 Ford Focus. On October 13%, 2022Richard Allen was interviewed again by investigators. He advised he was on the trails on February 13%, 2017. He stated he sawjuvenile girls on the trails eastofFreedom Bridge and that he went onto the Monon High Bridge. Richard Allen Jurther stated he went out onto the Monon High Bridge to watch thefish. Later in his statement, he said he walked out to thefirstplatform on the bridge. He stated he then walked back, sat on a bench on the trailand then left. He stated heparkedhis car on the sideofan old building. He told investigators that he was wearing bluejeans and a blue or black Carharttjacketwith a hood. He advised he may have beenwearingsometype ofhead covering as well. Hefurtherclaimed he saw no one else exceptfor thejuvenilegirls he saw eastofthe Freedom Bridge. He told investigators that he ownsfirearms and they are at his home. RichardM. Allen’s wife, Kathy Allen, also spoke to investigators. She confirmed that Richarddid have guns and knives at the residence. She also stated that Richard stillowns a blue Carharttjacket. On October 13%, 2022, Investigators executed a search warrantof Richard Allen’s residence at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Carroll County, Indiana. Among other items, officers locatedjackets, boots, knives andfirearms, including a Sig Sauer, Model P226, 40 caliberpistol with serial number U 625 627. ‘Between October 14%, 2022 and October 19°, 2022 the Indiana State Police Laboratory performed an analysis on Allen’sSigSauer Model P226. The Laboratory performed a physical examination and classificationofthefirearm, function test, barrel and overall length ‘measurement, testfiring, ammunition component characterization, microscopic comparison, and NIBIN. The Laboratory determined the unspent round located within twofeet of Victim 2’ body had been cycled through Richard M. Allen’s SigSauer Model P226. The Laboratory remarked: An identification opinion is reached when the evidence exhibits an agreement ofclass characteristics and a sufficient agreement of individual marks. Sufficient agreement is related to the significant duplicationofrandom striated/impressed marks as evidenced by the correspondenceof a pattern or combinationofpatternsof surface contours. The interpretationofidentification is subjective in nature, and based on relevant scientific research and the reporting examiner's training and experience. Investigators then ranthefirearmandfound that thefirearm was purchased by Richard Allen in 2001. Richard Allen voluntarily came to the Indiana State Police post on October 26%, 2022. He spoke with investigators andstated that he never allowed anyone to use or borrow the Sig Sauer Model P226 firearm. When asked about the unspent bullet, he did not have an explanationof why the bullet wasfound between the bodies of Victim 1 and Victim 2. He again admitted that he was on the trail but denied knowing Victim 1 or Victim 2 and denied any involvement in their murders. Carroll County Sheriffs Department Detective Tony Liggett has been partofthe investigation since it started in 2017. He has had an opportunity to review and examine evidence gathered in this investigation. Detective Liggett, along with other investigators, believe the evidence gathered shows that Richard Allen is the male subjectseen on the video from Victim 2’s phone whoforced the victims down the hill. Further, that the victims were forced down the hill byRichard Allen and lead to the location where they were murdered. Through the statements and photographsofthe juvenile females and the statement of Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., andA.S. were at the southeast edgeofthe trail at 12:43 p.m. east of Freedom Bridge at 1:26 p.m., and walked across theformer railroad overpass over OldState Road 25 after 1:26 p.m. and before 1:46 p.m. They walked the entiretyofthe trail and observed only one person — an adult male. Betsy Blair’s vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 1:46 p.m. andleaving at 2:14 p.m. andshe stated she only saw one adult male. R.V., B.W., A.S., and Betsy Blairdescribed the male in similar manners, wearing similar clothing, leading investigators to believe allfour saw the same male individual. Investigators believe the male observed by Betsy Blair, R.., B.W.,and A.S. is the same ‘male depicted in the videofrom Victim 2’s phone due to the descriptionsofthe male by the fourfemales matching the male in the video. Furthermore, Victim 2's video was taken at 2:13 pm. and Betsy Blair saw only one male while she was on the trailfrom approximately 1:46 pm. 10 2:14 p.m. Investigators believeRichard Allen was themale seen by Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and ALS.andthe male seen in Victim 2's video. Richard Allen told investigators he was on the trail from 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. that day. Videofrom Hoosier Harvestore shows a vehicle that matches the descriptionofRichard Allen's vehicle passing at 1:27 p.m. toward theformer CPS building. The clothing he told investigators he was wearing match the clothingofthe ‘male in Victim 2’s video and the clothing descriptions providedby Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and A.S. A vehicle matching the descriptionofhis 2016 Ford Focus is seen at or around 2:10 pm, 2:14 p.m, and 2:28 p.m. at theformer CPS building. Through his own admissions, Richard Allen walked the trailsandeventually hiked to the Monon High Bridge and walked out onto the Monon High Bridge. A male subject matchingRichard Allen’s description was not seen on the trail after 2:13 p.m. Investigators identified other individuals on the trails or C.R. 300 North between 2:30 p.m. and 4:11 p.m. Noneofthose individuals saw a male subject matching the descriptionofRichard Allen on the trail. Furthermore, Richard Allen stated that he only saw three girls on the trail, who investigators believe to be R.V., B.W., andA.S. Investigators believeRichard Allen was not seen on the trail after 2:13 p.m. because he was in the woods with Victim 1 and Victim 2. An unspent40 caliber round between the bodies of Victim 1 and Victim 2, wasforensically determined to have been cycled through Richard Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P26. The Sig Sauer Model P226 wasfoundatRichard Allen’s residence and he admitted to owning it. Investigators were able to determine that he had owned it since 2001. Richard Allen stated he had not been onthatproperty where the unspent round wasfound, that he did not know the property owner, and that he had no explanation as 10 why a roundcycledthrough hisfirearm would be at that location. Furthermore, he stated that he never allowed anyone to use or borrow theSig Sauer Model P226. Investigators believe that after the victims were murdered, Richard Allen returned to his vehicle by walking down CR 300 North. Investigators believe he was seen by Sarah Carbaugh walking back to his vehicle on CR 300 north, with clothes that were muddy and bloody. Tony Liggett, along with investigators, believe the statements made by the witnesses because the statements corroborate the timelineofthe death the two victims, as well as coincide with the admissions made by Richard Allen. Further, the accounts relayed by Betsy ‘Blair, R.V., B.W., and A.S. are similar in nature and time stamps on photographs taken by B.W. correspond to the times thejuvenilefemales said they were on the trail and saw male individual. Investigators believeRichardM. Allen committed this Kidnapping which resulted in the killing of Victim 1 and Victim 2. From their prior conclusions investigators believe Richard M. Allen wasthe maledepictedin Victim 2’ video saying, “Guys, Down the hill.” They believe Richard M. Allen was carrying his Sig Sauer Model P226 on that day due to the cycled round matching thatfirearm was located withinfeet of Victim 2’s body. Theyfurther believe he was carrying theSig SauerModel P226 from the audiofrom Victim 2's video in which investigators believe they hear the sound of a gun beingcycledand oneofthe victims mentioning a “gun.” Investigators believe after that time Victim 1 and Victim 2 were removed from the bridge by Richardto where their murders occurred. Charges werefiledagainstRichard M. Allen on October 28%, 2022for 2 counts of Murder. Once RichardM. Allen was taken into custody, he was movedto the Westville Correctional Facility, which is partof the Indiana Department of Corrections,for safe keeping. He has been in saidfaciliy since November, 2022. When RichardM. Allen entered thefacility, he was placed in the segregationunitfor his protection. In the segregation unit, is cell is equipped with a video recorder which records his activities within the cell. There are also logs indicating when RichardM. Allen leaves the cell andfor whatpurposes. He is also being seen by medical providers andmental health specialists to evaluate his physical condition and monitor his mental health. RichardM. Allen also has the ability to use a tablet in his cell to send text messages, make phone calls and listen to music. Upon Richard M. Allen’s arrival to thefacility, he was placed on “suicide watch” ‘becauseofcertain statements he made about harming himself. Throughout his stay, his ‘mental health improvedto the point that he was takenoff of“suicide watch”. He was also participating in recreation time and beginning to exercise. Thefacility reports that he was doing well and that they had no issues or concerns. His day to day demeanor was that he was quiet, read a lot ofbooks, did crossword puzzles and exercised daily. On April 3", 2023, RichardM. Allen made a phone call to his wife Kathy Allen. In thatphone call, RichardM. Allen admitsseveraltimes that hekilled Abby and Libby. Investigators had the phone call transcribed and the transcription confirms that RichardM. Allen admitsthat he committed the murdersofAbigail WilliamsandLiberty German. He admits several times within the phonecallthat he committed the offenses as charged. His wife, Kathy Allen, ends the phone call abruptly. Soon after, attorneysfor RichardM. Allenfiled an Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order. In that motion, the Defense states that RichardM. Allen’s mental state has declined because Westville Correctional Facility is unfit and that he should be moved. Defense also makes allegations that his mental health has declined to the point where Richard M. Allen has been deprivedof his constitutional right to assist in his defenseofthis case. Further, Defense alleges that his mental capacity has declined becauseof his incarceration at Westville Correctional Facility. Defense has also challenged that his treatment is unconstitutional. Soon after, investigators were made aware by the Warden of Westville Correctional Facility that RichardM. Allen began to act strangely. RichardM. Allen was wetting down paperwork he had gottenfrom his attorneys and eating it, he was refusing 10 eat and refusing to sleep. Hewould go days on end refusing to sleep. Hefurther, broke the tablet that he usedfor text messages and phone calls. He went from making up to 2 phone calls a day asofApril3%,2023 to not making any phone calls at all. To date,RichardM. Allen still has not made a phonecall since April 3" 2023. On April 14%, 2023, Richard M. Allen wasevaluated by two psychiatrists and one psychologist to discuss his turn in behavior and whether or not there was aneed for involuntary medication. The panel would also discuss moving RichardM. Allen to a different Jaciliy that has a psychiatric unit. From that meeting, it was determinedthat Richard M. Allen did not need involuntary medication andthat he did not need to bemoved to another Jacility. Since that meeting, RichardM. Allen has began to eat again and has begun to sleep. "Hebehavior has begantoreturntowhatitwaspriorto makingtheadmissionon April 3%, 2023. Investigators believe the information that Westville Correctional Facility has gathered since Richard M. Allen wasplaced in thatfacility is important to the investigation. Investigators believe that therei video evidence that will include his admissions, plus his behavior prior to the admission and directly after. Investigators also believe logs keptof his daily routines are important to determine when he was in his cell and when he was removed and the reasons he was removed. Further, any recordsofphysical exams and/or mental exams will be important to determine the state of his mentaland physical health. This information is neededto refute the allegations made in Defense’s Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order. The evidence is also necessary to refute the allegations of diminished mental capacity and/or other possible defenses. It may also be important as the State introduces additional evidence gathered, including admissions made by RichardM. Allen himself. Investigators believeallthe information is important in the continued investigationfor Murder ofAbigail Williams and Liberty German. For these reasons, the State is requesting the employment records for Richard Allen as specified in the attached Subpoena Duces Tecum and/or Request for Production of Documents and Records to a Non-Party: (H.L) ‘This requestis made for the purposeofan investigation regarding Murder. Furtherin response to the observations made by the investigating officer, the State believesthatRichard Allen is a suspect in the criminal acts. The State believesthatthe employment records would be able to confirm or support informationthatthe law enforcementhasacquiredas a resultofthe ‘murder investigation. ‘The StateofIndiana has contacted Defense counsel for Richard Allen and Defense ‘counsel has not informed me whether they consent or objectto this subpoenas. The State of Indianahas alsosentthem acourtesy copyofthis subpoena, via email. WHEREFORE, the StateofIndiana, by Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attomey for ‘the 74" Judicial Circuit, respectfully prays that this Court review the attached Subpoena and then order productionofsaid records, and such otherreliefas is just and proper in the premises. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas C. MeLeland Prosecuting Attorney 101 West Main Street Delphi, IN 46923 765-564-4514 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE herebyceriythat service of trueandcompletecopyofthe above an foregoingpleadingo paperwasmadeupon the followingpartisand fledwith theCarollCircuit Cour bydeposing th san i the United Sates malin an cnvelopeproperlyaddressed andwit sufcint postageaffixed thisAO TMdayof April, 2023 Westville Corectional Facility Indiana Departmentof Corrections Attn: Elise Gallagher 5501'S. 1100 W. Westville, IN 46391 Ney! k [ Nicholas C. McLeland Caroll County Prosecutor 2830008 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 0 Jour ) 1 = BE RS ) D ) APR 202023 RICHARD M. ALLEN ) a MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUBPOENA THIRD-PARTY RECORDS“ C0UFT Comes now the Stateof Indiana, by Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attomey for the 74% Judicial Circuit, and moves this Court for an Order for Westville Correctional Facility, Attn: Elise Gallagher, 5501 S. 1100 W., Westville, IN 46391, to produceto the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office, Attn: NicholasC. McLeland, 101 WestMain Street, Delphi, IN 46923, any and all medical records for Richard Allen, DOB: 09/09/1972, SSN: 303-82-3934, associated with his stayasan inmateatthat facility, from November 3", 2022 until present. ‘Whileworkingthe Delphi investigation, Carroll County SherifP’s Department Detective ‘Tony Liggett developed information that Richard Allen was involved in the murdersof Victim 1 ‘and Victim 2. The investigation shows the following: That on February 14%, 2017 Victim 1 and Victim 2 werefound deceased in the woods approximately 0.2 miles northeastofthe Monon High Bridge in Carroll County. Their bodies werelocated on the north sideofthe Deer Creek. At the time, the Monon High Bridge Trail was an approximately I mile gravel trail terminating at the Monon High Bridge. The Monon High Bridge is an abandoned railroad trestle approximately 0.25 miles long spanning the Deer CreekandDeer Creek valley on the southeast end ofthe trail. Approximately 0.7 miles northweston thetrailfrom the ‘northwestern edgeofthe Monon High Bridge is the Freedom Bridge, which is a pedestrian bridge spanning State Road 25. Approximately 350feet westofFreedom Bridge was aformer railroad overpass over Old State Road 25 (also known as County Road 300 North). The trail terminatesjust westoftheformer railroad overpass. The majorityofthe trail is in a wooded area with a steep embankment on the south sideof the trail. The entiretyof thetrailand the location ofthe girls bodies were and are located in Carroll County, Indiana. Through interviews, reviewsofelectronic records, and review of video at the Hoosier Harvestore, investigators believe Victim 1 and Victim 2 were dropped offacross from the Mears Farm at 1:49 p.m. on February 13% 2017 by Kelsi German. The Mearsfarm is located on the north sideof County Road 300 North near an entrance to the trails. A videofrom Victim 2’s phone shows that at 2:13 p.m. Victim 1 and Victim 2 encountered a male subject on the southeast portionofthe Monon High Bridge. The male ordered the girls “Guys, Down the ill”. No witnesses saw them after this time. No outgoing communications werefound on Victim 2’s phone after this time. Their bodies were discovered on February 14%, 2017. The video recoveredfrom Victim 2’s phone shows Victim 1 walking southeast on the Monon High Bridge while a male subject wearing a dark jacket andjeans walksbehind her. As the male subject approaches Victim I and Victim 2, oneofthe victims mentions, “gun”. Near the endofthe video a male is seen and heard telling the girls, “Guys, Down the hill.” The girls then begin to proceed down the hill and the video ends. A still photograph taken from the video and the “Guys, Down the hill” audio was subsequently released to the public to assist investigators in identifying the male. Victim 1 and Victim 2’s deaths were ruled as homicides. Clothes werefound in the Deer Creek belonging to Victim 1 and Victim 2, southofwhere their bodies were located. There was also a .40 caliber unspent round less than twofeet awayfrom Victim 2's body, between Victim 1 and Victim 2's bodies. The round was unspent and had extraction marks on it Interviews were conducted with 3 juveniles, R.V., B.W. and A.S... They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Trail on February 13%, 2017. Theyadvised they were walking on the trail toward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered a male walkingfrom Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. A.S. described the male as “kind of creepy” and advised he was wearing “like bluejeans a like really light bluejacket and he his hair was gray maybe a litle brown and he did not really show hisface.” She advised thejacket was aduckcanvas typejacket. R.V. advised she said “Hi” to the male but hejust glared at them. Sherecalled him being in all blackand had something covering his mouth. She described him as “not very tall” with a bigger build. She said he was not bigger than 510”. R.V.advised he was wearinga black hoodie, blackjeans,andblackboots. She stated he had his hands in his pockets. B.W. showed investigators photographs she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. The photographs included a photoofthe Monon High Bridge taken at 12:43 p.m. and another one taken at 1:26 p.m. ofthe bench Eastofthe Freedom Bridge. B.W. advised after she took the photo of the bench they started walking backtowardFreedom Bridge. She advised that was when they encountered the man who matched the description of the photograph takenfrom Victim 2's video. B.W. described the man she encountered on the trail as wearing a blue or black windbreakerjacket. She advised thejacket had a collar and he had his hood upfrom the clothing underneath hisjacket. She advised he was wearing baggyjeans and was taller than her. She advised her head came up to approximately his shoulder. She advised R.V. said “Hi” to the man and that he said nothing back. She stated he was walking with a purpose like he knew where he was going. She stated he had his hands in his pockets and kept his head down. Sheadvised she did not get a good look at hisface but believed him 10 be a white male. The girls advised after encountering the male they continued their walk across Freedom Bridge and the old railroad bridge over Old State Road 25. Investigators spoke with Betsy Blair who advised she was on the trails on February 13%, 2017. Videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore captured Betsy's vehicle traveling eastbound at 1:46 p.m. toward the entrance acrossfrom the Mearsfarm. Betsy advised she saw 4juvenile females walking on the bridge over Old State Road 25 as she was driving underneath on her ‘way to park. Betsy advised there were no other cars parked acrossfrom the Mearsfurm when she parked. Sheadvised shewalked to the Monon High Bridge and observed a male matching the onefrom Victim 2's video. She described the male she saw as a white male, wearing blue Jeans and ablue jean jacket. She advised he was standing on thefirst platformofthe Monon ‘High Bridge, approximately 50feetfrom her. Sheadvised she turned around at the bridge and continued her walk. She advised approximately halfway between the bridge and the parking area acrossfrom Mearsfarm, she passed two girls walking toward Monon High ‘Bridge. She advisedshe believed the girls were Victim 1 and Victim 2. Video from the Hoosier Harvestore shows at 1:49 p.m. a white car matching Kelsi German’s vehicle traveling awayfrom the entrance acrossfrom the Mearsfarm. Betsy advised shefinished her walk and saw no other adults other than the male on the bridge. Her vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 2:14 p.m. leaving westboundfrom the trails. Betsy advised when she was leaving she noted a vehicle was parked in an odd manner at the old Child Protective Services building. She said it was not oddfor vehicles to be parked therebut she noticed it was odd becauseof the manner it was parked, backed in near the building. Investigators receiveda tipfrom Terry Wilson in which he stated hewas on his wayto Delphi onState Road 25around 2:10 p.m. on February 13%, 2017. He observedapurple PT Cruiser or a small SUV type vehicle parked on the south sideofthe old CPS building. He stated it appeared as though it was backed in as to conceal the licenseplateofthe vehicle. Betsy and Terry both drew diagramsof where they saw the vehicle parked and their diagrams generally matched as 10 the area the vehicle was parked and the manner in which it was parked. Wesley McWhirter advised he remembered seeing a smaller dark colored car parked at the old CPS building. He described it as possibly being a “smart”car. McWhirter’s vehicle is seen leaving at 2:28 p.m. ‘on the Hoosier Harvestore video. Investigators spoke with Sarah Carbaugh, who stated that she wastraveling East on 300 North on February 13%, 2022 and observed a male subject walking west, on the North side of 300 North, awayfrom the Monon High Bridge. Sarah advised that the male subject was wearing a blue coloredjacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. Shefurther stated, that it appeared he had gotten into afight. Investigators were able todetermine from watching the videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore that Sarah Carbaugh was traveling on CR 300 North at approximately 3:57 p.m. Through interviews, electronic data, photographs, and videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore investigators determined that there were other people on the trail that day after 2:13 p.m. Those people were interviewed and noneof those individuals encountered the male subject referenced above, witnessed by thejuvenile girls, Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh. Further ‘nomeofthose individuals witnessed Victim I and Victim 2. Investigators reviewingprior tips encountered a tip narrativefrom an officer who interviewed Richard M. Allen in 2017. That narrative stated: Mr. Allen was on the trail between 1330-1530. Heparked at the old Farm ‘Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. While at the Freedom Bridge he saw threefemales. He noted one was taller and had brown or black hair. He did not remember description nor did he speak with them. He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. He didnotsee anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked. He stated there were vehicles parked at the High Bridge trail head, however did not pay attention to them. He did not take any photos or video. Hiscellphone did not list an IMEI but did have thefollowing: MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495 MEIDHEX-9900247025797 Potentialfollow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area ofFreedom Bridge? Investigators believe Mr. Allen was referring totheformerChild Protective Services building as there was not a Farm Bureau building in the area nor had there been. Investigators believe thefemales he saw included R.V., B.W. and A.S. due to the time they were leaving the trail, the time hereportedgetting to the trail, and the descriptions the three females gave. Investigators discoveredRichard Allen owned two vehicles in 2017 a 2016 black Ford Focus and a 2006 gray Ford 500. Investigators observed a vehicle thatresembled Allen’s 2016 Ford Focus on theHoosier Harvestore video at 1:27p.m traveling westbound on CR 300 Northin front ofthe Hoosier Harvestore, which coincided with his statement that he arrived ‘around 1:30p.m. at the trails. Investigators note witnesses described the vehicle parked at the former ChildProtective Services Building as a PT Cruiser, smallSUV, or “Smart” car. Investigators believe those descriptions are similar in nature to a 2016 Ford Focus. On October 13% 2022Richard Allen was interviewed again by investigators. He advised he was on the trails on February 13%, 2017. He stated he sawjuvenile girls on the trailseastofFreedom Bridge and that he went onto the Monon High Bridge.Richard Allen further stated he went out onto the Monon High Bridge to watch thefish. Later in his statement, he said he walked out to thefirst platform on the bridge. Hestated he then walked back, sat on a bench on the trail and then left. He stated he parked his car on the side of an old building. He told investigators that he was wearing bluejeans and a blue or black Carharttjacket with a hood. He advised he may have been wearing some typeof head covering as well. Hefurther claimed he saw no one else exceptfor thejuvenile girls he saw eastofthe Freedom Bridge. Hetoldinvestigators that he ownsfirearmsand they are at his home. Richard M. Allen’s wife, Kathy Allen, also spoke to investigators. She confirmed that Richarddid have guns and knives at the residence. She also stated that Richardstill owns a blueCarhartt jacket. On October 13%, 2022, Investigators executed a search warrantofRichard Allen’s residence at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Carroll County, Indiana. Among other items, officers locatedjackets, boots, knives andfirearms, including a Sig Sauer, Model P226, 40 caliberpistol with serial number U 625 627. ‘Between October 14%, 2022 and October 19%, 2022 the Indiana State Police Laboratory performed an analysis on Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P26. The Laboratory performed a physical examination and classificationofthefirearm, function test, barrel and overall length measurement, testfiring, ammunition component characterization, microscopic comparison, and NIBIN. The Laboratory determined the unspent round located within twofeet of Victim 2% body had been cycled through Richard M. Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P226. The Laboratory remarked: An identification opinion is reached when the evidence exhibits an agreement ofclass characteristics and a sufficient agreementofindividual marks. Sufficient agreement is related to the significant duplicationofrandom striated/impressed marks as evidenced by the correspondenceof a pattern or combinationofpatternsof surface contours. The interpretationofidentification is subjective in nature, and based on relevant scientific research and the reporting examiner’s training and experience. Investigators then ran thefirearmandfoundthat thefirearm was purchasedby Richard Allen in 2001. Richard Allen voluntarily came to the Indiana State Police post on October 26%, 2022. He spoke with investigatorsand stated that he neverallowed anyone to use or borrow the Sig Sauer Model P226 firearm. Whenasked about the unspent bullet, he did not have an explanation of why the bullet wasfound between the bodiesof Victim I and Victim 2. He again admitted that he was on the trail but denied knowing Victim 1 or Victim 2 and denied any involvement in their murders. Carroll County Sheriff's DepartmentDetective Tony Liggett has been partofthe investigation sinceit started in 2017. He hashadan opportunity to review and examine evidence gathered in this investigation. Detective Liggett, along with other investigators, believe the evidence gathered shows that Richard Allen is themale subject seen on the video from Victim 2's phone whoforced the victims down the hill. Further, that the victims were forced down the hill byRichard Allen and lead 10 the location where they were murdered. Through the statements and photographs of thejuvenilefemales and the statement of Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and A.S. were at the southeast edgeofthe trail at 12:43 p.m., east of Freedom Bridge at 1:26 p.m. and walked across theformer railroad overpass over Old State Road 25 after 1:26 p.m. and before 1:46 p.m. They walked the entiretyofthetrailand observed only one person — an adult male. Betsy Blair's vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 1:46 p.m. and leaving at 2:14 p.m. andshestated she only saw one adult male. R.V., B.W., A.S., and Betsy Blair described the male in similar manners, wearing similar clothing, Leading investigators to believe allfour saw the same male individual. Investigators believe the male observed by Betsy Blair, R.., B.W,, and A.S. is the same male depicted in the videofrom Victim 2’s phone due to the descriptionsofthe male by the fourfemales matching the male in the video. Furthermore, Victim 2's video was taken at 2:13 pm, and BetsyBlair saw only one male while she was on the trailfrom approximately 1:46 pm. 10 2:14 p.m. Investigators believeRichard Allen was the male seen by Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and ALS. and the male seen inVictim 2's video. Richard Allen told investigators he was on the trailfrom 1:30 p.m. t0 3:30 pm. that day. Videofrom Hoosier Harvestore shows a vehicle that matches the descriptionof Richard Allen's vehicle passing at 1:27 p.m. toward theformer CPS building. The clothing he told investigators he was wearing match the clothingofthe male in Victim 2's video and the clothing descriptions providedby Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W. and AS. A vehicle matching the descriptionof his 2016 Ford Focusi seenat or around 2:10 pm, 2:14 pm., and 2:28 pm. at theformer CPS building. Through his own admissions, Richard Allen walked the trailsandeventuallyhikedto the Monon High Bridge and walked out onto the Monon High Bridge. A male subject matching Richard Allen’s description was not seen on the trail after 2:13 p.m. Investigators identified other individuals on the trails or C.R. 300 North between 2:30 p.m. and 4:11 p.m. Noneofthose individuals saw a male subject matching the descriptionofRichard Allen on the trail. Furthermore, Richard Allen stated that he only saw three girls on the trail, who investigators believe to be R.V., B.W., and A.S. Investigators believeRichard Allen was not seen on the trail after 2:13 p.m. because he wasin the woods with Victim1 and Victim 2. An unspent .40 caliber round between the bodiesofVictim 1 and Victim 2, wasforensically determined to have been cycled through Richard Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P26. The Sig SauerModel P226 wasfoundatRichard Allen’s residence and he admitted to owning it. Investigators were able to determine that he had owneditsince 2001. Richard Allen stated he had not been on thatproperty where the unspent round wasfound, that he did not know the property owner,andthat he had no explanation as to why a round cycled through hisfirearm would be at that location. Furthermore, he stated that he neverallowed anyone to use or borrow the Sig Sauer Model P226. Investigators believe that after the victims were murdered, Richard Allen returned to his vehicle by walking down CR 300 North. Investigators believe he was seen by Sarah Carbaugh walking back to his vehicle on CR 300 north, with clothes that were muddy and bloody. Tony Liggett, along with investigators, believe the statements made by the witnesses because the statements corroborate the timelineof the death the two victims, as well as coincide with the admissions made byRichard Allen. Further, the accountsrelayedby Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., andA.S. are similar in nature and time stamps on