DELPHI, Ind. — As the man charged for murdering two Delphi teens sits behind bars, facing 130-years for the killings, the prosecutor who sought justice is speaking out.
A month ago, Richard Allen was sentenced to 130 years in jail for the murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German in Delphi.
Now, the Carroll County Prosecutor, Nicholas McLeland, is speaking one-on-one for the first time since a gag order was issued in the trial more than two years ago.
WRTV's Kaitlyn Kendall spoke candidly with the prosecutor who says he believes Allen received a fair trial.
The Carroll County courthouse is much quieter than it was for the fourth quarter of 2024 when the case was thrust into the national spotlight.
"Obviously a lot quieter, not as much security. Kind of back to business as usual," McLeland said.
For the months following the trial, things haven't slowed for McLeland. The prosecutor still has cases to try, and a docket packed from the time his focus was on the case against Allen.
Looking back on the trial, it's easy for just about anyone involved to reflect. Think about the things that went well, maybe the things they would change.
"You always are going to second guess 'should I have done this, should I have objected there, should I have not put that into evidence.' For me, that is normal," McLeland said. "Even if I think I put on a very strong case and I am confident the jury is going to come back with guilty, I still wonder. Should I have done that, would that have been the thing they hung their hat on? Because you don't know at the end of the day what the jury is going to hang their hat on."
When asked what he thinks did it for the jury, McLeland said he didn't know.
"In my mind, I would like to think it was just the totality of the circumstances. The totality of all the evidence that we had. So I don't know if there was one specific thing," he said.
McLeland said it was hard telling, and he didn't want to speak for the jury.
"You have 12 individuals, who all have different life experiences and think differently. What may have been the deciding factor for one juror may not have been the deciding factor for the other. One juror may have bought into or believed in the science of ballistics. One juror may have said the timeline is what I hung my hat on. One juror may have said the confessions. In my mind, it was just a totality of everything that led to the conviction," McLeland said.
But it was the minds of the jury McLeland and the prosecuting team said posed a great challenge when working to poll the jury.
A case of this magnitude meant living under a microscope, the absence of YouTubers, podcasters, and the arrival of national media.
"For me, I just tried to block it out as much as I could and focus on what we want to present at trial and what are the facts that we can prove," McLeland said.
It's one of the reasons the prosecutor was concerned for the jury heading into trial.
McLeland said, "I really had a fear that regardless of how many people we subpoenaed in for jury duty, we weren't going to be able to find 12 who hadn't heard about this case. It was a real concern for me. I wanted to be able to get 12 people who didn't have an opinion about this case, were unbiased, so we could have a fair trial. Not only for the state but for Richard Allen too."
McLeland says he thinks that happened, and does truly believe that Allen received a fair trial.
"Of course, you're under more scrutiny when it's a case that has as much publicity as this case did. You have this sense of obligation that you want to do the best you can and make sure you're completely prepared. You have that extra pressure, but in terms of preparation you kind of just go through the same routine you would with any trial," he said.
It was a hefty case. 18 days in court, 64 total witnesses, and 378 exhibits. Not to mention the years it took to prepare.
"The amount of information that was involved was more than I have ever dealt with as well. It just took a lot of organization," McLeland said.
The prosecutor was quick to credit Stacy Diener, James Luttrell, and the law enforcement in this case.
"I could not have done this by myself, and I did not do this by myself," McLeland said. "They deserve as much praise as I am getting."
When talking about preparing for the trial, McLeland said it was a huge task.
"I do not know how many hours. I don't know that I want to know how many hours I put in on it," McLeland said.
The prosecutor said he prepared for the trial as he would any other trial.
"There definitely are days that you get overwhelmed and think 'I have so much to do, I don't know how I am going to do all of this.' Obviously a lot of sleepless nights. A lot of time away from family and friends, a lot of missed family and events. You just have to sacrifice that to put the work in that is just necessary for the case," McLeland said.
Even after the guilty verdict and sentencing, people continue to talk about theories of what they think happened.
"We live and die by the burden of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. So if you can prove a theory beyond a reasonable doubt then to me it becomes a truth in the court of law. Until then, it's just a theory. It's an idea of what you thought happened. I don't have a problem with people throwing the word around, but where is the evidence to back it up?"
McLeland said he isn't surprised that Allen didn't testify, but added his team was prepared either way.
"Being a defense attorney for as long as I was, that's always the big question. Do you have the defendant testify? It's a catch-22. They have the absolute right not to testify," McLeland said. "If they don't testify then the jury isn't able to hear them say I didn't do it. I think that's a big thing for juries to hear. On the other hand, if you have them testify, you open them up to cross-examination and open them up to oftentimes a lot of hard questions, that are going to be hard for them to answer. Which could make them look equally as bad in front of a jury."
The jury took about 19 hours to deliberate, but McLeland was quick to point out that the waiting was tough.
"It's always hard waiting for the jury to come back. I imagine if you took a poll of 50 attorneys, you would have half say it's better if they come back quick, and half say it's better if they take longer to decide. I don't know. It's tough to wait, it wasn't so bad the first couple of days. The Sunday we had off between the Saturday and the Monday when the jury was off and we didn't have to come into court and we're just home. That was a hard day because you're just wondering what are they doing, what are they thinking? The waiting is always tough."
As for an appeal? McLeland said he goes into every murder trial anticipating an appeal could happen.
"I think in any kind of murder conviction you expect an appeal. We expected it. We expected it from day one that if we get a guilty verdict he is going to appeal it. Yeah, that's something we're ready for."
The Attorney General's office will represent the State of Indiana if that should happen. McLeland said the AG will most likely appoint one or two attorneys to handle the appeal.
He said the prosecuting team's role will then move to a more supportive one.
"Help with documentation being reviewed. Questions about what happened in the courtroom, questions of how it was presented. What info you need, let us help you get it. We know where that's at. We're the people in the courtroom and we know where it's at," MeLeland said.
McLeland said if it came to it, he would try the case again.
"If an appeal goes through and the court of appeals says something was done wrong and it has to be re-tried? Do we try it again? Absolutely."
Watch the full interview with McLeland below.
