CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. – Special Judge Fran Gull will not disqualify herself from the case surrounding Delphi murders suspect Richard Allen.
Allen, charged with four counts of murder in the February 2017 deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German near the Monon High Bridge in Delphi, is set to go on trial in October.
Indiana State Police announced Allen’s arrest in October 2022, more than five years after the teens were killed. Since his arrest, the case has been bogged down in legal maneuvering.
His defense attorneys filed a motion for Gull, appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court to oversee the case after the original judge stepped down, to recuse herself from the proceedings. It’s the third time they’ve attempted to have Gull removed from the case.
The state’s highest court, which took up an appeal from Allen when Gull attempted to have his defense team removed from the case, declined to dismiss Gull from the proceedings. A motion to disqualify had been filed in October 2023.
After that, the defense filed a motion in January 2024 seeking to have Gull recuse herself from the proceedings. She denied that motion—the second attempt to remove the judge—in a Feb. 7 ruling.
On May 17, the defense filed another motion seeking to disqualify Gull. She responded with a six-page order filed on Monday addressing several issues brought up by Allen’s defense. Ultimately, she denied the motion.
Judge’s impartiality questioned
Gull called the defense’s claims that she treated the prosecution “more favorably” than the defense “unsupported by any admissible evidence” and noted she’d handed down adverse ruling to both sides throughout the case.
The judge said the defense blamed the court for “ex parte pleadings that were inadvertently” directed to the state. But those pleadings, Gull explained, were marked “confidential” by defense staff, making them available to the state but not the public. Those communications should have been filed as “ex parte,” Gull said, adding that the court emailed the defense a “tutorial” on the proper filing process.
The defense claimed the court treated its motions differently from those filed by the prosecution. Gull noted she scheduled hearings on some recent motions but had to delay the hearings due to the defense’s filing of the motion to disqualify her from the case. Each time the defense files a motion, she explained, the state is entitled to file a response within 20 days.
“The Court has issued adverse rulings against the defendant, as well as against the State of Indiana,” Gull wrote. “Adverse rulings do not support a reasonable basis for questioning the Court’s impartiality, nor are they grounds for disqualification, they are just adverse rulings.”
Defense concerns about trial length
The judge also responded to allegations that the defense would not be given enough time to present their case during the trial. On March 6, the defense filed a motion for a speedy trial; Gull granted the motion, moving the proceedings up from October 2024 to May 2024.
On April 30, the defense requested a pretrial hearing, which Gull scheduled for May 7. The defense, Gull said, didn’t indicate before the May 7 hearing that Gull’s timeline for the trial was “inadequate,” with Allen’s defense concerned it wouldn’t have enough time to present its case.
“At no time prior to May 7, 2024, did defendant indicate a belief that three (3) additional weeks could be added to the trial without notice to the Court, witnesses, and more importantly, without notice to the potential jurors,” Gull wrote in the order.
She conceded delaying the trial until October was “harmful to the defendant and the State” but said the continuance could’ve been avoided if the defense had brought up the trial length issue prior to the May 7 hearing.
The defense said, in its experience, that they’ve never been told a trial would “absolutely end on a certain day and not go any longer.” Gull called the assertion “irrational and unreasonable,” writing that judges around the state “routinely give trial dates that begin on a set date and end on a set date.”
Gull went on to say that the court is “not required” to guarantee “equal time” for the prosecution and defense. It is, however, required to guarantee “sufficient time” on the calendar and “sufficient notice to jurors and the parties to present their case, however long it takes.”
“Had Counsel notified the Court within days of receiving the March 7, 2024, Court Order setting the case for speedy trial May 13-31, 2024, that the time allotted on the calendar was insufficient, the Court would have immediately rectified the situation and extended the trial to May 13 – June 14, 2024,” Gull wrote. “Trial is now set for October 14 – November 15, 2024, as requested by the defendant.”
Defense claims on funding
Gull also responded to defense claims that the court denied reasonable requests for funding, calling them “incorrect.”
She said the court was “well aware” of the amount of money authorized for the defense. The court has asked the defense to submit proper invoices and bills for funding. Some of those invoices were returned because they lacked appropriate documentation, Gull wrote.
She described a $26,000 invoice for “investigative services” that had no documentation with it. The documentation was later submitted; the court authorized the payment on May 17.
Public confidence in the case
The defense, Gull wrote, claims that “public confidence in this case has eroded.”
Gull wrote, “As counsel should know, criminal cases are tried in a Court of law, not in the court of public opinion. An independent judiciary requires that judges decide cases according to the law and facts without regard to public clamor or fear of criticism.”
Gull noted she’d received—and sent to the state and defense—emails and messages from the public criticizing the court “both personally and professionally, and threatening the Court with bodily harm and injury” for her handling of the case.
She is aware of social media memes and said the court “cannot be swayed by inappropriate and ridiculous outside influences.”
Cameras in the courtroom
The defense alleged bias by the court in denying requests to allow cameras in the courtroom. Gull allowed cameras on Oct. 19, 2023, for a planned hearing in Allen County. On that day, Gull announced that Allen’s defense team planned to step away from the case, a dramatic turning point that resulted in a flurry of legal back-and-forth.
The judge said the media’s handling of pool coverage during the October 2023 proceedings led her to change her mind about allowing cameras in court.
“The hearing was not conducted, and the media outlet providing pool coverage did not comply with the Court’s directives regarding coverage and broadcasting of the proceedings,” Gull wrote. “The Court lost confidence in the ability of the media to cover hearings appropriately.”
Since the October hearing, Gull has denied every subsequent request for cameras in the courtroom filed on behalf of various media outlets.
Allen’s trial is scheduled to run from Oct. 15 through Nov. 15 in Carroll County. Jurors from Allen County will be brought in to decide the case.