photographs taken by B.W. correspond to the times thejuvenilefemales said they were on thetrailandsaw male individual. Investigators believe Richard M. Allen committed this kidnapping which resulted in the killingofVictim 1 and Victim 2. From their prior conclusions investigators believe Richard M. Allen was the male depicted in Victim 2's video saying, “Guys, Down the hill.” They believe RichardM. Allen was carrying his Sig SauerModel P26 on that day due to the cycled round matching thatfirearm was located withinfeet ofVictim 2's body. Theyfurther believe he was carrying theSigSauer Model P226from the audiofrom Victim 2s video in which investigators believe they hear the sound of a gun being cycled and oneofthe victims mentioninga “gun.” Investigatorsbelieveafter that time Victim 1 and Victim 2wereremoved from the bridge by Richard to where their murders occurred. Charges werefiledagainst Richard M. Allen on October 28%, 2022for 2 counts of Murder. Once RichardM. Allen was taken into custody, he wasmovedto the Westville Correctional Facility, which is partofthe Indiana Department ofCorrections, for safe keeping. He has been in saidfacility since November, 2022. When RichardM. Allen entered thefacility, he was placed in the segregation unitfor his protection. In the segregation unit, his cell is equipped with a video recorder which records his activities within the cell. There are also logs indicating when RichardM. Allen leaves the celland for whatpurposes. He is also being seen by medicalproviders and mental health specialists 10 evaluate his physical ‘conditionandmonitor his mental health. Richard M. Allen also has the ability to use a tablet in his cell to send text messages, make phone calls and listen to music. Upon Richard M. Allen’s arrival to thefacility, he was placed on “suicide watch” ‘becauseofcertain statements he made about harming himself. Throughout his stay, his ‘mental health improvedto the point that he was takenoffof “suicide watch”. He was also participating in recreation time and beginning to exercise. Thefacility reports that he was doing well and that they had no issues or concerns. His day to day demeanor was that he was quiet, read a lot ofbooks, did crossword puzzles and exercised daily. OnApril 3", 2023, RichardM. Allen made a phone call to his wife Kathy Allen. In that phone call, RichardM. Allen admits several times that hekilled Abby and Libby. Investigators had the phone call transcribed and the transcription confirmsthatRichardM. Allen admits that he committed the murdersof Abigail WilliamsandLiberty German. He ‘admits several times within the phone callthat he committed the offenses as charged. His wife,Kathy Allen, ends the phone call abruptly. Soon after, attorneysfor RichardM. Allenfiled an Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order. In that motion, the Defense states that RichardM. Allen’s mental state has declined because Westville Correctional Facility is unfit and that he should be moved. Defense also makes allegations that his mental health has declined 10 the point where Richard M. Allen has been deprivedofhis constitutional right to assist in his defenseof this case. Further, Defense alleges that his mental capacity has declined becauseofhis incarceration at Westille Correctional Facility. Defense has also challenged that his treatment is unconstitutional. Soon after, investigators were made aware by the WardenofWestville Correctional Faciliy that RichardM. Allen began to act strangely. RichardM. Allen was wetting down paperwork he had gottenfrom his attorneys and eating it, he was refusing to eat and refusing to sleep. He would go days on end refusing to sleep. Hefurther, broke the tablet that he usedfor text messages and phone calls. He went from making up to 2 phone calls a day asofApril 3", 2023 to not making any phone calls at all. To date,RichardM. Allen stil has not made a phonecall since April 3", 2023. On April 14%, 2023, Richard M. Allen was evaluated by two psychiatrists and one. psychologist to discuss his turn in behavior and whether or not there was a needfor involuntary medication. The panel would also discuss moving RichardM. Allen to a different Jacility that has a psychiatric unit. From that meeting, it was determinedthat RichardM. “Allen did not need involuntary medication and that he did not need to bemovedto another Jacility. Since that meeting, Richard M. Allen has began to eat again and has begun to sleep. ‘He behavior has began to return to what it wasprior to making the admission on April 3", 2023. Investigators believe the information that Westville Correctional Facility has gathered since RichardM. Allen was placed in thatfacility is important to the investigation. Investigators believe that there is video evidence that will include his admissions, plus his ‘behavior prior to the admissionand directly after. Investigators also believe logs keptofhis daily routines are important to determine when he was in his cell and when he was removed and the reasons he was removed. Further, any recordsof physical exams and/or mental exams will be important to determine the stateof his mental andphysical health. This information is needed to refute the allegations made in Defense’s Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order. The evidence is also necessary to refute the allegations of diminished mental capacity and/or other possible defenses. It may also be important as the State introduces additional evidence gathered, including admissions made by Richard M. Allen himself. Investigators believe all the information is important in the continued investigationfor Murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German. For these reasons, the State is requesting the employment records for Richard Allen as specified intheattached SubpoenaDuces Tecum and/or Request for Production of Documents and Records to a Non-Party: (H.L) “This request is made for the purposeofan investigation regarding Murder. Further in response to the observations made by the investigating officer, the State believes that Richard Allenis asuspect inthecriminal acts. The State believes that the employment records wouldbe able to confirm or support information that the law enforcement has acquired as aresultofthe murder investigation. ‘The StateofIndiana has contacted Defense counsel for Richard Allen and Defense counsel has not informed mewhetherthey consent or object to this subpoenas. The State of Indiana has also sent them acourtesy copyofthis subpoena, via email. WHEREFORE, the State of Indiana, by Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attorney for the 74 Judicial Circuit, respectfully prays that this Court review the attached Subpoena andthen order productionofsaid records, and such otherreliefas is just and proper in the premises. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas C. McLeland ’ Prosecuting Attorney 101 West Main Street Delphi, IN 46923 765-564-4514 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Thereby ceriythat servic of a trueandcompletecopyofthe above an foregoingpleaing o paperwasmadeupon the following partisandfiled withtheCarroll CircuitCourt by depositing thesame ithe UnitedSesmail ian ‘envelope properlyaddressedand withsufficientpostage affixed this 0TH day of April, 2023. Westville Comectiona Facility Indiana Departmentof Comections Atm: Elie Gallagher 55015. 1100 W. Westville, IN 46391 ~C M A / Nicholas C. MeLeland Camo County Prosecutor 2830008 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENUMBI 2310MR ) LE VS. )) APR 20 2023 RICHARDM.ALLEN ) Gorm MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUBPOENA THIRD-PARTYRECORDS ‘Comes nowthe State of Indiana, by Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attorney for the 74" Judicial Circuit, and moves this Courtforan Order for CVS Headquarters, Attn: Records Department, One CVS Drive, Woonsocket, RI 02895, to produce to the Carroll County Prosecutor's Office, Attn: Nicholas C. MecLeland, 101 West Main Street, Delphi, IN 46923, any and all employment records for Richard Allen, DOB: 09/09/1972, SSN: 303-82-3934, for his employment with your company. ‘While working the Delphi investigation, Carroll County Sheriff's Department Detective ‘Tony Liggett developed informationthat Richard Allen was involved in the murdersofVictim 1 and Vietim 2. The investigation shows the following: That on February 14%, 2017 Victim 1 and Victim 2 werefound deceased in the woods approximately 0.2 miles northeastofthe Monon High Bridge in Carroll County. Their bodies were located on the north sideofthe Deer Creek. At the time, the Monon High Bridge Trail was an approximately 1milegraveltrail terminating at the Monon High Bridge. The Monon High Bridge is an abandoned railroad trestle approximately 0.25 miles long spanning the Deer Creek and Deer Creek valley on the Southeast endofthe trail. Approximately 0.7 miles northwest on thetrailfrom the northwestern edgeofthe Monon High Bridge is the Freedom Bridge, which is a pedestrian bridge spanning State Road 25. Approximately 350feet westofFreedom Bridge was aformer railroad overpass over Old State Road 25 (also known as County Road 300 North). The trail terminates just westoftheformer railroad overpass. The majorityofthe trail i in a wooded area with a steep embankment on the south sideof the trail. The entiretyofthetrailand the locationof thegirls bodies were and are located in Carroll County, Indiana. Through interviews, reviewsofelectronic records, and reviewofvideo at the Hoosier Harvestore, investigators believe Victim 1 and Victim 2 were droppedoffacross from the Mears Farm at 1:49 p.m. on February 13% 2017 by Kelsi German. The Mearsfarm is located on the north sideofCounty Road 300 North near an entrance to the trails. A videofrom Victim 2's phone shows that at 2:13 p.m. Victim I and Victim 2 encountered a male subject on thesoutheastportionofthe Monon High Bridge. The male ordered the girls “Guys, Down the hill”. No witnesses saw them after this time. No outgoing communications werefound on Victim 2's phone after this time. Their bodies were discovered on February 14%, 2017. The videorecovered from Victim 2’s phone shows Victim 1 walking southeast on the Monon High Bridge while a male subject wearing a darkjacketandjeans walks behind her. As the male subject approaches Victim 1 and Victim 2, one of the victims mentions, “gun”. Near the endof the video a male is seen and heard telling the girls, “Guys, Down the hill.” The girls then begin to proceed down the hill and the video ends. Astillphotograph taken from the video and the “Guys, Down the hill” audio was subsequently released to the public to assist investigators in identifying the male. Victim 1 and Victim 2’s deaths were ruled as homicides. Clothes werefound in the Deer Creek belonging to Victim 1 and Victim 2, southofwhere their bodies were located. There was also a 40 caliber unspent round less thantwofeet awayfrom Victim 2's body, between Victim 1 and Victim 2’sbodies. The round was unspent and had extraction marks on it Interviews were conducted with 3juveniles, R.V., BW. and A.S.. They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Trail on February 13%, 2017. They advised they were walking on thetrailtoward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered a male walkingfrom Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. A.S. described the male as “kindofcreepy” and advised he was wearing “like bluejeans a like really light bluejacket ‘and he his hair was gray maybe a litle brown and he did not really showhisface.” She advised the jacket was a duck canvas typejacket. R.V.advisedshe said “Hi” to the male but hejustglared at them. She recalled him being in all black and hadsomething covering his mouth. Shedescribed him as “not very tall” with a bigger build. She said he was not bigger than 5°10”. R.V.advised he was wearingablack hoodie,blackjeans, andblack boots. She stated he had his hands in his pockets. BW. showed investigators photographs she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. The photographs included a photo ofthe Monon High Bridge taken at 12:43 pm, and another one taken at 1:26 p.m.ofthe bench Eastofthe Freedom Bridge. B.W. advisedafter she took the photo ofthe bench they started walking back toward Freedom ‘Bridge. She advised that was when they encountered the man who matched the description of the photograph takenfrom Victim 2’ video. B.W.describedthe man she encountered on the trail as wearing a blue or black windbreakerjacket. She advised thejacket had a collar and he had his hood upfrom the clothing underneath hisjacket. She advised he was wearing ‘baggyjeans and was taller than her. She advised her head came up to approximately his shoulder. She advised R.V. said “Hi” to the man andthat he said nothing back. She stated he was walking with a purpose like he knew where he was going. She stated he had his hands in his pockets and kept his head down. Sheadvised she did not get agoodlook at hisface but believed him to be a white male. The girls advised after encountering the male they continued their walk across Freedom Bridge and the old railroad bridge over Old State Road 25. Investigators spoke with Betsy Blair who advised she was on the trails on February 13%, 2017. Videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore captured Betsy's vehicle traveling eastbound at 1:46 p.m. toward the entrance acrossfrom the Mearsfarm. Betsyadvised she saw 4juvenile females walking on the bridge over Old State Road 25 as she was driving underneath on her ‘way to park. Betsy advised there were no other carsparkedacross from the Mearsfarm when she parked. She advised she walked to the Monon High Bridgeand observeda male matching the onefrom Victim 2's video. Shedescribed the male she saw as a white male, wearing blue Jeans and a bluejeanjacket. She advised he was standing on thefirst platformofthe Monon ‘High Bridge, approximately 50feetfrom her. She advised she turned around at the bridge and continued her walk. She advised approximately halfway between the bridge and the parking area acrossfrom Mearsfurm, she passed two girls walkingtoward Monon High ‘Bridge. She advised she believed the girls were Victim 1 and Victim 2. Videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore shows at 1:49 p.m. a white car matching Kelsi German’s vehicle traveling ‘awayfrom the entrance acrossfrom the Mearsfarm. Betsy advised shefinished her walk and saw no other adults other than the male on the bridge. Her vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 2:14 p.m. leaving westboundfrom the trails. Betsy advised when she was leaving she noted a vehicle was parked in an odd manner at the old Child Protective Services building. She said it was not oddfor vehicles to be parked there but she noticed it was odd becauseofthe manner it was parked, backed in near the building. Investigators received atipfrom Terry Wilsonin whichhestated hewasonhiswaytoDelphi onState Road 25 around 2:10 p.m. on February 13%, 2017. He observed a purple PT Cruiser or a small SUVtype vehicle parked on the south side ofthe old CPS building. He stated it appeared as though it was backed in as to conceal the license plateofthe vehicle. Betsy and Terry both drew diagramsof where they saw the vehicleparkedand their diagrams generally matched as 10 the area the vehicle wasparkedand the manner in which it was parked. Wesley McWhirter advised he remembered seeing a smaller dark colored car parked at the old CPS building. He described it as possibly being a “smart” car. McWhirter’s vehicle is seen leaving at 2:28 p.m. on the Hoosier Harvestore video. Investigators spoke with Sarah Carbaugh, who statedthat she was traveling East on 300 North on February 13%, 2022 and observed a male subject walking west, on the North side f300 North, awayfrom the Monon High Bridge. Sarah advised that the male subject was wearing a blue coloredjacket and blue jeans and was muddy and bloody. Shefurther stated, that it appeared he had gotten into afight. Investigators were able todetermine from watching the videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore that Sarah Carbaugh was traveling on CR 300 North at approximately3:57 p.m. Through interviews, electronic data, photographs, and videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore investigators determined that there were otherpeople on the trail that day after 2:13 p.m. Those people wereinterviewedand noneof those individuals encountered the male subject referencedabove, witnessed by thejuvenile girls, Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh. Further noneofthose individuals witnessed Victim I and Victim 2. Investigators reviewing prior tips encountered a tip narrativefrom an officer who interviewed RichardM. Allen in 2017. That narrative stated: Mr. Allen was on the trail between 1330-1530. Heparked at the old Farm ‘Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. While at the Freedom Bridge he saw threefemales. He noted one was taller and had brown or black hair. He did not remember description nor did he speak with them. He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. He did not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked. He stated there were vehicles parked at the High Bridge trail head, however did notpay attention to them. He did not take any photos or video. Hiscellphone didnotlist an IMEI butdid have thefollowing: MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495 MEIDHEX-9900247025797 Potentialfollow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area ofFreedom Bridge? Investigators believe Mr. Allen was referring to theformer Child Protective Services building as there was not a Farm Bureau building in the area nor had there been. Investigators believe thefemales he saw included R.V., B.W. andA.S. due to the time they were leaving the trail, the time hereportedgetting to the trail, and the descriptions the three females gave. Investigators discoveredRichard Allen owned two vehicles in 2017 a 2016 black Ford Focus and a 2006 gray Ford 500. Investigators observed a vehicle thatresembled Allen’s 2016 Ford Focus on the Hoosier Harvestore video at 1:27p.m traveling westbound on CR 300 North in frontofthe Hoosier Harvestore, which coincided with his statement that he arrived around 1:30 p.m. at the trail. Investigators note witnesses described the vehicleparked at the formerChildProtective Services Building as a PT Cruiser, smallSUV, or “Smart” car. Investigators believe those descriptions are similar in nature to a 2016 Ford Focus. On October 13%, 2022Richard Allen was interviewed again by investigators. He advised he was on the trails on February 13%, 2017. He stated he sawjuvenile girls on the trails eastofFreedom Bridge and that he went onto the Monon High Bridge. Richard Allen further stated he went out onto the Monon High Bridge to watch thefish. Later in his statement, he said he walked out to thefirst platform on the bridge. He stated he then walked back, sat on a bench on the trail and then left. Hestated he parked his car on the sideof an oldbuilding. Hetoldinvestigators that hewas wearingbluejeansand ablueor black Carharttjacketwith a hood. He advised he may have beenwearing sometype ofhead covering as well. Hefurther claimed he saw no one else exceptfor thejuvenile girls he saw. eastofthe Freedom Bridge. He told investigators that he ownsfirearms and they are at his home. RichardM. Allen’s wife, Kathy Allen, also spoke to investigators. She confirmed that Richarddid have guns and knives at the residence. She also stated that Richard still owns a blue Carharttjacket. On October 13% 2022, Investigators executed a search warrantofRichard Allen’s residence at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Carroll County, Indiana. Among other items, officers locatedjackets, boots, knives andfirearms, including a Sig Sauer, Model P226, +40 caliberpistol with serial number U 625 627. Between October 14%, 2022 and October 19%, 2022 the Indiana State Police Laboratory performed an analysis on Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P26. TheLaboratoryperformed a physical examinationandclassificationofthefirearm,function test, barrel and overall length measurement, testfiring, ammunition component characterization, microscopic comparison, and NIBIN. The Laboratory determined the unspent round located within twofeet of Victim 2s body had been cycled through Richard M. Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P26. The Laboratory remarked: An identification opinion is reached when the evidence exhibits an agreement ofclass characteristics and a sufficient agreementofindividual marks. Sufficient agreement is related to the significant duplicationofrandom striated/impressed marks as evidenced by the correspondence of a pattern or combinationofpatternsof surface contours. The interpretationofidentification is subjective in nature, and based on relevant scientific research and the reporting examiner's training and experience. Investigators then ran thefirearmand foundthatthe firearm was purchased by RichardAllen in 2001. Richard Allen voluntarily came to the Indiana State Police post on October 26%, 2022. He spoke with investigators and stated that he never allowed anyone to use or borrow the SigSauer Model P226firearm. When asked about the unspent bullet, he did not have an explanation ofwhy the bullet wasfound between the bodies of Victim 1 and Victim 2. He again admitted that he was on the trail but denied knowing Victim 1 orVictim 2 and denied any involvement in their murders. Carroll County Sheriff's Department Detective Tony Liggett has been partofthe investigation since it started in 2017. He has had an opportunity to review and examine evidence gathered in this investigation. Detective Liggett, along with other investigators, believe the evidencegatheredshows thatRichard Allen is the male subject seen on the video from Victim 2's phone whoforced the victims down the hill. Further, that the victims were Jorceddown the hill byRichard Allen and lead to the location where they were murdered. Through the statements andphotographsof thejuvenilefemales and the statement of ‘Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and A.S. were at the southeast edgeofthe trail at 12:43 p.m., east of Freedom Bridge at 1:26 p.m. and walked across theformer railroad overpass overOldState Road 25 after 1:26 p.m. and before 1:46 p.m. Theywalkedthe entiretyofthe trail and observed only one person — an adult male. Betsy Blair’s vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 1:46 p.m.and leaving at 2:14 p.m. and she stated she only saw one adult male. R.V., B.W., A.S., and Betsy Blair described the male in similar manners, wearing similar clothing, leading investigators to believe allfour saw the same male individual. Investigators believe the male observed by Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., andA.S. is the same ‘male depicted in the videofrom Victim 2’s phone due to the descriptionsofthe male by the fourfemales matching the male in the video. Furthermore, Victim 2’s video was taken at 2:13 pm. andBetsy Blair saw only one male while she was on the trailfrom approximately 1:46 pm. to 2:14p.m. Investigators believeRichard Allen was the male seen by Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and A.S. and the male seen inVictim 2’s video. Richard Allentoldinvestigators he was on the trailfrom 1:30 p.m. 10 3:30 p.m. that day. Videofrom Hoosier Harvestore shows a vehicle that matches the descriptionof Richard Allen's vehicle passing at 1:27 p.m. toward theformer CPS building. The clothing he told investigators he was wearing match the clothingofthe male in Victim 2’s video and the clothing descriptions provided by Betsy Blair, R.., B.W., and ALS. A vehicle matching the descriptionofhis 2016 Ford Focus is seen at or around 2:10 pm, 2:14 p.m., and 2:28 pm. at theformer CPS building. Through his own admissions, Richard Allen walked the trailsandeventually hiked to the Monon High Bridge and walked out onto the Monon High Bridge. A male subject matching Richard Allen’s description was not seen on the trail after 2:13 pm. Investigators identified other individuals on the trails or C.R. 300 North between 2:30 p.m. and4:11 p.m. Noneofthose individuals saw a male subject matching the descriptionofRichard Allen on the trail. Furthermore, Richard Allen stated that he only saw three girls on the trail, who investigators believe to be R.V., B.W., and A.S. Investigators believe Richard Allen was not seen on thetrail after 2:13 p.m. because he was in the woods with Victim 1 and Victim 2. An unspent .40 caliber round between the bodies of Victim 1 and Victim 2, wasforensically determinedto have been cycled through Richard Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P26. The Sig Sauer Model P226 wasfound at Richard Allen’s residence and he admitted to owning it. Investigators were able to determine that he had owneditsince 2001. Richard Allen stated he had not been onthat property where the ‘unspent round wasfound, that he did not know the property owner, and that he had no explanation as to why aroundcycled through hisfirearm would be at that location. Furthermore, he stated that he neverallowedanyone to use or borrow the Sig Sauer Model P26. Investigators believe that after the victims were murdered, Richard Allen returned to his vehicle by walking down CR 300 North. Investigators believe he was seen by Sarah Carbaugh walking back to his vehicle on CR 300 north, with clothes that were muddy and ‘bloody. Tony Liggett, along with investigators, believe the statements made by the witnesses ‘because the statements corroborate the timelineofthe death the two victims, as well as coincide with the admissions made byRichard Allen. Further, the accounts relayed by Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and A.S.are similar in nature and timestamps on photographs taken by B.W. correspond to the times thejuvenilefemales said they were on the trailandsaw male individual. Investigators believe Richard M. Allen committed this kidnapping which resulted in the killing of Victim 1 and Victim 2. From their prior conclusions investigators believe Richard M. Allen was the male depicted in Victim 2’s video saying, “Guys, Down the hill.” They believe Richard M. Allen was carrying his Sig Sauer Model P226 on that day due to the cycled round matching thatfirearm was located withinfeetofVictim 2’s body. Theyfurther believe he was carrying the Sig Sauer Model P26from the audiofrom Victim 2’s video in which investigators believe they hear the soundof a gun being cycled and oneofthe victims mentioning a “gun.” Investigators believe after that time Victim 1 and Victim 2 were removed from the bridge by Richard to where their murders occurred. Additional information gatheredfromthe Defendant shows that at the timeofthe arrest, the Defendant was employedat the CVin Delphi, Indiana. Investigators spoke to representativesfrom CVS who stated that they are in possessionofRichard Allen’ work records. Investigators believe the work records would help determine when he was at work at theCVSlocated in Delphi and when he was not. Investigators believefrom talking to representativesfrom CVS thatRichard Allen’s personalfilesfrom CVS have information that is important to investigators. Investigators believe Richard Allen’ work records andpersonal Jilesfrom CVS will have evidence that is important to this investigation. For these reasons, the State is requesting the employment records for RichardAllenas specified in the attached Subpoena Duces Tecum and/or Request for Production of Documents andRecordsto a Non-Party: (H.L) “This request is made for the purposeofan investigation regarding Murder. Furtherin response to the observations made by the investigating officer, the State believes that Richard Allens a suspect in the criminal acts. The State believes that the employment records would be ableto confirm or support information tha the law enforcement has acquiredas result ofthe murder investigation. ‘The State of Indiana has contacted Defense counsel for Richard Allen and Defense counsel consents/objects to this subpoena. Further Defense counsel waives the 15 days and agreesthat this subpoena can be granted immediately. WHEREFORE, the StateofIndiana, by Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attomey for the 74° Judicial Circuit, respectfully prays that this Court review the attached Subpoena and then order production ofsaid records, and such otherrelief asijust and proper inthe premises. Respectfully submitted, Nicholas C. McLcland ’ Proscouting Attorney 101 West Main Street Delphi, IN 46923 765-564-4514 ‘CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE heretycartythatservi of amendcopescoy fhe sb adforging plein paperwsmadeupon the logpres dleihe Cara CoeCoty deposi ne 8c UeSee sl enelop propery addressed ndwith sulin oseaiied is 2TH dayofApel, 2023 CVS Headquarters At: Records Department One CVS Drive ‘Woodsocket, RI02895 ~CY//! / [ Nichols C VicLoand Caroll County Prosecutor 2830008 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ) SS: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE wef osdor-221 od ) I. vs. ) APR 20203 ) 7 RICHARDM. ALLEN ) FhonSipfidianid CLERK ARROLL GGT COURT MOTION FOR LEAVE OF COURT TO SUBPOENA THIRD-PARTY RECORDS Comes now the State ofIndiana, by Nicholas C. McLeland, Prosecuting Attorneyforthe 74% Judicial Circuit, and moves this Court for an Order for Westville Correctional Facility, Attn: Elise Gallagher, 5501 S. 1100 W., Westville, IN 46391,toproduce to the Carroll County Prosecutor’s Office, Attn: Nicholas C. McLeland, 101 West Main Street, Delphi, IN 46923, any ‘and all records for Richard Allen, DOB: 09/09/1972, SSN: 303-82-3934, associated with his stay as an inmateatthat facility. ‘While working the Delphi investigation, Carroll County Sheriff's Department Detective ‘Tony Liggett developed information that Richard Allen was involved in the murders of Victim 1 and Victim 2. The investigation shows the following: That on February 14%, 2017 Victim 1 andVictim 2werefounddeceased in the woods approximately 0.2 miles northeast oftheMonon High Bridge in Carroll County. Their bodies werelocatedon the north sideoftheDeer Creek. Atthe time, the Monon High BridgeTrailwas an approximately 1mile graveltrail terminating at the Monon High Bridge. The Monon High Bridge is an abandoned railroad trestle approximately 0.25 mileslong spanning the Deer CreekandDeer Creek valley on the southeast endofthe trail. Approximately0.7miles northwest on thetrailfrom the northwestern edgeofthe Monon High Bridge is the Freedom Bridge, which is a pedestrian bridge spanning State Road 25. Approximately 350feet westof Freedom Bridge was aformer railroad overpass overOldState Road 25 (also known as County Road 300North). The trail terminatesjust westoftheformerrailroadoverpass. The majorityofthe trail is in a wooded area with a steep embankment on the south sideofthe trail. The entiretyof thetrail and the locationofthe girls bodies were andarelocatedin Carroll County, Indiana. Through interviews, reviews of electronic records, and review of video at the Hoosier Harvestore, investigators believe Victim 1 and Victim 2 were droppedoffacross from the Mears Farm at 1:49 p.m. on February 13% 2017 by Kelsi German. The Mearsfarm is located on the north sideof County Road 300 North near an entrance to the trails. A videofrom Victim 2's phone shows that at 2:13 p.m. Victim 1 and Victim 2 encountered a male subject on the southeastportion ofthe Monon High Bridge. The male ordered the girls “Guys, Down the hill”. No witnesses saw them after this time. No outgoing communications werefound on Victim 2's phone after this time. Their bodies were discovered on February 14%, 2017. The video recoveredfrom Victim 2’s phone shows Victim 1 walking southeast on the Monon High Bridge while a male subject wearing a darkjacket andjeans walks behind her. As the male subject approaches Victim I and Victim 2, oneofthe victims mentions, “gun”. Near the endofthe video a male is seen and heard telling the girls, “Guys, Down the hill.” The girls then begin to proceed down the hillandthe video ends. Astillphotograph taken from the video and the “Guys, Down the hill” audio was subsequently released tothe public to ‘assist investigators in identifying the male. Victim 1 and Victim 2’s deaths were ruledas homicides. Clothes werefound in the Deer Creek belonging to Victim 1 and Victim 2, southof where their bodies were located. Therewasalso a.40 caliberunspent roundless thantwofeet away from Victim 2's body, between Victim 1 and Victim 2’s bodies. The round was unspent and hadextraction marks on it Interviews were conducted with 3 juveniles, R.V., B.W. and A.S.. They advised they were on the Monon High Bridge Trail on February 13% 2017. Theyadvisedthey were walking on the trail toward Freedom Bridge to go home when they encountered a male walkingfrom Freedom Bridge toward the Monon High Bridge. A.S.describedthe male as “kindofcreepy” and advised he was wearing “like bluejeans a like really light blue jacket ‘and he hishairwas gray maybe alitle brown and hedidnotreallyshow hisface.” She advised thejacket was a duck canvastype jacket. R.V. advised she said “Hi” to the male but hejustglared at them. Sherecalled him