Charges dismissed against accused Bloomington rapist as timeline questions trigger speedy trial rule

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. — Rape charges filed against a former Indiana University football player are being dismissed after defense attorneys argued the State took too long to bring the case to trial.

A judge sided with the defense attorneys while state prosecutors argued they should have had until July 8 to start the trial.

Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) grants criminal suspects the right to a speedy trial. Under this rule, the State is burdened with bringing the case to trial within 365 days from the date of arrest or charge.

Connor Delp was accused of raping two women

in Bloomington on Nov. 11, 2022. Rape charges were filed against him on May 8, 2023.

While 766 days have passed since the clock started on the speedy trial rule, delays attributed to the defense, along with other court actions, can cause the clock to “pause,” pushing back the deadline and preventing IC Rule 4(C) from triggering.

For example, Monroe County Prosecutor Erika Oliphant said the defense counsel filed a Motion to Dismiss on Aug. 8., 2023. Circuit Court Judge Valeri Haughton took 204 days to rule on this motion, ultimately denying it.

On March 11, 2024, the defense filed a motion for an appeal.

“In order to exclude the time for the interlocutory appeal process under Criminal Rule 4, the Court must order that the trial court proceedings be stayed. In this case, the proceedings were not stayed,” Oliphant said.

“In fact, a pretrial conference was held between the time when the Court granted Motion to Certify for Interlocutory Appeal and May 1, 2024, when the Indiana Court of Appeals denied the defendant’s Motion for Discretionary Interlocutory Appeal.  As a result, an additional 52 days of delay occurred that is likely not attributable to the defense by law.  Had the Court stayed proceedings during the interlocutory appeal process, it would have unequivocally preserved additional time in which to bring the case to trial.”

Oliphant argues that 308 days should be attributable to the defense for these various motions. His office argues they should have had until July 8, 2025, to bring Delp to trial before running afoul of the deadline.

The trial was scheduled to begin on June 23, which would have fallen within the allotted timeframe according to Oliphant’s assertions. But Judge Haughton disagreed, siding with the defense.

“When the State requested an opportunity to respond to the defendant’s oral motion for discharge under Criminal Rule 4, the Court deemed that a hearing was unnecessary and ordered the case dismissed with prejudice, meaning the State cannot refile or otherwise pursue the allegations made in this case,” Oliphant said.

Oliphant went on to call the proceedings a “tragic result” for the two victims, who now have to stand by and watch the case be dismissed through no fault of the case built against Delp.

“The State has been denied the opportunity to try and meet its burden,” Oliphant said.

But the prosecutor’s statement also included missteps by her office that otherwise might have prevented the case timeline from becoming questionable.

Oliphant admitted that if her office had pushed the judge to make a decision faster during the 204 days the judge spent weighing the motion to dismiss, then perhaps the discharge of the criminal charges against Delp could have been avoided.

“However, the State did not make use of Trial Rule 53.1 in this case,” Oliphant said in reference to the “lazy judge” rule. “Had the State made use of that procedure to expedite the decision on the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, this discharge might have been avoided.”

In the end, the twisted and questionable timeline led to a crystal clear ending. A dismissal that the Monroe County Prosecutor’s Office cannot refile and allegations left unanswered and undefended as the victims, defendant and investigators are no longer granted the opportunity to lay out their case in court.

Innocent or guilty, Delp walks free.