The Murder Sheet

Episode: The Murder of Sharon Myers: The Stay

Date: October 2, 2025
Hosts: Áine Cain & Kevin Greenlee

Overview

In this episode, Áine Cain and Kevin Greenlee return to court reporting to cover a pretrial hearing in the case of Jason Hubbell, convicted in 1990 for the murder of Sharon Myers. The conviction was recently overturned due to withheld evidence, and the current episode delves into the legal complexities of this decision, the nuances of fair trial rights, and the fresh developments at the Bartholomew County Courthouse. The episode presents both the legal maneuverings of the prosecution and defense, as well as insightful commentary on media involvement, courtroom dynamics, and the potential implications for all parties involved.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Case Background and Legal Context

• Conviction & Overturning
  • Jason Hubbell was convicted of Sharon Myers' murder in 1990 based on what hosts describe as "solid evidence." (03:00)
  • However, information implicating a third party, Michael Overstreet (convicted of a different murder), was withheld from the defense. This withholding triggered the overturning of the conviction.
• Reason for Overturning
  • The withheld evidence was not deemed strong, but its absence might have introduced reasonable doubt for the jury.
  • “If you withhold evidence from the defense that could potentially change the verdict, then they didn’t get a fair trial and it needs to be redone.” — Kevin, (03:15)
  • Police misconduct, particularly by investigator Dennis Null, who may have hidden evidence even from colleagues and prosecutors, is at the core of the issue.
    • “He gave different versions of notes to different people ... may have even hid stuff from his colleagues ... and that’s not right. I mean, that’s appalling.” — Áine, (05:25)
• Fairness vs. Factual Guilt
  • A consistent theme is the distinction between factual guilt and procedural fairness.
    • “Did Mr. Hubbell murder Sharon Myers? I believe the evidence points to the answer yes. And the other question is, did he receive a fair trial? And I think the answer to that is no.” — Kevin, (15:25)

The Hearing: What Was at Stake

• Defense Motions
  • Two primary requests: release Hubbell on bail or his own recognizance and a demand for a speedy trial (requiring a trial within 70 days if granted).
    • “His verdict was overturned. Let him out ... and the other request ... a speedy trial.” — Kevin, (09:00)
    • The hosts explain these are often linked for strategic reasons.
• Prosecution's Surprise Motion
  • Prosecutor Lindsey Holden Kay filed an unexpected motion for a stay: to pause all proceedings pending appeal of the overturned conviction.
  • This would freeze both the speedy trial clock and any potential for Hubbell’s release until the appellate court decides.
    • “She’s saying, I’m going to appeal the judge’s ruling ... we need to put all of this stuff on hold, and she says it’s for judicial economy.” — Kevin, (10:44)

Courtroom Observations & Atmosphere

• Attendees & Media
  • Around 15-20 people present initially, including legal interns, media, members of both families, and representatives from The Innocence Project.
  • The courthouse was described as beautiful, with an old-fashioned large courtroom ultimately used due to space issues. (12:11)
• Jason Hubbell’s Presence
  • “He comes in, he’s chained up ... orange prison sandals and socks and a red jumpsuit ... pretty stony faced.” — Áine, (20:14)

The Arguments & Judicial Dynamics

Prosecution (Lindsey Holden Kay):

• Presented case for the stay; seemed slightly shaky at the start but gained confidence—especially during rebuttals.
  • “She was more—not fiery—but very assured in some of her responses that happened later.” — Áine, (19:13)
• Emphasized that the physical evidence convicting Hubbell remains untainted.
  • “The evidence that convicted him is untainted ... it was not unreasonable for the jury to look at that evidence and conclude that Mr. Hubble is guilty of murder.” — Kevin, (27:31)

Defense (Kevin Murphy):