being in all black and had something covering his mouth. Shedescribed him as “not very tall” with a bigger build. She said he was not bigger than 5°10”. R.V.advised he was wearing ablackhoodie,black jeans, andblack boots. She statedhe had his hands in his pockets. B.W. showed investigators photographs she took on her phone while she was on the trail that day. Thephotographs included a photo ofthe Monon High Bridge taken at 12:43 pm. and another one taken at 1:26 p.m.ofthe bench Eastofthe Freedom Bridge. B.W. advisedaftershe took the photoofthe bench they started walking back toward Freedom ‘Bridge. She advisedthat was when they encountered theman who matched the description of the photograph takenfrom Victim 2's video. B.W. described the man she encountered on the trailas wearing a blue or black windbreakerjacket. She advised thejacket had a collar and ‘he had his hood upfrom the clothing underneath his jacket. Sheadvised he waswearing ‘baggyjeans and was taller than her. She advised her head came up to approximately his shoulder. She advised R.V. said “Hi” to the man and that hesaid nothing back. She stated he waswalking with a purpose like he knew where he was going. She stated he had his hands in his pockets and kept his headdown. Sheadvised she did not geta goodlook at hisface but believed him to be a white male. The girls advised after encountering the male they continued their walk across Freedom Bridge and the old railroad bridge overOldState Road 25. Investigators spoke with Betsy Blair who advised she was on the trails on February 13%, 2017. Videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore captured Betsy's vehicle traveling eastbound at 1:46 pm. toward the entrance acrossfrom the Mears farm. Betsy advised she saw 4juvenile females walking on the bridge overOldState Road 25 as she was driving underneath on her way to park. Betsy advised there were no other carsparkedacross from the Mearsfurm when she parked. Sheadvised she walked to the Monon High Bridgeand observedamale matching the onefrom Victim 2’s video. She described the male she saw as a white male, wearing blue Jeans and a bluejean jacket. She advised he was standing onthefirstplatform ofthe Monon ‘High Bridge, approximately 50feetfrom her. Sheadvised she turned around at the bridge ‘and continued her walk. She advised approximately halfway between the bridge and the parking area acrossfrom Mearsfarm, she passed two girls walking toward Monon High ‘Bridge. She advised she believed the girls were Victim 1 and Victim 2. Videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore shows at 1:49 p.m. a white car matching Kelsi German's vehicle traveling awayfrom the entrance acrossfrom the Mearsfarm. Betsyadvisedshefinished her walk and saw no other adults other than the male on the bridge. Her vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 2:14 p.m. leaving westboundfrom the trails. Betsy advised whe she was leaving she noted a vehicle was parked in an odd manner at the old Child Protective Services building. She said it was not oddfor vehicles to be parked there but she noticed it was odd becauseofthe manner it was parked, backed in near the building. Investigators receiveda tipfrom Terry Wilson in which he stated hewas on his waytoDelphi on State Road 25 around 2:10 p.m. on February 13%, 2017. He observed a purplePTCruiser or a small SUVtype vehicle parked on the south sideof the old CPS building. He stated it appearedas though it wasbacked in as to conceal the license plateofthe vehicle. Betsy and Terry both drew diagramsof where they saw the vehicle parked and their diagrams generally matched as 0 the area the vehicle wasparked and the manner in which it was parked. Wesley McWhirter advised he rememberedsecing a smaller dark colored car parked at the old CPS building. He described it as possibly being a “smart” car. McWhirter's vehicle is seen leaving at 2:28 p.m. on the Hoosier Harvestore video. Investigators spoke with Sarah Carbaugh, who statedthat she was traveling East on 300 North on February 13%, 2022 and observed a male subject walking west, onthe North side f300 North, awayfrom the Monon High Bridge. Sarah advised that the male subject was wearing a blue coloredjacket and bluejeans and was muddy and bloody. Shefurther stated, that it appeared he hadgotten into afight. Investigators were able todetermine from watching the videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore that Sarah Carbaugh was traveling on CR 300 North at approximately3:57p.m. Through interviews, electronic data, photographs, and videofrom the Hoosier Harvestore investigators determined that there wereother people on the trail that day after 2:13 p.m. Those people were interviewed and noneof those individuals encountered the male subject referenced above, witnessed by thejuvenile girls, Betsy Blair and Sarah Carbaugh. Further ‘noneofthose individuals witnessed Victim I and Victim 2. Investigators reviewing prior tips encountereda tip narrativefrom an officer who interviewedRichard M. Allen in 2017. That narrative stated: Mr. Allen was on the trail between 1330-1530. Heparked at the old Farm Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. While at the Freedom ‘Bridge he saw threefemales. He noted one was taller and had brown or black hair. He did not remember description nor did he speak with them. He walked from the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. Hedid not see anybody, although he stated he was watching a stock ticker on his phone as he walked. He stated there were vehicles parked at the High Bridge trail head, however did not pay attention to them. He did not take any photos or video. His cellphone did not list an IMEI but did have thefollowing: MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495 MEIDHEX-9900247025797 Potentialfollow up information: Who were the three girls walking in the area ofFreedom Bridge? Investigators believe Mr. Allen was referring to theformerChild Protective Services building as there was not a Farm Bureau building in the area nor had there been. Investigators believethefemales he saw included R.V., B.W. andA.S. due to the time they were leaving the trail, the time he reported getting to the trail, and the descriptions the three females gave. Investigators discoveredRichard Allen ownedtwo vehicles in 2017 ~ a 2016 black Ford Focus and a 2006 gray Ford 500. Investigators observed a vehicle that resembled Allen’s 2016 Ford Focus on the Hoosier Harvestore video at 1:27p.m traveling westbound on CR 300 Northin frontofthe Hoosier Harvestore, which coincided with his statementthat he arrived around 1:30 p.m. at the trails. Investigators note witnesses described the vehicle parked at the former Child Protective Services Building as a PT Cruiser, small SUV, or “Smart” car. Investigators believe those descriptions are similar in nature 0 a 2016 Ford Focus. On October 13% 2022Richard Allen wasinterviewed again by investigators. He advised he was on the trails on February 13% 2017. Hestated he sawjuvenile girls on the trails eastofFreedom Bridge and that he went onto the Monon High Bridge. RichardAllen Jurtherstated he went out onto the Monon High Bridge to watch thefish. Later in his statement, he said he walked out to thefirstplatform on the bridge. He stated he then walked back, sat on a bench on thetrailand then left. He stated heparked his car on the sideofan old building. He told investigators that he was wearing bluejeans and a blue or black Carhartjacket with a hood. He advised he may have been wearing some typeof head covering as well. Hefurther claimed he saw no one else exceptfor thejuvenile girls he saw eastofthe Freedom Bridge. He told investigators that he ownsfirearms and they areathis home. Richard M. Allen's wife, Kathy Allen, also spoke to investigators. She confirmed that Richard did have guns and knives at the residence. She also stated that Richardstillowns a blueCarharttjacket. On October 13%, 2022, Investigators executed a search warrantofRichardAllen’s residence at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Carroll County, Indiana. Among other items, officers locatedjackets, boots, knives andfirearms, including a Sig Sauer, Model P226, +40 caliber pistol with serial number U 625 627. Between October 14%, 2022 and October 19%, 2022 the Indiana State Police Laboratory performed an analysis on Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P26. The Laboratory performed a physicalexamination and classificationofthefirearm,function test,barreland overalllength measurement, testfiring, ammunition component characterization, microscopic comparison, and NIBIN. The Laboratory determined the unspent round located withintwofeetofVictim 2s body had been cycled through RichardM. Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P226. The Laboratory remarked: An identification opinion is reached when the evidence exhibits an agreement ofclass characteristics and a sufficient agreement ofindividual marks. Sufficient agreement is related to the significant duplicationofrandom striated/impressed marks as evidenced by the correspondence ofa pattern or combinationofpatternsof surface contours. The interpretation of identification is subjective in nature, andbased on relevant scientific research andthe reporting examiner's training and experience. Investigators then ran thefirearm andfound that thefirearm was purchased by Richard Allen in 2001. Richard Allen voluntarily came to the Indiana State Police post on October 26%, 2022. He spoke with investigatorsandstated that he never allowed anyone to use or borrow the Sig Sauer Model P26firearm. When asked about the unspent bullet, he did not have an explanationofwhy the bullet was found between the bodies of Victim 1 and Victim 2. He again admitted that he was on the trail but denied knowing Victim 1 orVictim 2 and denied any involvement in their murders. Carroll County Sheriff's Department Detective TonyLiggett has been partofthe investigation sinceit started in 2017. He has had an opportunity to review and examine evidence gathered in this investigation. Detective Liggett, along with other investigators, believe the evidencegathered shows that Richard Allen is the male subject seen on the video from Victim 2’s phone whoforced the victims down the hill. Further, that the victims were Jorced down the hill byRichard Allenandlead to the location where they were murdered. Through the statements andphotographsofthejuvenilefemales and the statement of Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and A.S. were at the southeast edgeofthe trail at 12:43 p.m. east of Freedom Bridge at 1:26 p.m, and walked across theformer railroadoverpass overOldState Road 25 after 1:26 p.m. and before 1:46 p.m. They walked the entiretyofthe trail and observed only oneperson an adult male. Betsy Blair's vehicle is seen on Hoosier Harvestore video at 1:46 p.m. and leaving at 2:14 p.m. andshe stated she only saw one adult male. R.V., B.W., AS. andBetsy Blairdescribed the male in similar manners, wearingsimilar clothing, leading investigators to believeall four saw the same male individual. Investigators believe the male observed by Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W.,andA.S. is the same ‘maledepictedinthevideo from Victim 2'sphone dueto the descriptions ofthe male by the Jourfemales matching the male in the video. Furthermore, Victim 2's video was taken at 2:13 pm.andBetsyBlair saw only one male while she was on the trailfrom approximately 1:46 pm. 10 2:14 p.m. Investigators believeRichard Allen was the male seen by Betsy Blair, R.V., BW. and ALS.andthe male seen in Victim 2’s video. Richard Allentoldinvestigators he was on the trailfrom 1:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m. that day. Videofrom Hoosier Harvestore shows a vehicle that matches the descriptionofRichard Allen's vehicle passing at 1:27p.m.towardtheformer CPS building. The clothing he told investigators he was wearing match the clothingofthe male in Victim 2’s video and the clothing descriptions provided by Betsy Blair, R.V., B.W., and AS. A vehicle matching the description of his 2016Ford Focus s seen at or around 2:10 pm. 2:14p.m., and 2:28 p.m. at theformer CPS building. Through his own admissions, ‘Richard Allen walked the trails and eventually hiked to the Monon High Bridge and walked out onto the Monon High Bridge. A male subject matching Richard Allen’s description was not seen on the trail after 2:13 p.m. Investigators identified other individuals on the trails or C.R. 300 North between 2:30pm. and 4:11 p.m. None ofthose individuals saw a male subject matching the descriptionof Richard Allen on the trail. Furthermore,RichardAllen stated that he only saw three girls on the trail, who investigators believe to be R.V., B.W., and A.S. Investigators believeRichard Allen was notseen on the trail after 2:13 p.m. because he wasinthewoods with Victim 1 and Victim 2. An unspent40 caliber round between the bodies of Victim 1 and Victim 2, wasforensically determined to have been cycled through Richard Allen’s Sig Sauer Model P26. The Sig Sauer ModelP226 wasfound at Richard Allen’s residenceand he admitted to owning it. Investigators were able to determine that he had owneditsince 2001. Richard Allen stated he had not been on that property where the unspent round wasfound, that he did not know the property owner,and that he had no explanation as to why a round cycled throughhisfirearm would be at that location. Furthermore, he stated that he never allowed anyone 10 use or borrow the Sig Sauer Model P26. Investigators believe that after the victims were murdered,Richard Allen returned to his vehicle by walking down CR 300 North. Investigators believe he was seen by Sarah Carbaugh walking back to his vehicle on CR 300 north, with clothes that were muddy and bloody. Tony Liggett, along with investigators, believe the statements made by the witnesses because the statements corroborate the timelineofthe death the two victims, as well as coincide with the admissions made byRichard Allen. Further, the accounts relayed by Betsy ‘Blair, R.V., B.W., and A.S. are similar in nature and time stamps onphotographs taken by B.W. correspond to the times thejuvenilefemales said they were on the trailandsaw male individual. Investigators believe Richard M. Allen committed this Kidnapping which resulted in the KillingofVictim 1 and Victim 2. From their prior conclusions investigators believe Richard M. Allen was themaledepicted inVictim 2’s videosaying, “Guys, Downthehill.” They believe RichardM. Allen was carrying his Sig Sauer Model P26 on that day du to the cycled round matchingthatfirearm was located withinfeetofVictim 2’s body. Theyfurther believe he wascarryingtheSig Sauer ModelP226 from the audio from Victim 2'svideoin which investigators believe they hear thesound of a gun being cycled and oneofthe victims mentioninga “gun.” Investigators believeafter thattime Victim 1and Victim 2wereremoved from the bridge by Richard to where their murders occurred. Charges werefiledagainstRichard M. Allen on October 28%, 2022for 2 counts of Murder. Once Richard M. Allen was taken into custody, he was moved to the Westville Correctional Facility, which is partofthe Indiana DepartmentofCorrections,for safe keeping. He has been insaid fucility since November, 2022. When RichardM. Allen entered thefacility, he was placed in the segregation unitfor his protection. In the segregation unit, his cell is equipped with a video recorder which records his activities within the cell. There are also logs indicating when RichardM. Allen leaves the cell andforwhat purposes. He is also being seen bymedical providers and mental health specialists to evaluate his physical condition and monitor his mental health. Richard M. Allen also has the ability to use a tablet in his cell to send text messages, make phone calls and listen to music. Upon RichardM. Allen’s arrival to thefacility, he was placed on “suicide watch” becauseofcertain statements he made about harming himself: Throughout his stay, his mental health improved to the point that he was takenoffof“suicide watch”. He was also participating in recreation time and beginning to exercise. Thefacility reports that he was doing well and that they had no issues or concerns. His day to day demeanor was that he was quiet, read a lotofbooks, did crosswordpuzzles and exercised daily. On April 37%, 2023, RichardM. Allen made a phonecallto his wife Kathy Allen. In thatphone call, Richard M. Allen admits several times that he killed Abby and Libby. Investigators had the phonecalltranscribed andthe transcription confirms that RichardM. Allen admits that he committed the murdersofAbigail Williams and Liberty German. He admits several times within thephone call that he committed the offenses as charged. His wife, KathyAllen, ends the phone call abruptly. Soon after, attorneysfor Richard M. Allen filed an Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order. In that motion, the Defense states that Richard M. Allen’smental state has declined because Westville Correctional Facility is unfit and that he should be moved. Defense also makes allegations that his mental health has declined to the point where Richard M. Allen has been deprivedofhis constitutional right to assist in his defenseofthis case. Further, Defense alleges that his mental capacity has declined because of his incarceration at Westville Correctional Facility. Defense has also challenged that hi treatment is ‘unconstitutional. Soon after, investigators were made aware by the WardenofWestville Correctional Facility that Richard M. Allen began to act strangely. Richard M. Allen was wetting down paperwork he had gottenfrom his attorneys and eating it, he was refusing to eat and refusing to sleep. He would go days on end refusing to sleep.Hefurther, broke the tablet that he usedfor text messages and phone calls. He went from making up to 2 phone calls a day asofApril 3",2023 to not making any phone calls at all. To date, RichardM. Allen still has not made a phonecall since April 3", 2023. On April 14%, 2023, Richard M. Allen was evaluated by two psychiatrists and one psychologist to discuss his turn in behavior and whether or not there was a needfor involuntary medication. Thepanel would also discuss moving RichardM.Allen to a different Jacility that has a psychiatric unit. From that meeting, it wasdeterminedthat RichardM. “Allen did not need involuntary medication andthat he did not need to be moved to another Jacility. Since that meeting, RichardM. Allen has began to eat againandhas begun to sleep. Hebehavior hasbegantoreturntowhatitwasprior tomakingthe admission on April 3%, 2023. Investigators believe the information that Westville Correctional Facility has gathered since RichardM. Allen was placed in thatfacility is important to the investigation. Investigators believe that therei video evidence that will include his admissions, plus his behavior prior to the admission and directly after. Investigators also believe logs keptof his dailyroutines are importantto determine when he was in his cell and when hewasremoved andthe reasons he was removed. Further, any recordsof physical exams and/or mental exams will be important to determine the stateof his mental andphysical health. This information is neededto refute the allegations made in Defense’s Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order. The evidence is also necessary to refute the allegations of diminished mental capacity and/or other possible defenses. It may also be important as the State introduces additional evidence gathered, including admissions made by Richard M. Allen himself. Investigators believe all the information is important in the continued investigationfor Murder ofAbigail Williams and Liberty German. For these reasons, the State is requesting the employment records for Richard Allen as specified in the attached Subpoena Duces Tecum and/or Request for Production of Documents and Records to a Non-Party: (H.L) “This request ismade for the purposeofan investigation regarding Murder. Furtherin response totheobservations made by the investigating officer, the State believes that Richard Alen is a suspect inthe criminal acts. The Statebelieves thatthe employment records would be abletoconfirm orsupportinformationthatthe lawenforcementhasacquired a a result ofthe murder investigation. “The StateofIndiana has contacted Defense counsel for Richard AllenandDefense counsel has not informed me whetherthey consent or objec o this subpoenas. The Stateof Indiana hasalso sent them a courtesy copyofthis subpoena, via email. WHEREFORE,the StatofIndiana, by Nicholas C. McLeland, Prosceuting Attorney for the 74% Judicial Circuit, respectflly prays that this Courtreview the atachedSubpoenaand then orderproduction ofsidrecords, and suchother reliefas s just and proper inthe premises. Respectfully submited, Nicholas C. MeLcland ’ Prosecuting Attorney 101 West Main Street Delphi, IN 46923 765-564-4514 ‘CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE here cry hat sevice of aresn complete copyofthe shovesudfxgoin pleading pervas ade un he followingpresand ldwiththe Carol CircuitCourt bydepiing thesan nthe UndStes mail nan envelop properly dressedsndwith ulfcint postage ffi his 20TH dayofApr,2023. Westvill Correctional Fal Indians Deparment ofComectons Ato: Else Gallagher SSO1S. 100 W. Westie, IN 46391 SC lk [ Nichols C MeLelnd Caroll County Prosecutor 2830008 STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE GARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF GARROLL )w= GAIISE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) Plaintiff, ) - ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant } MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAOR ENTER PROTECTIVE ORDER ‘The Indiana Department of Correction, a non-party, by counsel, respectfully requests the Court to quash the subpoena commanding DOC to permit attorneys Bradey A. Rozzi, Andrew J. Baldwin, andtheir agent to enter Westville Correctional Facility for the purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, and photographing the facility. Quashing the subpoenais appropriate because ‘permitting the broad access requestedwould introduce significant security risks at the facility, rendering the request unreasonableand oppressive under the circumstances Ifthe Court should deny DOC's motion t quash the subpoenain its entirety, DOC would respectfully request a protective order strictly limiting the inspection to the specific cells and cellblock(s) where Mr. Allen has been housed and prohikiting access to the rest of Westville Correctional Facility. BACKGROUND 1 Defendant RichardM Allen is chargedin this cause with Count 1 murder, a felony; Count 2: murder, a felony. 1 2 The probable cause affidavit does not allege any factual connection to Westville Correctional Facility 3. Following arsquest by the Carroll County Sheriff, the Honorable Benjamin & Dienerordered Mr. Allen transferred to a suitable facility within the Department of Correction. 4. Mr. Allenis currently housed at Westville Correctional Facility 5. Westville Correctional Facility is situated on 411 acresof land—85 ‘acresof which are enclosedby fence. The facility has a capacity of over 3,000 inmates and employs approximately T50 people. Westville Correctional Facility: Facts and Figures — 2020, Indiana Department of Correction, httpsthun, in govlidoc!files!WCCFacts-and Figures-Brochure pdf. Request to Inspect Westville Correctional Facility 6 On May 19, 2023, counsel for Mr. Allen issued to DOC a subpoena and request for production demanding to enter Westville Correctional Facility “for the ‘purpose of inspecting, measuring, surveying, and photographing the individual cell block(s), and surrounding facility” where Mr. Allen has been housed since November 2022. A true and accurate copy of the subpoena ad request for ‘production are attached as Exhibit &. 7. DOCobjects to Mr. Allen's request for inspection—in particular the request to inspect the “surroundingfavility’—becauss permitting such an inspection would introduce unacceptable sscurity risks at the facility and unduly burden DOC staff to accommodate such a request 2 LEGAL STANDARD 8 Acourt may quash a subpoena that is unreasonable and oppressive. See Criminal Rule 2; Trial Rule 45(BX1); Newton v. Yates, 170 Indfpp. 486, 353 NE 2d 485, 500 (1976). Scope ofDiscovery 9. Apartymay serve upon anonparty arequest “to permit entry upon designated land or other property in the possession or control of” the non party “for the purpose of inspection and measuring, surveying, photographing, testing, or sampling the property or any designated object or operation thereon.” TR. 34(4) (applicable tonon parties through Trial Rule 34(C)(1)). But that request must fall within the scope of Trial Rule 26(B) 10. Trial Rule 26(B)(1) limits discovery to matters ‘relevant to the subject. matter involvedin the pending action” including the claims and defensesofthe parties and "the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things and the identity and locationof persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter” Unreasonable and OppressiveRequest for Inspection 11 Here, the request that Mr. Allexis attorneys be permittedto inspect, survey, measure and photograph Westville Correctional Facility—not just the cellblocks, but the “surrounding facility"—is not “reasonably caloulated to lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.” TR. 26(B)(1). In particular, such a inspection does not reasonably relate any cognizable claim or defense. The probable cause affidavit does not allege that there is any connection whatmever between the 3 murder charges and Westville Correctional Facility. Such an inspection would shed no light on "the existence, description, nature, custody, condition and location of any books, documents, or other tangible things” relatedto the charges or, other than Mr. Allen himself, “the identity and location of persons having knowledge of any discoverable matter” T.R. 26(B)(1). 12. This request poses a strong security risk as it could compromise facility security should Defendant’scounsel be permitted to inspect, survey, measure and photograph the cell blocks and the surrounding favility. 13 Becauss Mr. Allen'srequest for inspection isbeyond thescope of appropriate discovery and imposes significant safety risks to the DOC, the subpoenashould be quashed. Alternative Relief Protective Order 14. Ifthe Court should deny DOC's motion toquashthe subpoena it shouldenter a protective order to strictly limit the inspection to the cells and cellblocks where Mr. Allen has been housed. 15. Trial Rule 26(B) permits the Court to limit discovery when “the burden or expense of the proposed discovery outweighs its likely benefit.” 16 Trial Rule 26(C) permits the court to protect against oppression, undue burden and expense byrequiring that discovery be conducted “on specified terms and conditions.” 17. Here, the risk to DOG, its employees, and the offenders inits custody greatly outweighs any benefit to Mr. Allen of allowing an inspection of the 4 “surrounding facility” encompassing Mr. Allen's cellblock. Accordingly, a protective order would be warranted. 18. DOC would propose a protective order that establishes that any fruits of the inspection be limited to this case, and that any inspection be limited to Mr. Allen's coll and cellblock and related recreational area, bathing facility, therapy room, and public visitation area. WHEREFORE, non-party Departmentof Correction respectfully requests the Court to quash the subpoena commanding it to permit the inspection demanded by Mr. Allen, or alternatively, for a protective order reasonably limiting the areas for inspection. Respectfully submitted, THEODORE E. ROKITA Attorney Generalof Indiana Attorney No. 18857-49 By: /s/Aaron M. Ridle ‘Aaron M. Ridlen Deputy Attorney General Attorney No. 3148149 By: /s/Hannah M. Deters ‘Hannah M. Deters Deputy Attorney General Attorney No. 36303-20 OFFICE OF INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA Indiana Government Center South, 5% Floor 302 West Washington Street Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 Telephone: (317) 232-2826 E-mail: Aaron [email protected] 5 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on June 19, 2023, the foregoing document was served upon the following person(s) via IEFS, if Registered Users, or by depositing the foregoing document in the U.S. Mail, first class, postage prepaid,if exempt or non-registered user. Bradley Anthony Rozzi Nicholas C. MeLeland 200 Fourth St. Carroll County Prosecutor Logansport, IN 46947 101 W. Main Street Attorney for Defendant Delphi, IN 46923 Andrew Joseph Baldwin BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, P.C. 150 N Main Street Franklin, IN 46131 Attorney for Defendant £s/ Aaron M. Ridlen Aaron M. Ridlen Deputy Attorney General OFFICE OF INDIANA ATTORNEY GENERAL TODD ROKITA 302 West Washington Street — IGCS — 5 Floor Indianapolis, IN 46204-2770 Telephone: (317) 232-2826 Facsimile: (317) 232-7979 E-mail: Aaron [email protected] 6 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE GARROLL GIRGUIT COURT COUNTY OF carRoLL) CAUSE NO.08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATEA OF INDIANA } ) RICHARD M ALLEN ) EETITION TOLETTO BAIL Comes now the Accused, by counsel, and (pursuant to Article 1 Section 17 of the Constitution ofthe State of Indiana, Indiana Code § 36-33-6-2 and Fryv State, 990 N.E.2d 429 (Ind. 2013)) respectfully moves this Court to conduct a hearing and then release the Accused on his own recognizance, or in the alternative to set a reasonable bail. In support of his petition the Accused avers the following 1 That the Accused, Richard Allen, was aested and charged with murder, on or about October 28, 2022 2. That the defense hasreceivedandreviewed the probable cause affidavit that, asofthe timeof the filing of this motion, has been sealed. 3. That because neither the proofof guilt is evident, nor the presumption of guilt strong, the Accused is seeking ahearing to release the Accused on his own recognizance or in the alternative to st a reasonable bail WHEREFORE, the Accused, by counsel, respectfully prays that the Court release the Accused on his own recognizance or in the alternative to set a reasonable bail Respectfully submitted, lldndrewBaldwin Andrew Baldwin, Atty. No.17851-41 Counsel for Accused BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, P.G 150 N. Main St. Franklin, Indiana 46131 317-736-0063 CERTIFICATE OFEERVICE This is to certify a copy of the foregoing pleading has been provided to all counsel of record for the opposing party, via [EFS this same day of filing. Isl Andrew Baldwin BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, PG STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL ; 5 STATE OF INDIANA ) ‘CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 Vs. ) F li FE D RICHARD M. ALLEN } JUN 132025 Zt, STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS MOTIONFORORDERON €CONTIN ING DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANT’S MENTAL HEALTH RECORDS Nowcomesthe StateofIndiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland, and respectfully objects to the Defendant’s Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure of Defendant's Mental Health Records and in supportofsaid motion states the following: 1. That on June 7*, 2023,the Defendant filed a Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure. ofDefendant’s Mental Health Recordsasking this Courtforan Order tothe Indiana. DepartmentofCorrections,andtheCarroll County Sheriffs Department to release Richard Allen’s mental health records. 2. That the State filed a MotionforLeaveofthe Court to filea 3" Party Subpoena for Richard Allen's mental health records on April 20%, 2023. 3. ThattheDefensefiled a Motionto Quashthesubpoena filedbytheState,statingthatthe subpoena violated the Defendant'sprivacy rights and that the records requested are irrelevant as there are no pendingmatterspertaining tothe Defendant's competency to stand trial, norhasthe defenseofinsanity been raised. 4. That the State believes these records are relevant due to the allegationsoflack of ‘competency made in the Defendant's Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order; 1 Defendant's Motion to Reconsider and Request for Due Process Hearing; along with various letters and emails from the Defense stating that theDefendant's mental stability ‘andcompetency are in question since his stay at the Indiana Department of Corrections. 5. Thatthe Defense even calls into question the Defendant's competency in their Motion for ‘Order on Continuing DisclosureofDefendant's Mental Health Records. 6. Thatthe subpoenas filedbytheStateonlyrequestedthe mental healthrecords forthe Defendantforthe time that he has been incarcerated in the DepartmentofCorrections. 7. In their various court communications, the Defense has implied that although Richard Allenwascompetent atthe onset ofthis case, since he hasbeenincarcerated, he has become incompetent. 8. ThattheDefendanthas admittedthathecommittedthe offensesthatheischarged with 10 lessthan 5times whiletalkingtohiswifeand his mother onthe public jail phones available at the Indiana DepartmentofCorrections. 