The man accused of killing two Delphi, Indiana, teenagers back in 2017 has lost his latest bid to remove the trial judge from his case.

Attorneys for Richard Allen, 51, had attempted for a second time to get Special Judge Fran Gull removed from Allen’s upcoming trial, citing bias against the defense. Their latest attempt argued that Gull had violated court policies by failing to rule on two defense motions within the 30-day time frame, the Journal & Courier reported.

The attorneys argued that due to Gull’s lack of a ruling, the case must be withdrawn from her, and a new special judge must be appointed by the Indiana Supreme Court. Justin Forkner, chief administrative officer of the Indiana Supreme Court, disagreed.

“However, Mr. Allen is mistaken, and the matter should not be removed from the trial court,” Forkner ruled on Friday.

Forkner argued that Allen’s attorneys should have filed to remove Gull shortly after the 30-day deadline passed, not several months later, though nothing in the cited Indiana Trial Rule 53.1 suggests such a deadline.

In March and April, Allen’s attorneys filed motions seeking hearings to allow the defense to present evidence that law enforcement made false statements in its affidavit that resulted in Allen’s arrest in October 2022.

The refusal to remove the judge is the latest drama in an already contentious legal case. Allen is charged with the kidnapping and murder of 13-year-old Abby Williams and 14-year-old Libby German on a hiking trail in 2017.

In May, Judge Gull refused to hold Allen’s defense attorneys, Andrew Baldwin and Bradley Rozzi, in contempt following allegations from Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland. Gull did, however, call the defense attorneys “incompetent” during her ruling.

Gull said that McLeland “proved by a preponderance of the evidence that defense counsel was sloppy, negligent and incompetent in their handling of discovery material.” However, she added that the prosecutor failed to prove “beyond a reasonable doubt” that the attorneys were “willful and intentional” in their actions.

But she also agreed with defense attorneys that McLeland failed to show they should be held in contempt because they violated a gag order. McLeland’s evidence of this was a statement the attorneys made before the gag order was put in place.

Judge Gull also previously forced Allen’s defense attorneys to withdraw by threatening to harm their reputations in open court. The attorneys withdrew but filed a petition to represent Allen pro bono. Judge Gull then barred them from representing Allen in any capacity.

The transcript, first obtained by WTHR, shows that the judge planned to remove the two attorneys before she publicly announced their withdrawal.

At the meeting, which included McLeland, the group discussed a leak of documents from Baldwin’s office, but Judge Gull stated that was not the only reason she wanted the attorneys removed from representing Allen. Gull said the attorneys “potentially” violated the Rules of Professional Responsibility. She told Baldwin he was “grossly negligent” for sending a sensitive email to a “Brad” who was not Rozzi, and questioned whether the two attorneys had fully cooperated with a gag order she had filed. She also said she had evidence the attorneys “left materials all over a conference-room table, accessible to anyone.”

The defense attorneys have also tried to have Judge Gull removed previously, to no avail. Prior to this trial, the defense attorneys had not been accused of incompetence or contempt.