Delphi murders suspect allegedly confesses; Rapper YNW Melly’s double homicide trial — TCD Sidebar
In this episode of True Crime Daily The Sidebar Podcast
Imran Ansari joins host Joshua Ritter to break down the biggest cases making headlines across the nation. They discuss testimony alleging Scot Peterson didn’t follow training protocols in the fatal Parkland shooting, prosecutors claiming Richard Allen made jailhouse confessions regarding the Delphi slayings of two young girls, and YNW Melly’s defense attorneys calling for a mistrial.
Tweet your questions for future episodes to Joshua Ritter using the hashtag #TCDSidebar.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:00:10]
Hello and welcome to True Crime Daily's The Sidebar, taking you inside the courtrooms of high profile and notorious cases from across the country. I'm your host, Joshua Ritter. I'm a criminal defense lawyer based in Los Angeles and previously an LA County prosecutor for nearly a decade. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or at Joshuaritter.com. We are recording this on Wednesday, June 21st, 2023.
In this week's episode, a potential prosecution fiasco in the double murder trial of rapper YNW Melly. Also, the shocking jailhouse confessions allegedly made by the Delphi murder suspect, Richard Allen. But first, prosecution testimony from a sheriff's deputy who alleges that Parkland resource officer Scott Peterson didn't follow his training as his trial for negligence and perjury continues.
Today, we are joined by Imran Ansari, a former New York assistant district attorney, a trial attorney, legal analyst and host on the Law & Crime Network and a friend of the show. Imran, welcome back.
Imran Ansari:
[00:01:13]
Josh, thanks for having me again.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:01:16]
We always look forward to having you because I know you follow these cases very closely and all the work that you do, especially on Law & Crime Network. But for listeners who aren't familiar, haven't heard you before, can you tell us a little bit about your current practice?
Imran Ansari:
[00:01:29]
Sure. So I'm in a boutique firm here in New York City. I'm a former assistant district attorney with the Brooklyn district attorney's office. I was there for many years. Left as a felony assistant for private practice. Now, I'm at a firm called Aidala, Bertuna & Kamins. We are a criminal defense and civil litigation firm. And I have sort of segued into heading our civil litigation practice here at the firm. Although, you know we have a very robust criminal defense practice and I also switch over there when needed. And of course, there's the media aspect like you, Josh, I comment for various media outlets, a host on Law & Crime and try to keep viewers and listeners out there updated as to all the legal news that's out there and making the headlines.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:02:16]
I like it. You have a lot of irons in the fire and we appreciate that. So let's jump into these cases. First out of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where according to a former Florida sheriff's deputy who testified for the prosecution, Parkland School resource officer Scott Peterson did not act in compliance with his active shooter training when the school shooting took place in February of 2018.
Peterson, a former sheriff's deputy, was assigned to Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School on the day that Nikolas Cruz took the lives of 17, both students and faculty. Peterson faces counts of child neglect and culpable negligence for his alleged failure to intervene in the shooting. A former training officer of the accused testified that Peterson had undergone active shooter training in both video simulations and enactments with live participants several times prior to the February 14th shooting. Moreover, that Peterson had been trained to confront the active shooters in those situations rather than waiting for backup, adding that deputies are taught to head toward gunfire in an effort to limit civilian casualties.
The defense has alleged that Peterson could not tell which direction gunfire was coming from, causing him to retreat to a nearby building as Cruz continued his shooting on the third floor of the school. On cross-examination, Peter's defense, Peterson's defense, pardon me, highlighted that at the time of the shooting, the written policy of the sheriff's office stated that deputies may enter a building during an active shooting. Since the Parkland shooting, the policy has been updated to declare that deputies shall enter a building during an active shooting.
Peterson is being prosecuted under Florida caretaker statute, which requires that in order to find Peterson guilty of child neglect, prosecutors must demonstrate that Peterson was legally a caregiver to the students of the high school. A caregiver, under Florida law is defined as and this is a quote, a parent, adult household member or other person responsible for a child's welfare. If jurors determine that Peterson was a caregiver, they must determine whether or not Peterson made a reasonable effort to protect the children under his charge or if he failed to provide necessary care.
