Last night criminal defense attorney Andrea Burkhart gave a master class on her YouTube channel and it was glorious. She's been camping out in Carroll County Indiana to attend the trial of Richard Allen for the tragic murders of two young teenage girls, Abigail Williams and Liberty German on February 13 of 2017. Her incensed outrage may well carry her through the rest of this travesty of a trial. A trial that is not only not televised but any recordings made of the proceedings are not (and so far, will not be) available to the public. Which is odd considering the presiding judge took part in "Broadcast pilot project allows cameras in court."
I've known about the ... let's call them "irregularities" for now ... in the case against Richard Allen since about the beginning of this year when Judge Frances Gull booted Rick's defense team from his case. I mainly watched Defense Diaries Podcast host Bob Motta for coverage on this and I was hooked. While my go-to law tuber is Emily D Baker, I'm not sure she could've brought the same perspective as a criminal defence lawyer. Besides, she's not covering this trial and I can't say I blame her - this thing is a shit show of major proportions, IMO.
I briefly touched on few nasty aspects of Rick Allen's case in a previous blog post where I discussed an opinion piece by former prosecutors about this case and two others: Karen Read and Brian Kohberger. In it, I came to these conclusions:
When seeking justice for victims, it means convicting the right perpetrator. And doing it in the proper way, not by underhanded means.
Blackstone's Ratio says, “the law holds that it is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer.” Every lawyer commentator I follow believes this doctrine to be true. If a prosecution cannot withstand bright light being shone upon it, we're right to ask questions. Our US justice system should also be able to withstand the same.
Andrea Burkhart shone a VERY bright light last night. The incredible lawyer that she is was on full display and it was very breathtaking. Lt. Jerry Holeman was on the stand for the Saturday half day session of the trial discussing his final interview of Rick Allen before his arrest back in October of 2022. He discussed using the oft disputed Reid technique of interrogation (although Holeman insisted it was an interview) which also apparently made him a body language expert. Andrea expertly outlined just why this technique is problematic. Proponents claim it works well if used properly.
I will have to side with Andrea's expert opinion as I have no legal knowledge whatsoever. Although she was incensed, she was measured and deliberate as she pointed out the flaws in this interrogation .. er, interview. How Holeman took Richard Allen's refusal to confess as a challenge that landed him in solitary confinement in prison (not the local jail) where he slowly lost his mind.
Some believe that Rick "faked it." One person that I used to enjoy following on both X and YouTube even ridiculously (IMO) compared him to Lori Vallow Daybell. They also said unkind things about Andrea Burkhart so deciding to unfollow was an easy one for me to make. I just don't understand how one can believe Karen Read was railroaded but refuse to even entertain the same for Richard Allen. They claim that those who question the state in this case are just Richard Allen fans and are somehow biased. To me, there is a some sort of cognitive dissonence occurring here. But, I digress.
I realize that Andrea's stream from last night is long, but it's well worth a watch IMO. Especially if you have any interest in the law, our justice system or justice in general. She eloquently outlines some giant flaws in the state's case and, particularly, the aforementioned "interview." I've been a fan since Depp v Heard but my respect for her has increased exponentially. I'd already garnered a respect for defense attorneys, starting with Natalielawyerchick and Andrea Burkhart, then continuing through Bob & Ali Motta of the Defense Diaries Podcast. However, yesterday's coverage really put a fine edge on what I said in another earlier blog post regarding this case:
Justice should be about finding the truth and prosecuting wrong doers within the confines of the law and according to the rights provided by the constitution. Investigations need to be above board with things like chain-of-custody rigorously adhered to. If law enforcement/courts can't be bothered to do their jobs correctly then there cannot be justice. Why is this concept so difficult to understand?
And:
Tying the defense's hands in order to achieve victory isn't really a victory at all, IMO. A proper prosecution should be able to withstand a thorough defense, indeed it should invite it!
How about, instead of getting ticked off at defense for doing their job, we get mad at prosecution for not doing theirs?