Access Denied: Independent Journalist Fights for Delphi Case Transparency

By Jimmie L Clayton, Jr – Opinion/Analysis

Delphi, Ind. (March 7, 2025) – In a high-profile murder case that has gripped Indiana, an independent journalist’s fight for access to public court records is exposing a troubling rift in how our justice system treats media. Anthony Greeno – a digital investigative journalist covering the State of Indiana v. Richard Allen (the Delphi murders case) – requested public trial exhibits and court records under Indiana’s open-records law. The court’s response? A firm denial. This episode highlights a broader struggle: Are independent journalists being shut out of information that is supposed to be public? And if so, what does that mean for transparency and equal access to justice?

 Independent Journalists vs. Judicial Gatekeeping

Greeno’s saga underscores the uphill battle many independent journalists face. On January 3, 2025, he filed a formal request under Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act (APRA) for trial exhibits that had been presented in open court – including audio recordings, interrogation videos, and the infamous “Bridge Guy” video evidence from the Delphi case. Despite these materials having been aired in a public courtroom, the Carroll County Court Clerk promptly denied his request, bizarrely citing “pending appellate filings” as the reason – even though no appeal had been filed at the time.

 For freelance and digital reporters like Greeno, such roadblocks are frustratingly familiar. Indiana’s court rules and practices often favor traditional media outlets, or at least those deemed “established” by old definitions. Until recently, Indiana’s Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.17 defined “news media” in a narrow way – reporters from newspapers, radio, TV, or wire services. Independent content creators and online journalists operating outside the legacy media bubble have frequently found themselves fighting for recognition. Greeno, for example, produces true-crime documentaries and online reports; he isn’t on a big TV payroll or a major newspaper masthead. Does that make his public records request any less valid? It should not – but in practice, it often does.  

“The public has a fundamental right to transparency in the judicial system,” Greeno argued in a motion to the court, “and the Court must uphold Indiana’s public access laws by providing full disclosure unless a specific, lawful exemption applies.” In that motion – filed pro se (on his own behalf) – Greeno asked the court to recognize independent digital journalists as legitimate media and compel the release of the exhibits and records in question. Yet the very necessity of such a plea speaks volumes: in 2025, an American journalist had to beg a court for the same access that might be readily granted to a TV station or newspaper. This looks and feels like judicial gatekeeping against non-mainstream media, whether it is intended or not.

Other independent journalists share comparable stories anecdotally – being told to get “press credentials” or partner with a bigger outlet if they want information, or being flat-out ignored where a corporate newsroom might get a response. It is a modern paradox: at a time when the definition of journalism has broadened, parts of the judiciary still cling to a hierarchy that puts digital natives at the bottom. Greeno’s case has thrown a spotlight on this disparity, raising urgent questions about who gets to exercise the First Amendment “freedom of the press” in the eyes of the courts.

 Transparency on Trial: A Contradiction of Public Access Laws

Perhaps most disturbing is how the court’s denial in this case appears to contradict Indiana law and the broader principles of open justice. Indiana’s APRA is not ambiguous: “it is the public policy of the state that all persons are entitled to full and complete information regarding the affairs of government and the official acts of those who represent them,” according to Indiana Code § 5-14-3-1.

In plain language, anyone – journalist or private citizen – has the right to inspect and copy public records, unless a specific exemption in the law authorizes withholding. Court records are no exception; they are public as long as they haven’t been lawfully sealed. And if records are sealed, the law (Ind. Code § 5-14-3-5.5) requires a hearing and explicit factual findings to justify keeping them secret.

 Yet in Greeno’s case, records that were already revealed in open court (meaning whatever privacy or investigative concerns existed had been deemed surmountable during the hearing) are being kept from him after the fact. The clerk’s justification of “pending appeal” does not square with any known exemption under APRA. In effect, the court is inventing a reason to deny access, one that stands at odds with the spirit of transparency. If anything, Indiana law and American jurisprudence lean in the opposite direction: once evidence has been presented in a public proceeding, the default should be openness. The U.S. Supreme Court has long upheld the public’s right to attend criminal trials and inspect judicial records. Landmark rulings like Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia and Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court affirm that court proceedings and documents are open, absent a compelling interest to close them.

In Press-Enterprise, the Court recognized a First Amendment right for the public to access even preliminary hearing transcripts. If such principles apply, how can a video or audio exhibit broadcast to a courtroom full of people now be treated as a state secret?

 To understand the peculiarity here, recall the early phase of the Richard Allen case. When Allen (accused of the 2017 murders of teens Abby Williams and Libby German in Delphi) was first arrested, the judge sealed the probable cause affidavit and other records, citing fears that additional suspects might be involved. The media—traditional media outlets—swiftly challenged that secrecy. A consortium of news organizations intervened, and on November 22, 2022, a public hearing was held on the matter. The result? The court partially unsealed the affidavit, allowing the public to learn key details of why Allen was charged, while keeping certain info under wraps. At that hearing, the state’s argument for ongoing secrecy was to avoid tipping off any possible accomplices. Fast forward to later developments: a state police official, Lt. Jerry Holeman, testified (in a court proceeding) that he did not believe anyone else was connected to the crime. In other words, the original rationale for hiding information – the specter of unknown “bad actors” – has been debunked by the investigators themselves. If the justification for secrecy has evaporated, why is the court still refusing to release public exhibits and records? Transparency delayed is transparency denied.

Indiana’s open-records case law backs Greeno’s stance. In Knightstown Banner, LLC v. Town of Knightstown, to give one example, an Indiana court found that officials violated APRA by failing to provide requested records in a timely manner, underscoring that disclosure is mandatory unless a specific exemption applies.

