The Murder of Sharon Myers: The Stay

Summary

---

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.

Transcript

[A]

It's getting cooler outside. That means layers. That means sweaters. Come on, Murder Sheet people. It's fall, the best season. Let's go. Let's get ready. But also, let's stay calm and not blow our budgets. Let's get some quints, sharp styles, fashion staples that say evergreen. All for less money.

[B]

We love our sponsor quints. We shop there all the time. We love getting luxury goods from less. Quint's items are half the cost of similar brands. To save you money, they cut out the middlemen and pass the savings onto you. You're not skimping on quality either. Designer, luxury, quality pieces for so much less.

[A]

As the temperatures drop, I'm once again returning to my black V neck sweater and a dark blue turtleneck sweater, both in Mongolian cashmere. I love how these pieces feel. I also think they're really cute and stylish and they're timeless, of course, so you should grab some yourself. The Mongolian cashmere sweaters start at 50 bucks. We can match and I'd be curious.

[C]

About what your favorite color is.

[B]

Quince also has tailored denim pieces and luxe outerwear and so much more. Quince also has tailored denim pieces and luxe outerwear and so much more.

[D]

Go check out their stuff.

[A]

Find your fall staples at quint's. Go to quince.commsheet for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns. Now available in Canada too. That's Q-U-I-N-C-E.commsheet to get free shipping and 365 day returns.

[D]

Quince.commsheet content warning this episode includes discussion of murder. Well, earlier today, Anya and I traveled south to Columbus, Indiana, the Athens of the prairie, in order to attend and cover a pretrial hearing in the Jason Hubbell case. This case involves, of course, the murder of Sharon Myers. And before we get into what happened today, get into the meat of the episode, I think I'd like to take a moment here up top, just to remind us all of some of the context of this particular case. Hubble was convicted of this murder of Sharon Myers in 1990, and the evidence frequently. To be frank, the evidence is good evidence. It's solid evidence. It warranted the jury's conviction. But it turned out that some evidence I use the word evidence in this case loosely. But some information was withheld from the defense about the possible complicity of a third party, Mr. Overstreet, who was convicted of a murder in nearby Franklin Overstreet. Michael Overstreet, convicted of a murder in nearby Franklin, Indiana. And I'm going to really simplify things here, but the standard is 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. In this case, the evidence that was withheld doesn't touch the legitimacy of the evidence that convicted him. And the judge, as we're discussed, the judge made that point today in court. But it goes to possible reasonable doubt. Possible the idea, or maybe the investigation wasn't thorough, things of that nature. Because frankly, as we discussed in our previous episode on this case, a lot of this so called evidence implicating Overstreet doesn't really stand up to scrutiny. So the question is, was it right for the judge to say, well, even though maybe it doesn't stand up to scrutiny, just the sheer amount of it, it could have helped them get reasonable doubt. I think it's a gray area, frankly. I agree with the judge. I think the amount of information that was withheld from Hubble did in fact negatively impact his right to get a fair trial. And so I agree with the judge when she made the choice to throw the verdict out. But at the same time, I think it's a close call. And I could imagine other judicial authorities, other judges looking at it and saying this so called evidence against Overstreet for this particular murder, it doesn't hold up. The evidence against Hubble does hold up. I don't think this would have changed the verdict. Let's uphold the verdict. It's a gray area. What do you think?