Last year, Nikolas Cruz pled guilty to all counts but was spared the death penalty by jurors after jurors could not unanimously agree upon the death penalty. Peterson's trial is expected to last several weeks.
All right, Imran, a lot to jump in here. And we're going to call upon both your criminal and civil expertise because there's a little bit of crossover in some of these things. But first, I just want your hot take. Do you feel that the prosecution even bringing this case is well founded or misguided?
Imran Ansari:
[00:05:02]
Yeah. So, Josh, well, I think it's wrapped up in emotion because it's a huge tragedy that occurred in that school. Of course, Nikolas Cruz being prosecuted, spared the death penalty. And of course, that also catapulted changes in the Florida legislation as to how the death penalty can be given by a jury. But here, listen, Scott Peterson had a job to do. And the prosecution is saying that he failed in doing that job woefully. And that is why we are in this situation. I think that the jury in this case are really going to be having to make a decision divorced out of emotion because of that horrible loss of life with children there.
And analyzing the action of Scott Peterson and also the mindset, what was going on through his mind, what was he confronted with and what his training entailed and whether he shirked that training along with, of course, as you mentioned, Josh, whether he was designated a caregiver, I think arguably he could be designated a caregiver in this situation. He was tasked with the ultimate caregiving and that was to provide security for those children.
Now, whether his acts rise to the level of criminality, that's ultimately something that the jury is going to have to determine. But of course, the prosecution have brought these charges and feel that way. My hot take is that the jury is going to have a tough time because it's such an emotional and tragic event. And also, they're going to have to focus on the training and the operative word of may and shall in that training handbook, in the training that Scott Peterson was given at the time of how to confront a school shooter.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:06:50]
Yeah. Yeah. I want to get back to that may and shall because I think that is important too. But I agree with you. I think this is an emotional prosecution. It's a reactionary prosecution. It's a frustrated prosecution born of frustration where people just cannot stand to see these tragedies continue to happen. And so they're starting to point the fingers at several different other people other than the shooter themselves and try to say that's where blame should lie as well.
And I think it may be a little misguided. Well, I think it's a lot misguided, if I'm being quite honest in this prosecution here. But yeah, you pointed out the idea that there has been, in fact, a change in their guidelines between this idea of may and shall. And talk to us a little bit more about that and how that distinction might be the actual sticking point that could change the things here in this case.
Imran Ansari:
[00:07:43]
Sure. I mean, it really comes down to the language, right, the operative language in that training. The word may is optional. Right. It's giving the school safety officer or the individual in that position the option of analyzing the situation and not necessarily a mandate to go in towards the shooter. Of course, if push comes to shove in the court of law, that person will have to show a reasonable basis for not confronting that threat and taking the certain actions he or she did. But the term word may is optional. It's not certain.
Shall is forceful. They've changed it to shall which really there's no ambiguity there. It's stating that a school safety officer, someone in charge of the safety of the school, making sure that these school shootings are confronted and really put to rest in a fast way, needs to go in and confront the possible shooter. I think that's going to be a real issue that the jury is going to have to focus on. And it may break the case for the prosecution and make it for the defense if they're able to show that he acted reasonably, there was no real dereliction of duty. And this is, as you say, a possible misguided prosecution, really out of frustration, out of tragedy, but not necessarily grounded in law.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:09:07]
Yeah. Yeah. And the way I think of that may, shall distinction there is to me when you're saying, in this type of a situation, an officer may enter the building, that to me is saying he's been given permission to do so if he decides to do so, meaning there won't be any repercussions for not doing so or for doing so. He may enter the building if he feels like he needs to under the circumstances, whereas shall puts an actual duty upon him, he shall do it. It's something that they are required to do in those situations. And obviously, they saw the distinction and the fact that they change the law most likely in response to this exact case to make that now an actual obligation on officers.
