Podcast Summary: Murder Sheet
Episode: The Delphi Murders: Baldwin's Complaint Part Three: Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland Responds
Date: December 3, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain (A), Kevin Greenlee (B)
Guest: Nicholas McLeland, Carroll County Prosecutor (C)
Main Theme
In this episode, hosts Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee sit down for an exclusive interview with Carroll County Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland. The focus is McLeland's response to a 57-page disciplinary complaint filed against him by Andrew Baldwin, former defense counsel for Richard Allen—the man convicted in the infamous Delphi murders of Libby German and Abby Williams. The conversation addresses the substance, tone, and context of the complaint, situating it within broader patterns of hostility faced by involved legal professionals during and after the trial.
Key Discussion Points and Insights
Background and Episode Context
- Richard Allen was arrested in 2022 and convicted in late 2024 for the murders of Libby German and Abby Williams in Delphi, Indiana (03:25–04:20).
- Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland, along with his team, handled the case; Baldwin was co-counsel for the defense (03:05–05:11).
- Post-trial, Baldwin filed a 57-page complaint with the Indiana Disciplinary Commission against McLeland, which the commission dismissed as frivolous (04:20–05:11).
- The hosts frame this as part of an ongoing pattern among Richard Allen “truthers” to target prosecution members and perceived enemies, sometimes through baseless complaints (05:11–05:30).
McLeland's Initial Reaction and Professional Perspective
-
On the nature of the complaint:
“I think I’m in agreement with the disciplinary commission that it doesn’t really raise any substantial question of misconduct. It’s…a rehashing of what he complained about during the trial.”
— Nicholas McLeland (06:46) -
On complaints from other attorneys being rare:
“This is the first complaint I’ve gotten from another attorney… I’ve never gotten a complaint from another attorney or from a judge or from anybody else in the legal profession.”
— McLeland (07:32–08:58)
Tone, Length, and Unusual Nature of the Complaint
-
McLeland describes Baldwin’s tone as “very accusatory” and states the complaint matched the style of courtroom filings brought by Baldwin in the Allen case (09:03).
-
“I was kind of surprised at first, but… it just is written very much in his style.”
— McLeland (09:03) -
On the length:
“I’ve never seen one ever that’s more than 50 pages long... Never heard of a complaint 50 pages long either.”
— McLeland (09:45)
Handling and Dismissal of the Complaint
- McLeland was unaware of the complaint until he received notice of its dismissal. He only gets informed at that point (10:47).
“It’s not uncommon for the attorney to be unaware of the complaint being filed… The only time I know that a complaint’s been filed is when I get a letter from the disciplinary commission saying, hey, this has been dismissed.”
— McLeland (10:47) - When he finally received it, he thought, “This is par for the course.” (11:37)
Personal Attacks and Unusual Tactics in the Delphi Case
-
The defense’s tone went beyond typical adversarial conduct:
“This is atypical… Just the personal attacks to me personally is very uncharacteristic of any case I’ve dealt with.”
— McLeland (12:54) -
He clarifies that while challenging a professional’s work is part of legal practice, accusing them (or law enforcement) of corruption without evidence is serious and rare:
“If you’re going to attack a judge in that way, you better make sure you have solid evidence… This seems to attack law enforcement and me personally without that solid evidence.”
— McLeland (14:32)
On Discovery and the Accusation of Withholding Evidence
-
McLeland stands by the office’s transparency:
“We never hid... or I know it’s false. We never hid evidence. There is an incredible amount of discovery in this case… In the beginning... I just decided, look, we’re going to hand over everything that we have to the defense...”
— McLeland (16:07) -
He describes practical hurdles, like the size of the evidence (26 terabytes), leading to defense confusion, but reiterates that the prosecution repeatedly assisted:
“Early on, the defense would say, ‘Hey, we can’t find X, Y, or Z.’ And we would go on the hunt for them… At some point, if they couldn’t find it, they would just accuse us of not turning it over.”