[C]

I agree that it's a gray area. I tend to think that there probably is more of a sense of trying to be more conservative around matters that could affect a defendant's right to a fair trial that's constitutionally protected. And that's sort of the fundamental of all of our rights. And 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. And that's why it's important to really scrutinize these. But I do agree the overstreet evidence is just so like, it's balderdash. It's just nonsense. So I think that would be what would possibly make it so that nothing came out of this. But again, it's, it's, to me, even if it's balderdash, even if, like this wouldn't have changed anything, he would have gotten convicted anyway. There's just that possibility and there's just that, like, perhaps maybe one thing would have led to another, or they could have done this or that. And also just the fact that it's just still not right to hide discovery. You have to let things play out properly. And in this case, there really seems to be one person who was ensuring that did not happen. That's Dennis Null, one of the original investigators on the case with the Columbus Police Department. This is a person who essentially gave different versions of notes to different people. And what my understanding is, may have even hid stuff from his colleagues and hid stuff from the prosecutor's office. And that's not right. I mean, that's appalling. So I guess, you know, this is a situation where, yes, maybe it's a close call, but I could also see an appeals court just being more like, well, yeah, but the evidence wasn't good, but it still shouldn't have happened. So we're gonna uphold this. So a judge, essentially a local judge here, overturned the conviction as a result.

[D]

Of this based on the fact that there. This information wasn't turned over. And I think that was the correct ruling. But as I say, I. I could understand if an appeals court went the other way because it's not a black and white thing.

[C]

Yeah.

[D]

With all that said, we'll come back in a moment. We'll tell you what happened today.

[C]

Absolutely. My name is Anya Cain. I'm a journalist.

[E]

And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[C]

And this is the Murder Sheet.

[E]

We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews, and deep dives into murder cases.

[D]

We're the Murder Sheet.

[C]

And this is the murder of Sharon Myers, the stay. Okay, so I guess I just want to say that it is currently Thursday, October 2, 2025. And Kevin and I have our initial foray back into court reporting. I guess, you know, I think we got pretty burned out by doing the Delphi trial. So today we're. You know, this is certainly a significantly less challenging case to cover. So we were happy to go back into the Bartholomew County Courthouse in Columbus, Indiana, and Beautiful courthouse. And we went to this very short hearing.

[D]

Should I mention what was at stake in the hearing as a way to start?

[C]

I think that would be good. Yes.

[D]

Okay. So as we mentioned, this murder verdict was overturned. And so the defense prior today basically made a couple of requests, and they were linked. The first request was, this guy's been in prison for a long time. His verdict was overturned. Let him out. Let him out either on his own recognizance or on Bail. And as part of that application, they had, you know, statements from people. So we'll give him a place to live. He'll be okay. No worries there. Let him out on bail. And the other request they made, which I say is related, was a request for a speedy trial. So there's a rule in Indiana that if you are incarcerated and you make a request for a speedy trial, then you need to have your trial held within 70 days. And so I think this request was made for strategic reasons because they thought that the prosecutor would say, oh, you want to have a trial in 70 days? We can't do that. I will let them out. I won't oppose bail. That way, the speedy trial request doesn't really take effect. And that 70 day clock starts. Doesn't. Doesn't start ticking. So that's why I say those two requests are linked. Does that make sense?

[C]

That does make sense, yes.

[D]

Now, what we didn't know, and we didn't know until the hearing started, was that there was a third matter before the court. And one of the defense attorneys even complained. I didn't know about this until I was in my car on the way here. And what that was was prosecutor Lindsey Holden Kay filed a request this morning for a stay. Basically, she's saying, I'm going to appeal the judge's ruling when the judge threw this verdict and take it to the court of appeals. And while the court of appeals is considering that we need to put all of this stuff on hold, and she says it's for judicial economy. What does that mean? For instance, it would be. I think we would agree. It would be absurd to say, oh, my gosh, by golly, we have to hold a trial in 70 days and then hold a trial at a time when we're also waiting for the court of appeals to issue a ruling that might overthrow the overthrowing of the verdict and might make the need for a trial unnecessary. It doesn't make sense to have a trial until we know we even need a trial. And she said, along with that, since I'm basically asking for the court's ruling in this to be put on hold, that means it's as if that ruling didn't happen, which means that Mr. Hubbell's previous sentence should remain in effect and he should not be released.

[C]

All right.

[D]

I mean, so that was new.