• Caught off guard by the prosecution’s late motion.
• Made an impassioned appeal, arguing hardship for Hubbell (missed milestones, family time) and low risk if released, but hosts viewed this as playing to emotion rather than fact or law.
  • “I think that’s kind of over the top … sure it very much pleased his client’s family, which is maybe why he did it.” — Áine, (22:08)
  • “Oh, he missed birthdays and anniversaries. So did Sharon Myers.” — Áine, (22:51)
• Repeatedly implied that at 53, Hubbell was “elderly”—a claim the hosts found unconvincing. (24:39)
• Called the state’s appeal “meritless” and claimed “0% chance” the appeals court would side with the prosecutor.
  • “There’s a much greater than 0% chance the court of Appeals would side with the state against Hubble in this case.” — Kevin, (32:04)
• The judge, Kelly Benjamin, was described as no-nonsense and interrupted Murphy to correct grandstanding and maintain focus on facts over emotion.
  • “The judge just seemed like she was ... patience, but also like, no nonsense.” — Áine, (23:14)

Key Judicial Moment:

• Judge Benjamin underscored the difficulty for both Myers’ and Hubbell’s families, not just Hubbell’s.
  • “This is difficult for two different families, not one.” — Judge Benjamin (as paraphrased by Kevin, 30:33)

Media Influence & Public Perception

• Áine and Kevin commented on the ways defense-oriented groups cultivate press coverage, and how Hubbell’s innocence is sometimes portrayed as a more “interesting” angle for media.
  • “Very easy in these cases … for groups to come in and really cultivate the press in a meaningful way.” — Áine, (13:12)
  • “If I were an attorney ... I would be very happy with the way the media has portrayed this, because the media has portrayed it basically as, oh, Hubble says the real killer was Michael Overstreet.” — Kevin, (15:02)

Broader Reflections

• Due Process vs. Public Outcry:
  • The hosts take a balanced approach, supporting the overturn based on legal rights but strongly doubting claims of innocence.
  • “If someone’s rights are violated, they deserve due process ... we occupy a really fun position where no one’s happy with us because we’re not jumping on the innocence bandwagon ... and we’re not also jumping on the bandwagon of ... throw away the key.” — Áine, (34:06)
• Practical Challenges for Retrial:
  • Prosecution’s ability to retry dependent on surviving evidence and witnesses.
  • “Prosecution cases do not get better over time—they get worse because people die who are witnesses. Evidence gets lost, evidence degrades.” — Áine, (33:31)
  • Ethical obligation on DAs not to pursue cases they don’t think can be proved. (33:04)

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• On withheld evidence:
  • “When one person’s right is attacked, even if that person is pretty clearly factually guilty, it’s an attack on everybody’s rights, frankly.” — Áine, (04:46)
• On defense theatrics:
  • “I just ... I guess I’ve had it with theatrical, you know, pity party BS in court cases.” — Áine, (23:39)
• On the toll of the process:
  • “This is difficult for two different families, not one.” — Judge Benjamin (as paraphrased by Kevin, 30:33)
• On evidence quality:
  • “It doesn’t change that a witness identified Hubble’s truck, specifically his license plate number, abducting Sharon Myers ... the case was solid.” — Áine, (28:14)
• On their podcast's stance:
  • “We have that fun, nuanced take that nobody likes and makes nobody happy. But that’s ... how we see it.” — Áine, (34:06)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Case Background: [03:00]–[06:51]
• What’s at Stake in the Hearing: [08:39]–[11:46]
• Prosecution’s Motion for a Stay: [10:10]–[11:46]
• Courtroom Observations: [12:11]–[15:02]
• Media Influence & Public Perception: [13:12]–[16:13]
• Arguments & Judicial Commentary: [19:13]–[29:21]
• Reflections on Fairness: [30:29]–[34:06]
• Implications for Retrial: [33:04]–[35:17]
• Closing Observations: [35:17]–[35:50]

Conclusion

In a tightly focused, nuanced episode, Cain and Greenlee outline the complex intersection of legal process, factual guilt, and the responsibilities of the criminal justice system. The hosts maintain their analytical stance—supporting correct legal procedure while refraining from exonerating the convicted—while offering listeners illuminating insight into courtroom strategies, family impacts, and the long reach of prosecutorial and police decisions. Their reporting continues to emphasize both a respect for due process and a skepticism of simplistic narratives, serving listeners who seek in-depth, impartial true crime analysis.