9. Thatthe Statebelievesthatthese admissionsare goingtobechallengedbytheDefense because ofa lack ofcompetencyofthe Defendant. 10. Thatthe State is concerned about the ability to respond tothe motions filed by the Defense without knowingifthe Defendant is competent or not. 11. That the State would have no objection to this motion ifthe records are presented to the State as well. "WHEREFORE, the State objects to the Defendant's Motion for Order on Continuing DisclosureofDefendant's Mental Health Records and wouldaskthe Court to deny the same. Respectfully submited. 2 MC af Nicholas C. McLeland Attorney #28300-08 Prosecuting Attorney ste CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE 4p stot rer ety et, tt JC Pld JCI fe Prosecuting Attorney 3 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL 3 STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 vs ) F::25 RICHARD M. ALLEN } JUN 132003 © STATE'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANT'S MOTION 10SUPPRESS ~*~" Now comes the Stateof Indians, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland, and respectfullyobjects to the Defendant’s Motion to Suppress and would ask the Courto deny the same and in support of said motion states the following: 1. “That on May 19%, 2023, the Defendant filed a Motion to Suppressthe evidenceseizedas a result of search warrant excauted on the home ofthe Defendant on October 13°, 2022. 2. That the Defense alleges that the search warrant was unreasonable under the Indiana and Federal Constitution in that it lacked probable cause, that it failed to establish that the items to be seized were inthe residenceorcould be expected to be in the residence; that the affidavit failed to provide particular information that particular items related to the particular crime would be found in the home; andthattheaffidavit failed to connect generic items to actual items that were possibly used inthe crime. 3. That in September 2022, while reviewing the evidence inthe investigation into the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German, investigators discovered an interview that was done with Richard Allen in 2017 by Indiana Conservation Officer Dan Dulin. 4. Thatin the 2017 interview, Richard Allen admitted being on the rail the day that Abigail Williams and Liberty German went missing. 1 5. That he stated that he was on the trail between 1:30 P-M. and 3:30 P.M. and that while he was on the trail he was using his phone. 6. That on October 13%, 2022, investigators invited Richard Allen and his wife, Kathy Allen, to speak to them and follow up on that interview done in 2017. 7. That both Richard Allen and Kathy Allen came to the interview on their own on October 13%, 2022, were notunder arrest and were free to leave the interview at any time. 8. That investigators leamed from those interviews that Richard Allen reaffirmed that he was in fact on the trails the day that Abigail Williams and Liberty German went missing and further admitted to being on the high bridge. 9. That he also told investigators that he was wearing blue jeans, and a blueorblack Carhartt jacket with a hood and that he was wearing a head covering. 10. That, further, Richard statedthathe did own guns and that the guns were in his home. 11. That investigators learned from Kathy that Richard Allen still had guns and knives in the home, along with a blue Carhartt jacket. 12. That Investigators believeda firearm was involved in the abduction and murder of Abigail Williams and Liberty German because an unspent 40 caliber round was found between the bodiesof Abigail Williams and Liberty German. 13. That Investigators believeda knife was used in the murderof Abigail Williams and Liberty German. 14. That the clothes that Richard Allen described wearing the day he was on the trails match the descriptionofthe man seen on the bridge from the video taken by Liberty German's phone. 2 15. That it was also gathered that Richard Allen still possessed the firearms, knives and the clothing and said items were in his house. 16. That based on this information, investigators prepared a probable cause affidavit with a search warrant for the homeofRichard Allen. 17. That the probable cause affidavit covers all the information that law enforcement had gathered in the investigation up until October 13, 2022. 18. That Investigators applied for the search warrant on October 13%, 2022 and the same was granted that day by Carroll County Circuit Court Judge Benjamin Diener, herein attached as State’s Exhibit “1”. 19. Investigators wentto the residenceofthe Defendant, located at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Indiana, knockedonthe door and executed the search warrant around 5:00 P-M. on October 13, 2022 and the search was complete around 7:09 P-M. 20. The Defendant and his wife were asked tobe outofthe residence while the search warrant was executed but were allowed back in the residence immediately afterwards. 21. Investigators found several items in the residence, including firearms and electronic devices, allofwhich is outlined in the Search Warrant Return attached herein as State's Exhibit “2. 22. That for asearchwarrantto be valid, it must be accompanied by an affidavit that establishes probable cause, whichis a sufficient basis of fact that exists to permit a reasonably prudent person to believe that a searchofthe premises will uncover evidence of a crime. Esquerdo v. State, 640 N.E.2d 1029. 23. That Indiana Code Indiana Code 35-33-5-2 specifies the minimum information necessary to establish probable cause, which is as follows: 3 a. Information particularly describing the house or place to be searched and the things to be searched for; b. Information alleging substantially the offense in relation thereto and that the affiant believes and has good cause to believe thatthethings sought are concealed in that place that they are attempting to search; or the person to be arrested committed the offense described; and c. Information setting forth the facts known to the affiant through personal Knowledge or based on hearsay constituting probable cause. 24. That under the 4* Amendmentofthe United States Constitution, the evidence needed to obtain a search warrant need not rise to the statuteoffacts necessary to obtaina conviction, the circumstances alleged in the affidavit need only lead a person of reasonable caution to believe thata crime has been committed. Chambers v. State, 540 N.E2d 600 (Ind. 1989). 25. That when the sufficiencyofthe search warrant is challenged under the Fourth Amendment by the Defendant, as it is in the Defendant's motion, the role ofthe reviewing court is to simply ensure that there was a substantial basis for finding probable cause, remindingitselfthat it owes great deference to the initial probable cause determination; and will not invalidate a warrant by interpreting probable cause affidavits inahypertechnical, rather than a commonsense manner. Watkins . State, 85 N.E3d 597 (ind. 2017). 26. That under Article 1, Section 11ofthe Indiana Constitution, the reasonablenessofthe search is determined by using the Litchfield test which looks at the totalityofthe circumstances and requires considerationofboth the degreeof intrusion into the subjects 4 ordinary activities and the basis upon which the officer selected the subjectofthe search or seizure. Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E2d 356. 27. That the inquiry requires a balancingofthe degreeof concern, suspicion or knowledge thata violation has occurred; the degreeofintrusion the methodofthesearch or seizure imposeson the citizens ordinary activities and the extentoflaw enforcement needs. Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356. 28. That the Statebelievesthat the affidavit does meet the threshold to establish probable cause under the 4® Amendmentofthe United States Constitution in that there was a substantial basis for finding probable cause and there was ahigh likelihood based onthe. evidence that investigators had that there was evidence of the crime in the home of Richard Allen. 29. That the State believes that the affidavit accompanied with the search warrantforthe home of Richard Allen does establish probable cause under Article 1, Section 11ofthe Indiana Constitution and does pass the Litchfield test for reasonableness under the totality ofthe circumstances. 30. That the State believes thattheaffidavit establishes the items to be seized were in the residence by statements made by Richard Allen and his wife, Kathy Allen. 31. That the State believesthatthe affidavit provides particular information that particular items related to a particular crime will be found in the homebasedon the statements ‘made by Richard Allen and his wife, Kathy Allen. 32. That the State believes that the affidavit connects generic items to actual items that were possibly used inthecrime based on the investigators evidence that they gathered throughout the investigation. 5 33. That the evidence that was gathered in 2017 was reaffirmed by the interview done with RichardAllenand his wife, Kathy Allen on October13%, 2022. 34. Investigators believed, at that time, that they had enough probable cause to apply fora search warrant. Investigators also believed thatifthey did not executeasearch warrant on the residence immediately, that there was a danger that the Defendant would destroy crucial evidence in the investigation. Theinvestigators believed through their training and experience believedthatthere was a real chance that the Defendant woulddestroy evidence once he knew he was a suspect in the crime. ‘WHEREFORE, the State has shown thatthe actions bytheofficers werevalidand justified and did not violate the Defendant's 4® Amendment under the United States. constitution or Article 1, Section 11of the Indiana Constitution andthereforethe Motion to Suppress should be denied. Respectfully submitted. JC Mf Nicholas C. McLeland Attorney #28300-08 Prosecuting Attorney eRrnEen, Ie INE, Fr — 6 STATE OF INDIANA ) CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ) COUNTY OF CARROLL ) ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MC- 84 ) SEARCHWARRANT To: Law Enforcement RE: Searchofthe residence located at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delph, Indiana in Carroll County ‘You are hereby authorized and ordered in the nameofthe StateofIndiana with the necessary and proper assistance o entet into or upon the property, including the residence, outbuildings, including “wooden shed on the property, and a 2016 Black Ford Focus SE vehicle located at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi,Indianain Carroll County, said property being the residenceofRichard M. Allen, The residence locatedontheproperty isdescribedas a ranchstylehousethat is brick with a two-car garage, as further depicted inthe attached photograph. The property also contains a wooden Shed. Thereiiso a2016Black FordFocusSE locatedonthe property. Lawenforcement is ‘ordered o diligently search for any and ll information and/or evidenceofthe crimeof Murder in Violation of .C. 35-42-1-1; specifically to search for handguns, 40 caliber ammunition, knives, blue Sweatshitsjackets, lack sweatshirtsjackets, clothing, electronic devices and a cel phone with phone number 317-612-4533; any other cell phones; and anyotherelectronic devices located in or ‘onthelocationsdescribed above. Lawenforcement isauthorized fo searchthesearcastodetermine ‘whetherorno therehasbeen aviolationcommittedasdescribed in theaffidavitatthe residence,in the yard, the vehicle and any appurtenances. You arefurthermoreorderedtoseizesuchproperty, oranypartthereof,found onsuchsearchand that you bring the same, or any part thercof forthwith before me to be disposedofeccording to law. Please retum this information within 10 days. Dated this_| 2 dayofOctober, 2022. 37pm, Benjamin Dieser: Todge Caroll Circuit Court STATE OF INDIANA ) CARROLLCIRCUIT COURT ) COUNTY OF CARROLL ) J CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MC- 84 ) AFFIDAVIT FOR SEARCH WARRANT Carroll CountySheriff's Department Detective Tony Ligget,swears or affirms thathe believes and has good cause to believe that evidence relating to the crimeof Murder in violation of 1C 35-42-1-1 is locatedatthe residenceofRichard M. Allen, DOB: 09/09/1972, located at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Indiana in Carroll County. Detective Liggett believes that evidence inthe formof handguns, 40 caliber ammunition, knives, blue sweatshirtjackets, black sweaishirtsjackets, clothing, electronic devices and a cell phone with phone number 317-612-4533 and any other cel phones used by Richard M. Allen vil be located on the property. The affiant states as follows in supportofsaid warrant: That on Monday, February 13% 2017 at approximately 1:50 p.m., Abigail Williams and Liberty German were dropped off by a family member at the Monon High Bridge trailoffof County Road 300 North. On Tuesday, February 14°, 2017atapproximately 12:17 pm. the girls were found deceased, their bodies were located in the woods Northeast ofthe Monon High Bridge. Autopsiesofthe girls ruled their deaths as homicides andtheir woundswerecaused by a sharp object. Investigators located Liberty German's iPhone 6S under her body at the Scene and were able to recover avideo, approximately 43secondsin length, capturedat 2:13 p.m. on February 13% 2017. The video depicts Abigail walking on the Monon High Bridge foward Liberty while 4 male subject wearing a dark jacket and jeans walks behind her. Near the endofthe video the man is heard in the video telling the girls, “Down the hill.” Through Further investigationofthe locationof the bodics, investigators also located a .40 caliber unspent round. They also determined that articles of clothing from the girls were missing, from the scene, including a pair of underwear and a sock. “Through the investigation there were interviews done with 3 ofthe 4 girls that were on the trials that day. The girls observed a male on the trails on February 13", 2017 that matched the description the male in the video recorded by Liberty German. The3 girls, identified as Railly Voorhics, Breanna Wilber, and Anna Spath, encountered this male near a bench east of the Freedom Bridge. Thegirls were on the trail and were walking towards the Freedom Bridge to go home. The male they encountered was walling from the Freedom Bridge towards the Monon High Bridge. Oneofthe3 girls, identified as Anna Spath, describedthemaleas an older man walking on the rails as they were leaving and she described him as “kinda creepy”. Ina text from Anna to Kyla Brammett, Anne described the manaswearing “like blue jeans a Jike really light blu jacket he his hair was gray maybe a litle brown and he did not really show his face”. Investigator Steve Mullin and Brent Ingram interviewed Anna and she described the male as wearing a blue jacket and light blue (faded) blue jeans. The jacket was a canvass duck type jacket. Railly Voorhees, was also in the group of 4 girls and she said that She said “HI” to the man but he just glared at them. She recalled him being inallblack and ‘had something covering his mouth. Railly recalled telling her sister that someone was in a grumpy mood. She went on to describe him as “not very tall” and bigger build. She said that he was not bigger than 5'10”. Rally went on to say in an interview that he was wearing a black hoodie, black jeans, and black boots. She said that he had his hands in his pockets. “An interview was conductedin 2020 of Bre Wilber. Shewas able to show investigators a picture that she took on her phoneof the Monon High Bridge with a time stamp of 12:43 PM EST. Bre showed investigators another picture she took at the bench just castof the Freedom Bridge when they when they were leaving at 1:26 PM EST. Bre stated after she took the picture at the bench, they started walking back towards the Freedom Bridge. Bre stated that's when they walked past the man who matched the descriptionof the individual in the picture. Detective Liggett believes the picture that she is referring toi the picture law enforcement releasedofthe man on the bridge taken from the video Liberty captured on her cell phone on the day of the murders. Bre described the man as wearing a blue or black windbreaker jacket. ‘She stated the jacket had a collar and he had his hood upfromthe clothing underneath the jacket. Bre advised he was wearing baggy jeans and was taller than her. She stated her head came up to approximately his shoulder. Bre told us Rally said hi to the man and he said nothing back. Bre described the man as walking with a purpose like he knew where he was ‘going. Bre also stated themanhad his hands in his pockets and kept his head down. She didn’t get a good look at his face but believed he was a white male. “As the girls lft they crossed the Freedom Bridge and the railroad bridge over old SR25. An individual by the name of Betsy Blair, was returning to the trails to finish her walk. Betsy Blair is seen on video at Hoosier Harvestore on 300 Northtraveling east bound to the trailhead {0 park at 13:46:20 actual time. Blair saw the girls walking above as she went under the railroad bridge. On September 21,2022, Detective Liggett was provided a tip narrative from ORION DIN-C000074-01 to review. It was from DNR Lieutenant Dan Dulin. The narrative was as follows: Mr. Allen was on the trailbetween 1330-1530. Heparkedat the old Farm Bureau building and walked to the new Freedom Bridge. While at the Freedom Bridge he saw threefemales. Henotedone was taller and had brown or black hair. He did not remember description nordid he speak with them. Hewlkedfrom the Freedom Bridge to the High Bridge. He did notsee anybody, although stated he was watching a stock ticker ‘on his phone as he walked. Hestatedthere were vehicleparkedat the High Bridge trail ‘ead, however didnot pay attention o them. He did not take any photos or video. His cell phone did not lst an IMEI but did have thefollowing: MEID-256 691 463 100 153 495 MEIDHEX-9900247025737 Potentialfollow up information: Who were thethree girl walking in the areaofFreedom Bridge? Through the statementof Mr. Allen, he admits that on February 13", 2017, he parked his vehicle at the “old Farm Bureau building” from 1330-1530hrs and was on the trails at that time. There is no “old Farm Bureau building” anywhere close o the trail or bridges. Detective Liggett believes he is referringto the old Child Protective Services building. In 2017, Richard Allen owned a2016 black Ford Focus and a 2006grey Ford 500. Upon review ‘ofvidea collected from the Hoosier Harvestore on February 13%, 2017, investigators were able to locate a vehicle that appears to match Allen’s 2016 Ford Focus on the video at 1327hrs actual time. This coincides with Allen saying he was at the trails around 1330hrs. Detective Liggett then examined the timeline for the dayof the homicides. As previously said above, Railly Voorhies, Breanna Wilber, and Auna Spath were leaving the trails and passed by a male matching the descriptionof the male in the video taken by Liberty. ‘Given the statements by Allen and the timestamp of the video from the Hoosier Harvestore and the statements from the 3ofthe 4 girls, Detective Liggett believes that the male the 3 of the girls saw was in fact Richard Allen. ‘Allen stated that after he passed the girls and then he walked to the Monon High Bridge and saw nobody else. Investigators believe that after passing the Hoosier Harvestore at 1346hrs Blair parked at the trailhead entrance across from the Mears residence. In her interview she says there are no other cars at the trailhead entrance at that time. She walked to the Monon High Bridge and a male matching the male from Liberty's video. She described him as a white male wearing blue jeans and a blue jean jacket. This matches the “blue duck canvass” jacket Anna Spath deseribes. Blair said that the male was standing on the first Dlatformofthe Monon High Bridge approximately SOft away from her. Blair turned around at the bridge and continuedherwalk. Approximately halfway between the bridge and the ‘main hub of trails she passed two girls walking towards the High Bridge. Blair said that she believed it was Liberty German and Abigail Williams. At 1343hrs, on the Hoosier Harvestore Video there is a white car that matches Kelsie German's vehicle. Liberty and Abigail would have been droppedoffright before this video. Blair finishedher walk and is seen on the Hoosier Harvestore videoleaving westbound at 1414hrs. Blair said that she saw no adults other than the male on the bridge. “As Blair was leaving she noted a vehicle was parked in an 0d manner at the old Child Protection Service building. Shesaid that it was not odd for vehicles to be parked there, but it was odd that it was backed in near the building. She said that vehicles often use the south edge of the parking lot so they are closer to the tral to get to the Freedom Bridge. Detective Liggett reviewed a tip (DIN-C001751) from Terry Wilson. Wilson was on his way to Delphi on February 13% 2017 on the Hoosier Heartland Highway at approximately 1410hrs. He observed what he described as purple PT Cruiser or a small SUV type vehicle parked on the South sideof the old CPS building. Wilson said that it was backed inas to conceal the license Dlate of the vehicle. During their interviews both Blair and Wilson drew a diagram and had the vehicle they saw parked in the same general arca and manner. "An interview was done of Sarah Carbaugh in 2017. She states that she was traveling East on 300 North and observed a male subject walking west, on the North side of 300 North, away Monon High Bridge. She stated that he was wearing blue colored jacket and blue jeans “nd was muddy and bloody. She further stated, that it appeared he had gotten into a fight. Investigators determined from the video that she was on 300 North at 1557hrs. Richard M. Allen was interviewed by investigators on October 13° 2022 at investigation center. He was interviewed by Detective Liggett and Carroll County Prosecutor Investigator Steven Mullin. He agreed to come to the center and speak with investigators. He was adyised his rights and he was further advised that he was not under arrest and was freeto leave at any time. Investigator Mullin explained to him how to leave the center ifheso desired. He stated that he was in fact on the trails on February 13%, 2017. He further stated that he saw 3 girls on the trails East of the Freedom Bridge and also that he went on to the Monon High Bridge. He also told investigators that he was wearing blue jeans and a blue or black Carhartt jacket with a hood on that day. He stated he also wore some typeofhead covering. He further claimed that he saw no one else but the3 girls that he observed Eastofthe Freedom Bridge. Further, prior to the interview, he told investigators that he also had guns at this home. Richard M.Allen's wife, Kathy Allen, spoke to investigatorsaswell. She confirmed that Richard did have guns and knives at the residence. Shealso stated that Richard sill has a blue Carhartt jacket. ‘The evidence gathered shows that on February 13%, 2017 that 4 girls, Railly Voorhies, Breanna Wilber, Anna Spath, and Isabel Voorhies, were on the trail when they observed a male individual walking on the trail towards the Monon High Bridge. The male was wearing clothes similar to the clothesof the male depicted in the video taken from Liberty German's hone. Investigators know that this maleithe last known individualto have contact with Liberty German and Abigail Williams before they were murdered. Further, Betsy Blair, was shown a picture ofthe individualon the Monon High Bridge andshe says thatis the same individual that shewitnessed on the trails and on the bridge. In an interview with Richard M. “Allen, done on October 13, 2022, he admits that he was in fact on the trails on February 13", 2017 and walked past the3 girls and continued on to the Monon High Bridge. He stated that he was physically on the bridge. After Betsy Blair sees this individual there are several other individuals on the trail that don’t observe the man or Liberty German or Abigail Wiliams. Sarah Carbaugh, then observes a man walking down 300 North, with a blue jacket and jeans ‘and that he is muddy and bloody, as if he had just been in a fight. She is shown a pictureof the ‘man on the bridge and she that s the same man she observed walking on 300 North. Investigators believe that Richard M. Allen is the last individual to have contact with Liberty German and Abigail Williams. Investigators further believe that Richard M. Allen is the individual depicted on the Monon High Bridge from the videotakenfrom Liberty ‘Germans’ phone. Detective Liggett has been a memberof law enforcement or 21 years. In his role as a Deputy and as Detective, he has investigated numerous crimes, including murders. He has also been rained in howto investigate offenses, such as Murder. He has also participatedn training specifically geared towards murder investigations. In many of those case, evidenceofthe crime is on the individuals cell phone. That evidence includes location evidence in relation to the offense, picture or videos taken during or aftr the offense, and evidence in futheranceofthe crime or in an effort to hide their participation in the crime. Detective Ligget has had an opportunity to review the evidence collected in this investigation. Detective Liggett knows from his training and experience that when individuals commit offenses, evidenceofthose offenses in the form or pictures or location datas captured on that individuals cell phone. Detective Liggettalso knows tha individuals tend to ‘download their phones to other electronic devices, or use their cell phones in conjunction ‘with other electronic devices, including Ipads and computers. Detective Liggelt believes the information ‘gathered from witnesses, video evidence and admissions ‘by Richard M. Allen is reliable. Richard M. Allen placeshimselfat thetrailsand specifically on the Monon High Bridge. He further admits that he iswearing jeans and a dark Carhartt jacket. These clothes match the clothes bytheindividual on the bridge in the photo taken from the video from Liberty German's phone. Detective Liggett ‘was also able to corroborate the information that Richard M.Allenwasatthetrails near thetimethat Liberty German and Abigail Williams. The pictureofthe individual on the bridge was captured by investigators from the video taken on Liberty German's phone, justprior to her and Abigail ‘Williams being abducted. The individual in that picture matches the description of Richard M. Allen. Detective Liggettbelieves that Richard M. Allen is the individual on the bridge. From Richard M. Allen's statements, investigators believe that Richard M. Allen was also on his phone whenhewason thetrailprior tomeetingthegirls. 1 believe thatasearchoftheresidence located at 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Indiana, located in Carroll County,as wellas the outbuilding, the vehicles andthepropertywill lead ‘myself and other investigators to evidenceof Murder. 1 ‘have probable cause to believe thatthere will be evidence located on the propertyofthis offense. Du totheaforementioned reasons, asearch ‘warrantis being requested to enter the propertyof RichardM. Allen, DOB: 09/09/1972 located at. 1967 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Indiana located in Carroll County, ordering law enforcement toseize anyevidencethat i elated Murder. 1 affirm, under penaltyofperjury as specified in LC. 35-44.1:2-1, thatthe foregoing representations are true. Respectull submitted this__|% dayofOctober, 2022. Carroll Cot Sheriff's Department — Nicholas C. McLeland 11 CoCay Proctor FILED MAY 01 2023 STATE OF INDIANA ) CARROLLCIRCUITCOURT c ) Shoes COUNTYOF CARROLL ) CLERK CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ) CAUSENUMBER:08C01-2210-MC-84 , ) RETURN - 1,the cutedthisWARRANT onthe 3__dayof Me 2022 at A [1:03p) o'clock P.M. EEE3 Vwrs TT= ee -_ -_—— YYrr ent -_— -_ FE -_— El-_ _ -_ Ee — PaI Page 10f2 Re eer iny acannon] espogotice amet arr]7 [52] some permancenms er] owe [rm] mem] Fon Soe vit [ican omy ot toate [rere — na ! bp um ma cio[wed Fe pasichn hon conan ove 40 cleStcideundidSi sos Pas andr. [0]| Senledplasticbogcontainingtwomagazines,one lledwith ine40cakibercartridges andone |) |witheight40calibercartridges. aad Ib] i [Sealedpaperbag containing apaperwrapped wooden weave bot containing two “Audiovox” eprT Cit Seed plasicagcontin on Loa compactah 1 Gomory ar. Gl oo EE sh Chainof Custodyon Page2 INDIANA STATE POLICE _— PROPERTY RECORD AND RECEIPT worm2s na)voz: rues 171SPCO01748 Page 10f4. am307011073 Foron den, 3 momoo: pCa" veers Jon ne seaERC | Reed Cse Numbers Type of investigation Dsath vestigation_ InvestigatingOfficer [ay Harper ve [|submitingticn [rocpervido ve fo oe [nn| fiver| fom Eh ndividul 1 [chard Alen [spect - x County [camo Location[1967 iteman Ov Delo - —] Wines orecovery [Troopervido 150 Distrust [1+-1afapete Ee 1 [12 [ovine seed opr bog contin nepro ty Trrssdbots 7 mers a] [50s ldperagconanafiyHack os, 651s Bb] [7[ovoseed metape conorsve: double cdg a shor mel est. 5] [3[orvi0 edeels craig oe row go od shorn ie ol 17 viesss emo conn ack hens cerione bev gon rodee___|0| I EE o| OM te [111 |orVa16[Seled envelopeoneblcksheathcontaining onefokdsbeknfewithared/godhandle a] | [Grin semen ethcontigwsOa Tove Io 17 [ovsoeemoape onebckshesth contin neewt wed ry indiesnd sao 7| TT eres[SE vege conaiing ov tedTier lange one Sh 2033000 El knife, oneblack folding “Gerber knife, andoneblack folding knife. I Seedsrveope containing on red handled “Croley” laoneBueTUR,one een |] O®V22 stgold nana NotionalGuard muko0L.andone lackmuki-took Se enion conaing one back hehcong brown handed she baddSabre” | owen [TFssobo coinane Bo kewih dsAOS Bl [7 [oars sede cata ipest. ol 11 vis sedaper ng contain an ack sdron TOChedseai Bl 1[ovat] er og cnaming nebackndryTrt En ox. ol [I [orvi2eSendpaperbagcontaininganeblue “Carhart coat Io] [T [onvEzE [Seed pperbag omanon prmer boots. se. —10] SriSse apr bog cnnrepk Bo Eo ms Chainof CustodyonPage 4 INDIANA STATE POLICE re PROPERTY RECORD AND RECEIPT tte7027. wo [7[0123[cold paperbag containingonepat fue “zona Jensi 14125. Oo] [ovis bagcoming on afo io reWe a] |[owas se oer conmnganpirt bop Bost same [01| (TE orve esd ppsbgcontin an or feLevSsri 0] [7 [ora[seid paperbagcomaningane vine gry Htwithfore os. Io] [v2 ed per ng coming one bch edUC ondswasiana ze.___[0| [Trias seed pperngcoringan 4peor swear | [5138Sedpaper ng conan ca 1pWatswt a] [7 [ovseve prer ogcoring one bor Grog sesh ize. 10| [E7552 sed pencoma noFennec wes. Bl [BR [ori[seid per bog contain oneblu Fratof the Loom” eeshir Io] [TE [oro[seid poperbog containing onebo Starter sweatin [owassedpaper og coming ne bicsider hoodedssi. 5] [oes edprog cman toeswihno os. | [2[08137] Seved pape bag containing oeblue Adidas sweatshirt oO] [0 [oRVa38[sealedpaperbagcontaining on brownfied capwith malbil. Io] [Seiadpaperbgcontainingon lack WAstockingcap, ore ack NASCAT Ford aang [| EEAEo ke a. IT [ori] edpeEng cota on yo nd Bac ADRS la Bl = ovin[soieiprracmsmngone mantras 10] 1 Jonata sd prog como ne wn Cortsciraon.___ Bl [rons amsmngnentsromson 10} [11 [ovaSeid oper bgcontain oelea sp, andar geen rc1! [Of [1[5ovaesseidcrdbonrdbon contain on Plapop Sea OSH779 = 11 [oat esdcoorcomorin ne HF Pvtion apo rt TETAS = [7 [orvies[Sespaperbogcoma one pric agconning iebest Io] IFas saracinnc bons hone onanrocco fomin 0| [Tories sedpaper bog coming neWinchesterSupreme Eeentammoox = [Jom]eid engcotangent ove auc ote ave || Rcon th back imee 18 ChainofCustody on Page4 INDIANASTATEPOLICE wt PROPERTY RECORD AND RECEIPT akaibi sive) ann 17ISPCORLTAE Page A 3 of 4 ———— =pescisionttentosuomites t [7 [orvis2 [Selemvlop containg ane Samssng pane na laase Io] [ovis [Sea emvlop contomng inane aan wih ed st 0] [oases svlpcomming each anne ope seom ge [7255 edenvtpecotaing av ckSeshond on That Defers iefomge 17 [orviss seauacnveaps cotaing on sk exer rd drive acord SeaWRF458.1| = ened envelope containing onssmaller ewelope containingane ackPodseal 71601601T. = Sealed envelope containing one smallerenvelope containingone 32M SO card andone 2568 omni = Sealed cardboardbox containing one Blac sheathwithan imal imprinted on the font andane {755 rrweodentangenewis roted Sade Tom ge [7 [50via seidpaper bgcontaining vemisceneous veecrs. Bo] [1 [50vi61 seed operbogconaninscelaneos allo ches o] [TT [oredr tain ines hoeccsr. = [vie edpeaconanco pop corr. ol (Tae paper bo conan wopor onic owe ol [7 [ovisseapaperbgcoaning es oto dane pores Bl 17 owassemper en eansashone: 0] ea Seiadpaperbag conning onecordbondbo conanane LoVetzon seside smart phone. J| Iowans cmp tan ne olor eae satpone Bl [7 ori ssps coninngtre crct phones oneActors.aneinoe Hotrn_[C | Lm)Sealed paper bog containing onecardboardboxcontainingone Naka 7705Twistcellphone and Io] andl |documents. ar Sealed cardboard Garminbox containingoneGarminStresiPlotC40device, twocords,and Io] orn mentor. i bear AE oN TE ope TOO orionmrecont Sealed manila envelope containing ablack Piel 3a XL cellphone MEID 35964309505164 with3 = mn ak Gronene 7] eaied manila envelope Containing abackSamsungGalany 425G Serial Number,RSCRSONFAEA Ie] a |with a brown case nncotaor3A Se cong Nas omar [7Grasso man neo conv vrLGCitric fp hore Io] Chain ofCustodyonPage 4 SeINDIANA a STATEPOLICE cons 19K-60197 Page 10f2 ns tpn wow fmmJae edie etoe ee] signing pasar mae] 7 [i] ubmiing oie Fcrumcmars re a| we [|ee] on Soe 1 Ea avo fermi] — Ee ee ———— > ! Ipesription p—— of emis) Submited ~ p=erCS ————— crn[ei epscoin otc ope ngs sonee3 | | fm nee TE Chainof Custody on Page2 STATEOF INDIANA: ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT JSS: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) CASE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-0000.