[C]

That was something that I think definitely, as you said, caught the defense team somewhat off guard. And certainly we hadn't been aware of that before it was going in, but I imagine there's some element of strategy there kind of doing it at this point where he kind of, you know, kind of hit him unawares, I guess.

[D]

So what are some of your observations up to this point?

[C]

Well, I can tell you, you know, just sort of getting there. We, we didn't know what to expect in terms of the crowd, but it was, you know, a decent sized crowd, I want to say. Initially I counted about like about 15 to 20 people in the hallway. We were supposed to go into one courtroom and it filled up really quickly. And a lot of them seem to be, I think people affiliated with, I mean, I'm guessing this based on pure vibes, so I could be totally wrong. I think a lot of them were there for the defense or the Hubbles, you know, or, you know, Hubble's family or whatnot. A lot of them seem to be sort of the kind of prototypical legal interns that you see at some of these things. Sort of there to support the defense side. And they, you know, those, the kind of legal looking people were more chatty. And I think the civilians looked a lot quieter for the most part. And you know, I don't know what the breakdown is between the Myers family and people who are there for Sharon versus people are there for Hubble. I have some thoughts on that, but I just don't know. And you know, there were different lawyers hugging people and whatnot. A lot of people were talking about Kevin, which is Kevin J. Murphy, who is the attorney that you mentioned, who made that comment about kind of being caught off guard. He's ultimately the defense attorney who did a lot of the talking, or rather Hubble's representative who did a lot of the talking. And we get into this about like four deputies. And there was, we get into this very small courtroom and then it fills up really quickly. There's like no seats. And then they actually moved us to a much larger courtroom which was much more beautiful and had these like impressive old fashioned looking balconies in it. It looked like something from a movie, I thought, I thought it was very pretty. I just, I love an old courtroom. So being in there was pretty cool. But that had, I think three pews on each side that also filled up pretty quickly. There were people from the media there. There were people again who just looked like ordinary people off the street. I imagine some of them could have been there for one side or the other. And then there were people who looked like legal professionals. You know what side they're on. I don't know. Imagine a lot of it's the defense side because you know, the Innocence Project or the Innocence Clinic is involved with this one. So they have a lot of people, I'm sure, coming in and out. And at one point, I heard somebody who identified themselves as being from some clinic is, like, thanking some people in the media. And I just thought that was kind of interesting. You know, it was just like. Like, it's. I just. It's very easy in these cases for, I think, like, some of these kind of groups to come in and really cultivate the press in a very meaningful way to the point where it influences coverage. I'm certainly not saying that that's happening with any individual reporters in this case, but it just does happen a lot, and we see it a lot, and it's just fun to watch the sausage get made.

[D]

Yeah. I would think, to be candid, if I were an attorney representing the interests of Mr. Hubble in this matter, 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.

[C]

And, golly, that's way more interesting.

[D]

That makes sense. So a couple is innocent, and that's not the case. And again, we'll get to it. The judge said in court, the evidence that was used to convict this man of murder still exists. It's still there. It wasn't touched by any of this other stuff. So it's important to remember, when you look at this case, there are two different questions. Question One is, did Mr. Hubble 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. Yeah, but reasonable people might disagree.

[C]

Well, I don't know. The evidence against him is pretty damning and is hard to overcome. And frankly, the evidence around Overstreet is very weak, comparatively.

[D]

Well, I think reasonable people might disagree on whether or not he got a fair trial.

[C]

Oh, okay. Yeah. Yeah. Fair. Yeah, maybe. I think, you know, there's a good argument that he didn't, I think. But I. You know, I guess ultimately it's up to the appeals court. So.

[A]

We all love true crime. That means getting to know a ton about some scary stories and situations. We are all aware of the danger, but that means we can prepare for the worst and possibly protect ourselves and those we love.

[B]

That's why we use Simplisafe. We've used and trusted them for years to protect us, as well as our.

[D]

Dog and executive producer Lanny.

