Latest / Murder Files Unsealed / The Haunting Case of Wade Allen

Transcript

The Haunting Case of Wade Allen · Murder Files Unsealed

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: All right, so today we're really diving into a case that's, uh, well,
• 0:05
  it's got it all.
• 0:05
  Speaker 2: Definitely one of those stories that grabs you from the
• 0:07
  get go.
• 0:08
  Speaker 1: Seriously, murder, dismemberment, you've got whispers going around in prison,
• 0:13
  even a whole legal debate about constitutional rights like buckle
• 0:16
  up right.
• 0:17
  Speaker 2: Absolutely, it's a wild right, right, and it really makes
• 0:19
  you think about those big questions, you know, that the
• 0:21
  line between getting justice and protecting individual rights. It's it's complicated, right.
• 0:26
  Speaker 1: Okay, So our main source this time around is an
• 0:29
  article from Law and Crime June of twenty twenty three.
• 0:32
  They were covering the sentencing of this guy, Wade Allen.
• 0:35
  But the real story, at least for us, is how
• 0:37
  this whole thing went down, the crime itself, but especially
• 0:40
  those constitutional questions it brings up. Ready to dig in
• 0:43
  to it? Okay, So imagine this May twenty nineteen, Sturgis,
• 0:49
  Michigan cops get this tip totally anonymous, leads them straight
• 0:54
  to Wade Allen's apartment, and what do they find. Well,
• 0:57
  let's just say it wasn't pretty.
• 0:59
  Speaker 2: Yeah, talk about an statement. But police walk into that
• 1:01
  apartment expecting what who knows? But what they find is
• 1:05
  the dismembered body of Alan's girlfriend, Kelly gen Warner. Just awful. Yeah,
• 1:09
  And to make even more chilling, she's hidden in coolers like.
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: Straight out of a horror movie. And initially, you know,
• 1:15
  Alan's story is that it was an accident, a fight,
• 1:17
  things got out of control, tragic but unintentional. That's his story, right.
• 1:21
  Speaker 2: But then things take a turn. Alan starts talking, not
• 1:24
  to the cops, though, he confesses to his cellmates. He
• 1:26
  tells them that he strangled his girlfriend.
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: So he's behind bars, maybe feeling a little too comfortable,
• 1:31
  and he spills the beans.
• 1:32
  Speaker 2: It happens more often than you'd think. But here's the thing.
• 1:35
  Confessions made in prison they're tricky from a legal standpoint.
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: How so. I mean, it's a confession.
• 1:42
  Speaker 2: Right, sure, but it's not that straightforward. Courts they have
• 1:45
  to be really careful about how much weight they give
• 1:48
  to a confession made to another inmate. Think about it.
• 1:51
  Prison's a pressure cooker. Deals get made, Threats are thrown around.
• 1:55
  People have their own agendas. You can't always be sure
• 1:58
  it's the truth.
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: Someone could confess to something they didn't actually do, just
• 2:03
  to I don't know, maybe Curry favor with other inmates
• 2:06
  or something exactly.
• 2:07
  Speaker 2: There's always that possibility of coercion or manipulation, and the
• 2:10
  courts they know that. So proving a jailhouse confession is legit,
• 2:14
  that it was given freely without any pressure, Well, it's
• 2:17
  a high bar to clear. Juries take that stuff very seriously.
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: Makes you wonder about the power dynamics at play in
• 2:24
  a place like that. But okay, so we've got this
• 2:26
  horrific murder, a confession that might be shaky ground legally speaking.
• 2:31
  And as if that wasn't enough, story's not over. Alan
• 2:35
  gets hit with another accusation. This time it's sexual assault.
• 2:39
  And guess who's accusing him The same inmate who reported
• 2:42
  that confession about the murder.
• 2:45
  Speaker 2: Yeah, you can't make this stuff up. It really highlights
• 2:47
  how volatile things can be in prison. You never know
• 2:50
  what's going to happen, and it can have a huge
• 2:52
  impact on a case.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: It's like adding fuel to the fire. Right, But before
• 2:56
  we get too far ahead of ourselves, let's rewind for
• 2:57
  a second, back to that search of Allan's apartment, those
• 3:01
  coolers where they found his girlfriend's remains. Right, turns out
• 3:04
  the police they search those coolers without a warrant. Oh okay,
• 3:09
  that seems like, I don't know, kind of a big deal,
• 3:11
  Am I wrong?
• 3:12
  Speaker 2: No, you're definitely onto something. We're talking about a pretty
• 3:14
  fundamental part of the US legal system here, the Fourth Amendment.
• 3:18
  It's all about protecting people from unreasonable searches and seizures.
• 3:22
  Your home is your sanctuary, right the cops. They can't
• 3:26
  just waltz in there without a good reason and a warrant.
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: Okay, So no warrant those coolers seems like a pretty
• 3:32
  clear violation. So does that mean Alan just walks because
• 3:35
  of a technicality.
• 3:36
  Speaker 2: Well, that's exactly what Alan's lawyers were hoping for. They
• 3:39
  argue the whole thing, the warrantless search, it was a
• 3:42
  straight up violation of his Fourth Amendment rights. Any evidence
• 3:45
  that came from that search, including his girlfriend's remains, it
• 3:48
  should all be thrown out inadmissible in court. Their argument
• 3:54
  hinged on this legal principle called the fruit of the
• 3:57
  poisonous tree.
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: Fruit of the poisonous tree. Okay, I've heard that before,
• 4:01
