Richard Allen: The AG's Harmless Error Strategy and What It's Hiding

The Indiana Attorney General filed its response to Richard Allen's appeal on March 25, 2026 — a ninety-four-page brief arguing that Allen's conviction for the murders of Abby Williams and Libby German should stand. Allen was convicted in November 2024 and sentenced to 130 years. His appellate attorneys raised three constitutional issues: an unconstitutional search warrant built on alleged omissions and altered witness statements, confessions they contend were extracted under coercive conditions during more than thirteen months of pretrial solitary confinement, and the systematic exclusion of defense evidence at trial.The AG's brief responds with a consistent framework. On the search warrant, the State argues that the probable cause affidavit establishes sufficient basis for the search even if challenged statements are excluded. On the confessions, the State argues that conditions of confinement did not constitute coercion and that Allen confessed both before and after his documented period of psychosis — offering a religious conversion as an alternative explanation. On excluded evidence, the State characterizes the alternative suspect theories as speculative and argues that the trial court properly exercised discretion in keeping them from the jury.Defense attorney Bob Motta identifies what the AG's brief does not address. Allen's confession to his prison psychiatrist described killing the victims by shooting. The victims were not shot — they were killed with a blade. The AG's response does not reconcile this discrepancy. Additionally, the defense obtained surveillance footage and FBI cell phone data suggesting the van placed by prosecutors near the Monon High Bridge arrived after Libby German's phone had stopped moving. The AG's response addresses this not on the merits of the data but on procedural grounds — arguing the defense did not properly preserve the issue.The evidentiary record underlying the conviction contains no DNA linking Allen to the crime scene, no recovered murder weapon, and no direct eyewitness identification placing him with the victims. The confessions constitute the primary evidence. The defense argues those confessions were the product of unconstitutional detention and contain factual errors that undermine their reliability.Allen's appellate attorneys have filed their reply brief and requested oral arguments before the Court of Appeals. No timeline for a decision has been established. The case is before a three-judge panel.Join Our SubStack For AD-FREE ADVANCE EPISODES & EXTRAS!: https://hiddenkillers.substack.com/Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video? Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8-vxmbhTxxG10sO1izODJg?sub_confirmation=1Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspodX Twitter https://x.com/TrueCrimePodThis publication contains commentary and opinion based on publicly available information. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. Nothing published here should be taken as a statement of fact, health or legal advice.#RichardAllen #DelphiMurders #DelphiAppeal #TrueCrimeToday #AbbyAndLibby #HiddenKillers #TrueCrime #IndianaCourtOfAppeals #HarmlessError #BobMotta