 Other cases (e.g., Evansville Courier & Press v. Vanderburgh County Health Dept.) have reinforced that public agencies cannot withhold non-exempt records just because they’d prefer secrecy. These principles should apply universally – to every requester, not just big media companies. By denying Greeno’s request for exhibits that were openly presented in court, the Carroll County court is veering away from the letter and spirit of the law. It is a move that erodes public trust: if even open proceedings leave no trace accessible to the public afterwards, one must wonder what “open justice” really means in practice.

A Double Standard? Mainstream Media vs. Independent Press

Greeno’s experience also raises a blunt question: Is the judiciary protecting mainstream media’s privileges while treating independent journalists as second-class? Intentionally or not, that’s how it looks. Consider the contrasting treatment: when established news outlets with corporate lawyers at the ready pushed for unsealing records early on, they got a hearing and a favorable ruling. But when a solo digital journalist later asked for additional records, he was rebuffed with a dubious explanation and no apparent recourse. The contradiction in reasoning is glaring. If those trial exhibits were handed to, say, an Associated Press reporter or a local TV news team, would the court still claim “pending appellate filings” as a reason to withhold them? The public might never know, because in most cases the traditional media enjoy de facto access — they attend the hearings, see the evidence live, and can report on it. In fact, at least some of the exhibits Greeno seeks (like the 43-second “Bridge Guy” video recorded by one of the victims) have been described or partially released via mainstream media over the years. So why exclude an independent journalist from obtaining the full, authentic versions?

It is hard to escape the feeling that bias (conscious or not) is at work. Greeno was not asking for anything beyond what the public was already allowed to know in court. He was simply asking for the same material in usable form, to inform the public through his channels. The denial effectively says: Only certain messengers are allowed to disseminate this public information. That is a troubling stance in a Constitutional Republic. It suggests that courts may trust the established press to manage sensitive material “responsibly,” but view independent or non-traditional reporters with skepticism, as if they are not legitimate or will misbehave with the information. This paternalistic approach not only insults the many hardworking independent journalists out there but also contradicts judicial recognition that news-gathering rights are not reserved to a select few. Federal courts, for instance, have explicitly held that online bloggers and freelancers have the same First Amendment rights as any New York Times reporter. In Obsidian Finance Group v. Cox, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that the institutional press and individual bloggers are equally protected under free speech and press rights. And the First Circuit in Glik v. Cunniffe recognized the right of citizens (not just credentialed journalists) to record public officials in the course of their duties – a cornerstone for citizen journalism.

Indiana’s own public access doctrine does not limit records to big-name media. Nowhere does APRA say you must be from a mainstream outlet to get a public document.

“All persons” means all persons – including independent media and ordinary citizens. By appearing to give mainstream media a pass while boxing out Greeno, the court sets a dangerous precedent. It sends a message that transparency is a privilege for an elite class of media, not a right of the people. That runs counter to the core concept of an open judiciary. Judges and clerks should not be in the business of deciding who is a “real” journalist worthy of access. If the request is lawful and the record public, it shouldn’t matter if it comes from The Indianapolis Star, a blogger, or Jane Doe down the street. Yet the reality today is that a freelance journalist often must work much harder to be taken seriously. Greeno even had to challenge illegal fees – at one point an Indiana clerk tried to charge him $5.75 per page for court transcripts, far above the $1.00/page cap set by law. (Imagine if a local TV station got a bill like that – their attorneys would be on the phone in minutes.) These hurdles suggest a systemic tilt that favors those with institutional backing.

Demanding Equal Access and Accountability – A Call to Action

What’s at stake here is bigger than one journalist or one murder case. When independent reporters are shut out, the public loses. In an era of media consolidation and news deserts, independent and digital journalists often fill crucial gaps, covering court cases and local government issues that might otherwise get overlooked. They function as additional watchdogs – and we need as many watchdogs as possible to keep our institutions honest. If courts arbitrarily deny them access to public information, they are denying you access as well. Every citizen has a right to know what happens in our courts, especially in a case as significant as the Delphi murders trial. Transparency is not a favor to be bestowed on favored media friends; it is a fundamental obligation of the justice system to the people it serves.

The denial of Anthony Greeno’s records request should alarm anyone who cares about open government. It warrants public scrutiny and, frankly, public pushback. Indiana’s judiciary should remember that sunlight is the best disinfectant – attempting to control the flow of information only breeds mistrust and speculation. It is encouraging that Greeno is not giving up; he has formally intervened in court to assert his rights and, by extension, the public’s right to know. But he should not have to jump through such hoops for transparency that should have been a given.

 As citizens, we should demand that our courts and officials apply public access laws evenly. That means holding them accountable when they stray from APRA or treat one class of journalist differently from another. It might mean calling on Indiana’s Supreme Court or legislature to provide clearer guidance that independent media cannot be discriminated against in access to court records. It could mean simply raising our voices – writing letters, sharing stories like this, asking tough questions of those in power. The solution starts with awareness: now that you know about this issue, do not let it fade into the background.

In the Delphi case, two young girls tragically lost their lives, and the community has waited years for answers and justice. The public interest in this trial is enormous – and rightfully so. Keeping public evidence secret only fuels confusion and erodes confidence in the process. Hoosiers deserve better. All of us deserve a justice system that does not play favorites with the press but instead lives up to its promise of transparency for all. It is time to shine a light on any corner of the judiciary that prefers to keep us in the dark. In the court of public opinion, secrecy and double standards are guilty as charged.

Relevant Documents