\_ STATE OF INDIANA: )J ENTERED v. ) October 28, 2022 ) CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN ) KA COURTORDERSEALINGREQUESTANDCOURTRECORDS ENDINGPUBLICHEARING On October 28, 2022, State of Indiana (the *State"), by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland, filed a Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record. ‘The Court, being duly advised, now FINDS as follows. 1) Ind. Code§ 35-34-1-1 allows for the sealingof an information. 2) Indiana Rules of Court, Rules on Access to Court Records, Rule 6(4) provides for both the request and the record(s) themselves(if any) to be deemed confidential until a hearing on the request may be conducted. Therefore, the Court, being duly advised, GRANTS the State of Indiana's Petition. Pending public hearing, which shall be held no earlier than twenty (20) days of the posting of noticeofthe hearing, by the State, in compliance with the Access to Public Records Act. The State shall provide notice of the public hearing in compliance with Rule 6 of the Rules on Access to Court Records: Said hearing shall be conducted in the Carroll Circuit Court Room at thefollowing date and time: “1 evenloon 22, 20223 at: 00 am The request and all court records are ordered sealed, and are deemed confidential under Indiana Rulesof Court, Rules on Access to Court Records, Rule 6, pending public hearing, as scheduled above. So ORDERED this 28dayofOctober, 2022. ap Benjamin A. Diener, Judge Carroll Circuit Court pe: State: Atty. Nicholas C. McLeland Defendant: C/O Sheriff of Carroll County CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Date: October 27, 2022 STATE OF INDIANA CAUSE NUMBER 08C01-2210-MR- | vs RICHARD M. ALLEN 1967 Whiteman Drive, Delphi, IN 46923 DOB: 9/9/1972 SSN: XXX-XX-3934 The Court will please enter the following minutes: State of Indiana by Nicholas C. McLeland. ein, Attorney, files probable cause affidavit executed | by Tony Liggett and information for: Count 1: Murder, a Felony: and Count 2: Murder, a Felony. The Defendant being in custody, the court determines that probable cayse does exist. The Court sets bond | in this matterat pa Set rill 20 000,005 -00) cash or corpornde. sant. Initial hearing is set at [0:3oa ptm: Ocholoe~ 8€, 2032 | Entry Approved: i CEAUNES Tener Carroll Circuit Court | /s/Nicholas C. McLeland NSCWEL rosccuting Atlorne Attomey # 28300-08 0CT 2 8 49, Ld 2 CARROLL CiIRCUIT Coury STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT STATE OF INDIANA v. CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 RICHARD M. ALLEN DOB: 09/09/1972 SSN: XXX-XX-3934 PRE-OMNIBUS ORDER “This cause is set for trial by jury on March 20, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. as a first setting. ‘The omnibus date is January 13, 2023. Pre-trial conference is set for January 13, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. at which time the defendant and counsel for the parties are ORDERED and DIRECTED to appear. 1. DISCOVERY. Discovery shall be completed as provided by Local Criminal Rule LROB-CRO0-18 on or before the fifteenth day prior to the trial date. 2. PRE-OMNIBUS MEETINGOFATTORNEYS. Trial counselfor the defense and State shall meet prior to the omnibus hearing; in the absence of agreement as to the time and place of meeting, they shall meet ata place designated by the State and shall undertake and consider the following: A They shall complete the Omnibus Report which shall then be filed with the Court prior to the omnibus hearing. B. They shall exchange lists of the names and addressesofwitnesses and exhibits. C. They shall discuss simplifications of the issues, motions then pending or which may be filed before the commencementof trial, stipulations, theories of prosecution and defense, and plea negotiations, ifany. 3. OMNIBUS HEARING. All cases scheduled for trial on the date set in this order will be scheduled for Omnibus Hearingat the same time. The Court will first determine if the parties contemplate the entry ofa plea ofguilty by the defendant, either with or withouta plea agreement. Ifthere is to be a pleaof guilty, the plea will be entered following any other scheduled Omnibus Hearings. The court will not accepta plea agreement after the Omnibus Hearing without a showing of good cause why the plea agreement could not have been reached at or prior to the Omnibus Hearing. Ino pleaofguilty is entered, the Court will determine whether any cases with an earlier filing date or cases which the Court has assigned a higher priority remain scheduled for the same trial date.Ifthere are none, then the trial date will stand, oth ow trial date will be set. ERT R ED OCT 2.8 2022 CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT 4. WITNESSES AND EXHIBIT. Lists of witnesses and exhibits in writing shall be prepared, exchanged, and filed with the Court at the omnibus hearing. 5. JURY INSTRUCTIONS. Preliminary and final instructions shall be tendered to the Court and exchanged by the parties no later than three court days prior to the trial. The Court will permit the tenderofadditional instructions during the trial on matters which could not reasonably have been anticipated in advance of trial. Counsel shall not refer to or read any proposed instructions to the jury in voir dire examination, opening statement, or otherwise, unless such instruction has been previously submitted to and approved by the Court. ENTERED this 28" day of October 2022. «eT or Benjamin AJDiener, judge Carroll Circuit Court pe State: Attorney Nicholas C. McLeland Defendant: Richard M. Allen c/o SheriffofCarroll County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ss: COUNTY OFCARROLL ~~) rotue2022erm ENTERED _ November 2, 2022 STNBOZINDIANA } CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT @ V. ) (CASE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-1 ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ORDER ACKNOWLEDING PUBLIC HEARING A public hearing will be conducted pursuant to Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.5 and Indiana Rules of Court, Rules on Access to Court Records, Rule 6, November 22, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. in the Carroll Circuit Court. Parts or members of the general public will be permitted to testify and submit written briefs, subject to reasonable time constraints imposed by the Court A decision to seal all or part ofa public record must be based on findings of fact and conclusions of law, showing that the remedial benefits to be gained by effectuating the public ‘policy ofthe state declared in section 1 of this chapter are outweighed byproof by a preponderance of the evidence by the person seeking the sealingof the record tha: 1) A public interest will be secured bysealing the record; 2) Dissemination of the information contained in the record will create a serious and imminent danger to that public interest; 3) Any prejudicial effect created by disseminationofthe information cannot be avoided by any reasonable methodother than sealing the record; 4) There is a substantial probability that sealing the record willbeeffective in protecting the public interest against the perceived danger: and 5) luis reasonably necessary for the record to remain sealed for a period oftime. Sealed records shall be unsealed at the earliest possible time after the circumstances necessitating the sealing of the records no longer exist. SO ORDERED this 2 day of November, 2022. Benjamin A. Diener, Judge = Carroll Circuit Court PC: State: Atty. Nicholas C. McLeland Defendant: c/o Carroll County Sheriff STATE OF INDIANA ) weencrcorrcoude=N TERED Tr TO THE 2022 TERM Nov 03 2022 STATE OF INDIANA ) CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT v. ) CASENUMBER: ~~ 08C01-2210-MR-1 RICHARD M. ALLEN ) COURTORDER On November 2, 2022, Tobe H. Leazenby, Sheriffof Carroll County, filed a Request by the Sheriff ofCarroll County to Transfer inmate from Carroll County Jail to the Custody of the Indiana Department of Corrections for Safekeeping. ‘The Court, being duly advised, FINDS that Defendant is an inmate awaiting trial and is in imminent dangerofserious bodily injury or death, or representsa substantial threat to the safetyof others. This FINDING is not predicated on any acts or alleged acts of the Defendant, since arrest, rather atoxic and harmful insistence on “public information”about Defendant and this case.Ingeneral, this Court has thirty (30) days to rule on any Motion that is filed byaParty in any case. See Ind.Trial Rule 53.1(A). Yet, concurrent to the actual case naturally occurring, this judicial officer keeps getting direct requests from non-partiesfor “public information, claiming that this officer has seven (7) days or one (1) day, when hand delivered, to respond to the request or face litigation! ‘While this officer is responsible for the entirety of the Circuit Court docket it attempts to ignore the maelstrom of interest” from the public, tis known that YouTube already hosts content regarding family membersof this judicial officer, including photos. “The public's blood lust for information, before it exists, is extremely dangerous. ALL PUBLIC SERVANTS administering this action do not feel safe and are not protected. “The Carroll County Sheriff has limited resources to conduct its base operations, let alone. any duties mandated by our Supreme Court. All Defendants in all actions are presumed innocent. All public information will be: available the second it exists. Noneofthe family members of public servants are partofthis action. All ofthe public servantsare simply peopledoing theirjobs. Mostofthe public servants are woefully underpaid. Most ofthe “public interest”consists of people attempting to raise their status or profit financially. When the public peddles misinformation with reckless abandon, we all are not safe Page 1012 As far as the public's desire to learn about access to court records, that educational effort cannot be by this officer educating each individual, ad-hoc, wheneverthey choose to seek “public information.” These inquiries are inherently disruptive to the operationsof the Court as they are wholly outside the operations of the Court. As a branch of the Supreme Court, any requests for public information about this action should be directed to whomever is the public information coordinator for the Courts in general, Ifthere is not such a position, our state may need one. Defendant indicated at the initialhearing an intention to hire private counsel Defendant is reminded that he must retain counsel within 20 daysofthe initial hearing because there are deadlines for filing motions and raising defenses and, if those deadlines are missed, the legal issues and defenses that could have been raised will be waived or given up. If Defendant is unable to retain counsel of his choosing due to financial indigency, Defendant is reminded that he is entitled to court-appointed counsel and Defendant will be: examined upon request. “The Court notes, for the public, that when Defendant appeared for the initial hearing, he was clad in protective gear. That protection was not to protect Defendant from the Court. That protection was to protect Defendant from the public. Until a finding of guilt or a judgment of conviction occurs, in any case, judgment must be reserved and the presumptionof innocence must be respected and preserved. Accordingly, pursuant to Ind. Code § 35-33-11-1, the Court ORDERS the Sheriff of Carroll County to transfer Defendant toa facilityofthe departmentof correction designated by the commissioner of the department as suitable for the confinement of Defendant and provided that space is available. So ORDERED this 3dayof November, 2022. STW Benjamin ADiener,Judge | | 4) Carroll Circuit Court i AE pe Prosecuting Attorney x Defendant C/O Sheriff ofCarroll County Sheriff of Carroll County Indiana Department of Correction STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss COUNTY OFCARROLL) TO THE 2022 TERM STATEOF INDIANA ) ) v. ) CASENUMBER: ~~ 08C01-2210-MR-1 ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ‘ORDEROFRECUSALAND CERTIFICATION TOTHEINDIANASUPREMECOURT [FOR SELECTIONOFASPECIAL JUDGEOUTSIDEOFCARROLLCOUNTY “The JudgeofCarroll Circuit Court has determined that the particular circumstances within the underlying case warrant recusal and dictate that a special judge be appointed in this case. The Court hereby recuses itself. Pursuant to L.R08-CR13-19(C), this Court has determined that no judicial officer within the county may preside over this case. “This Court now Certifies this matter to the Indiana Supreme Court for appointment ofa special judge in compliance with LR 08-CR13-19(8),(C). SO ORDERED this 3 day of November 2022. Benjamin A Diener, Judge Carroll Circuit Court PC States Atty. Nicholas C. McLeland Defendant: C/0 1DOC Ind. Code §35-33-11-1 ENTERED <[email protected]> Indiana Supreme Court sv enum Office ofJudicial Administration CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Via E-mail <[email protected]> Page 1 of 1 STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) Court finds Defendant is unable to hire counsel and is entitled to Court-appointed counsel and investigation. Court appoints Attorney Bradley Rozzi and Attomey Andrew Baldwin as contract Public Defenders. Counsel instructed to enter their written appearance and be available for hearing ‘November 22, 2022, at 9:00 a.m. Dated: November 14, 2022 ices C. Gull, Special Judge ll Circuit Court ll County, Indiana NOTICE TOBE GIVEN BY: ___COURT XX_CLERK__ OTHER ROOF OFNOTICE UNDER TRIAL RULE 720) copyof sty wa sere iby 0 Le fo, Grid y's dition box, ox pry sid to iat BreyRoc Hoi tin ingAwareNichols Led She Daten IE NTLOF PERSONWHONOTED ARIES, COURT___CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OFcarroLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN, } Defendant. ) COURTHOUSE MANAGEMENT AND DECORUM ORDER [FOR NOVEMBER HEARING 22.2022AT9:00A.M. “This case has generated substantial public inerest and media attention. In lightofthis, and on the Court's own motion to ensure the integrity of the proceedings, to protect the Defendant's constitutional rights for due process, to ensure the safetyofthe parties and the public, and to permit public access to criminal proceedings, the Court ses forth the following rules and guidelines for the hearing setfor Tuesday, November 22, 2022, in the Carroll Circuit Court. 1. The Courthouse will open at 8:00 am. ~All entrances will be closed, except for the handicapped enirance on the north side of the building. The remaining entrances will bo locked with no access to the public. 2. All membersofthe public, including members of the media, aresubjectto screening by mtal detectors. All bags in possessionofthose entering the buildingare subject to search. 3. NO weaponsofany kind are permitted in the building, except for on-duty law enforcement officers providing security to the Courthouse and the parties. 4. Cellular telephones are permitted in the building, but must be powered OFF and unused at all times while in the building or the Courtrooms. Violations are subject to seizure and destructionofthe cellular telephone. 5. No electronic equipment or devices are permitted in the Carroll Circuit Court. 6. Media personnel are permitted to attend the Court session. NO cameras, electronics, lap tops or recording equipmentofany kind is permitted on the Second Floor and the Third Floor of the Courthouse nor inside the Circuit Courtroom. ~All such equipment is limited to the First Floor ofthe Courthouse. The Court requests the media be mindful that other County offices are conducting businessin the building unrelated to this case. Media and members of the public are ordered to conduct themselves in such 2 fashion as to limit disruption to the offices, personnel, and patronsofthose offices. 7. The Media are free to use the public areas outside the Courthouse as long as they do not obstruct traffic inthestreets and sidewalks surrounding the Courthouse. 8. Seating inthe Carroll Circuit Court is limited. The fist rowofpublic seatsbehind the bar separating the wellofthe courtroomfrom the public is unavailable for seating. The Sheriff of Carroll County or his designee will ensure that the victim representatives are seated. ‘The remaining seating is available until full. No one, other than Court Security, will be permitted to stand in the Courtroom. All spectators must remain seated until the conclusion of thehearingandthe partes have loft the Courtroom. 9. No food or beverages are permitted inside the Carroll Circuit Court. Water will be ‘permitted for the parties in the wellofthe Courtroom. 10. All membersofthe public andthe media are required to follow directivesofthe Sheriffof Carroll County, Courthouse Security and Courtroom Security. 11.NO court-produced recording will be made available to the public or media. The audio record made pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 5 may not be copied or used for purposes. other than perpetuating the record. ‘The Court anticipates that all members of the public and the media will conduct themselves in an appropriate fashion. Any violationofthis Order and any conduct the Court finds disruptiveofthe proceedings may result in an orderof temporary or permanent exclusion from the Courtroom and/or Courthouse and is punishable as contemptofCourt Dated: November 18, 2022 C. Gull, Special Judge oll Circuit Court li County, Indiana NOTICE TOBE GIVENBY: ___COURT XX_CLERK ___OTHER PROOFOF NOTICE UNDERTRIAL RULE 20) copy ofthis nyva ved eesby feasoeos, psd1 sesdition xopeony dtc eoneens: aeRoiAtomey or end AndrewBidnin Arey or Dent Frncsing AnyNoi lcd Comrie one: INITIAL OF PERSONWHONOTIFIEDPARTIES: ___ COURT__CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) . CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) . Defendant. ) Defendant appears in person and with counsel Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin. State appears by Prosecuting Attomey Nicholas McLeland. Hearing held on the State’s Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Resord, fled October 28,2022. Matter taken under advisement. Defendant's Petition to Let to Bail, filed November 21, 2022, ordered set for hearing in the Carell Circuit Court February 17, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. Court will enter a separate transport order for the defendant, Omnibus date rescheduled to February 17, 2023, at 10:00 am. by agreement of counsel. JCy) Dated: November 22, 2022 Frankes A C. Gull, Special Judge' bil Circuit Court atoll County, Indiana NOTICETOBE GVEN BY: ___COURT_X_CLERK___OTHER FRO OF YOTICH IDERTIAL RULE TD) coyofthsevism iby afe td cna’ dt x pect db 1 eyRor tseosDen esa Bava aana rt ed Ce oar TAOFPERSONWHONOTIFIERFARTIES ~___ COURT Clan STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )s8: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) a ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) Court notes filing of a Limited Appearance by Attorneys anda pleading entitled “Media Intervenors’ Pre-Hearing Brief Secking Public Access to Probable Cause Affidavit and Charging Information’ on November21, 2022. Court takesthis matter under advisement following the hearing conducted on November 22, 2022 on the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access t0:a Court Record, filed October 28, 2022. Dated: November 22, 2022 CAA 2s C. Gull, Special Judge pil Circuit Court oll County, Indiana NOTICETOBE GIVEN BY: ___COURT_XX_CLERK__ OTHER FROOF OFNOTICE UNDER TRIAL RULE 720) con of ts rey as sve its i}anoF r,tne sry’ disibulon Sox, opesnly Got10s lemmapeers a teRoiAvo orDent odio Bain Asefo Df Pring AnyNha wld Comrie wm NTL. GFPRSONWEGGUEEDPARTIES: COURT __CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OFcarrorsy CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) The Court, having had this matter under advisement following a hearing conducted on November22, 2022, and having considered the evidence submitted and the argumentsofcounsel, now denies the State’s Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access to a Court Record, in part. The Court finds thatthe State has failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the AffidavitofProbable Cause and the Charging Informations should be excluded from public access. The Court finds that the public interest is not served by prohibiting access, and that the protection and safety ofwitnesses. can be ensured by redacting their names from the Affidavit, and that the defendant's personal information can be removed from the Charging Informations. “The Court notes that the Prosecuting Attorney submitted Charging Informations and a Probable Cause Affidavit at the November 22, 2022, hearing that was redacted, eliminating the witnesses’ names and identifying personal informationofthe defendant, Those documents will be released to the public and made part of the record of this cause. The original Charging Informations and Affidavit of Probable Cause shall remain as sealed and confidential Court records as they are not redacted. The Court further finds that the Media Intervenors’ Motion for Leave to Intervene is moot, and therefore, denied. Court Orders that the redacted Charging Informations and Affidavit for Probable Cause, submitted by the State at the hearing conducted on November 22, 2022, be filed with the Clerkofthe Court with this Order, and further that the Clerk shall not release (without prior Court approval) the original, scaled unredacted Informations and Affidavit Dated:November 28, 2022 ces C. Gull, Special Judge ll Circuit Court ll County, Indiana. NOTICE TOBE GIVEN BY: __COURT _XX_CLERK__OTHER PROOF OFNOTICE UNDER TRIAL RULE 7200) copy fi rte ws sd beby ml I headsof cor,dpeid the tomy’ dition bo, pescallydso ning peso: a deyRomi Atoey fo eft dro Dovi—Alrey for Denar. Frcsing AryNols Melhad Cou . owe: ________________ INTIALOF PERSON WHONOIRPARTIES, COURT CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) Court orders the State's Motion for Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Members from Disseminating Information or Releasing any Extra-Judicial Statements by Means of Public Communication and the Defendant's Verified Motion for ChangeofVenue from the County set for hearing January 13, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in the Carroll Circuit Court. Court to notify. Dated: December 1, 2022 ces C. Gull, Special Judge oll Cirouit Court roll County, Indiana NOTICE TOBE GIVENBY:_XX_COURT.__ CLERK__OTHER PROOF OFNOTICE UNDERTRIAL RULE T20) copyofthis nnywas sv trbyl} he is ftdep esa’dition bo, peal Gist ob oloing ps: ryRomi rey or Deen. Abavi Amey on Defemt Frosces Auamey NosMeL fers DATED: ET NIA GFPERSOWHONOTIFIED PARTIE, ___ COURT CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) * INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF carro) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) VS. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) On the Court's motion, in response odefendant'sundated “Press Release”,the Court issuesan order granting the State’s Motion for Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Members fiom Disseminating Information or Releasing Any Extra-Judicial Statements by Means of Public Communication in whole, pending hearing which the Court has just recently scheduled for January 13, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. in the Carroll Circuit Court. Counselforthe Stateof Indiana and the Defendant, as wellas their professionalstaffand other personnel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and all family members are prohibited from commenting on this case to the public and to the medic, directly or indirectly, by themselves or through any intermediary, in any form, including any social media platforms. Counsel are reminded that theyarerequiredto conform to the Indiana Rules of Court, Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically Rule 3.6 Trial Publicity in its entirety, and Rule 3.8 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor in its entirety. Violationsofthis Order are punishable as Contempt of Court and subject the violator to a fine and/or incarceration. Dated: December 2, 2022 5 C. Gull, Special Judge I Circuit Court ll County, Indiana NOTICETO BE GIVEN BY: _XX_COURT __CLERK ___OTHER PROOF OFNOTICEUNDERTRIAL RULE 720) copyof hiscacywas srvd thrby lf headresofocd, deposefn the amesdsobo,oxpersonaly dstbued 1 he Tollvingpees: ce BradyRoa Atormy fo Deena AnirowBalin Atorey for Defend Prosacting AmeyNicholasMelland SherifofCarllCoumy diosSie Folie GaolCoutyCoronet CouFie INITIAL WHONOTIFFI ATED:OFPERSON TTTBARGES, —_— COURT CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: : COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant, ) Court orders Defendant's Supplemental Motion for Discovery and Request for Rale 404 and 405 Evidence set for hearing January 13,2023, at 10 2.m. Court further orders Defendant’s Bx Parte Motion and Order Authorizing Funding for Fact Investigator set for ex parte hearing January 13, 2023, atllam. Dated: January 9, 2023 cos C. Gull, Special Judge Il Circuit Court Il County, Indiana NOTICE TOBE GIVEN BY: ___COURT XX_CLERK__ OTHER PROOF OFNTICE UNDERTRIAL RULE 20) coyof is ty was see le by saoof n,n4 he's dition bos,o escdst fo tomerly Roi trey orDeed cytaneyto Bcd Ping une Nou ieee . CoCoty Ce Ofte Se ote TALGFPERSON SHOTTNGTIFER PARTIES COURT__ CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OFCARROLL)5 CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) Vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN, } Defendant. ) COURTHOUSE MANAGEMENT AND DECORUM ORDER FORHEARINGJANUARY13,2023AT10:00A.M. This case has generated substantial public interest and media attention. In lightofthis, and on the Court’s own motion to ensure the integrity of the proceedings, to protect the Defendant's constitutional rights for due process, to ensure the safetyof the parties and the public, and to permit public access to criminal proceedings, the Court sets forth the following rules and guidelines for the ‘hearing set for Friday, January 13, 2023, in the Carroll Circuit Court. 1. The Courthouse will open at 8:00 am. Al entrances will be closed, except for the handicapped entrance on the north side of the building. The remaining entrances will be locked with no acess to the public. 2. All membersof the public, including members of the media, are subject to screening by ‘metal detectors. All bags in possessionofthose entering the building are subject to search. 3. NO weaponsofany kind are permitted in the building, except for on-duty law enforcement officers providing security to the Courthouse and the parties. 4, Cellular telephones are permitted in the building, but must be powered OFF and unused at ail times while in the building or the Courtrooms. Violations are subject 0 seizure and destructionofthe cellular telephone. 5. No electronic equipment or devices are permitted in the Carroll Circuit Court. 6. Media personnel are permitted to attend the Court session. NO cameras, electronics, lap tops or recording equipment of any kind is permitted on the Second Floor and the Third Floor of the Courthouse nor inside the Circuit Courtroom. ~ All such equipment is limited to the First Floor of the Courthouse. The Court requests the media be mindful that other County offices are conducting business in the building unrelated to this case. Media and ‘members of the public are ordered to conduct themselves in such a fashion as to limit disruption to the offices, personnel, and patronsofthose offices. 7. The Media are free to use the public areas outside the Courthouse as long as they do not obstruct traffic in the streets and sidewalks surrounding the Courthouse. 8. Seating in the Carroll Circuit Court s limited. The first rowof public seats behind the bar separating the wellofthe courtroom from the public is unavailable for seating. The Sheriff of Carroll County or his designee will ensure that the victim representatives are seated. ‘The remaining seating is available until full. No one, other than Court Security, will be permitted to stand in the Courtroom. All spectators must remain seated until the conclusion of the hearing and the parties have left the Courtroom. 9. No food or beverages are permitted inside the Carroll Circuit Court. Water will be ‘permitted for the parties in the well of the Courtroom. 10. All membersof the public and the media are required to follow directivesof the Sheriffof ‘Carroll County, Courthouse Security and Courtroom Security. 11.NO court-produced recording will be made available to the public or media. The audio record made pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 5 may not be copied or used for purposes other than perpetuating the record. 12. Atthe conclusionofthe scheduled hearing on public pending Motions before the Cour, the ‘Court will conduct an ex parte hearing with the Defendant and defense counsel on the Ex Parte Motion. The State of Indiana and the public are excluded from this portion of the hearing and will be asked to leave the Courtroom. Court Security will remain and are ordered to keep that portionof the proceeding confidential. ‘The Court anticipates that all membersofthe public and the media will conduct themselves in an appropriate fashion. Any violationofthis Order and any conduct the Court finds disruptive of the proceedings may result in an order of temporary or permanent exclusion from the Courtroom and/or Courthouse and is punishable as contemptofCourt. Dated: January 10,2023 Joes C. Gull, Special Judge I Circuit Court troll County, Indiana NOTICETOBE GIVEN BY: ___COURT_XX_CLERK__ OTHER PROOF OFNOTICEUNDER TRIALRULE 7200) copy ofis ty ws ved either by ml oe ade of sd, pond he aoe’ isto box, peal disibatd to he loving pee: ce indy Reva Amey orDefedan ewBldAtorcyforDefends PestoAtoey Nils Laat ComCoyShes Deputmen Coane DATED: ‘RIALGF FESOWHONOT PARTIES, ____ COURT __CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF as) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. J ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN, ] Defendant. ) Defendant appears in person and with counsel; State appears by Prosecuting Attomey MeLeland. Hearing conducted on pending issues. Having previously granted the State’s Motion to Prohibit Communication, pending hearing, and having discussed the matter with counsel in chambers, the Court now grants in whole the State's Motion for Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Members from Disseminating Information or Releasing any Extra-Judicial ‘Statements by Means of Public Communication. Courttakes Defendant's Supplemental Motion for Discovery and Request for Rule 404 and 405 Evidence under advisement as counsel continue to work diligently to exchange discoverable information. Court acknowledges the Defendant’s Motion for Changeof Venue and agrees a jury could not be obtained in Carroll County. Pursuant to LC. 35-36-6-11, a jury will be selected from another county and transported to Carroll County for trial. Counsel to nofify the Court within a week if they can agree toa specific county. 73 Dated: January 13,2023 AA os C. Gull, Special Judge aril Cireuit Court anpll County, Indiana NOTICE TOBE GIVEN BY: _XX_COURT__ CLERK___OTHER PROOF OF NOTICE UNDERTRIAL RULE 20) Ic ficy sed i 1 a ed tnbs, ety Gi nyRo Auefo Den Aibits Ages of Deen Frkesing uyNhs cord ShorCur Coomy rbSrl Carmi Comy Coro Gump FravaAv Em ™ 4 NTL CFPCWIONOTFERPARTIES: __—_ COURT __CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) Vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) “The parties having fle their Stipulation Regarding Defendant's Verified Motion for Change ofVenue rom the County on Jenuary 20, 2023, and the Court having examined same, the Court hereby Orders that the jury venive shall be drawn from Allen County and tial skal bé conducted in Caroll County. 0 7)g A Dated:January 24, 2023 A ces C. Gull, Special Judge afroll Circuit Court - Ghrroll County, Indiana NOTICE TOBE GIVENDY:_SX_COURT__ CLERK __OTHER PROOFOF NOTICE UNDERTRIN RULE TD) copy a of is cy ve vryosoar,ed An's dition x, opsGt8 A A ——tt fordvisitor me or: INGE iLOF PERS IARTIS. COURT__ Lok STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT 388: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) On the Courts Motion, and with the consentofthe parties, the heating scheduled on February 17,2023, at 10:00 a.m. on Defendant's Petition to Let Bail will be continued and the resetting of same will be conducted with the attorneys, the Defendant, and the Court appearing remotely February 17, 2023, 1 1:30 pam. Court ordersthe Transport Order for Defendant cancelled. 