Andrew Baldwin is Founding Partner and President of The Criminal Defense Team of Baldwin Perry & Kamish, PC, an Indiana law firm dedicated solely to defending individuals facing criminal charges. He is a board‑certified Criminal Trial Specialist, recognized by the National Board of Trial Advocacy for his exceptional trial skill and professionalism. Andrew leads a collaborative team model that ensures multiple attorneys contribute to every case, enhancing strategic thinking and courtroom advocacy. With decades of experience handling high-profile felony cases across Indiana, he is known for his aggressive, team‑driven approach to protecting clients’ rights and achieving strong outcomes.

The Delphi, Indiana, murders investigation is riddled with troubling gaps and missteps. From misrepresented witness statements to crucial evidence that was never tested and key interviews that were mysteriously lost, the case raises serious questions about transparency and accountability in the justice system. How can the truth emerge when critical evidence is missing or obscured?

Defense attorney Andrew Baldwin, an experienced trial lawyer, pulls back the curtain on these investigative failures and offers a roadmap for addressing them. Andrew underscores the need for rigorous scrutiny of search warrant affidavits and challenges the use of questionable forensic practices such as bullet-to-gun matching, which he deems “junk science.” He highlights the importance of demanding timely DNA testing on pivotal evidence like the untested hair. Andrew urges defense teams to press for thorough documentation to prevent the concealment of key expert opinions.

In this episode of Circle City Conversations, Alex Limontes sits down with Andrew Baldwin, Founding Partner of the Criminal Defense Team of Baldwin Perry & Kamish, PC, about the investigative flaws in the Delphi, Indiana, murders case. Andrew highlights the Franks Memo and its role in exposing inaccuracies, the mishandling of forensic hair evidence, and the disappearance of key interview recordings. He also delves into concerns over “junk science” in ballistics and questionable witness accounts.