The Murders of Blake and Chynna Dickus: Michael Jerome James’ Motion to Dismiss

[00:00:00] [SPEAKER_01] I'm Kevin and today we will be discussing a motion filed by the defense team in the Blake and Chynna Dickus case. And in this motion, the defense team is saying the whole thing should be dismissed.

[00:00:13] [SPEAKER_00] Content warning, this episode contains discussion of murder and violence, including the murder of a child.

[00:00:21] [SPEAKER_01] So we are going to go and talk about this with a little bit of depth over the next half hour or so. But before we get into this motion, I think there are a couple of things just off top, I should say. Basically, I'll explain it more later, but basically the gist of this is that Michael Jerome James, even if, even if you imagine he is definitely guilty of this murder, the law does not allow him to be a criminal justice.

[00:00:50] [SPEAKER_01] To be prosecuted for it. And I think on some level, when you hear an argument like that, that a person legally can get away with murder, you kind of recoil from it. But I think it's worth noting that if the law allows you to make that sort of argument and the state of Indiana law allows this argument to be made, it would be irresponsible not to make it.

[00:01:19] [SPEAKER_01] And I want to say that this filing, which was prepared by Michael Cunningham of the criminal defense team. I think he did a great job in this filing. So whatever frustration you might feel about this argument, we should take in mind that it is a serious, legitimate argument and that Mr. Cunningham expressed it very well.

[00:01:44] [SPEAKER_01] Well, in my judgment, I feel that's especially crucial to say because Mr. Cunningham is a member, as I indicated, of the criminal defense team. That is also the firm that is Andy Baldwin's firm. And we've been critical of him for his conduct in the Richard Allen case out of Delphi, Indiana. So I got to give credit where it's due, at least in this particular filing. I thought they did well. And we'll get into it in a moment.

[00:02:07] [SPEAKER_00] Yes. My name is Anya Kane. I'm a journalist.

[00:02:11] [SPEAKER_01] And I'm Kevin Greenlee. I'm an attorney.

[00:02:14] [SPEAKER_00] And this is The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:15] [SPEAKER_01] We're a true crime podcast focused on original reporting, interviews and deep dives into murder cases.

[00:02:22] [SPEAKER_00] We're The Murder Sheet.

[00:02:23] [SPEAKER_01] And this is the murders of Blake and Chynna Dickus. Michael Jerome James's motion to dismiss.

[00:03:14] [SPEAKER_01] So let's get into it. Let's start by a quick refresher about what this is about. All the way back on July 24, 2006, which is over 20 years ago, 10-year-old Blake Dickus and his stepmother, 26-year-old Chyna Dickus, are found stabbed to death in their home in Franklin, Indiana.

[00:03:36] [SPEAKER_01] Now, fast forward to September of 2026, a grand jury in Johnson County, Indiana, indicts Michael Jerome James. Michael Jerome James is now 35. At the time of the murders, he is 14 years old. The grand jury, as I say, returns a bill against Michael Jerome James for these killings.

[00:04:04] [SPEAKER_01] And they do this in an adult circuit court. So that's where things started. Now, Mr. Cunningham and Mr. James's defense team says, I'm going to read this from the brief, quote, The indictments against Mr. James must be dismissed because the grand jury had no authority to hear this case. Indiana grand juries may only hear evidence of crimes.

[00:04:29] [SPEAKER_01] In 2006, when the state alleges Michael James committed these acts, he was 14 years old and his alleged act was not a crime. It was a delinquent act. An indictment returned against a person the grand jury knew was a juvenile at the time of the act is void and a nullity, end quote. So let's talk about this. I think when we were talking about this on our when we were walking our dogs earlier, you said this is the sort of thing that makes people hate lawyers.

[00:04:58] [SPEAKER_00] This is the sort of thing that makes people hate attorneys, judges, the whole legal system. It's something that feels totally antithetical to the common perception of justice to the average layperson. This even something as simple as saying the horrific butchering of two people, including a child, is not a crime. It's merely a delinquent action.

[00:05:23] [SPEAKER_00] This is understandably going to tick so many people off just right off the bat. And I think those emotions are valid. I'm not going to tell anyone to feel differently about that, frankly, because I find it as a non-attorney, it's extremely cold and just. But of course, the law is cold. I'm not criticizing it, to be very clear.

[00:05:49] [SPEAKER_00] I'm just saying I understand if you kind of like your blood pressure goes up when you hear sentences like that.

[00:05:56] [SPEAKER_01] When you hear it sounds like the murders were not a crime. It's a delinquent act.

[00:06:00] [SPEAKER_00] Somebody beat and stabbed a child to death. That's not a crime. You know, I.

[00:06:05] [SPEAKER_01] I can explain that.

[00:06:06] [SPEAKER_00] I know you can, but I'm saying it's semantics. It is semantics. And this would be getting a murderer off on a technicality. And there's nothing the public hates more than that, I can tell you. I just, I think we can explain this and I think we should explain it to kind of get at why this is important and why this is perhaps legitimate.

