CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — The attorneys for accused Delphi killer Richard Allen are once again claiming that police investigators lied or deceived a judge in filing for a search warrant that led to the arrest of their client.

Allen is accused of killing Abby Williams and Libby German near the Monon High Bridge in February 2017. He faces multiple counts of murder in the high-profile case that has garnered national attention.

In the defense team’s latest motion, Allen’s attorneys once more called on Special Judge Fran Gull to hold a Franks hearing. The defense team has made a play at requesting a Franks hearing in the past, calling on evidence collected from Richard Allen’s home to be thrown out by claiming police investigators deceived a judge when filing for a search warrant.

The court did not side with the attorneys, however, and no evidence was thrown out. Gull called the search “reasonable and legal” in her decision.

On Monday, attorneys Bradley Rozzi and Andrew Baldwin made a renewed push for a Franks hearing by once again claiming that police investigators weren’t truthful during the early stages of their investigation into Allen. The defense team also roped in Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland into their allegations by claiming the prosecutor misled or lied to the defense team.

Rozzi and Baldwin’s latest motion contains accusations already leveled against police and the prosecutor in previous motions and filings. These accusations include accusing the prosecutor of lying about police learning the identity of a Purdue professor when the defense attorneys inquired about the search for his identity along with claims that investigators misled a judge when filing for a search warrant that led to Allen’s arrest.

Some examples of the alleged investigators’ misdeeds include an early witness supposedly telling police they spotted a man with a muddy and bloody blue jacket. A blue jacket was part of the evidence collected from Richard Allen’s home.

But the defense team claims the witness never said bloody when describing the jacket and never said blue, instead saying the man wore a muddy, tan jacket. The attorneys accused the police investigators of changing those details when filing for a search warrant.

The defense team also claims an early witness described spotting a man as “young as 20 years old” who had “brown poofy hair.” The attorney accused investigators of omitting those details when filing for a search warrant of Allen’s home since the description didn’t match up with Allen.

While the court has not yet weighed in on the defense team’s latest attempt to exonerate Allen by way of throwing out evidence and/or his charges, previously similar attempts have failed to find footing with Gull who has already sided in defense of the search warrant.

The defense team also recently tried to have Allen’s murder charges thrown out over inadvertently deleted interviews from early in the investigation. That attempt also failed with Gull deciding the interviews weren’t destroyed on purpose and weren’t material to the case.

All these legal spats follow a very public battle between Gull and Allen’s attorneys that went all the way to the Indiana Supreme Court after Gull threw the pair off the case for negligence following an evidence leak. The high court reinstated the attorneys.

Since then, McLeland has asked for the court to hold Allen’s attorneys in contempt. Gull is still weighing that request.

For now, the case rolls on toward its May 13 trial start date.