All of the talk that you're doing, I agree with everything that you're saying, but a lot of it sounds like the civil world, it sounds like duties of care and negligence and breaches of duty and all of that type of stuff. It doesn't sound like the criminal world that we're used to where it is we're talking about an obligation that a person had to act rather than preventing them from acting in a certain way is what we usually see in the criminal world. So I agree that there may be some liability here, something that where people can perhaps sue if they felt that he didn't behave appropriately under the circumstances, but bringing it into the criminal world just seems like a bridge too far to me.
You had mentioned something earlier and I wanted to get into it about how Florida has changed their laws in regards to the death penalty. And it was in large part in again, response to this case where the Florida legislator after Cruz was spared the death penalty, became a state with one of the lowest thresholds for the death sentence, now requiring only 8 out of 12 of the jurors to agree to the death penalty and to only exhibit one aggravating factor. What are your thoughts on this?
Imran Ansari:
[00:11:14]
Right. Well, it's indicative that there was frustration with the way the jury rendered their verdict on sentencing with the Cruz case. And here we have a loosening of the requirements for a jury to render a death penalty. How that's going to really implement, be implemented and be used, we're going to have to wait and see. Right.
This is a new standard or law on the books, but it really makes it all the more plausible that if there's going to be a murder case at the sentencing phase, it's not going to be that hard of a rigorous sell to the jury if the prosecution is seeking the death penalty. And defendants need to be all the more worried and defense counsel and the way they negotiate pleas or negotiate sentencing prior to the jury being handed that decision.
There's going to be, of course, considerations in that from inception of the case when you're thinking about a plea negotiation to the time of sentencing, if there was a conviction. There's going to be all the more consideration on the defense side of how to handle the case, because now there's going to be all the more real exposure for their client if they're charged with certain crimes to face the death penalty.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:12:35]
Yeah. I think you could really see a lot of, like you said, in the plea negotiation phase, maybe a lot of people much more inclined to accept something that might spare them this now greater chance of being sentenced to the greatest punishment we have in this country. I'm not going to even comment on whether or not I think this is a good law the way that they've changed it, only to say, I think whenever a legislation when legislators are reactionary to something, I think it's a bad idea. I just think it's a bad policy to be creating policy from a reactionary place. And I think that's what was done here. In any case, we will continue to watch that case. It's going to continue for expected a couple of more weeks.
Let's turn to Delphi, Indiana, where a trial date has been set for murder suspect Richard Allen. Allen has been charged with the slayings of Abby Williams and Libby German on a remote hiking trail near Delphi, Indiana. And a recent court appearance, prosecutors and Allen's defense sparred over statements allegedly made by the defendant since his incarceration. Prosecutors claim that Allen confessed to the murders five or six times since his arrest. Allen's defense has argued that the statements made by Allen cannot be trusted due to his deteriorating mental state.
The suspect was arrested for the murders in late 2022 with an unsealed affidavit revealing that an unspent round found near the girls' bodies at the crime scene were a forensic match for a firearm owned by Allen. A judge is set to rule on several motions to suppress evidence filed by Allen's defense before the beginning of the trial, which is currently slated for January 8th, 2024.
Let's first, Imran, talk about this concept of so-called jailhouse confessions. I want to know, first of all, if you have any experience with them, how reliable do you feel that they are? And most importantly, if the judge does allow these confessions that he allegedly made while being in custody into the trial, what kind of effect do you think they could have on the jury?
Imran Ansari:
[00:14:48]
Sure. So first, it's a fact and individual specific inquiry as to whether a jailhouse confession is going to be reliable. But typically, many times they're not so reliable. Often, a jailhouse confession isn't coming from the defendant themselves, but maybe a cellmate who is now turning state's witness and giving some information to the prosecution. That lends itself to a big question why are they doing so?
And that also gives defense counsel the ability to dig into that and find out if there's some sort of bias or motive for that cellmate or someone in prison to come forward with that confession, alleged confession for another inmate. When it is from the inmate themselves, it really lends you some pause. Here, particularly so, Josh, because we're getting reports that his mental state and his physical state is not the best. So you have to question why he is now confessing as the prosecution is putting it in prison. Is this a confession which is grounded in a sound mind, or is there some incompetence going on here mentally where he is not reliably confessing.