— McLeland (16:07–18:24) -
Signed discovery receipts became necessary due to recurring defense claims:
“I don’t typically have defense attorneys sign receipts for discovery, but it became apparent early on in the case that if we didn’t do that, they were going to claim that they didn’t get it.”
— McLeland (22:04)
The Complaint’s Logic and Specific Allegations
-
On the Odinism theory and discovery:
“They didn’t go out and investigate and find the Odinism theme. It is something we investigated thoroughly… and gave that to them in discovery. The reason they knew about the Odinism is because we gave that to them in discovery.”
— McLeland (25:25) -
Disputes over the timing or completeness of certain pieces of evidence (e.g., the Turco and Klick reports) are characterized as stretching for complaints:
“He had all this information before trial. The complaint seems to be, ‘Well, you didn’t get it to me quick enough.’ That seems to be the complaint. Not that I didn’t get it, but you didn’t get it to me quick enough in his opinion. And… it’s a really weird argument.”
— McLeland (27:26) -
On selective quoting and unusual commentary within the complaint (such as imagined apologies or side quotes attributed to McLeland), McLeland notes Baldwin “puts those on paper… it’s just odd in itself to write motions and complaints like that, at least in my experience.” (32:12)
Online Abuse and its Impact
- McLeland details the intense and personal nature of attacks he and his team faced during and after the trial, especially online:
“It’s gone to the extent where, you know, they’ve downloaded pictures of my kids and, and it just gets so personal… I mean, I get emails like that not as often now, but during the trial, multiple times a week.”
— McLeland (39:26–40:20) - He expresses relief at being recognized positively at CrimeCon, contrasting it with online hostility:
“It was a really nice… convention to go to. And it was nice to talk to everybody and meet everybody, and everybody was just very, very complimentary and very nice. And so it was night and day difference.”
— McLeland (36:26)
Memorable Quotes and Moments
-
On the overall feeling toward the complaint:
“I just found myself saying, come on, really? You know, every page that you read, it’s like, really? Are you kidding me? This is so stupid... This is a waste of paper.”
— McLeland (40:49) -
On his team’s effort:
“I’m very proud of our team… I couldn’t have done any of this without them… Just because my name is on the motion… doesn’t mean that it didn’t take a village… They all should be recognized as equally as I am.”
— McLeland (38:08)
Timestamps for Key Segments
- 03:05 — Introduction of Prosecutor Nicholas McLeland
- 06:36 — McLeland gives his impression of the complaint
- 07:32–08:58 — Discussing the rarity of attorney-on-attorney complaints
- 09:03 — On the tone and length of Baldwin’s complaint
- 10:47 — McLeland describes receiving complaint/dismissal notice
- 12:54 — On uncharacteristic personal attacks from defense
- 16:07–18:24 — Allegations of evidence withholding explained
- 22:04 — Switching to signed discovery receipts
- 25:15 — Discussion on Odinism theory and defense logic
- 27:26 — The “you didn’t get it to me quick enough” argument
- 32:12 — Oddity of Baldwin’s use of imagined dialogue
- 36:26 — CrimeCon: Positive real-world reception vs. online abuse
- 39:26–40:20 — Scope and impact of online personal harassment
- 40:49 — McLeland’s personal reaction to the complaint
- 41:41 — Life after the trial and ongoing workload
- 43:59 — Disciplinary Board’s summary dismissal of the complaint
Final Thoughts
- McLeland sees the complaint as an “odd, wasteful, and entirely personal rehashing” of previously litigated issues, lacking substance and dismissed outright by the disciplinary board.
- He frames it within a larger pattern of defense hostility—both in and out of court—that has marked the entire Allen case, highlighting the toll such tactics and the associated online abuse can take on legal professionals and their families.
- The episode ends with gratitude to the team that secured the conviction, acknowledgment of ongoing legal work, and a reflection on the difference between online negativity versus supportive real-world feedback.