Oct 2, 2026 · 1 hr 23 min · 19 segments
Richard Allen was back in court again, this time claiming his conviction should be overturned. We discuss the argument, some surprises, and what the law says should happen next. Check out more about…
So as always happens, you know, you have a set amount of time for each party.
In this case, they had 30 minutes each.
The defense attorney, the, the appellant attorney in this case, he reserves 10 minutes for rebuttal.
He's gonna end up getting more time than you typically get just because when you have a case like this, hot bench, lots of questions, it goes a little long.
So because Allen is the appellant, obviously he was convicted, he is appealing, he goes first to lay out his case.
So his guy stands up and says, "This is unprecedented, unfair, and unconstitutional." That's how he starts it off.
You know, pretty strong beginning.
Belligerent.
Really dives in.
Yep.
And he talks about the solitary confinement stuff and how it drove Allen insane, and that then the state used that confinement and used his insanity to procure statements that they then used against him.
So that's sort of his leadoff attack.
It's interesting because as I recall, the solitary confinement stuff, the statement stuff, was actually issue two in their brief.
They started with the Franks motion stuff.
Franks motion, we told you the Franks motion was an absolute waste of time argument, and guess what? There was one question asked about it, and it was asked by the judge who most clearly is on the state's side, which [laughs] I thought was interesting.
Hardly discussed at all.
Most of this is going to be about the confessions.
Now, the first question the court asks, it's asked by the chief judge.
I'm gonna call her Vatik.
I don't know.
They just called her Judge.
I don't know what her name is.
Sorry, Chief Judge [laughs] if that's not how you pronounce your name.
So as always happens, you know, you have a set amount of time for each party.
In this case, they had 30 minutes each.
The defense attorney, the, the appellant attorney in this case, he reserves 10 minutes for rebuttal.
He's gonna end up getting more time than you typically get just because when you have a case like this, hot bench, lots of questions, it goes a little long.
So because Allen is the appellant, obviously he was convicted, he is appealing, he goes first to lay out his case.
So his guy stands up and says, "This is unprecedented, unfair, and unconstitutional." That's how he starts it off.
You know, pretty strong beginning.
Belligerent.
Really dives in.
Yep.
And he talks about the solitary confinement stuff and how it drove Allen insane, and that then the state used that confinement and used his insanity to procure statements that they then used against him.
So that's sort of his leadoff attack.
It's interesting because as I recall, the solitary confinement stuff, the statement stuff, was actually issue two in their brief.
They started with the Franks motion stuff.
Franks motion, we told you the Franks motion was an absolute waste of time argument, and guess what? There was one question asked about it, and it was asked by the judge who most clearly is on the state's side, which [laughs] I thought was interesting.
Hardly discussed at all.
Most of this is going to be about the confessions.
Now, the first question the court asks, it's asked by the chief judge.
I'm gonna call her Vatik.
I don't know.
They just called her Judge.
I don't know what her name is.
Sorry, Chief Judge [laughs] if that's not how you pronounce your name.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.