If the judge lets it in, despite the defense's anticipated vigorous opposition, I think it's going to have a lot of negative consequences for all the obvious reasons. Especially if they're able to get in multiple confessions from the defendant before the jury, it may be an open shut case if they're able to get that in. I think we're going to see that really highly litigated between the defense and the prosecution.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:16:29]
Yeah, absolutely. I think that will be the entire case. I mean, they'll connect it through some, we're going to talk about some of the forensics and some other witnesses I'm sure they're going to have lined up. But if there's a confession and that's admissible, I think that's the entire case there for the prosecution. You may remember this. I remember this when I was in the DA's office that you would get a handoff from someone. They'd be explaining to you what the evidence is. We've got some video surveillance. We've got some fingerprints that were found on scene. And he confessed when he was interviewed by. I don't need to hear anything more.
Once I've heard there was a confession on tape, I'm done because the rest of the stuff is kind of window dressing. Because when jurors hear from the mouth of the accused saying, I did it, it really is the most convincing thing. And I think it's a natural consequence. But if you're ever crossed paths with someone who's given a false confession, it's really hard to get jurors to understand that concept. So we'll see what happens in this case, what the judge ends up doing. But I wanted to talk -- go ahead, please.
Imran Ansari:
[00:17:37]
And Josh, when I was an ADA in Brooklyn, we would ride cases, meaning there was often times I would get a call at 3 a.m. and it would be a detective from some precinct in Brooklyn and there would be a serious crime and they would have a suspect under arrest, and we would come down and we would go ride the case with the NYPD.
And often, that would entail me getting the defendant on video, mirandizing that defendant after he had already been mirandized by the NYPD and eliciting through slow questioning a potential confession. And that would happen more often than you would ever would imagine because someone's in a position and if you confront them with pretty solid evidence, they tend to think that if they just admit it, it somehow going to help them down the line. We would make no promises, of course. But human nature, when confronted with some damning evidence, you're going to start talking. But that would be a confession on tape.
And usually, I'd go back to the DA's office the next day and write up the case. And as soon as I wrote admission or mirandized, and then I would sum up the statement, we would be in all the more powerful position to prosecute that defendant. And often it wouldn't go to trial because they would be taking a plea in light of that confession. So often you need corroboration of confession to make sure that it's a reliable confession. But like you say, Josh, if this confession comes in to trial before that jury, it's going to be a very hard case to defend.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:19:12]
Yeah, 100 percent. Just for listener's understanding, there is a rule in California, at least we call it the corpus cop out rule, where you can't just confess to something without some evidence connecting you to the crime otherwise. So as long as there's some and it doesn't have to be much, but as long as there's some other corroborating evidence, a fingerprint or eye witness, somebody else who can tie you to that crime, and you go ahead and confess to everything else and fill in all the missing pieces, that's enough. But there is a protection, at least against somebody confessing to something they have no knowledge about in us and bringing that person, actually convicting that person for a crime that they likely did not have any connection to.
So in this case, kind of tying it all in, there is some evidence that connects him to this crime that I wanted to discuss with you, because I also find it to be interesting. And putting aside his confession, this is something that will likely come in. But we are learning that one of the central pieces is what's been described in the affidavit as an unspent 40 caliber round between the bodies of victim one and victim two, which was forensically determined to have been cycled through Richard Allen's Sig Sauer model P226.
Okay. What we're talking about here is that ammunition is generally made of very soft materials like brass and copper and lead and firearms. The actual gun, the weapon is made of much harder metals and that when a round is cycled through, not even fired but just cycled through the harder metal of the weapon can leave scratches and other markings on that unspent round that then can be forensically matched to that weapon. And people think about it as being almost a fingerprint of the weapon.