[B]

Right now, murder sheet listeners can save 50% on a SimpliSafe home security system. Just go to simplisafe.commsheet Bad things happen, but you can take action. Just join us in. 4 million Americans who also trust Simplisafe.

[D]

With their home security.

[A]

I love that SimpliSafe doesn't force you into long term contracts. Plus they have a 60 day money back guarantee so you can try it out without committing right away. They provide you with agents that monitor your home. These agents can detect possible prowlers and intervene before the break in even happens. The agents can just hop on a two way audio system to confront the intruder and set off the sirens and spotlights. They're not reactive, they're proactive, keeping your family and property safe from all harm.

[B]

Try out Simplisafe. We have and we love their proactive approach to home security.

[A]

Right now My listeners can save 50% on a SimpliSafe home security system at simplisafe.com msheet that's simplisafe.com msheet there's no safe like Simplisafe.

[C]

I think I thought one thing that was cool though, just as a little bit of color. When we were in there, you actually recognized a judge that you'd worked with in a portrait hanging on the wall of the court.

[D]

Yeah, I actually recognized two portraits. Judge Norm Curry and Judge Jim Long were on the wall and I knew both of those judges well.

[C]

So yeah, so that was pretty cool.

[D]

And should we get to the proceedings?

[C]

Yeah, let's get to the proceedings.

[D]

So as we mentioned, the defense said, oh, we just found out about filing.

[C]

To stay and Murphy was the one doing most of the talking for them.

[D]

Yeah, we just found this out today in the car. Actually the first person to speak was Prosecutor Ms. Holton. Kay. When she was kind of outlining what she wanted, she wanted everything to be put on pause and the reasons for it, how she feels there needed to be no speedy trial, no release. Everything just needs to be put on hold. Do you have any comments about her presentation?

[C]

I thought, you know, she, when she started out she seemed, I don't know, I don't know her personally, so I don't know if she was nervous or. There just was a bit of shakiness there. But she recovered pretty quickly and just kind of kept going. But I imagine that happens to a lot of people. It wasn't like it was distracting or anything. I just noted that a little bit. I thought she kind of really started. She was more. Not fiery. That's the wrong word. She seemed very Assured in some of her responses that happened later. She was also assisted by Mr. Taylor. I don't know his first name, but he was sort of sitting with her at her table. So there were two prosecutors and four defense attorneys or I don't know what is this post conviction relief? I probably shouldn't call them defense attorneys. I don't know what you. There's four attorneys sitting at the court.

[D]

Representing the interests of Mr. Hubbell.

[C]

Don't know who all of them are.

[D]

We have names but we can't match them. There was also a fifth attorney who entered an appearance today, so he's certainly well represented.

[C]

Yeah, so. And also he, I, you know, Hubble himself, I do want to talk about him. So he comes in, he's chained up. You can hear the chains clinking. He's wearing orange kind of prison sandal kind of things and socks and a red jumpsuit and he's, you know, bald, looks like a middle aged guy. Just, you know, just kind of coming in pretty, pretty stony faced throughout the. From what I saw. Of course we were sitting behind him for a good part of it, so. But yeah, that's kind of where he came into the matter.

[D]

So Mr. Murphy gets up, he's the one making the remarks to argue against what Ms. Holden Kay has asked and he says, well, I can agree with some of what she said. I don't think it makes sense for us to hold a trial while we're waiting for the appeals court to make a decision that might make a trial unnecessary, you know. Yeah, that doesn't make sense. We're on the same page there. But hey, let's still release him. And at that point the judge said, well, just so you know, I'm going to grant Ms. Holden Kay's request and I'll put a stay on everything. And so no speedy trial and no release. And Mr. Murphy at that point said, well, I understand what you're saying. I'd like to go ahead and make my argument anyway because I want to create a record which is pretty standard.

[C]

You want to have everything out there so that it can be reviewed later. This is what was said. This is what happened.