[00:06:30] [SPEAKER_00] But I think for a lot of people, like their emotions and their hearts are with China and Blake Dickas. And when they see stuff like this, it just gets people mad.

[00:06:44] [SPEAKER_01] So basically, when you commit an act as a juvenile, it is presumed, it's considered a delinquent act. It's not considered a criminal act. If you commit the same crime as an adult, it can be considered a crime. But since this was allegedly committed by a juvenile, it's considered a delinquent act. Now, if he was a little bit older, I think the cutoff is 16.

[00:07:12] [SPEAKER_01] If he was over 16 and he committed a murder, that could be considered a crime. But because he was younger than that, the time it was committed and he was under, in theory, the jurisdiction of a juvenile court is not considered a crime. It's considered a delinquent act. Now, it's important to make the point, as they make throughout this brief, that there was a reason why we have a different system of justice for juveniles and for adults.

[00:07:40] [SPEAKER_01] The presumption, or maybe I should even say the hope, is that if a juvenile commits a crime, they're young enough that there was more of a hope for, for lack of a better word, redemption, reformation.

[00:07:54] [SPEAKER_00] Rehabilitation.

[00:07:55] [SPEAKER_01] Rehabilitation. And so that's a reason why they should be treated a little bit easier and given a bit more leeway than an adult.

[00:08:04] [SPEAKER_00] Isn't there also some truth to the idea that children are less capable of rationality? In many cases, their brains aren't fully formed, fully developed. And so some of that prefrontal cortex activity that you'd want to see is perhaps more lacking. It's harder for them to determine right from wrong. And there's that element of it, too, or is it mostly just rehabilitation?

[00:08:29] [SPEAKER_01] I think they both come into play. I think for our purposes here today, the most important one is probably the rehabilitation. But really, I think the key thing is that people in the juvenile system, generally speaking, get better treatment, kinder treatment than people in the adult system for whatever reason. That's just that's just that's just an undeniable fact. Right. And so you have a situation now in the state of Indiana because there's some court rulings.

[00:08:59] [SPEAKER_01] Oh, let me stop for a second. I recently or we recently had the opportunity to have a conversation with someone who really was able to lay all of this out for us. And I'm in the process of editing that. And I think we're going to try to get that out next week. And I encourage you to listen to that because that kind of explains how we got here, how we got to this situation.

[00:09:23] [SPEAKER_00] With the legislation side.

[00:09:24] [SPEAKER_01] With the legislation side, because now because of some court rulings, we have a situation where if you age out, if you commit a delinquent act as a juvenile and then you age out and become an adult, as an adult, you fall outside of the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. But you can't. But the adult court doesn't have jurisdiction of things you may have done as a juvenile.

[00:09:52] [SPEAKER_01] So there is a gap there in which certain things you may have done as a juvenile cannot be prosecuted if you are now an adult.

[00:10:01] [SPEAKER_00] Can I just ask you, having done the interview, do you think it was the intent of the legislation to make it impossible to prosecute adults who were minors when they got away with a very serious crime?

[00:10:13] [SPEAKER_01] Absolutely not. And the interview goes into that. And it also goes into the fact that this jurisdictional gap that exists, where if you committed a serious crime as a juvenile and you're now an adult, you can't be charged because no one has jurisdiction of you for those particular offenses. That has been closed. There's been legislation passed to remedy that.

[00:10:37] [SPEAKER_01] And the question is, this legislation, I believe, was passed in 2023. Does legislation that was passed in 2023, can that be applied to things that happened in 2006? That's the question at the heart of this.

[00:10:57] [SPEAKER_01] And generally speaking, there's a principle in law that laws that are passed generally are looking forward because you want people to be informed before they commit actions that there might be some sort of criminal situation there. You want to say, OK, from this date on, if you're like talking on a phone while you're driving, you might get a traffic ticket.

[00:11:23] [SPEAKER_01] We're not going to say, OK, we passed this law saying that talking on the phone while you're driving is a ticketable offense. And if you did this any time in the previous five years before this law existed, you're going to be charged for it. We don't do that. Laws are looking forward, not backward. So this this 2023 law that closes this gap, the question is, is it OK to have that law look backward or not?

[00:11:51] [SPEAKER_01] And that that's kind of what's at the heart of this. But again, the question is, if you are a juvenile when you committed an act and you're now an adult outside the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, it's unclear what should be done with you.

[00:12:11] [SPEAKER_01] Typically, if a juvenile commits a serious crime and you want to have him charged as an adult, there is there is a process for that. There is a hearing where things are discussed like, is this person beyond reforming? Is there any reason not to treat them as a juvenile? Is things it's not a performer hearing. A lot of things are discussed.

[00:12:38] [SPEAKER_01] But because Mr. James is over 21, he is outside the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. So they can't get to hold the hearing on whether or not to transfer him. So it's it's it's maddening. Yeah. What do you think?

[00:12:58] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, it's obviously a really stupid situation. It's a stupid loophole. It's stupid. I don't think society wants people who are just exceptionally good child criminals to not face consequences if they happen to be caught later.