But I wanted to open this up to you to ask, have you ever dealt with this in your career? And then how reliable is it? Are we talking about the kind of reliability like DNA and fingerprints, or is it something different?
Imran Ansari:
[00:21:21]
Yeah. Josh, this particular evidence itself has been attacked in other trials as to the reliability and the admissibility ultimately of whether this is going to connect a certain round to a certain firearm. I think we saw this brought up in the Murdaugh trial, similar arguments and evidence. I haven't seen it personally in a case myself where it's being used to as evidence to connect the defendant with a certain crime, but you see it now emerging and that reliability is being attacked by defense counsel.
And once you attack the reliability, you try to keep that out from the jury. It could be effective. Especially here, as we were saying, Josh, it could be one of the few pieces of evidence to connect him other than his confession. So if you're able to successfully keep that out and then also keep out the confession, the defense is all the more stronger and the prosecution has even more of a uphill battle to deal with, particularly in this case.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:22:26]
Yeah. Yeah. It is certainly a field of forensics that's under a lot of scrutiny by the defense. And I have dealt with it when I was a prosecutor. And the way that it was explained to me is, no, this is not like DNA. This is not even like fingerprints. What it really is, is it can help you determine that you cannot rule out a gun. It's more often used successfully to say this weapon could not have been the weapon that was used to fire this round because this weapon leaves very distinctly different markings.
But even when you have a weapon that through testing, can produce a round similar to the round that they have that they're trying to use as a -- that there is -- is there evidence, you can't really use the terms match, but you can say that it does seem to be consistent with having been fired out of that weapon. And I know I'm getting really technical, and in the weeds here, but it really is more of a tool of eliminating possible weapons rather than actually like we do in DNA saying this is the weapon used. You follow me on that?
Imran Ansari:
[00:23:40]
Yeah. No, absolutely. And that's -- but we've seen it come into trial. So I think precedent wise, you will see it being admitted into evidence, at least for the sake of not excluding a potential weapon. Right. So we'll see, unless there's a successful attack and on debunking this in a very solid way, I think we're going to still see it coming into trial and being used by the prosecution.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:24:07]
I completely agree. The judge will likely say it's admissible and that goes towards its weight, not admissibility. And we'll see that trial. Finally, let's turn to Fort Lauderdale, Florida, where rapper YNW Melly's defense demanded a mistrial last week after what they described as a prejudicial fiasco in the artist's ongoing murder trial. Melly born Jamell Demons, faces two counts of murder for the 2018 shootings of deaths of Chris Thomas and Anthony Williams. Both victims were friends of the defendant and fellow members of the YNW Collective.
The defense's motion for a mistrial occurred following the testimony of Felicia Holmes, the mother of YNW Melly's ex-girlfriend. Melly's defense argued that prosecutors deliberately put Holmes on the stand to taint the jury and questioned the witness in a way that prejudiced their client, including questions which referenced inadmissible evidence. The judge ultimately denied the defense's motion for a mistrial, and Melly's trial resumed this week with the 24-year-old rapper facing the possibility of the death penalty if convicted. All right, Imran, dive right in. Do you think the judge got it right in this case? How -- was this a case where you might think you would see a mistrial declared?
Imran Ansari:
[00:25:32]
I think the judge ruled in the right. But if there is a conviction down the line, we definitely have a robust record by the defense here that they could fall back on. And we've seen this in the YNW Melly trial with the defense really going out there with various aspects of the evidence and the testimony coming in, putting forth a pretty strong record. And you could tell that they are definitely shoring up all the appellate issues if there needs to be an appeal, if there's a conviction.
I think in terms of ruling on the mistrial, this judge got it right, but did signal that there may be some issues to deal with. And also, I think, signaled to the defense that you should be careful what you ask for. Right. And what I mean by that, Josh, is that if you as a defense attorney request a mistrial, it doesn't mean that your client is going home and getting off and it's done, the case is done. No, it's just going to press a reset button on the trial.