  but what does it actually mean in practice?
• 4:03
  Speaker 2: So basically, it means that if the way you got
• 4:06
  evidence was illegal, anything that comes from that evidence is tainted.
• 4:11
  It's like if the tree is poisoned, the fruit is
• 4:13
  also poisoned and you can't use it.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: That actually makes a lot of sense. So did the
• 4:18
  court buy it? Did they toss out the evidence?
• 4:20
  Speaker 2: And here's where things take a turn you might not expect.
• 4:23
  The Michigan Court of Appeals. They agreed that the initial search, yeah,
• 4:27
  it was warrantless. But get this, they still ruled that
• 4:31
  the evidence was admissible.
• 4:33
  Speaker 1: Wait, hold on, how is that even possible? It seems
• 4:35
  pretty open and shut, a clearer violation.
• 4:38
  Speaker 2: Right, So here's the catch. The court said that based
• 4:41
  on what the police knew at the time, the anonymous tip,
• 4:44
  Allan's behavior, all of that, they probably would have gotten
• 4:47
  a warrant if they'd asked for one. So they basically
• 4:49
  let the cops off the hook. You had gotten a
• 4:51
  warrant anyway, so no harm, no foul.
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: So because they could have gotten a warrant, it's okay
• 4:56
  that they didn't. That just seems like, I don't know,
• 4:58
  a dangerous precedent to set.
• 5:00
  Speaker 2: It's a slippery slope for sure. It raises some big
• 5:02
  questions about whether this kind of ruling weakens the Fourth Amendment.
• 5:06
  It speaks to this constant balancing act and law enforcement. Right,
• 5:10
  you want to solve crimes quickly, but not at the
• 5:12
  expense of people's rights.
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: It's finding that balance, which is tougher than it sounds.
• 5:17
  But what about that confession to his cellmate that must
• 5:21
  played a role in his conviction? Right?
• 5:23
  Speaker 2: Oh? Absolutely, jailhouse confessions they're always tricky. But the details
• 5:27
  Alan gave, and this is important, they matched up with
• 5:30
  the other evidence. It made it a lot harder for
• 5:32
  his lawyers to discredit the confession. Plus, other inmates had
• 5:36
  heard similar things from Alan, which definitely helped the prosecution's case.
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: So where does that leave us? Gruesome crime, a search
• 5:44
  that might have been illegal, a confession that's barely on
• 5:46
  the right side of the law. What does it all mean?
• 5:50
  Especially that ruling about the search.
• 5:52
  Speaker 2: That's the million dollar question, isn't it? This case, it
• 5:55
  forces us to ask some tough questions about how far
• 5:58
  is too far? Does this ruling give law enforcement too
• 6:01
  much power? Do they have too much leeway to search
• 6:05
  without getting a warrant? Are we putting a thumb on
• 6:07
  the scales of justice even if it means potentially violating
• 6:10
  someone's constitutional rights?
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: It's tough, you know, because you want justice to be served,
• 6:14
  but not if it means bending the rules that are
• 6:16
  supposed to protect everyone exactly.
• 6:19
  Speaker 2: And that's the heart of the issue here. This case
• 6:22
  really underscores the delicate balance between keeping people safe and
• 6:26
  upholding individual rights. It reminds us that the Constitution, all
• 6:30
  those amendments, they're not just words on a page. They're
• 6:33
  there to protect everyone, even someone like Wayde Allen.
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: So where do we go from here? Allen's in prison now,
• 6:38
  But what about this precedent? Does this ruling give the
• 6:41
  green light to law enforcement to just skip the warrant process.
• 6:46
  Speaker 2: It's a valid concern this case. It could definitely come
• 6:49
  up in future legal battles both sides, the defense and
• 6:52
  the prosecution. They could point to this ruling to support
• 6:54
  their arguments. It highlights how important it is to have
• 6:57
  judges who are willing to really scrutinize the researches, make
• 7:00
  sure that the Fourth Amendment isn't being ignored.
• 7:02
  Speaker 1: It's like a reminder that we can't take our rights
• 7:05
  for granted. We need to be aware of these legal precedents,
• 7:08
  these rulings, because they affect all of us.
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: I couldn't agree more. This case, as horrible as it is,
• 7:15
  it reminds us that the law is constantly changing. This
• 7:18
  is a conversation that needs to happen everywhere, not just
• 7:21
  in courtrooms, in schools, at home, online, everywhere. We have
• 7:25
  a responsibility to be informed, to be engaged.
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: Well said this deep dive into Wade Allen's case. It's
• 7:31
  been a winding road, a horrifying crime, those legal gray areas,
• 7:35
  and ultimately more questions than answers.
• 7:38
  Speaker 2: It just goes to show you the pursuit of justice
• 7:40
  it's rarely clear cut. As we work towards a safer world,
• 7:43
  we can't lose sight of the fact that those individual rights,
• 7:45
  they're the foundation of a just system.
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: Couldn't agree more. Well, that wraps up our deep dive
• 7:50
  for today, But before we go, we want to leave
• 7:52
  you with this. In a world where security and privacy
• 7:56
  are constantly bumping up against each other, how do we
• 7:59
  make sure that the pursuit of justice doesn't end up
• 8:02
  jeopardizing the very freedoms it's supposed to protect. It's something
• 8:05
  for all of us to think about.