0 Dated: February 16,2023 == HL fraoes C. Gull, Special Judge arfoll Circuit Court afroll County, Indiana NOTICE TONE GVEN BY: _XX_COURT__ CLERK __OTHER PROOFOF NOTICE UNDERTRIAL RULE 720) A copy of is caywa etby msaosnd, ipod ne seydistinbox,openly dbo 0 alomegrerons: aRoa ey xDeen kebain ome or Dein Pricing Ay hosead Coron Coy hens Dope {ois openof Coin She or: NAL, OF PERSONSONOTEBATES. COURT__ CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) To accommodate DepartmentofCorrection availability, the hearing currently set for February 17,2023, at 1:30 p.m. is reset to February 17, 2023, at 12:30 p.m. Dated: February 16,2023 5 C. Gull, Speéial Judge ll Circuit Court “arroll County, Indiana NOTICE TOBE GIVEN BY: XXCOURT_ CLERK __OTHER PROOF OFNOTICE UNDERTRIN. RULE 70) = copyof hs cy was seed iby eaof or, eid iy’sion bo, psndb0 omg oe Ras Ay orDee neDui neyor Deen PacingAumMica elcord CoCoySven Dope ois operaComin fh orm: NTA OF PERSONWHOROTI PARIS, COURT CLERK STATEOFINDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ) ss: COUNTY OF MARION ‘CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 . STATE OF INDIANA ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) ) Defendant ) ORDER GRANTING MEDIA INTERVENORS’ RENEWED MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO GRANT PUBLIC ACCESS TO THE STATE'S VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS ‘The matter before the Court is the Renewed Motion to Intervene and Motion to Grant Public Access to the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access filed by the Media Intervenors (the “Motion”).' The Cour, having considered both Motions and being duly advised, finds that the Motions should be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT the Media Tntervenors are granted leave to intervene, and the State's Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access filed on October 28, 2022 shall be released to the public. The Clerk is directed to make the Verified Request available to the public on the docket. 0 paes_3\1-205 Aes C. Gull, Special Judge ol Circuit Court Distribution: All counselof record. The“Media ntervenors” refer oth followingenies collectively: Indiana Broadcasters Associaton, nc; Hoosier State Press Association, In; The Associated Press; Ciclo City Broadcasting 1, LLC dla WISH-TV: E.W. Scripps Company ble WRTV; Nexstar Medi Inc. dba WXIN/WTTV;Neuhoff Media Lafayete, LLC; Woof Boom Radio LLC; TEGNA Inc. dfs WTHR; Gantt Stall Information Network, LLC dla The Indianapolis Str ud American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. ola ABC News. 1 © fe Bo } - £ + © STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT A COUNTY OFCARROLL = iis 5 ‘STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 Th vs. } EL {77% RICHARD M. ALLEN } : » - ORDER a Comesnowthe Court the StateofIndiana, by Nicholas C. McLeland, Prosecuting Ales, having filed s' Motion Requesting Proestive Oder Governing Disorery,and he * Court being duly advised in the premises, now grants said Motion and the State, the Defendant id Colnsel fo the Defehdant, are now instructed and ORDERED as follows: wo 1. That one copyofthe discovery material shall be provided to Counsel for the . Sai od Defendant. ; or : i ATTN000 2 ‘That no additional copiesofthe discovery material shall be madebythe «1 + Defendant, Defendant's Counsel, investigator, expert or any other representative "7 oragentofthe Defendant foranyreason. Ee 3. Thatthediscovery materialshail htbeused forany purposeotherthanto prepare i forthedefenseintheabovereferenced cause number. ©, + yt 4 “tur That thediscovery material shall not be publicly exhibited, displayed; shown,used “ii au hei for educational, research or demonstrative purposesorused in anyother manner, ind Cus. esceptin judicial proceedings inthe above referenced action. £ 5. That the.discoverymaterial may:be viewed only by parties,counsel andcounsel’s £ investigators and experts. 5 6. Thatif copiesofthe discovery material are made and provided totheDefendant, dh investigators or experts for the Defense, that sensitive and private information J contained in the discoveryshall be redacted, including any social security y 3 numbers, IDAC information,or NCIC information, anyinformation related io the 2 ‘persondl informationofjuveniles; including social security numbers, names and £3 ate ofbirth and any FBIsentinel information. vd Are bi rta rt w i 2 ~ hems £0 10 2 word sulin I we WEY tet a be oi mp emi co Lian Rononedkos of rs en ERR Fl 2. That none ofthediscovery material shall be divulged to any personnét authorized ©. i toviewthe discovery material thiinchides otherwitnésses;family members, © F © | . Felatives and friendsofthe Defendant 1 aban a / 8. Thatnopersonotherthenthe Defendant, Counsel forthe Defendant and those 1. 4, + ©). pérsons listed in paragraph & shall bé braned access to said diséovety material or +. . he substancéofanyportionthercofunless that personhis signed an agreement in, 11. vritingthetheorshehasreceived a copyofthis Orde andthat heorshesubmits © tothe’ Court's jurisdiction and authority with respect to the discovery; agreestobe subject to the Court's contempt powers for any violationofthis Order; and is “of, + 10 {RT ghdnted prior permission bythié Court ‘access said discovery. 9. That upon final dispositionofthe case, the discovery material referred to in i ‘paragraph 1 andanyand alltranscriptsshellberetumedtothe Carroll County~~ Prosecutor's Office or maintainedby Defense Counsel pursuant to the terms 2 10. That Counselfor the Defendant shall be responsible to ensure thatall persons NE "EE volved inthe defenseofthis case complywith this Order. 2 ‘110iThat the written documents/records provided by the State with the discovery * © materialfallunderthe same rules as described above. : ITIS S0 ORDERED this_. I dayofFebruary, 2023. 5% . esGull, Special Judge - AL II Cizcuit Court 45 Copy: "Stale = : E HINES Rozzi” i VERE Baldwin Be A a LRH HELE ¥ % ) Yak 8 b 2 . AL STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )8s: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) 3 VS. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) Defendant with Attorneys Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin. State by Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas MeLeland. With consentofthe partie, hearing on Defendants Motion to Continue Bail Hearing and Jury Trial conducted via Zoom. Court grants Defendant's Motion to Continue Bail Hearing and resets the hearing to June 15-16, 2023, at 8:30 am. in the Carroll Circuit Court. Jury tral also continued to be reset at the bond/omni hearing June 15, 2023. CR 4 time chargeable to Defendant. State's Motion for Protective Order granted under scparate order without objection by Defendant. Media Intervenors® Renewed Motion to Intervene and Motion to Grant Public Access to States Verified Request o Prohibit Public Access granted without hearing and without objection from the State and Defendant under separate order. 0/) Dated: February 21, 2023 A dnces HAC_Gull-Special TYJudge afroll Circuit Court Jol County, Indiana i NOTICE TO BE GIVEN IY: _X_COURT __CLERK__ OTHER PROOF OF NOTICE UNDER TRIAL RULE 720) conof is ory ws sre ir by i0 he diesof sr, cp I ames distin bo, personaly disbed oe loving EE ty Roi Aor Difcadin Aton Blowin eyoDnt racing AoeyNhsMel and Combi DATED: _ INTIAL OF PARSONWONGED PARES: COURT ___CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) VS. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) Defendant. ) On November 3, 2022, the Judge of the Carrol Circuit Court, at the request of the Carroll County Sherif], entered the following order: “Accordingly, pursuant to Ind. Code 35-33-11, the Court ORDERS theSheriff of Carroll County to transfer Defendant to facilityof the departmentof correction designated by the commissioner ofthe department as suitable for the confinement of Defendant and provided that spaco is available.” These typesoforders are referedto as “safe keeper” orders. The Departmentof Correetion has complied with this order. Consistent with that Order and the “safe keeper” statute, the DepartmentofCorrection is authorized to move the Defendant within the Department of Correction to accommodate his medical and physical nceds pursuant to medical direstives by the DepartmentofCorrection physicians, psychiatrists, or psychologists. Dated: April 14,2023 \ 72(0OO ances C. Gull, Special Judge prroll Circuit Court : arroll County, Indiana NOTICH TO BE GIVEN BY: _XX_ COURT __CLERK___OTHER PROOF OFNOTICI UNDER TRIAL RULE 720) copy of tis cy ws svtr by fo he ass of sd, epi homey’ isbuion box, on peony ised 0 ths folloia psns: a" ryRor Amey for Defend. od livin Anefo Denn ProscuingAno NitsMlind InoDpsrnen ofCorstien Commie INTIAL DAD GFFERSONWI NOTED PARTIES — ____ COURT .___CLERK STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ~~) Defendant. ) The Court, having had defendant’s Motion to Quash Subpoena under advisement, now grants. the Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville Correctional Facility relating to defendants mental health records, mental health evaluations and/or exams, medical documentation and/or medical evaluations. ‘The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to Westville: Correctional Facility regarding audio/video recordings, written observations, recordings, phone calls, written requests, or other documentation is denied. The Motion to Quash the Subpoena Duces Tecum directed to CVS Headquarters is denied. The defense Motion to Reconsider and Request for Duc Process Hearing ordered setforhearing June 15, 2023, at 10:00 a.m. The hearing currently set on defendant's request for bail is ordered converted to a hearing on defendant's Motion to Suppress. O) J Dated: May 25,2023 A > <= es C. Gul, Special Inde irroll Circuit Court - farroll County, Indiana OTIC TOBE GIVEN BY: XXCOURT _ clk__ori 00s oF NOTICE ADEA TAKE 2) cpl is ty os sed ic eS 4 y's stn bo, ply Ga 5 TLLl ac et enoets fet RITA EinarPARTE. ia cor __cusme STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OFase CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) VS. orzo OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) - Defendant. ) i COURTHOUSE MANAGEMENT AND DECORUM ORDER FORHEARINGJUNE15,2023AT10:00A.M. $ “This case has generated substantial public interest and media attention. In lightofthis, don the Court's own motion to ensure the integrity of the proceedings, to protect the Defendant's constitutional rights for due process, to ensure the safety of the parties and the public, and to permit public access to criminal proceedings, the Court sets forth the following rules and guidelines for the hearing set for Thursday, June 15, 2023, in the Carroll Circuit Court. 1. The Courthouse will open at 8:00 am. All entrances will be closed, except for the handicapped entrance on the north sideofthe building. The remaining entrances will be. locked with no access to the public. 2. All members of the public, including members of the media, are subject to screening by metal detectors. ~All bags in possessionofthose entering the building are subject to scarch. 3. NO weaponsof any kind are permitted in the building, except for on-duty law enforcement officers providing security to the Courthouse and the parties. 4. Cellular telephones are permitted in the building, but must be powered OFF and unused at all times while in ihe building or the Courtrooms. Violations are subject to seizure and destruction of the cellular telephone. 5. No electronic equipment ordevices are permitted in the Carroll Circuit Court 6. Media personnel are permitted to attend the Court session. NO cameras, electronics, lap tops or recording equipment of any kind is permitted on the Second Floor and the Third Floor of the Courthouse nor inside the Circuit Courtroom. ~ All such equipment is limited to the First Floor of the Courthouse. The Court requests the media be mindful that other County offices are conducting business in the building unrelated to this case. Media and members of the public ere ordered to conduct themselves in such a fashion as to limit disruption to the offices, personnel, and patronsofthose offices. 7. The Media are free to use the public areas outside the Courthouse as long as they do not obstruct traffic in the streets and sidewalks surrounding the Courthouse. 8. Seating in the Carroll Circuit Court is limited. The first rowof public seats behind the bar separating the welofthe courtroom from the public is unavailable for seating. The Sheriff of Carroll County or his designee will ensure that the victim representatives are seated. ‘The remaining seating is available until full. No one, other than Court Security, will be permitted to stand in the Courtroom. All spectators must remain seated until the conclusionofthe hearing and the parties have left the Courtroom. 9. No food or beverages are permitted inside the Carroll Circuit Court. Water will be permitted for the parties in the well of the Courtroom. . 10. All members of the public and the mediaare required to follow directives of the Sheriffof Carroll County, Courthouse Security and Courtroom Security. 11.NO court-produced recording will be made available to the public or media. The audio record made pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 5 may not be copied or used for purposes other than perpetuating the record. 12. Atthe conclusionofthe scheduled hearing on public pending Motions before the Court, the ‘Court will conduct an ex parte hearing with the Defendant and defense counsel on the Ex Parte Motion. The State of Indiana and the public are excluded from this portion of the hearing and will be asked to leave the Courtroom. Court Security will remain and are ordered to keep that portionofthe proceeding confidential. “The Court anticipates that all membersofthe public and the media will conduct themselves in an appropriate fashion. ~ Any violationofthis Order and any conduct the Court finds disruptiveofthe. proceedings may result in an order of temporary or permanent exclusion from the Courtroom and/or Courthouse and is punishable as contempt of Court Dated: June 12,2023 ces C. Gull, Special Judge oll Circuit Court ll County, Indiana NOTICETOBE VEN bv: fAJCOVRT_J0X_CLERK__OTHER PROOF OF NOTICEUNDER TRIALRULE 720) ficyvssrs ieby 0ksofetopt sre’ dso,rlyet TeRoi - Avefo Defend otro Baw Atoey or Defender FrascinoNhs Method Cura CounySes Dearne Gorn oan B23- NTL SFFERSON WHONOTIFIERPARTIES gdCOURT ___CLERK STATEOFINDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ssi COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO 0801-31:MH:0006 1 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ORDER Comes now the Court and having communicated with the parties on Defendant Allens Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosureof Defendant's Mental Health, Records, now grants said Motion and orders the Indiana Department of Corrections and/or any other departments, law enforcement agencies, and/or individuals assuming jurisdiction over the care and the custodyofRichard M. Allen (D/O/B: 9/9/72) to release to Atiomey Bradley A. Rozzi and/or Andrew Baldwin, upon the written request or either, any and all mental health records associated with Richard M. Allen, without the necessity ofthe executionofconsents and/or waivers by Defendant Allen or his agents. = ortered___ Sue lg S053 . RANCES C. GULL, SPECIAL JUD 'ARROLL CIRCUIT COURT "ARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OFcarro) CAUSENO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 STATE OF INDIANA, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. } ORDER OR JUDGMENT OF THE COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN, } Defendant. ) Defendant appears in person and with counsel, Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin. State by Prosecuting Attomey Nicholas McLeland. Court is informed by Counsel that the hearing on defendant’s Motion to Suppress needs to be continued to be reset once defense counsel files its notice of omissions/inaccuracies. Hearing conducted on defendant's Motion to Reconsider Safekeeping Order. Evidence and argumentsofcounsel taken under advisement. Defendant's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order on Department of Correction Use of ‘Cameras and Request for Preliminary Injunction to pend as the Department of Correction has stopped remote filming attomey meetings with defendant. Court grants defendant's Motion for Order on Continuing Disclosure of Defendant's Mental Health Records under separate order. Ex Parte Motions heard and concluded. Counsel will submit Ex Parte pleading under seal for the Court to consider. Court will issue a separate, detailed order on the scaled pleadings which will be unsealed by agreementofCounsel, Jury trial ordered set January 8-26, 2024, with jury selection to be conductedin Allen County, Indiana, and tral to be conducted in Carroll County, Indiana. Dated: June 20, 2023 es C. Gull, Special Judge ll Circuit Court il County, Indiana. NOTICE TOBE GIVEN BY: _XX_COURT__ CLERK _OTHER PROOF OFNOTICE UNDER TRIAL RULE 720) copy fbi coywas sv shby oaksfer,dpsed he ame’distinbx,ofpsadtd 0 olomag pens co” ey Rov Ave or Dents row Dakin - Amey forDefender. Prseuing AoreyNilaMeL and Indians Depatmert ofComcian Coutfic DATED INTIAL FRSONWHONOTFED OF NnPARTIES, ____ COURT ___CLERK i ] STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ENTERED STATE OF INDIANA OCT 28 2022 | v. CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT RICHARD M. ALLEN DOB: 09/09/1972 SSN:xxx-xx-3934 CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 ‘ORDERONINITIAL HEARING State of Indiana appears by Nicholas C. McLeland, Prosecuting Attorney. Defendant appears in person, in custody of the Sheriff of Carroll County, Indiana. | Defendant is advisedofhis right to counsel and of his constitutional and statutory rights, the charges against him, and the possible penalties. Defendant advises the Court he intends to hire private counsel. Defendant is advised that he must retain counsel within twenty days as there are deadlines associated ‘with the omnibus hearing, which may be waivedif not timely pled. Pleas of not guilty are entered. ‘Omnibus hearing is set for January 13, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. and Trial by Jury is set as a first setting on March 20, 2023, at 9:00 a.m. Defendant is ORDERED and DIRECTED to appear on said dates. Failure to appear may result in the issuance of a bench warrant. Pre-Omnibus Order is issued. StateofIndiana requests Defendant be held without bond. The Court now ORDERS Defendant held without bond pending further hearing. So ORDERED this 28th day of October, 2022. Carroll Circuit Court pe: State: Atty.NicholasC. McLeland Defendant: Richard M. Allen c/o Sheriffo Carroll County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE GARROLL GIRGUIT COURT 88: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO.08C01-2210-MR-000001 ) STATE OF INDIANA ) ) v ) ) RICHARD M ALLEN ) ORDERSETTINGHEARINGON EETLTION TOLETTOBAIL Come snow Accused, by counsel, and having filedhis Petition to Letto Bail Andthe court having examined the same, and being duly advised in the premises, now sets this matter for ahearingon ______ Date: ___ — Erfy Honorable Special Judge, Carroll Circuit Court 1 Distribution: Carroll County Prosecutor's Office BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, P.C. STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL y= STATEOF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-000| ) w ) FILED RICHARDM.ALLEN ) October 28, 2022 CLERK CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC > | ACCESS TO A COURT RECORD Now comes Nicholas C. MeLeland, Carroll County Prosecuting Attomey, being first duly sworn upon his oath, and requests the Court to prohibit public access to the Charging Information, the Probable Cause Affidavit and other Court documents fled in this cause of action. In supportofsaid request. the State shows the following: 1. That the public interest will be secured by the sealing of the record; 2. That dissemination of the information contained in the record will create a serious and imminent danger to the public interest; 3. That any prejudicial effect created by dissemination of the information cannot be avoided by any reasonable method other than sealingofthe record; 4. That there is a substantial probability that sealingof the record will be effective in protecting the public interest against the perceived danger; 5. That the public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access for the reason ] that the releaseof the information might damage an ongoing murder investigation; or; 6. That access or dissemination of the Court Record will create a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general public. | “That now comes the Stateof Indiana, by Nicholas C. Mel.eland, Carroll County Prosecuting Attomey. and requests the Court to prohibit public access to the Charging | Information, the Probable Cause Affidavit and other Court documents. Further the State is asking the Court to find that remedial benefits to be gained by effectuating the public policy of the state are outweighed by a preponderance of the evidence for the above referenced reasons ‘and seal the records involved with this Cause of Action, until further Order of the Court and for all other just and properrelief in the premises. Dated this JY dayofOctober, 2022. A&2. 4Ay. #28300-08 Carroll County Prosecuting Attorney STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL. SS: CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-M:1 VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS TO A COURT RECORD Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attomney, being fist duly sworn upon his oath, requests the Court to prohibit public access, and shows the Court that 1). The public interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access for the reason that the release of the information might damage an ongoing case; or 2) Access or disseminationofthe Court Record wilcreate a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general public. affirm under penaltyofperjury as specified by 1.C. 35-44.1-2-1, that the foregoing. representations are true. Dated this 14* dayof April 2023 ING jilh C Mk, / Nicholas C. McLeland, Aty. 728300-08 Prosecuting Attomey F ILE D APR 142023 % Shor] STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL, $8: IN THE INVESTIGATION OF CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 CRIMES COMMITTED IN CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS TO A COURT RECORD Nicholas C. MeL eland, Prosecuting Attorney, being first duly swom upon his oath, requests the Court to prohibit public access, and shows the Court that 1). The public interest wil be substantiallyservedby prohibiting accessforthereason that the releaseofthe information might damage an ongoing murder investigation; or 2) Access or disseminationofthe Court Record will create asignificant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general pubic. 1 affirm under penalty ofperjury as specified by LC. 35-44.1-2-1, thatthe foregoing representations are ruc. Dated this 20* day ofApril, 2023. F APR LE20 2023 D ful Ihe eC© Hbphn it NicholasC. McLeland, Atty. #28300-08 CLERKEARROLL Cou co Prosecuting Attorney STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL, S5: IN THE INVESTIGATION OF (CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 ‘CRIMES COMMITTED IN CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC ACCESS TO A COURT RECORD Nicholas C. McLeland, Prosecuting Attomey, being first duly sworn upon his oath, requests the Court to prohibit public access, and shows the Court that: 1) Thepublic interest willbe substantially served by prohibiting access for the reason thatthe releaseofthe information might damage an ongoing murder investigation; or 2) Access or disseminationofthe Court Record will create a significant risk of ‘substantial harm to the requestor, other persons,orthe general public. YL affiem under penalty of perjury as specified by LC. 35-44.1-2-1, thatthe foregoing representations are true. Dated this 20 dayofApril, 2023. SC if F IL ED fhC AY Nicholas C. McLeland, Atty. #28300-08 APR 202023 Prosecuting Attorney aunthon ihisn> SAS court STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL, $8: IN THE INVESTIGATION OF CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 CRIMES COMMITTED IN CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA F ILE D APR 20 2023 VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC & ACCESS TO A COURT RECORD CLERK CARROLL'CIRGUIT COURT Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attomey, being first duly sworn uponhisoath, requeststhe Court to prohibit public access, and shows the Court that: 1). The publi interest will be substantially served by prohibiting access for the reason that the releaseofthe information might damage an ongoing murder investigation; or 2) Access or disseminationofthe Court Record will create a significant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general public. affirmunderpenaltyofperjury as specified by LC. 35-44.1-2-1,thtthe foregoing representations are true. Dated this 20° dayof April, 2023. /{Na A NicholasC. McLeland, Atty. #28300-08 Prosceuting Attorney STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL, §5: IN THE INVESTIGATION OF CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 CRIMES COMMITTED E IN CARROLL COUNTY, INDIANA F IL D APR 20 2023 VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC Chron Whur CLERK CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT ACCESS TO A COURT RECORD Nicholas C. MeLeland, Prosecuting Attorney, being first duly sworn upon his oath, requests the Court to prohibit public access, and shows the Court that: 1). ‘The public interestwillbe substantially served by prohibiting accessforthe reason that the releaseofthe information might damage an ongoing murder investigation; or 2) Accessor disseminationofthe Court Record will create asignificant risk of substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general public. Y affirmunderpenaltyofperjury as specified by 1.C. 35-44.1-2-1, thatthe foregoing representations are true. Dated this 20* day ofApril, 2023. fie:NE,C psy Nicholas C. McLeland, Atty. #28300-08 Prosecuting Attorney STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL, 5: STATE OF INDIANA CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 RICHARD M. ALLEN F Lr Df JUN 13 2023 VERIFIED REQUESTLTOPROMIBITPUBLIC Thawte Dhue idh ACCESS TO A COURT RECORD Nicholas C. McLeland, Prosecuting Attomey, being first duly sworn upon his oath, requests the Court to prohibit public access, and shows the Court that: 1). The State makes said request in an effort to remain in compliance with the Order or Judgementofthe Court (Gag Order) entered in this cause on December 2, 2022; and 2) Access or disseminationofthe Court Record will ereate a significant risk of substantial harm t0 the requestor, other persons, or the general public. affirm under penaltyofperjury as specified by I.C. 35-44.1-2-1, that the foregoing representations are true. Dated this 13% dayofJune, 2023. he 7 Ih/ ( Mf Nicholas C. McLeland, Atty. 728300-08 Prosceuting Attorney STATE OF INDIANA CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL, SS: STATE OF INDIANA ‘CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-1 vs. : RICHARD M. ALLEN F | Te E D JUN 13203 © VERIFIED REQUEST TO PROHIBIT PUBLIC orZhwerE dlr ACCESS TO A COURTREC D CLERK CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Nicholas C. McLeland, Prosecuting Attorney, being first duly sworn upon his oath, requests the Court to prohibit public access, and shows the Court that: 1) The State makes said request in an effort to remain in compliance with the Order or Judgementofthe Court (Gag Order) entered in this cause on December 2, 2022; and 2) Access or dissemination ofthe Court Record will create a significant risk of ‘substantial harm to the requestor, other persons, or the general public. 1 affirm under penaltyofperjury as specified by LC. 35-44.1-2-1, that the foregoing ‘representations are true. Dated this 13™dayofJune, 2023. a: The C id Nicholas C. McLeland, Atty. #28300-08 Prosecuting Attomey STATE OF INDIANA ” CARROLLCIRCUITCOURT COUNTYOFCARROLL . "DELPHI,INDIANA ‘STATE OFINDIANA vs. CAUSENO. 08C01-2210-MR-01 RICHARD M.ALLEN E CAU AVIT 1,theundersigned affian,submitthefollowinginformation pursuant to LC. 35-33-7-2 asaswom affidavitsettingforththefactsendcircumstances knowntolaw enforcementofCarrollCounty asthe ‘basisforprobablecausetoarrestwithout awarrantortoestablishprobablecause forissuanceof an arrestwarrantfor theabove nameddefendant. ‘Thatthefactsandcircumstances describedbelowwouldbesufficientbasisfor apersonof reasonablecautionandprudencetobelievethattheaccusedhas committedofattempted tocommitthe | offenses) described andthatif rested without awarrant,suchwouldbeauthorizedunder LC. . 