Murder Sheet: A Conversation with Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland and Chief Public Defender Tim Sledd – Part One
Date: August 26, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee
Guests: Nicholas McLeland (Carroll County Prosecutor), Tim Sledd (Chief Public Defender, Lawrence County)
Episode Overview
In this detailed, candid episode, Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee welcome two seasoned Indiana criminal law professionals—Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland and Chief Public Defender Tim Sledd. They explore the realities of criminal prosecution and defense in Indiana, discussing their career trajectories, how criminal cases are built and defended, common legal strategies, jury selection, plea bargaining, professional dynamics, and more. Practical insights and honest anecdotes bring listeners into the heart of the legal trenches, countering common myths about the courtroom.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
Personal & Professional Backgrounds
[05:41]
- Both McLeland and Sledd grew up in Delphi, IN, went to law school, and have practiced both defense and prosecution.
- Tim Sledd describes the close-knit nature of their high school (“My graduating class was only 100 people...so the whole high school was probably 4, 150 people maybe.” — Sledd, 06:06)
- Both discuss transitions: Sledd from defense to prosecution and back; McLeland from public defense to elected prosecutor.
Notable Quote:
"We both grew up in Delphi, Indiana...It was impossible not to have had at least some interactions with each other from definitely in high school." – Tim Sledd, 05:52
Switching Sides: Prosecution & Defense
[07:32–14:33]
- Both guests explain it’s common in Indiana, especially in rural counties, to start as public defenders due to the political nature of prosecutor jobs.
- Transitioning from one side to the other requires adapting to new skills and burdens of proof.
- The prosecutor’s burden of proof is heavier; defense roles are often more reactive and focused on cross-examination.
Notable Quotes:
"The burden shifts. That’s the big thing...as a public defender, it was easier for me to prepare for trial because I didn’t have the burden." – Nicholas McLeland, 13:38
"Being a prosecutor after having been a defense lawyer is a really good position to be in because he can anticipate what he would do if he’s on the other side." – Tim Sledd, 15:34
Building & Challenging Cases
[17:36–19:08]
- McLeland and Sledd describe the appeal of criminal law: fast pace, direct impact in court, and the challenge of outmaneuvering the opposition.
Notable Quote:
“I like being in the courtroom. I like being in front of people. And so it just always appealed to me to do criminal law.” – Nicholas McLeland, 18:40
Motions in Limine: Purpose & Strategy
[19:08–28:02]
- Motions in limine are used strategically to preclude prejudicial or inadmissible evidence before trial—preventing the need to "unring the bell" during trial.
- McLeland and Sledd emphasize pretrial arguments prevent unnecessary jury delays and mistrials.
- Both recount anecdotes where failure or misuse of motions in limine led to trial complications, emphasizing their importance and the nuances in their application.
Quote:
“You don’t want a situation to come up where we have to try to unring a bell in trial.” – Tim Sledd, 20:40
“Can you imagine if we would had to send the jury out for three days in the back of the jury room?” – Nicholas McLeland, discussing the Richard Allen trial, 26:56
"Trial by Ambush"? – Transparency in Evidence
[28:02–28:52]
- Both sides agree that, contrary to TV dramas, trials are not meant to be about surprise, and both parties should generally know the evidence in advance.
Quote:
“We always say you don’t—there’s no trial by surprise is what we always say.” – Nicholas McLeland, 28:15
Third-Party Suspect Defense
[28:52–33:05]
- Sledd explains differences between "some other dude did it" (SODDI), empty-chair defenses, and specific third-party accusations.
- Specific third-party accusations require a rational basis and supporting evidence due to potential for significant harm.
Quote:
“An empty chair defense is a fantastic defense...But when you have a mystery other than the defendant and the defendant starts bringing in people that aren’t tied through the police reports...that’s dangerous to do.” – Tim Sledd, 29:27
Avoiding Charging The Wrong Person & Prosecutorial Discretion
[33:05–41:45]
- Both guests discuss the risks of over-reliance on law enforcement, the danger of “filing drunk” for prosecutors, and “trial drunk” for defense attorneys.
- Tim and Nick talk about ethical obligations to avoid charges when evidence is weak and describe their own experiences with case dismissals upon suppressed evidence or procedural errors.
Quote:
“We have an ethical obligation as prosecutors that if we don’t believe we can meet the elements or...law enforcement has the right guy...we cannot, we’re not supposed to file charges.” – Nicholas McLeland, 34:09
Professional Collegiality vs. TV Drama
[42:46–49:35]
- In smaller counties, defense and prosecution are often collegial due to regular cooperation. Out-of-town or big city attorneys may bring more aggressive, confrontational styles.
- Both stress the need for short memories and thick skin—emotions may run high in court, but working relationships must endure.
