Judge rules Delphi composite sketches aren’t admissible

UPDATE: During Friday’s proceedings, Judge Fran Gull ruled that the sketches aren’t admissible in court.

The state filed a motion this week seeking to prohibit the use of the two widely circulated sketches from the early years of the investigation.

The defense responded in a filing Friday saying the sketches were “highly relevant” and should be admitted as evidence.

Previous story:

CARROLL COUNTY, Ind. — With opening statements set to start Friday in the Delphi murders trial, attorneys for Richard Allen laid out their argument for why widely circulated composite sketched should be admitted as evidence.

Earlier this week, Carroll County Prosecutor Nick McLeland filed a motion in limine asking the court to prohibit the use of composite sketches during the trial of Richard Allen.

The sketches, released in 2017 and 2019, have been part of the Delphi murders investigation for years. Indiana State released them in hopes of generating leads about the deaths of Abby Williams and Libby German near the Monon High Bridge in February 2017.

It took more than five years for police to make an arrest in the case. In October 2022, Richard Allen was taken into custody. He’s now charged with four counts of murder in connection with the girls’ deaths. His trial begins this week.

McLeland argued the sketches were not used to identify Richard Allen and said using them during the trial could confuse or prejudice the jury.

Attorneys discussed the motion during a hearing in Allen County on Thursday. Judge Fran Gull took it under advisory and has yet to rule.

In the response to the state’s motion in limine, defense attorney Jennifer Auger countered many of the state’s arguments. She wrote that the sketches are “images of individuals the witnesses saw on the bridge prior to the victim’s disappearance and on C.R. 300 N. after the murders.”

She also pointed out that the sketches are “highly relevant” because they “do not resemble Richard Allen.”

“Evidence which tends to show that someone else committed the crime logically makes it less probable that the defendant committed the crime, and thus meets the definition of relevance,” Auger wrote.

The state argued that the sketches were produced as part of the investigation for the purposes of recognition, not identification, of a suspect.

“However, if a sketch is used to recognize a suspect, and that sketch does not resemble the accused, this is highly relevant and implicates Mr. Allen’s right to confront and cross examine witnesses under the 5th Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13(a) of the Indiana Constitution to meet every witness against him face to face,” Auger wrote.

She said composite sketches have been admitted as evidence in past cases and asked the court to deny the state’s motion.

For the latest news, weather, sports, and streaming video, head to WANE 15.