DELPHI, Ind. (Scripps News Indianapolis/Court TV) — A new push to overturn Richard Allen’s convictions was filed on Monday referencing new evidence in the case.

FILE – Officers escort Richard Allen through the Carroll County courthouse. (Court TV)
Attorneys representing Richard Allen, convicted of murdering two teen girls in Delphi in 2017, submitted a ‘Motion to Correct Errors.’ Essentially, they want the judge to amend the previous order of judgment because of what they believe are mistakes. In November, Allen was convicted by a jury of murdering Liberty German and Abigail Williams in Feb. 2017. In December, he was sentenced to 130 years in prison, the maximum available sentence.
READ MORE | IN v. Richard Allen: Delphi Murders Trial
The motion details four alleged legal missteps that the defense feels are significant enough to warrant overturning the jury’s verdict. It seeks either a dismissal of Allen’s convictions or the initiation of a hearing to discuss the issues raised. Andrew Baldwin, Jennifer Auger, and Bradley Rozzi, members of Allen’s trial defense team, filed the motion.
1. Illegal Safekeeping Proceedings
The first issue relates to the circumstances of Allen’s custody. Following his arrest, he was relocated from the Carroll County Jail to the Indiana Department of Corrections. The defense argues that this transfer was unlawful and that Allen’s right to legal representation was violated. They assert that his attorney was not notified about the proceedings, which deprived him of the right to be represented in this critical matter.
Court documents detail that Allen hired an attorney after being arrested. The defense stated, “Mr. Allen was not afforded either the right to be heard by counsel or by himself at the safekeeping ‘proceeding.’”
2. False Testimony Regarding Timeline and Evidence

Richard Allen’s attorneys submitted this photo as part of a filing, purporting to show a white van in the area at a different time than the prosecution had said. (Court Filing)
The second point addresses the testimony concerning a white van’s presence during the incident. Defense attorneys argue that prosecutors should have corrected false evidence regarding the van’s timing, which was pivotal to the case. They presented surveillance footage showing the van in the area later than what the prosecution indicated, suggesting that this inconsistency could have influenced the jury’s decision.
The defense motion claims, “When the State introduces testimony it knows will be false or fails to correct testimony it knows or should know to be false, once elicited, a conviction must be vacated or reversed if that false evidence ‘may have had an effect on the outcome of the trial.'”
3. Alleged Confession by Another Individual

A handwritten note details an alleged confession to the murders of Liberty German and Abigail Williams in 2017. (Court Filing)
The third issue concerns reports of a confession reportedly made by another person in 2017. The defense included notes from an inmate claiming that another inmate confessed to the murders and mentioned using a boxcutter. The defense believes this information could potentially undermine the prosecution’s case, particularly in light of the pathologist’s change in testimony regarding the murder weapon.
The defense believes that had this confession been presented earlier, there would have been probable cause to arrest the other individual.
4. Forensic Concerns Over Cellphone Evidence
Finally, the defense challenges the forensic analysis of Libby German’s cell phone found at the crime scene. Questions have arisen regarding whether environmental factors could have artificially created data suggesting that headphones were plugged into the phone. An expert on the defense team argued that there was no evidence of water or dirt damage to support the State’s claims.
“Ms. Eldridge’s opinion that dirt or water could not have caused L.G.’s phone to log wired headphones being plugged into and being unplugged from the phone on Feb. 13, 2017, exculpates Mr. Allen and would probably produce a different result at a new trial. Accordingly, the Court should either vacate Mr. Allen’s convictions or set this motion for a hearing.”
What’s Next?
The Motion to Correct Errors stands apart from the appeal that is anticipated to be submitted by newly-appointed appellate attorneys for Allen. As of now, the defense has yet to respond to this filing, and the upcoming legal proceedings will determine the future of Richard Allen’s conviction.
The defense attorneys did respond to Scripps News Indianapolis‘ request to comment regarding the filed motion.
Jennifer Auger said, “We do not feel it is appropriate to discuss the motion to correct errors as that is currently pending in front of the court.”

Nicholas McLeland, the prosecutor in Richard Allen’s murder trial, sits in his office. (Scripps News Indianapolis)
The Carroll County Prosecutor’s office has not yet responded to the filing, but prosecutor Nicholas McLeland, who led the State’s case at trial, talked to Scripps News Indianapolis about the case and said he believes Allen got a fair trial.
“You always are going to second guess, ‘Should I have done this, should I have objected here, should I not have put that into evidence.’ For me, that’s 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. … 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.”
McLeland said the trial, which lasted 18 days in court and featured 64 witnesses, was a massive undertaking that required the help of many people. “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.”
Should Allen’s defense team win an appeal, McLeland said he’s ready to do it all 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.”
This story was originally published by Scripps News Indianapolis, an E.W. Scripps Company.