We pick up where we left off in the arguments of the Allen briefs... Three appellate attorneys take sides and go to war over the State's Appellee Brief in Richard Allen's appeal. ⚖️🔥 🔴 Attorney Michael Ausbrook argues FOR the State. 🔵 Attorneys Ali Motta and Andrea Burkhart argue FOR Allen. 🎤 Bob Motta moderates — and nobody gets a free pass. The State says Allen waived his biggest arguments, his confessions were voluntary, and the evidence is overwhelming. 💪 The defense says Indiana convicted a man who was gravely psychotic, eating feces, and banging his head bloody in maximum-security solitary — then used the words that came out of his mouth as proof of guilt. 🚨 We break down ALL FOUR issues: 🔍 The Franks challenge to the search warrant 🧠 The voluntariness of confessions made during unprecedented pretrial solitary confinement 🚫 The SEVEN evidentiary rulings that blocked Allen's entire defense theory ⏱️ The Napue claim that the State's star corroboration witness lied about his timeline Who wins? Who loses? And what does the Reply Brief need to do to keep this appeal alive? 👀 This is the most detailed attorney breakdown of the Allen appeal anywhere on the internet. 💯 #richardallen #delphimurders #defensediaries #appellatelaw #delphitrial #richardallenappeal #bridgeguy #truecrimecommunity #criminaldefense #indianacourtofappeals 00:00:00 Bob's introduction & welcomes Panel: Ali, Andrea Burkhart & Michael Ausbrook 00:02:00 Rules of engagement & dynamics of the debate. Presenting parties 00:03:30 Debate of Issue 3 (Evidentiary issues): Bob as moderator asks alternate questions between state and defense. (5 min argument + 2 min rebuttal + 1 min approx. final responses) 01:17:00 Debate ends (officially) & the panel conversation begins. 01:34:00 Bob's question to the panel: Strongest argument that you think would sway the appellate court at oral argument? 01:49:00 Final thoughts, opinions & conclusions. Panel's goodbyes 01:59:50 Bob's thanks & goodbyes