Quotes:
“It’s not advantageous to be at odds because it just makes negotiation difficult.” – Nicholas McLeland, 42:55
“We are both the same actors or we’re both in the same play, we’re just different actors…we don’t have to be adversarial in everything.” – Tim Sledd, 45:08
Plea Bargaining—Realities and Public Misunderstandings
[49:35–63:22]
- Over 90% of cases resolve via plea deals; a necessity given limited judicial resources.
- Prosecutorial offers are shaped by criminal history, case specifics, victim input (when appropriate), and statutory sentencing guidelines.
- Sledd gives a detailed example of evaluating plea risks with a murder client (difference between 42 and 45 years imprisonment).
- They clarify Indiana’s mixed indeterminate-determinate sentencing model and the role of aggravating/mitigating factors.
Notable Quotes:
“If you were to have a trial on every case, you would just bog the system to the point where it would break.” – Nicholas McLeland, 51:08
“Beyond a reasonable doubt should and is a very heavy burden. It is a strict and heavy burden. And it should be a strict and heavy burden.” – Tim Sledd, 53:19
Reasonable Doubt & Jury Instructions
[63:22–70:07]
- “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the cornerstone of criminal cases—a “firmly convinced” standard, higher than other legal burdens (preponderance, clear and convincing).
- Both emphasize fidelity to jury instructions and address the challenge of laying and correcting juror misconceptions about the presumption of innocence.
Quotes:
“You must be firmly convinced. And it’s not, what’s more reasonable. Firmly convinced. Using your common sense that you bring into the courtroom.” – Nicholas McLeland, 66:18
“Throughout every stage of the trial...you have to start, because of these instructions, with the presumption that my client is not guilty, that he’s innocent.” – Tim Sledd, 68:13
Testifying, Jury Selection, and First Impressions
[70:07–84:13]
- Defense attorneys spend significant energy educating juries on the defendant’s right to remain silent and presumption of innocence.
- Real-life dynamics of jury selection and potential biases discussed, including challenges, preemptory strikes, and cause strikes.
- Both guests have never served as jurors themselves but are fascinated by the deliberation process.
Quotes:
“Not very often do defendants testify, but as a prosecutor, you always want them to testify...I want to...throw this in your face and tell the jury, look at this admission…” – Nicholas McLeland, 74:04
“All of you are good jurors, but this—you may not be the right juror for this case.” – Tim Sledd, 81:18
Opening Statements Philosophy
[86:21–88:11]
- Both favor brief, measured opening statements. Defense often reserves for its case in chief.
- Focus is on not overpromising and emphasizing jurors’ duty to withhold judgment until all evidence is in.
Quotes:
“My opening statements are usually very brief, and they’re very, very, very general because I don’t like to outkick my coverage.” – Nicholas McLeland, 86:21
“Rarely will I get up and do a whole lot of kicking and screaming. On opening. It’s a solemn reminder of, hang on. What are we doing here?” – Tim Sledd, 87:05
Timestamps for Key Segments
- 05:41 – Personal introductions, shared Delphi upbringing
- 07:32 – Switching sides: defense/prosecution career paths
- 13:38 – Learning to adapt skills for prosecution vs. defense
- 19:08 – Motions in limine: strategy and mistakes to avoid
- 28:02 – Trials are not “trial by ambush”; transparency in evidence
- 29:27 – Third-party suspect (SODDI, empty chair) defenses
- 33:05 – The risks of charging/pursuing weak cases
- 42:46 – Professional relationships: adversarial or collegial?
- 49:35 – The realities and necessity of plea bargaining
- 63:22 – Reasonable doubt, jury instructions, and burdens of proof
- 70:07 – Educating juries: presumption of innocence and right to silence
- 76:58 – Jury selection: identifying “good” and “bad” jurors
- 86:21 – Approaches to opening statements
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
- “An empty chair defense is a fantastic defense and I’m always looking for that in cases.” — Tim Sledd, 29:27
- “Not every case is going to be wrapped in a box with a bow with DNA and video of the crime. Sometimes you just have to go with what you got.” — Nicholas McLeland, 34:09
- “Prosecutors can get filing drunk and defense lawyers can get trial drunk.” — Tim Sledd, 35:46
- “If you were to have a trial on every case, you would just bog the system to the point where it would break.” — Nicholas McLeland, 51:08
- “You must be firmly convinced...Using your common sense that you bring into the courtroom.” — Nicholas McLeland, 66:18
Tone and Atmosphere
McLeland and Sledd are forthright, personable, and grounded in practicalities. Their professional rapport is evident—there’s mutual respect, a willingness to acknowledge each other's points, and a shared commitment to fair proceedings. The conversation is candid, peppered with real-life examples and some dry humor about the quirks of small-town legal practice.
For Listeners
This episode provides a rare, accessible window into the criminal justice process as seen by two experienced practitioners—dispelling myths, revealing the real mechanics of courtroom drama, and offering practical wisdom for anyone interested in how justice is truly negotiated and pursued.
End of Part One. Stay tuned for Part Two for more real-world insights from Prosecutor McLeland and Chief Public Defender Sledd.