Site icon 20/20 Tonight

“The Home Alone”: 20/20 Reports on Allison Feldman Homicide October 2 2026

Ryan Gill

ABC’s 20/20 presents “Home Alone” on Friday, October 2, 2026, at 9/8c, examining the murder of Allison Feldman, the Scottsdale, Arizona, woman whose death remained unsolved for three years before a new use of DNA technology gave investigators the lead they had spent years seeking.

The episode follows a case that grew from a murder investigation with no clear suspect into a major test of familial DNA evidence and Fourth Amendment law. Ian Mitcham was arrested in 2018, but another eight years passed before a jury convicted him of first-degree murder, sexual assault and burglary in April 2026. His case then entered a contested penalty phase when jurors could not agree on whether he should receive the death penalty.

Who Was Allison Feldman?

Allison Michelle Feldman was 31 years old when she was killed in February 2015. Born and raised in Minnesota, Feldman moved to Arizona for college and attended the University of Arizona, where she studied Spanish and communications. She remained in Arizona after graduation and established a career in medical sales.

Feldman worked for Swedish medical-products company Mölnlycke, selling products used by hospitals and medical professionals. Her work included products for burn and surgical patients, and she had been promoted to a position serving trauma centers across several states. Family members later described a woman who took her responsibilities to patients and medical staff seriously, including responding when hospitals needed assistance outside normal working hours.

Her connection to burn care extended beyond her job. Feldman volunteered with the Arizona Burn Foundation’s Camp Courage, a program for children who had suffered burn injuries. Her name was later placed on the camp’s Wall of Champions in recognition of her work.

Feldman also maintained close ties with her family and friends. That pattern of regular communication became important on February 18, 2015, when her family realized they had not heard from her and could not reach her by telephone.

Allison Feldman Disappears From Contact

Investigators determined that Feldman had returned to her Scottsdale home after a shopping trip at about 9 p.m. on February 17, 2015. A neighbor later reported hearing a scream from the direction of Feldman’s home at about 9:30 p.m.

By the following day, concern was growing. Feldman had stopped answering calls and her phone was turned off. Her father, Harley Feldman, later explained that this was unusual because his daughter worked in sales and relied on her phone as part of her job.

Feldman’s boyfriend went to her home to check on her. The front door was locked, so he entered with a spare key. Once inside, he encountered a strong smell of chlorine or bleach.

He then found Feldman’s body in a hallway.

The Crime Scene Inside Feldman’s Scottsdale Home

The scene confronted investigators with evidence of a violent struggle. Feldman was found without clothing and had suffered extensive injuries. Authorities determined that she had been beaten, strangled and sexually assaulted.

An autopsy concluded that Feldman died from blunt-force trauma to the head combined with asphyxia caused by strangulation. Court records also described a sexual assault involving a bottle.

Evidence of a struggle extended through the home. Broken objects were found inside, while blood was discovered in areas that included the kitchen and pool. Detectives concluded that the assault was not confined to one location.

There was another feature of the scene that presented investigators with a major problem. Bleach or another chlorine-based substance had been used on Feldman and around the home. Police believed the killer had attempted to remove or destroy evidence.

Detectives spent days processing the residence and collected hundreds of pieces of evidence. Despite the effort to clean the scene, investigators recovered biological material that would become the foundation of the case years later.

Police Had No Clear Connection Between Feldman and Her Killer

Investigators faced a central question: Who would want to kill Allison Feldman?

There was no clear answer. Detectives examined Feldman’s relationships, activities and movements while attempting to identify anyone who might have had a reason to attack her. They considered more than 100 potential suspects and persons of interest during the investigation.

No established relationship between Feldman and the man who would later be convicted of killing her was identified. The absence of a known connection complicated the investigation because detectives could not narrow the case through the type of relationship-based motive common in many homicide investigations.

The apparent removal of property also became part of the prosecution’s eventual reconstruction of the crime. Prosecutors said Feldman’s jewelry, wallet, phone, house key and a large amount of cash were taken from the residence.

Police developed a DNA profile from evidence recovered at the crime scene, but conventional database searches failed to identify its source. The profile did not produce the direct match investigators needed.

The Allison Feldman Murder Becomes a Cold Case

Authorities continued seeking information from the public. A $1,000 reward was announced in April 2015 and later increased to $10,000 as investigators searched for information capable of identifying Feldman’s killer.

