CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. – In a move that could jeopardize the October start date for the Delphi murders trial, Richard Allen’s defense has signaled they want the Indiana Court of Appeals to overturn Special Judge Fran Gull’s decision barring them from presenting its Odinisim theory in court.

According to a filing obtained by NewsNation affiliate WXIN on Monday night, Allen’s defense — comprised of attorneys Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi — has moved forward with a rare interlocutory appeal challenging the decision to not let them present their alternative killing theory during the trial.

The appeal request was lodged in response to a ruling handed down by Gull on Sept. 4, which granted most of the state’s Motion in Limine looking to prevent the Odinism alternative theory in court proceedings.

“The defense contends that the Court’s September 4, 2024, order denied Richard Allen’s right to present a defense in violation of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution,” the defense said.

Allen has been charged with four counts of murder for his alleged role in the February 2017 deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi. Allen has been in custody since October 2022 when Indiana State Police announced his arrest.

Monday’s filing marks the latest development in a legal battle involving Gull, the prosecution and the defense. A large component of the contention has centered on Allen’s lawyers arguing that a group of Odinists were responsible for the killing of the girls instead of Allen. This alternative theory was originally laid out by the defense in its motion for a Franks hearing meant to challenge the search warrant obtained to investigate Allen’s home.

This cult killing theory has featured a sharp focus on various people the defense claims are part of a group connected to a pagan Nordic religion that has been linked with white supremacy groups.

The prosecution, led by Prosecutor Nick McLeland, has argued that this theory holds little water and relies on speculation, hearsay and a lack of specific evidence being produced tying third-party perpetrators to the killings. This led to McLeland filing a Motion in Limine requesting that the court prohibit the defense from including the Odinism theory in its defense.

The court eventually sided with the prosecution, though she left the door open for the defense to present their theories if actual proof could be brought forward.

“The case law is quite clear that the nexus must not be based on speculation, conjecture, rumors, or hearsay, but rather on admissible evidence,” Gull wrote in her order.

In the latest filing, the defense contends that the Sept. 4 order has violated several provisions of the Indiana State Consitution. These include provisions that protect the accused to have “remedy by due course of law” and that justice would be meted out “without denial; speedily, and without delay.”

The defense also asserts that Allen has also been denied the right to a public trial free of an impartial jury as a result of Gull’s previous ruling.

The appeal request also referenced the court’s Aug. 28 ruling determining that reported confessions made by Allen to jail staff, family and doctors would be deemed admissible and could be used as evidence in court during the trial.

The defense claims this decision violated Allen’s 5th, 6th and 14th Amendment rights as outlined in the U.S. Consitution. Allen’s lawyers argue that Allen’s statements and “confessions” were influenced by his extended stay in solitary confinement and that the statements were “involuntarily made.”

This “error” would lead to the continued suffering of all those implicated in the case, according to Allen’s defense team.

The appeal request also states that Gull’s ruling, if it is not successfully appealed, disrupts their entire defense strategy so close to the start of the jury trial in a month.

“If this Court has erred and the determination of the error is withheld until after judgment, then the appellant, victim’s families and citizens of Carroll County will suffer substantial expense and damage as follows: Richard Allen will suffer continued incarceration while awaiting the ruling from the Court of Appeals,” the appeal said.

The defense contends that this “incorrect ruling” would likely render the October trial obsolete, leading to the scheduling of a second trial.

“This motion is not made to unnecessarily delay the trial, but out of a sincere belief that this Court’s ruling in erroneous and will result in an unnecessary second trial should Richard Allen be found guilty,” the defense wrote.

The defense contends that this would also financially harm taxpayers residing in Carroll County related to fronting the costs for a jury trial between two separate counties.

“If a second trial were to occur, the compounding of discovery, transcripts, and other related materials stemming from this case, would place extraordinary burdens on the State, Defense, Victims’ families, Defendant and Defendant’s family, not to mention the Judge and Court Staff members in both Allen County and Carroll County,” the appeal said. “Law enforcement officers from the various investigating agencies would be required to continue to exhaust their time and resources, even beyond the seven years that has already passed since the crimes were committed.”

Allen’s jury trial is currently slated to begin on Oct. 14, with jurors being pulled from Allen County and transported to Carroll County for the trial. This start date may very well be in jeopardy pending a potential decision by the Indiana Court of Appeals.