And even though you see something unfolding at trial, evidence, testimony that may lend itself to a plausible argument for a mistrial, step back and think, is the trial going my way or my client's way, I should say? And you don't necessarily want to hit that panic button and ask for the mistrial if you're in a good position at trial because then you may reset everything. And what's the prosecution going to do? They're going to learn from their mistakes. They're going to come back and they're not going to make the same mistakes on the retrial.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:27:11]
Yeah. No, I agree with you. And I'm smiling because that was one of the things I was going to get into with you is the judge really pressed on the defense before he made his ruling on does your client understand the consequences of this? And I think that being if I go ahead and grant this, like you said, the prosecution gets a do over and they might be able to clean up a lot of some of the mistakes that some people, myself and perhaps you as well, have been critical of some of the decisions and some of the ways that the prosecution has handled this case. And maybe the defense feels like they're in a good spot right now and don't want to start over and give them an opportunity to clean that all up.
But getting back to this idea of just kind of mistrials in general, what judges -- this is a very difficult burden and oftentimes these things are denied. And what the judges often do is they rely on what they call a curative instruction, meaning they're just going to tell the jurors, the prosecution asked an inappropriate question, or the questions asked by all of the attorneys are not evidence themselves. Only the answers are evidence. And we've all heard these things. But do you think these things really work in the minds of jurors? Can that bell truly be unrung in certain situations?
Imran Ansari:
[00:28:33]
Or Josh, I mean you just use the phrase that we attorneys, we trial attorneys, always use. You can't unring the bell. And a curative instruction only goes so far. And I think that's where the judge really needs to make the decision when faced with a request for a mistrial. Will a curative instruction undo the harm that's already been out maybe possibly inflicted with the jury being tainted or not? Or is a mistrial to sort of pressing the self-destruct button on a trial, the necessary measure to take?
I think, Josh, we actually use these skills and these strategies as trial attorneys. We sometimes know that maybe a question is going to get objected to and sustained. We sometimes put something out there or say something which we know will raise an objection from the other side. We may even get a slap from the judge, but we're going to ring that bell and we may do it subtly because we know that the jury is going to ideally grasp it. And even though it may get stricken from the record, you can't unring the bell.
And many times, as trial attorneys, you sort of dance that dance and you toed the fine line and using those strategies. But the judge really needs to make the decision because if a curative instruction is going to undo the harm, so to say, if it can be undone, then that's the more conservative route rather than a mistrial. And I think as you state, Josh, it's really a hard burden to meet in order to convince a judge to declare a trial a mistrial. And it's often not done by the judge.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:30:15]
Yeah. I'm trying to even remember now of when I've seen a judge declare a mistrial in the middle of a trial. I mean, they'll declare a mistrial when you have a hung jury. But for them to declare it in the middle of the proceedings, nothing even comes to my mind because like you said, it's really just has to be something so disastrous that the judge feels there's no way to cure this and that we have to stop and start over.
And there's a lot more that goes into just starting over because it may have been difficult to get these witnesses to come in the first time around and everybody's ramped up and ready for trial and now you've got to start all over. So I was not shocked by the judge's decision. But it is interesting to know that there's more strategy being played here than might meet the eye when you first see the arguments in court. But this case will continue on for a week or so more. And we'll keep an eye on it, see how it turns out. But in the meantime, that is our show for this week. Imran, thank you so much. Where can people find out more about you?
Imran Ansari:
[00:31:16]
So, Josh, they could go to my Instagram or my social media handle Twitter. It's @ImranAnsariESQ. So @ImranAnsariESQ. They could go to my law firm's web page, which is www.aidalalaw, A-I-D-A-L-A, law, L-A-W.com and could reach out to me that way.
Joshua Ritter:
[00:31:41]
Fantastic. And I'm your host, Josh Ritter. You can find me on Instagram and Twitter at @JoshuaRitterESQ or check out Joshuaritter.com. You can find our podcast wherever you get your podcasts. And we want to hear from you. If you've got questions or concerns you'd like us to address, tweet us your questions with the hashtag #TCDSidebar. And thank you for joining us at The True Crime Daily Sidebar.