[D]

Yeah, because you want later an appeals court, if this issue is appealed for whatever reason, you want them to be able to look and see, oh, these are the arguments that he was trying to make. And maybe an appeals court would look at that and say, oh, by golly, these are great arguments. Yeah, his presentation was interesting. I. How do you want to talk about this?

[C]

Well, I mean, I think the caveat is important. I mean, we've been covering true crime for. For a while now. And so, you know, we're. We're pretty jaded about everything. And when people are speaking in cliches or getting histrionic, I think that's something that turns both of us off. So I'm sure a lot of people were very impressed by the emotion that he put into his presentation. I wasn't. I. I just. I think that's kind of over the top. I'm sure it very much pleased his client's family, which is maybe why he did it. But I. I think getting. Getting all emotional and carried away.

[D]

It felt like he was playing more to his client and perhaps his client's family, perhaps to the media, than to the act. The. The judge in the courtroom.

[C]

And, like, strategically, I totally understand why you would do that. So I'm not even criticizing him. It's just more of, like, me personally. I just roll my eyes. Oh, he missed birthdays and anniversaries. So did Sharon Myers.

[D]

He went on and on saying, oh, he spent all this time wrongfully incarcerated. You found he didn't even get a fair trial. And the judge says, you don't need to tell me what I found.

[C]

Yeah, the judge just seemed like she was. This is Judge. I want to get her name because she did a very good job. I thought she. This was Kelly Benjamin. Bartholomew Circuit Court Judge Kelly Benjamin. She had a. Like a kind of an air of patience, but also like, no nonsense. So, like, she's basically like. She interrupted him a couple times. Don't tell me what I did, you know, and just sort of like, come on.

[D]

Like, I know what I found.

[C]

Yeah, it just. I just. I guess I. I've had it with theatrical, you know, pity party BS in court cases. And again, that's. That's. That's probably somewhat burnout speaking. I'm sure if I was like, a new reporter coming to the first time, I'd be like, wow, this guy's Atticus Finch. He believes in his Cl. And now I'm just like, yeah, whatever. Like, what does the law say? Let's move this along.

[D]

Yeah, I also. Another moment that jumped out at me. Well, he kept on saying, oh, this man, he's 53 years old. In such a way. I think the implicit argument was, oh, he's so elderly, he's near death's doorstep. He's not going to be a threat to society if he gets out. And he also says, well, if you let him out and he ends up losing the court of appeal and has to go back to prison. You know, by golly, he'll just turn himself in right away. So you don't even need to worry.

[C]

About that source, we said. So how did you feel about a 53 year old man being portrayed as elderly and near death's doorstep?

[D]

I didn't particularly care for that implication.

[C]

You're a big threat to society, as we all know.

[D]

Yeah, am I 53?

[C]

A gentleman never asks. I don't know.

[D]

At one point during his presentation he also made remarks to the effect that, oh, and it would be ridiculous to make him remain incarcerated while the court of appeals considers this because we all know there's a 0% chance that they're going to side with the prosecutor.

[C]

Oh my God, that was such a teacher's pet moment.

[D]

And when he said that, I looked over at the prosecutor, Ms. Holden Kay, and she kind of looked over at her associate and smiled. And so that was just like, it.

[C]

Was like, oh, your honor, your beautiful, glowing, amazing, perfect ruling would never be struck down by an appeals court. Of course, we all know that. It was just like, it was so over the top. It wasn't quite that bad, but it fell over the top. It just, I just don't care for this stuff. I again, I'm sure he's a great lawyer and you know, I'm sure he's doing stuff that he feels is right for his client and he's, you know, you know, associated with the University of Notre Dame, which is a very good school and all this. I just, I guess a lot of this just feel like, you know, kind of playing up to the rubes and I don't, I don't care for it at all on a personal level, whether whether or not it's, you know, the right thing for him and his client. You know, that's, that's another conversation.

[D]

He referred to this, to the state having a meritless appeal. And again, my comments here are coming from someone. I think that the judges decision, when she overthrew this, that was the correct decision.