353311. ‘Thatthe hearsaystatementsofwitnessescontained hereinaceconsideredreliableand edibledueto thewitness's personal knowledgeand/or are corroborated bythe totality ofthe circumstances. Thaton February 14%,2017Victim 1andVictim 2were founddeceased inthewoods approximately0.2milesnortheastofthe MononHigh Bridgein CarrollCounty. Theirbodies were located on the north ide oftheDeer Creek. Atthetime,the Monon High Bridge Trailwasanapproximately 1milegravel trail terminatingatthe MononHigh Bridge.The MononHighBridge is anabandonedrailroadtrestleapproximately 0.25miles long spanningtheDeer Creek andDeer Creekvalley onthesoutheast end ofthetrail. Approximately 0.7 miles northweston thetrail from the northwestern edgeofthe MononHighBridgeisthe FreedomBridge, ‘whichis apedestrianbridgespanningStateRoad25. Approximately 350feetwestofFreedomBridgewas aformerrailroadoverpassaverOldStateRoad 25(alsoknownas County Road 300 North). Thetrail terminatesjustwestofthe formerrailrond overpass.Themajorityofthetrail Isin awooded areawith a tos . Steep embankment on thesouthsideofthetrail. Theentiretyofthe trailandthelocation ofthegirls bodieswereandarelocatedinCarroll County, Indiana. Through interviews, reviewsofelectronicrecords,and review ofvideoattheHoosierHarvestore, investigators believe Victim1 andVictim 2weredroppedoffacrossfromthe Mears Farmat1:49 p.m. on February 13%,20178y + TheMoar urnsislocatedon thenor sideofCounty Road 300North ‘nearan entrance 10thetrails. Avideofrom Victim 2sphoneshows thatat 2:13 pum. Victim1and Victim 2encountered amale subjectonthe southeastportionofthe MononHighBridge. Themaleorderedthe girls “Guys,Downthe hill", No witnesses sawthem afterthis tie. Nooutgoing communications were foundonVictim2'sphoneafterthisime. Theirbodieswere discovered onFebruary 14%2017. The video recovered from Victim 2's phomeshows Victim1walkingsoutheastonthe Monon High Bridgewhile amalesubjectwearing adarkjacket andJeanswalksbelsindher. As themale subject approaches Vicdim1and Victim 2, oneofthevictimsmentions, “gun”. Neartheendofthevideo amaleIs seenand heardtelling thegirl, “Guys,Dow theWl"Th girs then begin 0proceed down the Willand thevideoends, Astill photograph takenfrom thevideoandthe “Guys,Downthehill”audiowas subsequentlyreleased 1 the publictoassist investigatorsinidentifying the male. Victim 1 and Victim2'sdeaths wereruledas homicides. Clothes werefoundintheDeer Creek belongingtoVictim 1 andVictim2,south ofwheretheirbodieswerelocated.Therewasalso a.40 caliber unspent roundless than twofect awayfrom Victim 2 body, betweenVictim 1and Victim 2's bodies. The roundwas unspentand had extraction marksonit. Interviews wereconducted with3juveniles, and ~The advised they were on theMonon HighBridgeTrail on February 13%, 2017. Theyadvisedtheywerewalking onthetrail towardFreedom Bridgeto gohomewhentheyencountered amalewalkingfrom Freedom Bridge towardthe MononHigh Bridge. describedthemaleas“kindofcreepy” and advised hewaswearing “like blue ans a ike realty light ueJacket andhe his hairwasgraymaybe a litle brown and hedid not realyshow isface.” Sheadvisedthe jacketwas aduckcanvastype Jacket. advisedshesaid “Hi”tothemalebuthejust glared atthem.Sherecalled himbeinginallblackand hadsomethingcovering hismouth. Shedescribed himas “notvery tall” with abiggerbuild.Shesaid hewas notbigger than 5°10%, advised hewas ‘wearing aback hoodie, blackjeans,and blackboos, Shestated he had his handsinhis pockets. ‘showed investigators photographs shetook on her phonewhile she was onthetrailthatday. The 2018 ' photographs included aphotoofthe MononHighBridgetakenat 12:43 pm., andanoffer one takenat 1:26p.m.ofthebenchEstofthe FreedomBridge. advised after shetookthe photoofthebench theystarted walking back toward Freedom Bridge. Sheadvised thatwas whentheyencounteredtheman whomatched thedescription ofthephotograph takenfrom Victim 2'svdeo. described themanshe encounteredonfhetrailaswearing ablueorblackwindbreakerjacket.Sheadvised thejackethad a collarandhe ad hishood up from theclothing underneath isjacket.She advised hewaswearing baggy jeansandwastallerthan her. Sheadvised her headcameuptoapproximatelyhis shoulder.Sheadvised sald “Bi tothemanandthat he saidnothing back.Shestated hewaswalking with apurpose likehe + mewwhere h wasgoing. Shestatedhe hadhis hands in hispockets and kepthis lieaddown. She advised shedidnotget goodlookat hisfacebut believed him fo be awhitemale. Thegirls advised ofter encounteringthe male theycontinuedtheir walkacrassFreedomBridgeandtheoldrallroadbridgeover 01dStateRoad25. Investigatorsspokewith wikoadvised shewason thetrails on February 13%, 2017.Videofrom (he Hoosier Harvestore captured vehicle traveling eastbound at1:46 p.m.towardthe entrance across. fromthe Mearsfarm. advisedshesaw 4juvenilefemaleswalkingon thebridge overOldState Road 25asshewasdriving underneathonherway to park. advisedtherewerenooffercarsparkedacross from the Mearsfurmwhensheparked. She advised she walkedtothe Monon High Bridge andobserved a ‘malematching theone from Victim 2's video, Shedescribed the maleshesa as awhitemale, wearing bluejeans and abluejeanjacket. She advised hewas standingon thefirstplatform oftheMononHigh Bridge,approximately 50feetfrom lier. Sheadvised she turnedaroundatthebridgeand continued hier walk. She advisedapproximately halfway between thebridgeandtheparkingarea acrossfromMears farm,she passedtwogirls walking towardMononHighBridge. She advisedshe believed thegirls were Victim 1andVictim 2.Video fromthe HoosierHarvestore showsat1:49p.m. a white carmatching vehicletravelingawayfromtheentranceacrossfromtheMearsfarm. advised shefinishedher walkandsawnootheradulsother thanthemaleonthbridge, Hervehicle i sanonHoosier Harvestore videoat2:14pam.leaving westbound fromthetrails. advisedwhenshewasleaving she ‘noted avehicle wasparkedin anoddmannerattheoldChild Protective Services building. Shesaid itwas ‘notoddforvehicles tobeparked there but shenaticeditwas oddbecauseofthemanneritwasparked, Sackedinnear the building, Tnvestgatorsreceived a fpfrom inwhich hestated hewason his way 3of8 - - 10Delpiki on State Road25 around 2:10p.m.on February 13% 2017. He observed apurplePTCruiseror asmallSUVtype vehicleparkedon thesouthsideofthe old CPS building. Hestated itappeared as . thoughitwas backed inastoconcealthe licenseplate ofthe vehicle. ‘bothdrew diagrams ofwhere they sawthevehicleparked andtheirdiagrams generallymatchedasto the area thevehiclewas parked andthemannerinwhichitwas parked. advisedherememberedseeing asmaller darkcolored car parked attheold CPS building. Hedescribeditaspossibly being a“smart”car, veliicleis seen leavingat 2:28 pm.onthe HoosierHarvestorevideo. Investigatorsspoke with ,whostated thatshewastraveling Easton 300NorthonFebruary 13%, 2022andobserved amalesubjectwalkingwest, on the Nort sideof300 North, awayfrom the ‘MononHighBridge. advisedthatthemalesubjectwaswearing a bluecoloredjacketandbluejeans ‘andwasmuddy andbloody. She furtherstated,thatitappeared he hadgotten into a fight. Investigators wereabletodeterminefrom watching the videofrom theHoosierHarvestore that Cowes travelingon CR 300 North tapproximately 3:57pm. Through interviews,electronicdat,photographs, andvideofrom theHoosier Harvestore investigators determined thatthere wereotherpeopleonthe trail thatdayafter2:13p.m. Thosepeople were interviewed andnoneofthoseindividualsencounteredthemalesubjectreferencedabove,witnessed by the Juvenitegirls, and . Further none ofthose indbidualswitnessed Vietm 1 and Victim2, Investigatorsreviewingpriortips encountered a tip narrative from an officer who interviewed Richard M. Allen in2017. That narrativestated: Mr Allen was on thetrail between 1330-1530. He parkedattheoldFarmBureau building andwalkedtothenewFreedomBridge. Whileatthe Freedom Bridge hesav threefemales. Henotedone was tallerand hadbrownorblackhair.Hedid notrememberdescriptionnor didhespeakwith them. Hewalked fromtheFreedomBridgetotheHigh Bridge. He didnot seeanybody,althoughhe tatedlewaswatching astocktickeronlsphone ashewalked. Hestatedtherewerevehiclesparkedatthe HighBridgetrail head, howeverdidnotpay attentiontothem.Hedidnottake anyphotos orvideo. Hiscellphone didnotlistanIMEIbutdid have thefollowing: MEID-256 691 463 100 153495 MEIDHEX-9900247025797 Potentialfollow up information: Whowerethe three girls walkingintheareaofFreedom ‘Bridge? InvestigatorsbelieveMr.AllenwasreferringtotheformerChildProtective Servicesbuildingas there aos . was notaFarm Bureau buildinginthearea nor hadtherebeen. Tnvestgators believe thefemales fesaw included and duetothe timetheywereleavingthe tral,thetimehereported gettingto thetrail andthedescriptions thethreefemalesgave. InvestigatorsdiscoveredRichard Allen(owned twovehicles in 2017 ~ a2016blackFord Focus and a 2006gray Ford500. Investigatorsobserved avehiclethat resembled Allen's 2016Ford Focusonthe i HoosierHarvestorevideo at 1:27 p.mtraveling westbound on CR 300 Northinfront ofthe Hoosier Harvestore, whichcoincided withhisstatement that hearrivedaround 1:30p.m.atthetrails. Investigators notewitnessesdescribedthevehicleparkedattheformerChild ProtectiveServices Building asaPTCruiser, smallSUY,or “Smart” car.Investigatorsbellevethosedescriptionsaresimilarinnature 10 a 2016Ford Focus. On October 13%, 2022RichardAllen wasinterviewedagain byinvestigators. Headvised hewason the trailsonFebruary 13%, 2017.Hestated hesawjuvenilegirlsonthetrail castof FreedomBridgeand that hewentontothe Monon High Bridge. Richard Allenfurther statedhewentoutonto the MononHigh Bridge towatch the fish.Laterinhisstatement, hesaidhewalkedouttothefirstplatformon thebridge. Hestatedhethenwalkedback,saton a bench on the trailandthen left. Hestatedheparkedhiscaron thesideofanoldbuilding. He toldinvestigatorsthathewaswearingbluejeans and a blueorblack Carhartt jacketwitha hood. Headvised hemay havebeen wearingsome peofheadcovering aswell Hefurtherclaimed hesawnoone elseexceptfor the juvenilegirl hesaweastofthe FreedomBridge. He told investigatorsthatheownsfirearmsandtheyareathishome. ) Richard M. Allen'swife, Kathy Allen,alsospoketoinvestigators.Sheconfirmed thatRicharddidhave ‘gunsand knivesattheresidence. ShealsostatedthatRichardstillowns a blue Carharttjacket. OnOctober 13%, 2022, Investigators executeda search warrantofRichardAllen's residenceat 1967 NorthWhiteman Drivé,Delphi, Carroll County, Indiana.Amongotheritems,officers locatedjackets, boots,knivesandfirearms,including aSigSauer,Model P226, 40caliber pistol withserialnumber U 625 627. BetweenOctober 14, 2022andOctober 19%, 2022theIndianaStatePoliceLaboratoryperformedan analysisonAllen'sSigSauer ModelP226. TheLaboratoryperformed aphysicalexaminationand classificationofthefirearm, function test,barrel andoveralllength measurement,test iring, ammunition componentcharacterization, microscopic comparison, and NIBIN.TheLaboratorydeterminedthe Sof8 - unspent roundlocatedwithintwo foetofVictim2's body hadbeencycledthrough RichardM.Allen'sSig SauerModel P26.TheLaboratory remarked: Anidentificationopinion isreachedwhen theevidence exhibitsanagreementofclass “characteristics and a sufficientagreementof dividualmarks. Sufficientagreementis relatedtothesignificantduplication ofrandom striated/impressedmarksasevidenced by thecorrespondence ofapattern orcombination ofpatiernsofsurface contours. The interpretation ofidentificationis subjective in nature,andbased onrelevantscientific researchand thereportingexaminer'straining and experience. 3 Investigatorsthenranthefirearmand foundthatthefirearmwaspurchased by RichardAllenin 2001. | Richard Allenvoluntarily came(0theIndiana State PolicepostonOctober26, 2022. Hespoke with investigators andstatedthathenever allowed anyone touseor borrowtheSig SauerModelP226firearm. Whenasked abouttheunspentbullét, hedid not have an explanation of whythebulletwas found between thebodiesofVictim 1 and Victim2. He again admittedthat hewas on thetrailbutdeniedknowing Victim 1orVictim 2anddeniedanyinvolvement intheirmurders. CarrollCountySheriffsDepartmentDetective * hasbeenpartoftheinvestigationsinceit started in2017. He has hadanopportunitytoreview andexamine evidence gatheredinthisinvestigation. Detective,along withofferinvestigators, bellevethe evidencegathered showsthatRichardAllen Is themale subject seen onthevideofromVictim 2's phonewhoforced the victims downthe hill. Further, thatthevictims were forceddown the hillbyRichardAllen andleadtothelocationwheretheywere murdered. g Throughthestatementsandphotographsofthe juvenilefemalesandthestatementof sand ‘wereatthesoutheastedgeofthetrail at 12:43 pm,eastofFreedomBridgeat1:26p.m., and walked across theformerrailroad overpassoverOldStateRoad 25after 1:26p.m. and before 1:46p.m. They walkedtheentiretyofthetrailand observed onlyone person— anadult male. vehicleisseenon Hoosier Harvestore videoat1:46p.m.and leaving at2:14p.m.andshestatedsheonlysaw one adult male. and describedthemaleinsimilar manners,wearingsimilarclothing, leadinginvestigatorsto believeallfoursawthesamemaleindividual. Investigatorsbelieve themaleobservedby Land isthe samemaledepicted in the videofrom Victim 2'sphonedue to thedescriptionsof fie male bythefour femalesmatchingthemalein thevideo. Furthermore,Victim2'svideo was takenat 2:13 pm, and sawonly one malewhile shewas on thetrailfrom approximately 1:46p.m.to 2:14p.m. Gos EH Investigatorsbelieve RichardAllenwasthemaleseenby Land andthe male seen inVictim2’video. Richard Alle told investigatorshewasonthe trailfrom 1:30pum.to 3:30pm.that + day VideofromHoosier Harvestore shows avehiclethatmache the description of Richard Alle’s + vehiclepassing at 1:27p.m.towardtheformerCPSbuilding. Theclothing hetoldinvestigators hewa ‘wearing match theclothing ofthe maleinVictim 2's video ndthe clothingdescriptions provided By Land. Avelielematchingthedescriptionof hs 2016Ford Focusis seenator around2:10p.m, 2:14 pm. and2:28 pm.attheformer CPSbulding.Throughhisownadmissions, Richard Allen walked the ralls and eventually hikedtothe Monon HighBridge and walked outontothe MononHighBridge. . Amale subjectmatching RichardAllen'sdescriptionwas notseen onthe rail after 2:13 pm. Investigatorsidentifiedotherindividualsonthetrailsor C.R. 300 North between 2:30p.m.and 4:11p.m. . Noneofthaseindividualssaw amalesubjectmatchingthedescription ofRichardAllenonthetrail Furthermore,RichardAllensatedthat heonlysawthreegirls onthe trail,whoinvestigators beliaveto be : InvestigatorsbelieveRichard Aller was notseenonthe trailafter 2:13pm.because hewasinthe } woodswith Victim 1andVictim2. Anunspent 40caliberroundbetweenthe bodies ofVictim 1and Victim 2,wasforensicallydetermined 0havebeen cycled through Richard Allen'sSig SazierModel P226. TheSig SauerModel P226wasfoundat RichardAllen’sresidenceandheadmittedto owningit. Investigatorswere ableto determine thathe hadowneditsince 2001. Richard Allenstatedhe hadnot been on that propertywhere the unspentroundwas found,that hedid notknow theproperty owner,and that he had noexplanationasto why aroundcycledthroughhi firearm wouldbeatthat location. Furthermore,hestated thathe neverallowedanyone to useorborrow theSig Sauer Model P226. Investigatorsbelievethataftrthevictimswere murdered,RichardAllenreturnedto hisvehicle by ‘waking down CR 300North, Investigators bellevehie wasseen by walkingbacktohis ‘vehicle on CR300north, withclothesthat weremuddyandbloody. : , alongwithinvestigators, believethe statements madeby thewitnessesbecausethe * statementscorroboratethe timelineofthedeaththetwovictims,aswellascoincidewiththeadmissions ‘madebyRichard Allen. Further, the accountsrelayedby ,and aresimilar inmatureandtimestampsomphotographs taken by correspond tothe times thejuvenilefemales saidthey wereon thetrail andsawmaleindividual. . 708 CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Date: October 27, 2022 STATE OF INDIANA CAUSE NUMBER 08C01-2210-MR-01 BR vs . . "RICHARD M. ALLEN. 1967 Whiteman Deve, ‘Delphi, IN 46923 DOB: 99/1972 SSN: XHKKK3934 “TheCoust willpleaseenter th followingminutes: ) - State ofIndiansbyNicholas C, McLeland, Prosecuting Attorney, ies probablecause affidavit executed oy out 1 Mndon lonsod Count2: Mer,& Felony. The Defendantbing iscustody thecourt determine taprob causedoesexist. TheCourt stsbond intsmatera AWAWAWNW A—— ital hearing is seat on: ‘Entry Approved: ‘SADie Tale Cettol GotCourt /&Nicholas C. MeLeland NERCYea Prosecitny Horney FIR00.08 | ; STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-000 ) VS. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ? COURT ORDER Now comes the Stateof Indiana, by Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. McLeland, filed a Motionfor Order Prohibiting the Parties, Counsel, Law Enforcement Officials, Court Personnel, Coroner, and Family Membersfrom Disseminating Information or Releasing any Extra~Judicial Statements by MeansofPublic Communication. ‘The Court takes the motion under advisement and sets this matter fora hearing on All partes are ordered to appear on said time and date. SO ORDERED this dayofNovember 2022. Frances Gull, Special Judge Carroll Circuit Court PC: State: Atty. Nicholas C. McLeland Defendant: Brad Rozzi Andrew Baldwin STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) (CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Westville Correctional Facility Indiana DepartmentofCorrections Attn: Elise Gallagher 5501 8. 1100 W. ‘Westville, IN 46391 Pursuantto Rule2oftheIndianaRulesofCriminal Procedure, youareherebydirectedto produce the following to counsel for the Carroll County Prosecutor, Nicholas C. McLeland, at 101 ‘West Main Street, Suite 204, Delphi, Indiana 46923 within thirty (30) daysofreceipt: 1. AlldocumentsrequestedintheaccompanyingRequestforProduction ofDocuments to a Non-Party. 2. ‘AnexecutedAffidavitofCustodianorRecords (enclosed). Submittedunder my hand as counselofrecord, pursuantto T.R. 2, on this_J0™ day ofApril, 2023. Respectfully submitted, JAC haf Nicholas C. McLeland, #28300-08 Carroll County Prosecutor The Court findsthat the requirements of Omar v. State of Indiana aremet andthe Request for Leave is Approved this dayofApril, 2023. Frances Gull, Special Judge Carroll Circuit Court STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Westville Correctional Facility Indiana Department of Corrections Attn: Elise Gallagher 5501S. 1100 W. Westville, IN 46391 Pursuant 0Rule 2oftheIndiana RulesofCriminalProcedure,youarehercby directedto produce the followingto counselfor theCarroll County Prosecutor, Nicholas C. MeLeland, at 101 ‘West Main Street, Suite 204, Delphi,Indiana 46923 within thirty (30) days ofreceipt: 1. Alldocumentsrequestedin theaccompanyingRequestforProduction ofDocuments to a Non-Party. 2. Anexecuted Affidavit ofCustodian or Records (enclosed). ‘Submitted under my hand as counselof record,pursuantto T-R. 2, on this OT day of April, 2023. Respectfully submitted, Jk C lof Nicholas C. MeLeland, #2§300-08 Carroll County Prosecutor “The Court finds thattherequirementsofOmar v. Stat of Indiana arc metandthe Request for Leave is Approved this day of April, 2023. Frances Gull, Special Judge Carroll Circuit Court STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: CVS Headquarters Attn: Records Department One CVS Drive Woonsocket, RI 012895 Pursuant to Rule2 o theIndiana RulesofCriminalProcedure, youareherebydirectedto produce the followingto counselfothe Carroll County Prosceutor, Nicholas C. McLeland,at 101 West Main Street, Suite 204, Delphi, Indiana 46923 within thirty (30) daysofreceipt: 1. Alldocuments requestedintheaccompanying RequestforProduction ofDocuments to Non-Party. 2. Anexecuted Affidavit ofCustodian or Records (enclosed). ‘Submitted under my hand as counselofrecord, pursuantto TR. 2, on this 301 day of April, 2023, Respectfully submitted, JE C fla Nicholas C. MeLeland, #28300-08 Carroll County Prosecutor “The Courtfindsthatthe requirements ofOmarv. StateofIndiana are metandthe Request for Leave is Approved this dayofApril, 2023. Frances Gull, Special Judge Carrol Circuit Court STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Westville Correctional Facility Indiana Departmentof Corrections Attn: Elise Gallagher 55015. 1100 W. Westville, IN 46391 Pursuantto Rule 2ofthe IndianaRulesofCriminalProcedure, youareherebydirectedto producethe followingto counselforthe Caroll County Prosecutor, Nicholas C. McLeland, at 101 ‘West Main Street, Suite 204, Delphi, Indiana 46923 within thirty (30) daysofreceipt: 1. Alldocuments requestedintheaccompanying RequestforProductionofDocuments toa Non-Party. 2. Anexecuted Affidavit of Custodian or Records (enclosed). ‘Submitted under my hand as counselofrecord, pursuant to T.R. 2, on this AT! day ofApril, 2023. Respectfully submitted, MRC af Nicholas C. McLeland, #2§300-08 Carroll County Prosecutor ‘The Courtfindsthat the requirementsof Omar v. State ofIndiana aremetandthe Request for Leave is Approved this day of April, 2023. Frances Gull, Special Judge Carroll Cireuit Court STATEOFINDIANA IN THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT )ss COUNTY OF MARION CAUSE NO. 03C01-2210-MR-000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) Plaintiff ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) ) Defendant, ) ORDER GRANTING MEDIA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR LEAVE TO INTERVENE The mater before the Court is the Motion for Leave to Intervene filed by Media Intervenors.! The Court, having considered the Motion and being duly advised, finds that the Motion should be and is GRANTED. ITIS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADIUDGED, AND DECREED THAT. () The Media Infervenosare grantedleave to intervenein the dbove-capioned cau» for thelimited purposeofchallenging theState's Verified Request to Prokbit Public Access filed on October 25, 2022 and the provisional exclusionofthe Probable Cause Affidavit and Charging Information; end (i) The Courtvilacceptandconsiderthe Media Intervenns” Pre hearing Brief. Sled on Noveraber 21, 2022 and tenderedPostHearing Brief (attached to the Motion) in ruling on the State’s Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access filed on October 28, 2022 Dated: Frances COul, Special Judge Canoll Circuit Comt Distrlbution: All counselofrecord De biBarve” oer th olloing enti colt: ndaEroscats Assocation, I;Hoo Sut Tress Asmcistion, bc; The Assocated Bess; CinchCity Broadcasting 1, LLCdiol WISH TV, EV. Scripps Capua b/sWRTV, Nesur MediInc. bisWXINIWTTY, Neckoff bhLafeyet,LLC; WoofBocinRatio LLC; TEGNA lic. dbs WIE; Gunes. Selle Ident Network, LLC bis Te disnopoli a; nd oticBroadsasting Compre nc. dbsABC Nes. 1 STATE OF INDIANA) IN THE GARROLL CIRCUIT COURT Js: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO.08C01-2210-MR-000001 ) STATE OF INDIANA) ) v ) ) RICHARD MALLEN ) ORDER Comes now the Court, having reviewed Defendant's Verified Motion for Change of Venue from the Countyfiledin the matter, and hereby orders that a hearing shall be scheduled for Dae err ———— Honorable Special Judge, Garroll Circuit Court Distribution: Carroll County Prosecutor's Office BALDWIN PERRY & KAMISH, PG. STATEOF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT )ss COUNTY OF MARION CAUSE NO. 03C01-2210-MR.000001 STATE OF INDIANA ) ) Plant, ) ) v. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN, ) ) Defendant, ) ORDER GRANTING MEDIA INTERVENORS’ RENEWED MOTION TO INTERVENE AND MOTION TO GRANT PUBLIC ACCESS TOTHE STATE’SVERIFIED REQUESTTOPROHIBITPUBLIC ACCESS The matter before the Cot is the Renewed Motion to Intervene and Mbtion to Grant Public Access to the Stak’s Verified Request to Prohibit Public Access filedbythe Media Intexvenors (the “Mbtion?").! The Cour, having considered both Motions and being duly advised, fins thatthe Mtionsshould be GRANTED. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED THAT the Media Intexvenors are granted leave to intervene, and the State's Verified Request to Prokibit Public Aosessfiled onOctober 23,2022 shallbe releasedto the public. TheClerkis directed tomake the Verified Request available fo the public onthe docket. Dad _ Frances Oul, Special Judge Canoll Circuit Comt Distrlbution: All counselofrecord. De Bei Barve” er he oll g nie colt: BisErode ies Aeocition, Bc; Hoorix Sate Tress Asaocition,c ; Te Associated Fes Cice City Broadcating 1,LLCAAWISH.TV, EV. Seppe Compary djsWRTV;NexstarMediaInc.db/a WHXINAWTTV; NeuhoffMedia Lefgyete LLC; Woof BoomRadio LLC, TEGNA lic. 4bfs WTHR; Gumet Suse hferaation Network, LLC Jhis Te Inditnapols So, 1nd AoticanBroadcasting Compre, bc lbh ABC Nevrs. 1 STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHECIRCUIT COURT CARROLLCOUNTY 3 ‘OFCABROLLCOUNTY STATEOFINDIANA ) v. } CAUSE NO. 08001-2210 MR-L RICHARDALLEN 3 TEMESELITpoACCU TO ‘Comme nowInrvcrurMYSTERYSHEETLLCdadsgbusiness ss MURDERSHEET,by ‘counsel KevinGroene,an roepostfully requestsacoees courtrocerdsexcindadfrmpublicaccom paramea End.Acoesst CurtRecordsRule%B).Inmugpntoftls Roques,Intrvanorprovidontha following: 1. OnAgel28, 2023, Jott was ldwiththeCoat.Asof thodating of this filing, thinJeter remains confidential. 2, Theneatir, onMey 17, 2023,the Defendactfod1s Verified MarionforTemporery Restraining ‘OrderandProlimicery Injunction.FromtaeClrunologics] Case Simmer,it spposs thisMotion ‘waafliedwithoutamAcoes ®CourtRecords(ACR)Formidemtifyingthe rpeaifiagromdsfor exsineion. SexA.CB.SB).Nevertheless, hisMotion erates confidential. 3. Aftwward,onMay 19,2023, fheStotoGeditsNotios ofDiscoverywiththeDefend flingits Motion io Suppress andMotion to Convert LetBail Hearing inteSuppression Hearing. From the Chrosalogioal CaseSummary,itppeassthessdocuments were fledwithout atAcces 1Court ‘Records(ACR)Form iduniifyingfwspecificgroundskxexclusion.SerACR.5B). However, thoeodocuments also reminoc Sdential. 4. Inervenarnecksacces totheLeter ledonApri28,2023;theVertfiad MotionfocTemmpomry ‘RestrainingOrder mad ProfiminuryInjunction; Notice ofDiscoveey; Motion toSuppeession:md, Motion to ConvertLotBeilBearinginoSupprossion Heringastis recardsshould otbo xelndedfoe Publis Acces underA.C.S(A),(B),(O)(D),or(E). SeeA.C.SEXIXS). From theChronological Case Sammy,it appears A.CR.S(A), (€),(0) end{E)aro applicable. Likewise, A.C.B.5B)lsbupplicabsas en ACR Form was natfled with iemcands Intervene recuse 4soees8. b. Additionally, ewe recordswereootsubjected fo wxchusion pumummt fo ACR.6. Similac, these ecardswerentabjectod 0seal pormaars toTel.Code § 5-14:3-55. 0. Magsovee, pursoset1A.C. (BL, (his eqosss veziied snd redooed 0writing. Finally, thoobjectiveoftheseTul i to“provid maniapublicsccombility to [efourt [flecards(.T" A.CR.1, Commentary. In fiat,the rules tert “from the prosumptionof openPublicAcces 50 Court Records.” 4, ‘WHEREFORE, Interveaserespoctiilyrequoet acces to court recurswacudodfrom public ‘accom Forman ta Ind.Acces to Court RecordsRule 9(B) Revpeotfully aubrmitted, SEavinGroslee KevinGreenlee 2298303 9783 E 116th Street #141 Fishery, IN45097 kevingroenleo@grmail com VERIFICATION 1 ffir,under the penalties forperjury, thefhregninginftrmation is tos andcorrect fo. fhebestofmyknawindge. Respectfullysubeained, /u/KevinGromnles__ KevinGreenlee 22683-63 9743 B 116th Street #141 Flahers, IN46037 Kevingreenlee@gmail com CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE Therchycertifythat «copyoffcforegoing hasbeen served antheStaceofIndlers,by Service, anthedateoffling. {KevinGreenlee__ KevinGreenles22983-03 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL ) = STATE OF INDIANA ) ‘CAUSE NUMBER: 08C0L PE “ ) ETD APR 142023 RICHARD M. ALLEN ) z Shon ihunw> STATE'S RESPONSE TO DEFENSE’S EMERGENCY MOTION TO MODIFY Now comes the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland, and respectfully files its response to the Defendant's Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order and would ask the Court to consider the following: 1. That charges were filed against the Defendant, Richard Allen, on October 28", 2022, for 2 counts of Murder, in violation of 1.C. 35-42-1-1(2). 2. That the Carroll County Sheriff's Department filed a Request by theSheriff of Carroll County, Indiana to Transfer Inmate from the Custody of the Sheriffto the Custody ofthe Indiana Department or Corrections for Safekeeping on November 3%, 2022. 3. That said request was granted and the Defendant was ordered to the safekeeping of the Indiana DepartmentofCorrections. 4. That the Defendant is currently incarcerated in the Westville Correctional Facility, where he is housed in the segregation unit for his protection. 5. That the Defendant is being seen on a regular basis by medical personnel and ‘mental health providers. 6. That the Defendant is being treated the same as other detainees at the facility. In fact, he has more amenities than other convicted inmates in that unit. 7 “That the allegations in the Defendant's motion, while colorful and dramatic, are not entirely correct. 8. That the State had a meeting with the Warden of Westville Correctional Facility, John Galipeau, on April 6, 2023 and the allegations in the motion by the Defense are false, as evidenced by the attached affidavit marked as State’s Exhibit “1”. 9. That the Defendant is afforded the same amountof rec time as the other inmates and has been using that rec time to exercise 10. Thatitis true that the Defense dropped off paperwork for the Defendant to review and the facility did hang on to the paperwork until they heard from the Defense attorneys as to how the paperwork should be handled. 11. That representatives from the facility attempted to contact Defense counsel for several days in a row to determine ifthe paperwork should be given to the Defendant in his cell or the Defendant should be brought to a different location to. review the paperwork. 12. That the Defendant is isolated for his protection and would be isolated if he were ‘moved to another facility. 13. That the State, through investigators, has made contact with the Cass County Sheriffand he would state the following: a. Thatheis willing to house the Defendant in the Cass County Jail. b. Thatif the Defendant is moved to the Cass County Jail, he will be housed in the segregated unit in a 7 X 12 cell, with a roll matt and 2 bunks. That the Defendant is likely to be on suicide watch which means he will notbeallowed face to face visits or any rec time. That he will be confined to his cell at all times. d. Thatifhe is not on suicide watch, he will only have video visits and limited rec time. That the Defendant will have the same amenities as he has now in the Departmentof Corrections. £. That the Cass County Jail does not have a mental health team to address any mental health needs. © Thatthe Cass County Sherifl’s Department is not willing to transport the Defendant for rial or for other hearings, 14. That the Carroll County Sheriff's Department does not have the manpower to transport the Defendant. 15. That the Carroll County Jail does not have mental health counselors or counseling, whereas the Department of Corrections has those resources available for the well beingofthe Defendant. 16. That the State believes that the current status of Defendant's mental health is due tothe status of the case, not du to the locationofhis incarceration. 17. That the photo taken by Defense was taken immediately after the Defendant returned from his rec time. The shirt he is wearing in the photo is the same shirt that he wears to rec time each time he goes. He had clean shirts in his cell at the time of the photo, but Defense chose to photograph him in hisdirty shirt in order to curry sympathy in the public eye for the Defendant. 18. That the Defendant has lost weight since he has been incarcerated, but he has been evaluated and examined by medical personnel at the facility and his BMI is on target for a man his age at his weight and medical staffclassify him as very healthy. 19. That the facility that the Defendant is placed in is not casually referred to as “death row”. 20. That the Defendant is in no way being treated less fairly than anyone else in that facility. He certainly is not being treated less fairly than a convicted person in that facility. 21. That the colorful, dramatic language used by the Defense was an attempt to curry public favor for their client and try this matter in the public insteadofin the courtroom, 22. That manyof the statements in Defense's motion violate the “gag” Order putin place by the Court 23. That the State has no opinion on where the Defendant should be housed awaiting trial, but the State does take offense to the imesponsible allegationsof the Defense in their motion. 24. That the State has no objection to the Defendant being moved to a facility within the Department of Corrections that is better suited to address his mental health needs. 25. That the Defendant's current placement at Westville Correctional Facility is not a violation of his civil liberties. 26. “That the Carroll County Sheriff's Department declined the request of Defense to move the Defendant because the Carroll County Sheriff's Department does not have the manpower to transport the Defendant. 27. “That the Department of Corrections is more equipped to transport the Defendant back and forth to court dates in order to keep the Defendant safe and ensure that he makes it to all future hearings. 28. That the State has been made aware that the Defendant is being evaluated at 10:00 AM. on April 14", 2023 to assess his mental health needs and the State believes it is important to see the resultofthat testing before a decision is made. ‘Wherefore, now comes the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney. Nicholas C McLeland, and files their response to the Defendant's Emergency Motion to Modify Safekeeping Order and would ask the court to consider the same when making it’s decision and for all other just and proper relief in the premises. JKC Nicholas C. Mf McLeland Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas C. McLeland. ARFIDAVIT John Galipeay, the acting Warden of Westville Correctional Facility, which is partof the Indiana Departmentof Corrections, affirms and swears to the following; 1. That the Defendant, Richard Allen, is housed in the Westville Correctional Facility in the segregation unt. 2. “That the Defendant is housed in that unit for his protection. 3. That the cell that the Defendant is housed in is a 12 X 8 cell which is the standard size cell in that facility. 4. That the Defendanthas a bed with a mattress and the mattress is the same matiress that all the inmates receive at that facility. 5. That there is a bed frame but that it is attached to the floor in order to protect the Defendant from harming himself 6. “That the Defendant is in that typeofcell for his protection and because he has made suicidal statements and could attempt to harm himself. 7. “That the Defendant is offered time to shower 3 times a weck, which is the same amount asall the other inmates in that facility. 8. That the Defendant is provided with 3 setsofclothing per week, which is thesame as all the other inmates in that facility. 9. “That the Defendant has been afforded commissary privileges and has extra shirts and shoes in his cell that he is not wearing. 10. That the Defendant is not required to wear the same clothes, and underwear for days and days on end thatare soiled, stained, tattered and tom. 11. That the Defendant has equal access to clean clothing just like all the other inmates in that facility. 12. That the Defendant was afforded the use of an electronic tablet where he can make calls, send texts and download music, which is an amenity tht the other inmates do not have, and he broke it. 13. That the Defendant is afforded the same recreation time as all the other inmates in that facility, which is Monday, Wednesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday. | 14. That the Defendant s regularly seen by medical personal and metal health ‘counselors to assess his health and well-being. 15. That the Defendant is not afforded face o fice visitations du to being in the segregation unit. 1swear, under penalty of perjury, as specified by IC 35-44-2-1, that the foregoing representations | are true and accurate to the bestof my knowledge. Signed: % 7 / ~ = Tohg/Galipgh, Ward ville Cormectional Facility In the Indiana Supreme Court STATE OF INDIANA Supreme Court Case No, FILED 225.51:369 (—— w “Trial Court Case No. Cy) RICHARD M. ALLEN ION MRA = Order Appointing Special Judge “The Honorable Benjamin A. Diener, Judse ofthe Carroll Circuit Court, on his own motion, recuses himselfand certifies this matter to the Court or appointmentofa special judge.And this Court, being duly advised, now finds that a special judge should be appointed 10 hear this matter in the Carroll Circuit Court pursuant to Indiana Criminal Procedure Rule 13(D). IT IS, THEREFORE, FURTHER ORDERED that the Honorable Frances C. Gull, is appointed as special judg to hear this matter in the Carroll Circuit Court. This order vests jurisdiction in Judge Gull. Pursuant to Indiana Criminal Procedure Rule 13(E), an oath of office is not required. Done at Indianapolis, Indiana, on */*/2%%2 Hom"8Reed Loretta H. Rush Chief Justice of Indiana NOV 04 2022 CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT FaroincuGout Carroll County, Indiana STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL } = STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 Vs. ; ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) STATE’S RESPONSE TO SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR DISCOVERYAND REQUEST FOR RULE 404 AND 405 EVIDENCE Now comes the StateofIndiana, by Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. McLeland, and respectfully files it's response to the Defendant's Supplemental Motion for Discovery and Request for Rule 404 and 405 Evidence. The State’s responses to the numbered requests are as follows: 1. Discovery is automatic per the Carroll County Local Rules and this information will be forwarded to the defense as partof discovery. 