Months became years. On the second anniversary of Feldman’s death in February 2017, the homicide remained unsolved. By February 2018, Scottsdale police were still investigating and described the case as one of the most difficult they had encountered.

The existence of an unidentified DNA profile offered investigators evidence that could identify the killer, but only if they could connect that profile to a person. A conventional database search required a direct match.

The next development came from a different approach: instead of searching only for the person whose DNA was found at the scene, investigators would search for someone genetically related to him.

Familial DNA Gives Investigators a New Lead

Familial DNA searching examines whether an unknown crime-scene DNA profile may belong to a close relative of someone whose DNA is already contained in a law-enforcement database.

A parent, child or sibling does not have an identical DNA profile, but close relatives share enough genetic characteristics that specialists can identify profiles that warrant further investigation. The result does not establish that a relative committed a crime. It gives detectives a family line to investigate.

At the time, familial searching remained limited in the United States. Arizona authorities developed procedures that allowed the technique to be used, and Feldman’s unsolved murder became the state’s key test case.

The search produced what investigators had been waiting for.

The unknown DNA from Feldman’s crime scene showed a familial relationship to Mark Mitcham, a man already incarcerated for a sexual offense. Investigators now had a family rather than an unknown offender.

Investigators Focus on Ian Mitcham

Detectives examined Mark Mitcham’s immediate male relatives. His father was dead, while investigators considered his brothers as possible sources of the crime-scene DNA.

Attention turned to his younger brother, Ian Mitcham, who lived in the Phoenix area. Mitcham had previous misdemeanor arrests and had been arrested for DUI in 2015.

That DUI became important because authorities still possessed a blood sample collected from Mitcham in connection with the case.

Investigators tested the retained blood. Unlike the familial search that had pointed police toward the Mitcham family, the result from Ian Mitcham’s blood was a direct DNA match to the profile developed from evidence at Feldman’s home.

Police arrested 42-year-old Ian Mitcham on April 10, 2018, more than three years after Feldman was killed. He denied involvement.

The investigation was described as the first Arizona murder case solved through familial DNA searching.

A Breakthrough Creates a New Legal Battle

The same blood sample that strengthened the case against Mitcham created a constitutional dispute that would delay the prosecution for years.

When Mitcham was arrested for DUI in 2015, two blood vials had been collected. One was used in the DUI investigation. The second was available for independent testing and, according to the notice Mitcham signed, was supposed to be destroyed after 90 days if no testing request was made.

It was not destroyed.

The vial remained in police custody. After familial searching made Mitcham a suspect in Feldman’s murder, investigators used the stored blood to develop his DNA profile without first obtaining a search warrant.

Police later obtained a warrant for a buccal swab from Mitcham, and that sample also matched the crime-scene DNA. The defense challenged the earlier testing of the retained blood and argued that evidence flowing from the warrantless search should be excluded.

A Judge Throws Out the DNA Evidence

In January 2023, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Roy C. Whitehead agreed with the defense and excluded the disputed DNA evidence.

The judge concluded that Mitcham had consented to blood testing for purposes connected to his DUI investigation, not to DNA profiling for an unrelated murder investigation years later. Testing the blood for DNA therefore exceeded the scope of the consent Mitcham had provided.

The court also concluded that Mitcham retained a reasonable expectation of privacy in his blood and that investigators needed a warrant before conducting the DNA analysis.

For prosecutors, the ruling threatened evidence at the center of the case. They appealed.

In August 2023, the Arizona Court of Appeals reversed the lower court ruling, allowing the evidence back into the case. The dispute then moved to the Arizona Supreme Court.

Arizona’s Supreme Court Rules the Search Violated the Fourth Amendment

The Arizona Supreme Court reached a more complicated conclusion in December 2024.

The court determined that police had violated Mitcham’s Fourth Amendment rights when they created a DNA profile from the retained blood without a warrant. The testing constituted a search, and the warrantless search was unreasonable.

That finding did not mean the DNA evidence had to be excluded.

The court applied the inevitable discovery doctrine, an exception that can permit evidence obtained through an unlawful search when prosecutors establish that the evidence would have been obtained through an independent lawful process.

The circumstances had changed during the years of litigation. Mitcham had received unrelated felony convictions that required him to provide a DNA sample for Arizona’s offender database. The Arizona Supreme Court concluded that authorities would have obtained his DNA profile through that process even without the unlawful testing of the DUI blood.

As a result, the DNA evidence remained admissible.