[C]

I agree.

[D]

But I'm not gonna sit here and say that the appeal is meritless because I understand the argument that I'm sure prosecutor Holden Kay is going to make in that brief. And I could understand why some people might look at that and be persuaded by it. It's a close call in my mind.

[C]

To me, I think it's, I mean, I mean, I'm not a lawyer. I mean, to me, I think what I've heard sort of indicates that I would expect the appeals Court to give him a new trial. But I could be wrong. Again, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe it's closer than I think it is. I don't know. I'm open to that. But I'm, you know, I guess I am very appalled and kind of startled by the level of police misconduct here. And, and that kind of maybe influences me, but. But at the same time, I agree. And also it's just like, I don't know, just like it just feel. Felt like trying to suck up to the judge, which again, maybe not a bad. But she didn't really seem like she was having it.

[D]

Like, from what we saw after he spoke, she gave the judge, Judge Benjamin Gay, prosecutor Holden Kay, a chance to talk again. And she made the point that I made earlier, which is the evidence that convicted him is untainted. And that is evidence that the judge in her ruling indicated is. It was not unreasonable for the jury to look at that evidence and conclude that Mr. Hubble is guilty of murder. And the fact that police did things they shouldn't, didn't turn over things they shouldn't, doesn't change that.

[C]

It doesn't change that a witness identified Hubble's truck, specifically his license plate number, abducting Sharon Myers from the parking lot of her workplace on the day she disappeared. So, yeah, you know, I don't think Michael Overstreet went and stole his license plate and got a similar looking vehicle or stole his car or whatever, his truck. It's just, you know, ultimately the case was solid. Whether or not they're going to be able to convict him a second time, it depends on what evidence is still there. It depends on what witnesses have died or how everyone's doing. So all that remains to be seen. But the initial trial was very solid. It was a good case against him. Yeah, it's tainted by this police misconduct, though.

[D]

And at this point, when she was, for lack of a better word, when prosecutor Holden Kay was rebutting his comments, I felt she was very assured and did a very good job with her presentation. You know, I don't know her. I've never spoken to her. She seemed a little annoyed by the comment, oh, there's a 0% chance of this appeal turning out.

[C]

And yeah, yeah, I just, I don't know. I just, I found it. It was just interesting, just the different styles. I think we have our own personal opinion on what we find more favorable. But again, I'm, I'm sure, you know, I'm sure a lot of people are very impressed, but I think I think people who actually, you know, I. I guess I just find it kind of exhausting sometimes the kind of stuff that's more emotional and it just doesn't really seem like it's for the court because it's not about emotion. It's not about, you know, if it was about emotion, then, you know, anytime there's a sympathetic victims, people would just get automatically convicted. You know, I mean, that shouldn't happen. It should be about the facts. It should be about the evidence. And I think, you know, I thought it was interesting that Holden case specifically said Murph. Mr. Murphy had a lot of, quote, emotionally charged arguments that she was gonna be arguing from the law. So I thought that was interesting. And I just also, you know, I thought it was something interesting because I found it a little bit galling. Mr. Murphy constantly going on about he missed family birthdays and anniversaries and ordinary days and.

[D]

And you know what, Anya? I got the impression that the judge.

[C]

Did not care for that.

[D]

They've also found that a bit galling. Cause after Ms. Holden Kay concluded her remarks, the court made a point. Judge Benjamin made a point of saying this is difficult for two different families, not one. And by that she is referring to the family of Sharon Myers, who over 20 years ago sat through a trial and saw a man convicted of murdering their loved ones and now is having to have that revisited because of mistakes that were not done by the family.

