On verdict watch in Delphi: A Q&A
With the jury heading into a fourth day of deliberations in the murder trial of Richard Allen, a local defense attorney watching the case breaks things down during the wait
Sponsorship help for this edition comes from Purdue Musical Organizations. The 91st Annual Purdue Christmas Show is the must-see event of the year! Gather your family and friends, and create lasting memories as you sing along to your favorite songs and marvel at the extraordinary Purdue student talent on display. Get tickets here.
ON VERDICT WATCH IN THE DELPHI MURDERS CASE
Jurors in the murder trial of Richard Allen left the Carroll County Courthouse Saturday 14½ hours into deliberations without a verdict.
What’s happening inside, which way the jury is leaning and what evidence has them split is known only to 12 jurors and three alternates who were selected and brought 90 miles from Allen County to sit through three weeks of testimony.
After a day off Sunday, they’ll return Monday morning from their sequestered quarters to begin discussing a verdict in a trial that started testimony on Oct. 18 about the Feb. 13, 2017, murders of Abby Williams, 13, and Libby German, 14, near Delphi’s Monon High Bridge Trail.
In this Q&A, Shay Hughes, a criminal defense attorney in Tippecanoe County who has been watching and offering legal breakdowns in the Delphi murder case, offers a look at how deliberations are playing out as everyone waits.
Question: In general, when you find a jury is heading into a fourth day of deliberations, what are you thinking is going on? Which side is sweating the most?
Shay Hughes: Jury reportedly reviewed evidence. This signals a potential disagreement among jurors. But it could also signal the jury exercising caution. They want to make sure their reasoning is sound before delivering a verdict.
Both sides are certainly sweating it. But I would say the state is sweating it the most. They brought the case, have more resources and, all things being equal, the public's sympathy. The state won this case pretrial as Allen was prevented from presenting third party/Odinism evidence, had a material expert witness excluded, and Allen's suppression was denied. Couldn't have asked for more. This, along with reported incriminating statements, the state was certainly favored heading into trial.
Generally, the probability of a guilty verdict decreases the longer deliberations go on. A hung jury would certainly tarnish a second trial, even if the second trial results in a guilty verdict. Approximately $4 million has been spent, and the community will not be happy to add to that. This compounded by evidence that came out the FBI was pushed out of the investigation.
Question: Given the evidence in this case, what specifically do you think is hanging jurors up?
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Based in Lafayette, Indiana to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.