Mitcham sought review from the U.S. Supreme Court. In April 2025, the Supreme Court declined to hear the case, leaving the Arizona ruling in place and clearing another obstacle to trial.

Ian Mitcham Goes on Trial for Allison Feldman’s Murder

Jury selection began in October 2025, more than seven years after Mitcham’s arrest and more than a decade after Feldman’s death. Opening statements followed in November.

The trial became a lengthy proceeding spanning several months. Jurors heard testimony from witnesses including Feldman’s father and boyfriend and examined the forensic and circumstantial evidence assembled by investigators.

Prosecutors presented the DNA evidence as a central link between Mitcham and the crime scene. Their case also included witness testimony, financial records and evidence concerning Mitcham’s vehicle.

The state argued that Mitcham entered Feldman’s home, sexually assaulted and killed her, stole property and attempted to destroy evidence with bleach.

One question remained unanswered: why Feldman?

Authorities never established a motive or a known relationship between Mitcham and Feldman.

The Defense Says Police Arrested the Wrong Man

Mitcham maintained his innocence, and his attorneys argued that DNA alone did not establish the prosecution’s version of events.

The defense challenged the police investigation and maintained that detectives had failed to pursue other possibilities. Attorneys sought to focus attention on another man who had lived near Feldman, arguing that investigators had settled on Mitcham after receiving the DNA result.

Scottsdale police maintained that they had no evidence connecting that third party to Feldman’s murder.

The defense also emphasized the absence of an established relationship between Mitcham and Feldman. Prosecutors countered that a personal connection was not required to establish guilt and argued that the physical and circumstantial evidence identified Mitcham as the person responsible.

Closing arguments began on April 6, 2026. The case went to the jury the following day.

Ian Mitcham Is Found Guilty

On April 9, 2026, after a trial that had stretched across almost five months, jurors returned their verdicts.

Ian Mitcham was found guilty of first-degree murder, sexual assault and second-degree burglary.

The verdict came more than 11 years after Feldman was killed and almost eight years after Mitcham was arrested.

For Feldman’s family and friends, the verdict marked the end of the question of criminal guilt but not the end of the court proceedings. Arizona prosecutors had elected to seek the death penalty, requiring the same jury to consider additional questions before deciding punishment for the murder.

Feldman’s father, Harley, had followed the case through the years of investigation, DNA litigation and trial. He was present when the verdict was returned.

Less than three weeks later, on April 29, 2026, Harley Feldman died. He had lived long enough to see the jury convict the man accused of killing his daughter, but he did not live to see the final sentence imposed for her murder.

The Death Penalty Phase Begins

The penalty proceedings began on April 15, 2026.

Before jurors could consider death as a possible punishment, prosecutors were required to establish statutory aggravating circumstances. The jury found two: Mitcham had a previous serious-offense conviction, and Feldman’s murder had been committed in a cruel manner.

Those findings made Mitcham eligible for the death penalty.

The case then proceeded through evidence and arguments concerning punishment. Prosecutors sought a death sentence, while the defense presented its case against imposing capital punishment.

Jurors began deliberating in May.

Then the penalty proceedings encountered another problem.

Juror Misconduct Leads to a Penalty-Phase Mistrial

During deliberations, the court learned that a juror had received outside information from her boyfriend concerning life in prison and had conducted research of her own.

Jurors are required to decide cases only from evidence admitted in court and the legal instructions provided by the judge. Independent research and outside discussions can expose jurors to information that neither side has had an opportunity to challenge.

The juror was removed and replaced with an alternate. The reconstituted jury resumed deliberations.

The panel still could not reach the unanimous decision required to impose the death penalty.

On May 27, 2026, the jury remained deadlocked. The court declared a mistrial in the penalty phase of Mitcham’s first-degree murder case.

The mistrial did not disturb his convictions. Mitcham remained guilty of murdering, sexually assaulting and burglarizing Feldman. What remained unresolved was his punishment for the murder.

Mitcham Is Sentenced for Sexual Assault and Burglary

The court could proceed with sentencing on the non-murder convictions.

On May 28, 2026, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Sunita A. Cairo sentenced Mitcham to 3½ years in prison for burglary followed by seven years for sexual assault, for a combined 10½-year term on those offenses.

Mitcham received credit for 2,328 days already served and was ordered to register as a sex offender.

Those sentences were separate from the punishment still to be determined for first-degree murder.