2. This information will be forwarded to the Defenseas partof discoveryper local rule. 3. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscoveryper local rule, 4. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscoveryper local rule, 5. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscoveryper local rule, 6. Atthis time no promises have been made by the State to any witnesses. 7. This information will be forwarded to the Defenseas partofdiscoveryper local rule, 8. There was notagrandjury held in relation tothismatter. 9. Any statements made by witnesses and/or the Defendant will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscovery per local rule. The State doesnot intendto draft a summaryofthose statements or give the Defense a summaryofthe State’s opinionsorthoughts about those statements. Those statements will be provided to the Defense in their entirety. The Defense seems to be asking theStateto do their work for them and formulate a defense for them. The State objects to the Defense's requests that the State draft a separate summaryofthose statements. 10. Any telephone calls made by the Defendant will be tumed over to the Defense as part of discoveryper local rule. The State objects to drafting amemorandum of the conversation. Again, the State incorporates theresponse to Number9 into this response. Ifthere are transcriptsofthe phone calls, the State will produce those. as partofdiscoveryperthe local rule. 11. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscovery per local rule, 12. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscovery per local nile. 13. The State objects to providing criminal recordsforthe Defenses witness lists, in that the State does not even know who is going to be on their witness list. Ifthe Defense requests criminal recordsofspecific people, the State is happy to assist in gathering those records. 14. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscovery per local rule. 15. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscovery per local rule. 16. This information wil be forwarded tothe Defense as partofdiscovery per local nile. 17. The State objects to said request bythe Defense. Any informationthatthe State has pertaining to the case will be forwarded to the Defense as partof discovery, both exculpatory and inculpatory. A memorandum explaining those is outside the scopeofdiscovery. The Defendants request is essentially an interrogatory asking the State to divulge ts legal analysis or impressionsofthe case and assist the Defense in assembling its evidence, which is barred by State ex rel. Grammer v. Tippecanoe Circuit Court, 377 N.E:2d 1359, 1364-65 (Ind. 1978). 18. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscovery per local rule. 19. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partof discovery per local rule. 20. This information will be forwarded to the Defenseas partofdiscovery per local rule, 21. The State objects to this requestbythe Defense. TR 34 states thata request for production has to be for items in the possession, custody or controlofthe party. upon whomtherequest is served. “TR 26(B)(1) goes on to state that the Court can limit discovery ifthe information is obtainable from some other source that is ‘more convenient, less burdensome or less expensive. The State ofIndiana is not in possessionofthe information that the Defense is requesting, nor was the State a party to any lawsuits filed against the Carroll County SherifP's Department, Tobe Leazenby, Tony Liggett or Michael Thomas. To imposeofthe State to have to track all these items down is unreasonably burdensome. In addition, its the State’sbeliefthat this request goes beyond the scopeofdiscovery. There is no reason that the State is awareofwhere this information would be relevant in any ‘way to the investigation or prosecutionofthe Defendant. 22. The State objects to this request. Please incorporate the State’s response in ‘umber 21 to this response. 23. The State objects to this request. Please incorporate the State’sresponse in ‘number 21 to this response. 24. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscovery per local rule. 25. This information will be forwarded to the Defense as partofdiscovery per local rule. 26. State objects to said request. Ifthe State choses to use any evidence that would fall under Indiana Rulesof Evidence Rule 404(b), the State will file notice with the Court pr the rule. Further, the request by the defendant must be “reasonably ‘understandable and sufficiently clear” to alert the prosecution that the defendant is requesting pre-trial notification. Abdul-Musawwir v. State, 674 N.E2d 972, 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996). This request is neither reasonably understandable or sufficiently clear. The request seems to be a blanket request for any and all evidence that may be out there for the Defendant and any defense witnesses, ‘which they have yet to name. Nor has the Defense asserted any kind of affirmative defense to put the State on notice that character evidence may be at hy 27. State objects to said request. Please incorporate the State’s response in number 26 to this response. 28. The State objects to this request. Per Indiana RuleofEvidence Rule 405, the. defense must first notify the Statethat they intend to introduce admissible character evidence and what that evidence is going to be before the State is obligated to disclose what character evidence will be used on behalf ofthe State. ‘The Defense has yet to provide any kindofpretrial notice to theStateto requirea orl 29. The State objects to this request. Any information produced by the State would be considered work product and exempt from discovery. ‘Wherefore, now comes the State of Indiana, by Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C McLeland, andfiles their response to theDefendant'srequestand ask the Court to take no action inpartandthendeny inparttherequestfromthe Defenseand forall other just and properrelief. in the premises. 3 C Attorney #28300-08 Prosecuting Attorney CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE Theundersigned certifi that acopy oftheforegoinginstrumentwas served uponthe Defendantsattorney of Co a ny hebr cn eC Hl] a,ilNes nn Fie: umsast ou Cara Cuca Goon Caro Coun ndans STATEOFINDIANA ) INTHECARROLL CIRCUITCOURT Yo: COUNTY OFCARROLL) ‘CAUSE NO.08C01-2210-MR-000001 STATEOFINDIANA ) ) v. ) ) RICHARDM. ALLEN ) STIPULATIONREGARDING DEFENDANT'SVERIFIEDMOTION FORCHANGEOFVENUEFROMTHECOUNTY RichardAllen,byAttomeys, BradleyA.Rozzi andAndrewJ. Baldwin, andthepartieshaving reached apartialagreementonDefendant’s VerifiedMotionforChangeof Venuefromthe County file-markedNovember28,2022, nowagree andstipulateas follows: 1. On November28,2022,DefendantAllen filed hisVerifiedMotionforChangeof ‘Vea fromtheCounty.Seid Motionwasstforbearing on Friday, January13,2023; 2. OnFriday, January13, 2023, th parties convened,inchambers,an reached apari agreement onsaidMotion; 3. ThepartiesstipulatedthatDefendantsrequestforchangeofvenuewouldbedenied and that allfutherCoitproceedings,notinvolvingthe juryselection proces,would akeplace 4. Pursuantto 1.C. 35-36-6-11(a),thepartiesfurtheragreethatthe juryvenireshallbe drawnfrom ithe St.Joseph County, Indianao AllenCouaty, Indians, withtheunderstanding thatbothparties acquiescein theCourtexercising its discretioninselectingoneof thetwo selected;and 5. Upon the Courtissuing an Order regardingthesame,the pegsshallbe bound therp untilfurther orderofthe Adva Bide] Afagyes0 Lz [IPA ei n, H178STIT ‘Conse fo Pefendant STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) POENA DUCES TECUM TO: Westville Correctional Facility 0 Indiana DepartmentofCorrections ILE Attn: Elise Gallagher 5501S. 1100W. APR 20 2023 Westville, IN 46391 5 Shere thea CLERK CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT RE: Richard Allen NowcomestheStateofIndiana, by Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. MecLeland, pursuant to Rule 2oftheIndiana Trial Rules ofTrialofCriminal Procedure, requests thatthefollowing ‘documentsandrecordsbeproducedfor the CarrollCountyProsecuting Attomey Nicholas C. MelLeland, at 101 West Main Street, Suite 204, Delphi, Indiana 46923, within thirty (30) days from the dateofserviceofthis Request for Production ofDocuments and Records to a Non-Party. You ‘may comply by mailing a copyofthe requested documents to the Prosecutor's office post-marked prior to the date on which production is required by the Indiana Rulesof Trial Procedure. DEFINITIONS ‘Asusedinthisrequest, theterm “document” encompassesthefullscopeofthatterm asitis used in Trial Rule 34, including, without limitations, all writings, papers, photographs, videos, and. otherrecordings and communicationsofany kind, whether printed,electronically recorded, filmed, or recorded or produced manuallyorby other process.Theterm “document” includes all margin ‘comments, handwritten notes, dateofreceipt stamps and notationsofany kind appearing on any document. The term “document” includes all files and data stored on computer disks or hard drives, allfiles and data storedonanycomputerdatabases. For each document produced, identify thecorrespondingrequest.If you claim any information sought herein is privileged in whole or in part, object to any formofany request or believethatanydocument wouldbeexcludedfromproductionto the Stat, regardlessofits relevance, state the reason(s) for said objection or groundofexclusion. Identify with particularity cach document for which you claim a privilege including the dateofthe document, the person who preparedthedocument, the persontowhomthedocumentwasdirected,thesubstance ofthe ‘document and the reason you believe the document is privileged. INSTRUCTIONS ThisRequestfor ProductionofDocumentsandRecords to a Non-Partyismadepursuantto Rule 2ofthe Indiana Rulesof CriminalProcedure.Inaccordancewiththat Rule: 1. Youareentitledtoreimbursement forcostsresultingfromyourresponsetothis RequestforProductionofDocumentsandRecordsto Non-Party.Ifthere arecosts associated with productionofthese documents, pease let me office know and we will reimburse for those costs. 2. Youare entitled to security against damages, orpaymentofdamages, which may result from this request, and you may respond to this Request for Production of Documents to a Non-Party by submitting to its terms, or by proposing different terms,orby objecting specifically or generally tothe Requestby serving awritten response to the Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. McLeland, within thirty (30) days from the receipt ofthe Request for ProductionofDocuments and Records to a Non- Party,orby moving toQuashthis Requestfor Production ofDocumentsand Records to a Non-Party, as permitted by Rule 2ofthe Indiana RulesofCriminal Procedure. 3. Thefailure to respondtothis Request forProductionof Documentsand Recordstoa Non- Party, to object to it, or to move to quash it, as provided by the applicable: Indiana RulesofCriminal ProcedureorOrder ofthe Court,withinthirty (30) days from the dateofservice, will subject you to a Motion for Sanctionspursuantto Rule 2ofthe Indiana RulesofCriminal Procedure. 4. Youarerequiredtokeepthis subpoena andtheinformationcontainedtherein confidential. Thissubpoenaand the information listed herein isnotto be released to the public and should be kept confidential. Any releaseofthis information wil be in direct violation ofaCourt Order. DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS TO BE PRODUCED 1. Any mental health records that you may have concerning Richard M. Allen, including all records from any physician that has evaluated or examined Richard M. Allen from the beginningofhis stay at Westville Correctional Facility, onor about November 31%, 2022 until present, 2. Theresults ofany mental health evaluation and/or exams performed on Richard M. Allen whilehehas been incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility, on or ‘about November 31, 2022 until present. 3. Anyotherdocuments, records, notes, videos and/or writingsthatthe facility may have pertaining to Richard M. Allen mental health during his time of incarceration at Westville Correctional Facility, on or about November 3%, 2022, until present. ‘Submittedundermyhandas counselofrecord, pursuantto TR. 2,onthis pT_day of April, 2023. Respectfully submitted, MC Mf Nicholas C. McLeland, #28300-08 Carroll County Prosecutor 101 W. Main Street Delphi, IN 46923 (765) 564-4514 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE erycritthat service ofatreandcomple copyofthe ovean foregoingpleinorpaperwasmade uponthe following aries ndfiled withth Carroll CircuitCourt by depositing th same the UnitedSses milna cnveopeproperlyadresse and with sufficientpostage affived tis AQ TH dayofApril 2023. Westville Cometionl Facility Indians DepartmentofCorrections Aun: Elise Gallagher 5501S. 1100W. Westville, IN 46391 SecMeLeland maf Caroll County Prosecutor 2300.08 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSE NUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Westville Correctional Facility rT 1 Indiana DepartmentofCorrections ILE Attn: Elise Gallagher . Ee 55015. 1100 W. APR 20 2023 Westville, IN 46391 i} CLERKCARROLLIC RCUIT COUR RE: Richard Allen Now comes the StateofIndiana, by Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. MeLeland, pursuant to Rule2ofthe Indiana Trial RulesofTrial ofCriminal Procedure, requests tht the following documentsandrecordsbeproducedfortheCarrollCounty Prosecuting Attomey NicholasC. MeLeland, at 101 West Main Street, Suite 204, Delphi, Indiana 46923, within thirty (30) days from thedateofserviceofthis Request for ProductionofDocuments and Records to a Non-Party. You may comply by mailing a copyofthe requested documents to the Prosecutor's office post-marked prior to the date on which production is required by the Indiana Rulesof Trial Procedure. DEFINITIONS Asusedinthisrequest, theterm “document”encompassesthefullscopeof thattermasitis used in Trial Rule 34, including, without limitations, all writings, papers, photographs, videos, and other recordings and communications ofany kind, whether printed, electronically recorded, filmed, or recorded or produced manually or by other process. The term “document” includes all margin comments, handwritten notes, date of receipt stamps and notationsofany kind appearing onany document. Theterm “document” includes all filesand data stored on computer disksorharddrives, allfilesanddatastored onany computerdatabases. For each document produced, identify the corresponding request.If you claim any information sought herein is privileged in whole or in part, object to any formofany request or believe that any document would be excluded from production to the State, regardlessofits relevance, state the reason(s) for said objection or groundofexclusion. Identify with particularity each documentforwhich youclaim aprivilege including thedateofthedocument,thepersonwho preparedthedocument,thepersontowhomthedocumentwas directed,the substanceofthe document and the reason you believe the document is privileged. INSTRUCTIONS “This Requestfor ProductionofDocuments andRecordsto a Non-Partyismade pursuantto Rule 2oftheIndiana RulesofCriminalProcedure.Inaccordance withthat Rule: 1. Youareentitledtoreimbursementforcosts resultingfromyourresponse to this RequestforProduction of DocumentsandRecordsto Non-Party. Ifthere arecosts associated with productionofthese documents, please let me office know and we will reimburse for those costs. 2. Youareentitledtosecurity against damages, or paymentofdamages, which may result from this request, and you may respond to this Request for Production of ‘Documentsto a Non-Partybysubmittingto itsterms,orbyproposing different terms,orbyobjectingspecifically orgenerally totheRequestbyserving awritten responseto the Prosecuting Attorney, Nicholas C. McLeland,withinthirty (30) days from the receiptofthe Request for ProductionofDocuments and Records to a Non- Party,orby movingto Quashthis Requestfor Production ofDocumentsand Recordsto a Non-Party,aspermittedby Rule 2ofthe Indiana RulesofCriminal Procedure. 3. ThefuiluretorespondtothisRequestforProduction of Documents andRecordstoa Non- Party,toobjectto it, orto moveto quash it, as providedby theapplicable: Indiana Rules ofCriminal ProcedureorOrder ofthe Court,withinthirty (30)days from the dateofservice, will subject you to a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 2ofthe Indiana RulesofCriminal Procedure. 4. Youarerequiredtokeepthis subpoena and theinformationcontainedtherein confidential. Thissubpoenaandtheinformation listedherein snottobereleasedto the public and should be kept confidential. Any releaseofthis information will be in direct violation ofaCourt Order. DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS TO BE PRODUCED 1. Any medical documentsthat youmay have concerning Richard M. Allen, including all records from any physicianthathas evaluatedorexamined Richard M. Allen from the beginningofhis stay at Westville Correctional Facility, on or about November 3%, 2022 until present. 2. The resultsofany medical evaluation performed on Richard M. Allen while he has been incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility, on or about November 3,202 until present. 3. Any other documents, records, notes, videos and/or writingsthatthe facility may have pertaining to Richard M. Allen medical health during his time of incarceration at Westville Correctional Facility, on or about November 3%, 2022, until present. ‘Submittedundermy handas counselofrecord, pursuantto T-R. 2,onthis_307H_day of April, 2023. Respectfully submitted, Jk C lof Nicholas C. McLeland, #28300-08 Carroll County Prosecutor 101 W. Main Street Delphi, IN 46923 (765) 564-4514 ‘CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE Thereby ceri that sevice ofatruean comple coyof theaboveand forgoingpleading orpaperwasmadeuponthe followingpartiesand filed withtheCarroll CircuitCourtbydepositing theseme i theUnitedSatesmail in an envelopeproperly addressed andwithsufficientpostageaffixedtis DTHcay of Api, 2023. Westville Comectional Facility Indiana DepartmentofCorrections Atm: Elis Gallagher 5501'S 1100W. Westville, IN 46391 JcC McLeland i{ Caroll County Prosecutor 2830008 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT COUNTY OF CARROLL y= STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 vs ; RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM F | LE D TO: CVS Headquarters APR 202023 Attn: Records Department OneCVSDrive nee il ‘Woonsocket, RI 012895 CLERK CARROLL'CRCUIT COURT RE: Richard Allen Now comes the StateofIndians, by Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. McLeland, pursuant to Rule 2ofthe Indiana Trial Rules of Trial ofCriminal Procedure, requests that the following documentsan recordsbeproducedfortheCarrollCountyProsecutingAtormeyNicholas C. MeLeland, at101 WestMainStreet, Suite 204, Delphi,Indiana46923,within thirty (30)daysfrom the date ofservice ofthis Request forProductionofDocuments and Recordsfo a Non-Pary. You may comply by mailing a copyofth requested documents to the Prosecutors officepostmarked prior tothe date on which production i required by the Indiana RalesofTrial Procedure. DEFINITIONS Asusedinthis request, theterm “document”encompassesthefllscopeofthattemasitis used in Trial Rule 34, including, without limitations, all writings, papers, photographs, videos, nd other recordings and communicationsofany kind, whether printed, electronically recorded, filmed, orrecorded orproduced manually orbyotherprocess. Theterm “document”includes llmargin ‘comments,handwritten note,dateofreceipt stamps and notationsofany kind appearingonany document.Theterm “document”includes al filesanddatastored oncomputerdisksorhard drives, alfilesanddatastored onanycomputerdatabases. For each document produced, identify the corresponding request.Ifyou claim any information sought hereini privileged inwholeorin part, object to any formofany request or believethatanydocumentwouldbe excludedfrom productiontothe State, regardlessofts relevance, state the reason(s) for said objection or groundofexclusion. Identify with particularity ach document for which you claim a privilege including the dateofthe document, the person who preparedthedocument, thepersontowhomthedocumentwasdirected, thesubstanceofthe document and the reason you believe the documenti privileged. INSTRUCTIONS “ThisRequestforProduction ofDocumentsandRecordsto a Non-Partyismade pursuantto Rule2 oftheIndiana RulesofCriminalProcedure. InaccordancewiththatRule: 1. Youareentitledtoreimbursement fo costs resultingfrom yourresponseto this Request for ProductionofDocuments and Records to Non-Party.Ifthere are costs associated withproduction ofthesedocuments, please let meoffice know and we will reimburse for those costs. 2. Youareentitled tosecurityagainst damages, or paymentofdamages, which may resultfromthisrequest,andyoumayrespondtothis RequestforProductionof Documentsto.aNon-Partyb submittingto its terms,orby proposing different terms, or by objecting specifically or generally to the Request by serving a written response to the Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. MeLeland, within thirty (30) days from the receiptofthe Request for ProductionofDocuments and Records to a Non￾Party, or by moving to Quash this Request for Production ofDocuments and Recordsto a Non-Party,aspermittedby Rule 2othe Indiana RulesofCriminal Procedure. 3. Thefailureto respondtothis Request forProductionofDocumentsand Records to a Non- Party,to object oito to movetoquash it, as providedbytheapplicable: Indiana Rules ofCriminal Procedure or Order ofthe Court,within thirty (30) days fromthedateofservice, willsubjectyou to 2 MotionforSanctionspursuant fo Rule: 2ofthe Indiana Rulesof Criminal Procedure. 4. Youarerequiredtokeep thissubpoena andtheinformationcontainedtherein confidential. Thissubpoena andtheinformationlistedhereinisno fo bereleasedto the public and should be kept confidential. Any releaseofthis information will be in direct violation ofaCourt Order, DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS TO BE PRODUCED 1. The workrecords for Richard Allen. 2. Please provide copiesof all work records for Richard Allen, including attendance records for those days. 3. Personal files for Richard Allen ‘Submittedunder my handascounselof record, pursuanttoT.R.2, onthis 90TH_ day of April, 2023 Respectfully submitted, Jk C Mik Nicholas C. McLeland, #28300-08 Carroll County Prosecutor 101 W. Main Street Delphi, IN 46923 (765) S64-4514 CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE herhy certifythtserioof vend completecopy of theshove an foregoing pleadingo papervas made ponthe Ello pres 0 levi he Carol Cou Coty deposi en Unie Se enclop properyaddressed nd with sulinpostageaiid his QO dayofApr,2023. CVSHeadquarters ‘tn:Records Deparment One CVSDrive SCM Woonsocket, RI 02895 Nichols C VieLoand CarrollCountyProscutor 20008 STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: COUNTY OF CARROLL ) STATE OF INDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MR-00001 ) vs. ) ) RICHARD M. ALLEN ) SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM TO: Westville Correctional Facility | LE Indiana DepartmentofCorrections - Attn: Elise Gallagher APR 20 2023 55015. 1100 W. Westville,IN46391 hwo ithce> CLERKCARROLL CIRCUIT COURT RE: Richard Allen NowcomestheStateofIndiana, by Prosecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. McLeland, pursuant 10 Rule2ofthe Indiana Trial RulesofTrialofCriminal Procedure, requests that the following documentsandrecordsbeproduced forthe CarrollCountyProsecuting Attomey NicholasC. MeLeland, at 101 West Main Street, Suite 204, Delphi,Indiana 46923, within thirty (30) days from thedateofserviceofthis Request forProduction of Documents andRecordsto a Non-Party. You may comply by mailing a copyofthe requested documents to the Prosecutor's office post-marked prior tothedate on which production isrequiredbytheIndiana RulesofTrialProcedure. DEFINITIONS Asusedinthisrequest, theterm “document”encompassesthefullscopeofthatterm asitis used in Trial Rule 34, including, without limitations, all writings, papers, photographs, videos, and otherrecordings and communications ofany kind, whether printed, electronicallyrecorded, filmed, orrecorded orproduced manuallyorbyotherprocess. Theterm “document”includesall margin ‘comments, handwrittennotes, date of receiptstampsand notations ofany kind appearing on any ‘document.Theterm “document”includesallfiles anddatastoredoncomputerdisksorharddrives, allfilesand datastored onanycomputerdatabases For each document produced, identifythe corresponding request.Ifyou claim any information sought herein is privileged in whole or in part, object to any formofany request or believe that any document would be excluded from production to the State, regardlessofits relevance, state the reason(s) for said objection or groundofexclusion. Identify with particularity ach document for which you claima privilege including the dateofthe document, the person who preparedthedocument,theperson towhomthedocumentwas directed,thesubstanceofthe document and the reason you believe the document is privileged. INSTRUCTIONS “ThisRequestforProduction ofDocumentsandRecordsto a Non-Partyismade pursuantto Rule2 oftheIndiana RulesofCriminalProcedure. InaccordancewiththatRule: 1. Youareentitledtoreimbursementforcostsresultingfrom yourresponse tothis Request for ProductionofDocuments and Records to Non-Party. Ifthere are costs associated with productionofthese documents, please letmeofficeknowandwe: will reimburse for those costs. 2. Youare entitledto security against damages, or paymentofdamages,which may resultfromthisrequest,and you mayrespondtothis RequestforProductionof Documents toa Non-Party by submitting to its terms, or by proposing different terms, or by objecting specifically or generally to the Request by serving a written response totheProsecuting Attomey, Nicholas C. McLeland,withinthirty (30) days from the receiptofthe Request for ProductionofDocuments and Records to a Non- Party,orbymovingto QuashthisRequestforProduction ofDocuments and Records to a Non-Party, as permitted by Rule 2ofthe Indiana RulesofCriminal Procedure. 3. Thefailure torespondtothisRequestforProductionofDocumentsandRecords to a Non- Party, to object to it, or to move to quash it, as provided by the applicable Indiana RulesofCriminal ProcedureorOrderofthe Court, withinthirty (30)days from the dateofservice, will subject you to a Motion for Sanctions pursuant to Rule 2ofthe Indiana RulesofCriminal Procedure. 4. Youarerequiredtokeepthissubpoena andtheinformationcontainedtherein confidential. Thissubpoenaandtheinformation listedhereinisnot to bereleasedto the public and should be kept confidential. Any releaseofthis information will be in direct violation ofaCourt Order. DOCUMENTS ANDRECORDSTOBEPRODUCED 1. Anyand all audiofvideo recordingsofRichard M. Allen while he is in his cell or being moved from hiscellto arecreationalareaforthetimeperiod ofhis incarceration at Westville Correctional Facility. 2. Any notesfrom any guards, inmates orother Westville personnel that have made ‘written observationsofRichard M. Allen, cither while he isinhis cell or when he isbeing moved fromone place to anotherforthetimeperiod ofhisincarceration at Westville Correctional Facility. 3. Recordingsofany interviews done with Richard M. Allen by anyone at the facility ‘whilehe has been incarcerated at Westville Correctional Facility. 4. Copies ofany recorded phone calls, outsideofphone calls made to his attorneys, ‘while hewasincarceratedinthe facility. 5. Any written requestsmade by Richard M. Allen while he was at Westville Correctional Facility. 6. Anyotherdocuments,records, notes, videos and/orwritingsthat the facility may have pertaining to Richard M. Allen for his incarceration atthatfacility. ‘Submitted under myhandascounselof record,pursuant to T-R.2,on this_3pT"_day of April, 2023. Respectfully submitted, JC Mf Nicholas C. McLeland, #28300-08 Carroll County Prosecutor 101 W. Main Street Delphi, IN 46923 (765) 364-4514, ‘CERTIFICATE OFSERVICE: here ceniythat service ofatrue ndcompletcopyofth aboveand foregoingpleadingo paperwasmadeuponthe followingpartiesand filed with theCarrollCircuit CourtbydepositingthesameintheUnitedStatesmailinan ‘envelopeproperlyaddressed andwithsufficientpostage affixedthis20) THday ofApril, 2023. ‘Westville Correctional Facility Indiana Department ofCorrections Atm: Elise Gallagher 55015. 1100 W. Westville IN 46391 Sec piu Call County Prosecutor 2300.08 © *% STATEOFINDIANA ) INTHE CARROLL CIRCUIT COURT x )ss: <i ,-COUNTY OFCARROLL ) ad *. STATEOFINDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01.2210-MR-00001 : ) : vs. ) X ) +4 RICHARDM.ALLEN ) ‘SUBPOENADUCESTECUM TO: CVSHeadquarters . Attn: Records Department One CVS Drive + 3 Woonsocket, RI02895 An : “004 Pursuantto Rulé’2 ofthe Indiana Rulesof CriminalProcsdure, youarchereby direetedto roduc the llowing 0 counsel othe Call CountyProsecutorNicholas C:Mel cand, t101 WestMainStreet, Site 204, Delphi Indiana 46523within thirty (30)cays ofreceipt: ey Adocuments reednh company ogRestfor Producto of Dosen : toaNon Party. > Cr Anexecuted AffidavitofCustodian or Records (enclosed). po ‘Submitted underinyhandascounselof record,pursuantto TR. 2, onthis 30M day ofApril, 2023. + Respectfully submitted, : ; wh oe vie el « Nicholas ECC. MoLlasd, a #26300-08 50% : J CamollCounty Prosecutor + “TheCourt findsthattherequirementsofOm v. State ofIndianaaremetandtheRequest fr. Leaves Approved this 5 day of pt,2023. Co GA CL) > anit a ces Gull, Special Judge IICire Court 2 wy . SE / STATE OF INDIANA ) INTHECARROLL CIRCUIT COURT )ss: ‘. COUNTYOF CARROLL ) . 7 STATEOFINDIANA ) CAUSENUMBER: 08C01-2210-MRA00001 u ) VS. ) ; ) + RICHARD M. ALLEN ) - SUBP ICES TECUM TO: Westville Correctional Facility Indiana Departmentof Corrections Attn: Elise Gallagher > SS0LS. 1100 W. HATE Westville, IN 46391 : Pursuant Rule2ofthe IndianaRules ofCriminal Procedure, you ar hereby directed to produce the followingto counselforthe Carell County Prosecutor, Nicholas C. McLelad, at 101 West Main Sire, Suite 204, Delph,Indiana46923 within thirty (30) aysofreceipt: 1 Alldocuments requestedin the accompanyingRequestforProduction ofDocuments toa Non-Party. 2. AnexeoutedAffdavitofCustodianorRecords (enclosed). “ Submitted under my handascounselof record, pursuantfo TR. 2,onthis ATH _ day. ofApr, 2023. + Respectfully submited, | or he green Nicholas C. MeL land, #28300-08 v . Carroll County Prosecutor TheCourtfindsthet the requirements ofOmarv. StateofIndiana are metand the ; LeavesApprovedthis _% __ dayofApek-2023, - a Moy . 5 Gull, Speci Judge I ireuit Court vo ha ca . et ta ' STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE GARROLL GIRGUIT COURT 88: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 ) STATE OF INDIANA ) ) v } ) RICHARD ALLEN ~~) ORDER Comesnow Accused, by counsel, having filed Motion to Suppress Fruits of Search of 1067 North Whiteman Drive, Delphi, Indiana, and the Court being dulyadvised in the premises, now finds that a hearing on said motion should take place on June 15% 2023 at 830 am IT 1S THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED Date: __ — Frances G. Gull, Special Judge Carroll Circuit Court Distribution: Carroll County Prosecutor's Office BALDWIN PERRY & WILEY, F.C Fig: sr192025 pn ‘Cima eu Curt call Court, dans STATE OF INDIANA ) IN THE GARROLL GIRGUIT COURT 88: COUNTY OF CARROLL) CAUSE NO. 08C01-2210-MR-000001 ) STATE OF INDIANA ) ) v ) ) RICHARD ALLEN ~~) DRIVE.DELPHI.INDIANA Comes now the Accused, by counsel and through counsel, and pursuant to the Fourthand Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 11 of the Constitution of the State of Indiana moves to suppress all evidence obtained by the defective search warrant was issued without probable cause. In support of said motion, the Accused states 1. The affidavit submittedin support of the search warrant failed to establish that the items to be seized were in the residence, or could be expected to be in the residence, at the time of the search 2. The affidavit submittedin support of the search warrant failed to provide particular information that particular items related to the particular crime would be found in the Accused's home, but rather provided generic information concerning generic items that couldbe foundin the Accused's home, or any other home, potentially, in Indiana 3. The affidavit submittedin support of the search warrant failed to connect the generic items for which it was seeking to the actual items that were possibly usedin the crime for which he is now charged. 4. The sarch warrant was unreasonable under both the Indiana and federal Gonstitution. WHEREFORE,Accused respectfully prays the Court to schedule this motion for a hearing on June 15%, 2023 at 8:30 am. and thereafter grant suppression. Respectfully submitted {sl Andrew Baldwin Andrew Baldwin, Atty. No1785141 Counsel for Defendant BALDWIN PERRY & WILEY, P.C 150 N. Main St. Franklin, Indiana 46131 317-736-0083 CERTIFICATE OFBERVICE This is to certify a copy of the foregoing pleading has been provided to all counsel of record for the opposing party, via [EFS this same day of filing. {sl Andrew Baidwin BALDWIN PERRY & WILEY, F.C