DELPHI — Prosecuting Attorney Nicholas C. McLeland, has formally objected Richard Allen's 'Motion to Correct Errors,' asserting that the defense's arguments do not warrant overturning the jury's verdict in the Delphi murders case.
As WRTV previously reported, the defense for Allen, convicted of murdering two teen girls in Delphi in 2017, submitted a motion alleging legal missteps of the prosecution. In the motion, they asked the judge to amend the previous order or judgment.
Below are key points from the prosecution’s response regarding the allegations of false testimony, the supposed confession by another individual, and forensic concerns about cellphone evidence.
1. Illegal Safekeeping Proceedings:
The prosecution emphasizes that the circumstances surrounding Allen’s transfer from the Carroll County Jail were legally justified. According to the prosecution, the court had the authority to order a transfer if an inmate is deemed to be in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or poses a substantial threat to others.
The prosecution referenced the court's attached order, which stated, “the Defendant was in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death” and highlighted that no attorney had officially entered an appearance for Allen at that time.
2. False Testimony Regarding Timeline and Evidence
The prosecution addresses the defense's allegations of false testimony concerning the timeline of events concerning a white van's presence during the murders. The prosecution argues:
- Questionable Evidence: The defense cited a YouTube video as proof of a timeline discrepancy but did not provide documented evidence to support their claim. The prosecution points out that this evidence is not reliable.
- Missed Opportunity: The prosecution emphasizes that the defense had chances to question witnesses and challenge their credibility during the trial but did not take those opportunities.
3. Alleged Confession by Another Individual
Addressing the defense's claims regarding an alleged confession by inmate Ricci Davis, the prosecution states that the information provided by Davis is both unreliable and unsupported by evidence:
- Davis, who is serving time for an unrelated crime, claimed that another individual, Ron Logan, confessed to him while incarcerated. However, the prosecution notes that Davis’s allegations are considered unreliable, especially since he did poorly on a lie detector test
- They stress that unlike Allen, who left concrete physical evidence at the scene (an unspent round tied to his possession), no evidence links Logan to the crime
4. Forensic Concerns Over Cellphone Evidence
Regarding the defense’s inquiries about the cellphone evidence belonging to one of the victims, the prosecution strongly defends the credibility of the expert analysis, noting several critical points:
- The prosecution raises concerns about defense expert Stacy Eldridge’s qualifications, noting she has limited experience in cellphone forensics and provided no supporting documentation for her claims.
- They highlight that Sergeant Christopher Cecil provided rebuttal testimony, explaining that environmental factors, such as dirt or water in the jack, could explain issues with the phone's log entries without invalidating the evidence.
- Although the defense argues that damage to the phone might not be adequately documented, the prosecution insists that any claims of water damage could only be determined through a physical examination, which did not occur. As a result, they maintain that this point does not constitute newly discovered evidence.
- Finally, the prosecution maintains that claims of the phone being water-damaged cannot be confirmed without a physical examination, which Eldridge did not perform.