[C]

Yeah, so, I mean, like again, Sharon Meyers missed a lot too, and she matters here. So, I mean, kind of like save it at some point, you know, maybe like, I don't know, there's a. There's a. There's a bad look in that, I think. And you know, people can look the other way about that, but I don't. So this is one of those rare cases, Kevin, that I think you and I have a. Maybe a slight disagreement. Very, very slight, slight disagreement. I think we both think that Hubble is guilty of sin. And I think we also both think that he was. His rights were violated to an extent. And I think I am more convinced that this is going to result in the appeals court upholding the overturned conviction and going to result in a new trial because of those violations of Hubble's rights. I think that's where I am. I think you are a little bit more on the fence than I am.

[D]

Not really. I just appreciate. I'm just taken aback by the idea that there is 0% chance that the appeals court would side with the prosecution in this case. I think There is a much greater than 0% chance the court of Appeals would side with the state against Hubble in this case. If I had to make a prediction, I would predict that there's going to be a new trial. Okay, well, assuming what you and I don't know is what is the state of the evidence in the case against Mr. Hubble? Are all of the witnesses who testified previously, are they still alive? Are they still able to testify again? Is the physical evidence, is the fibers, Is that all that available to be presented again? I don't know. I don't know if it's going to be possible to represent the case and the trial as well as it was done before. So I don't know what to expect there.

[C]

And prosecutor holding Kay has an ethical responsibility to only bring the case a second time if she feels like she can win it. So it's not a situation where it's just like, let's just roll the dice. That's not how it's done. It's got, it's got to reach that threshold of, I personally believe this can reach guilty beyond a reasonable doubt a second time at trial. And, and what we know is that prosecution cases do not get better over time. They get worse because people die who are witnesses. Evidence gets lost, evidence degrades. So how, how all this is going to come together is unclear. But I personally hope that there is, if there is another trial, that they. They do fight it, because I think this man is certainly guilty. I don't think Michael Overstreet killed Sharon Myers. I think Jason Hubble did, and I think he's where he belongs. So I think, you know, at the same time, I also think that if someone, if someone's rights are violated, they deserve due process and they deserve that being corrected. And so we, we occupy a really fun position where no one's happy with us because we're not jumping on the innocence bandwagon about, oh, this poor wrongfully convicted man missed some anniversaries. And we're not also jumping on the bandwagon of like, oh, this, this is a travesty. And the judge got it wrong. And, you know, he just throw him. Throw away the key. We, we have that fun, nuanced take that nobody likes and makes nobody happy. But that's, you know, we're going to call it like we see it and, and this, this is how we see it. I noted that I think people who are probably affiliated with Hubble in some respect did not seem happy about the judge's rulings today. I Noticed some of them shaking their heads in the rows in front of us. Obviously disappointed that this is not going to be the day that Hubble walks away and, you know, walks out of jail. He's at the Bartholomew County Jail. So I imagine that there's some disappointment on that side at this point. But at the same time, you know, I tend to think that the appeal will not succeed and that the trial will. A second trial may be on the way, you know, if that's even possible. So all in all, this took about like, what, 20 minutes?

[D]

I believe 19 minutes, to be precise.

[C]

19 minutes. So it wasn't a very long hearing. Certainly an eventful one. And then afterwards, everyone, like media was, like, hanging around the hallway afterwards. I'm assuming they were waiting for the Innocence Project people. But it was taking too long and we just kind of wanted to get this out there. So we. We left. We bounced. Yes. Anything else to discuss?

[D]

I think that covers it for now. When the state, when Ms. Holton came, presumably makes her appeal. Certainly we will cover that.

[C]

Yeah. I'll be interested to see what happens next.

[E]

Thanks so much for listening to the Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email [e-mail] if you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[C]

If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www. Buymeacoffee.com murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[E]

Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenland, who composed the music for the Murder Sheet and who you can find on the [e-mail] if you're looking to talk with.

[C]

Other listeners about a case we've covered, you can join the Murder Sheet discussion group on Facebook. We mostly focus our time on research and reporting, so we're not on social media much. We do try to check our email account, but we ask for patience as we often receive a lot of messages. Thanks again for listening.