The unresolved murder sentence left prosecutors with a decision: abandon another attempt to secure the death penalty and resolve the case with a life sentence, reach an agreement with the defense, or present the penalty case to another jury.

Prosecutors Decide to Seek the Death Penalty Again

On June 18, 2026, Maricopa County Attorney Rachel Mitchell announced that prosecutors would pursue a second penalty trial and would again seek the death penalty.

A new jury would be asked to decide the punishment for Mitcham’s first-degree murder conviction.

Under Arizona law governing the case, another jury deadlock would have major consequences. If a second sentencing jury also failed to reach the required decision on the death penalty, Mitcham would no longer face execution and would receive a life sentence.

As of the period covered by 20/20: Home Alone, a date for the second penalty proceeding had not been set. Mitcham’s guilt, however, was no longer awaiting trial: the April 2026 verdict remained in place.

The Wider Impact of Familial DNA in the Feldman Case

The Feldman investigation became significant beyond the prosecution of Ian Mitcham because it demonstrated how familial DNA could generate a lead where a conventional DNA database search had failed.

The distinction is important. Familial DNA did not itself prove that Mitcham killed Feldman. The initial search identified a close relative of the unknown person whose DNA was recovered from the crime scene. Detectives then investigated members of that family and obtained evidence pointing to Mitcham.

The case also demonstrated the legal complications that can follow advances in forensic science. Familial searching raises questions about privacy because a person whose genetic information is stored in a law-enforcement database can lead investigators toward relatives who have never submitted their own DNA.

Mitcham’s case presented a separate privacy issue involving biological material already held by police. The Arizona Supreme Court’s ruling confirmed that the warrantless DNA analysis of his retained DUI blood violated the Fourth Amendment while reaching the separate conclusion that suppression was not required because his DNA profile would have entered the state system through a lawful process.

The result made the case a combination of homicide investigation, forensic breakthrough and constitutional litigation.

Allison Feldman’s Family Builds a Legacy in Her Name

Feldman’s family and friends also created memorial projects that focused on the life she had lived rather than the circumstances of her death.

Friends established the Allison Feldman Memorial Study Abroad Scholarship at the University of Arizona. Studying abroad had been an important part of Feldman’s university experience, and the scholarship was designed to help other students receive the same opportunity.

Her work with burn patients also remained part of her legacy through her connection with the Arizona Burn Foundation and Camp Courage.

Friends, relatives and members of the Scottsdale community held vigils after the murder and during the years that followed. An event called Allison’s Watch was also established in 2015, combining her memory with programs concerning women’s safety.

Harley Feldman became involved with Parents of Murdered Children, helping other families dealing with homicide, grief and the criminal justice system. He also became an advocate for familial DNA searching after watching the technique produce the lead that identified his daughter’s killer.

An Eleven-Year Search for a Verdict

The path from Allison Feldman’s murder to Ian Mitcham’s conviction covered more than a decade.

Feldman was killed on February 17, 2015 and discovered the following day. Investigators spent three years without identifying the source of the DNA left at the crime scene. Familial searching led them to the Mitcham family in 2018 and then to a direct DNA match with Ian Mitcham.

His arrest did not produce a quick trial. Questions surrounding the testing of his stored blood moved through Arizona courts and reached a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. Jury selection did not begin until October 2025.

The murder trial then lasted months.

On April 9, 2026, jurors found Mitcham guilty on every count. The subsequent penalty proceedings ended without a unanimous decision, leaving the final punishment for the first-degree murder conviction unresolved as prosecutors prepared to try the penalty phase again.

20/20: “Home Alone” Revisits the Allison Feldman Case

ABC’s 20/20: “Home Alone” revisits the case from the discovery of Feldman inside her Scottsdale home through the years investigators spent searching for an unidentified killer.

At the center of the episode is the forensic development that changed the investigation: a DNA profile that produced no conventional database match but pointed toward the offender after Arizona authorities turned to familial searching.

The case did not end with that scientific breakthrough. It generated years of litigation over how Mitcham’s DNA had been obtained, a months-long capital murder trial, a guilty verdict on three charges and a penalty proceeding that ended with a deadlocked jury.

More than 11 years after Allison Feldman was killed, the criminal case had established who was responsible for her murder. The remaining question was the punishment Ian Mitcham would receive for the first-degree murder conviction.

20/20: “Home Alone” airs Friday, October 2, 2026, at 9/8c on ABC.

More “Home Alone”

More Feature Articles

Exit mobile version