[00:13:11] [SPEAKER_01] But it is a situation because he is outside the jurisdiction of the juvenile court. The hearing as to whether or not you could transfer him to an adult court can't happen because a juvenile court can't hold hearings for people over the age of 21. It's I don't know if catch 22 is the right word, but it's just you just start going in circles.

[00:13:30] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, it's preposterous. It's honestly it's a little bit embarrassing for Indiana. I'm not going to lie.

[00:13:38] [SPEAKER_01] I'm not happy about it. But again, if it's if that is the law in Indiana and it could be used to get Mr. James out of this situation, then his lawyers would be committing malpractice not to apply it.

[00:13:56] [SPEAKER_00] We can't be mad at defense attorneys for doing what defense attorneys do, which is to try to get the best outcome for their client. Obviously, the best outcome for Michael Jerome James would be for all this to go away and never be able to come back for him because of the age dispute and them essentially adjudicating that to the point where nothing can happen to him.

[00:14:18] [SPEAKER_00] So I think we can all be outraged that this is a possibility and that it could harm the cause of justice in this case. But I don't think it's fair to place the blame on the defense team for doing what they do.

[00:14:33] [SPEAKER_01] Self-care isn't always about face masks and bubble baths. Sometimes it's about making time for yourself, discovering what you love and feeling good in your own skin. Well, Melissa Boutique believes sex and pleasure should be fun and accessible.

[00:14:49] [SPEAKER_00] You can find their website at BBtoys.co and I love it. It can be hard to find the toy you want and to feel confident it's high quality. No matter what your body craves, you can find it at BBtoys.co. They've got something for every sensation. Vibes, suction, G-spot stimulators, and even their special signature thump toys. When you order from them, you don't have to think about anything other than your own pleasure.

[00:15:16] [SPEAKER_00] Their women-run company has over 2 million very happy customers. Their line is 100% body-safe silicone, waterproof, and USB rechargeable. And every product is backed by a 10-year warranty. You don't even have to worry about anyone else knowing your personal business. Everything they send to you will come in discreet packaging and delivery. They're also running an incredible deal right now, and I couldn't resist taking advantage of it myself. I bought their Thermovibe, Airvibe Pro, Whispervibe, and Rose.

[00:15:45] [SPEAKER_00] I can't wait to tell you all about my experience with them. But for now, why not join me and become a very satisfied customer of Balesa Boutique. Balesa Boutique is running their Black Friday offer. They're giving our listeners up to 80% off everything on the site when you use our link. Go to bbtoys.co.msheet for up to 80% off everything and additional deals dropping daily. That's b-b-t-o-y-s dot c-o slash msheet.

[00:16:13] [SPEAKER_01] There is nothing quite like having pieces in your closet you love and knowing you can count on for any occasion. Except maybe giving someone else that same feeling. This holiday season, Quince is where we are finding those pieces.

[00:16:27] [SPEAKER_00] And there are just so many to choose from. Like their high-quality down outerwear and cozy cashmere gloves and scarves. And their 14-karat gold earrings and bracelets are an easy way to polish any look, making them thoughtful gifts for anyone in your life.

[00:16:41] [SPEAKER_01] Quince makes elevated everyday essentials using premium materials like Mongolian cashmere, organic cotton, and premium stretch denim. The kind of pieces you'd be just as happy gifting as you would be to unwrap.

[00:16:54] [SPEAKER_00] And yet everything at Quince is still priced 50-80% less than similar brands. That's because they work directly with ethical factories and cut out the middlemen so you can give luxury quality pieces without the luxury price tag.

[00:17:07] [SPEAKER_01] I bought their pearl snap denim western shirt in denim blue, and I wish someone had gotten that from me as a gift. I wear it all the time now, both for everyday events and for fancier things and get-togethers. I think any guy would love getting this as a Christmas gift.

[00:17:22] [SPEAKER_00] Of course, when it comes to gifting, Quince has a lot more than clothing. Think leather bags, hotel-quality bedding, chef-grade cookware, and five-star luggage. Basically plenty of ways to find something special for everyone on your list. Give the gift of quality this holiday season. Download the Quince app for app-exclusive offers or go to quince.com. Get free shipping on your order and 365-day returns. Now available in Canada and the UK, too. And when Quince asks where you heard about them, let them know it was the murder sheet.

[00:17:51] [SPEAKER_00] It's the best way to support the show.

[00:17:53] [SPEAKER_01] Trying to figure out how to get the right mental health treatment for yourself can feel overwhelming. Talkiatry can help. They connect you with real psychiatric care so you can actually understand what's going on and get a treatment plan that works. Talkiatry helps you move from, I know I need help, to actually having a psychiatrist who listens.

[00:18:15] [SPEAKER_00] Talkiatry is a 100% online psychiatry practice that provides comprehensive evaluations, diagnoses, and ongoing medicine management for conditions like ADHD, which I have, anxiety, which I also have, depression, and more.

[00:18:29] [SPEAKER_01] Unlike therapy-only platforms, Talkiatry is psychiatry. You're seeing a medical provider who can diagnose mental health conditions and prescribe medication when it's appropriate.

[00:18:41] [SPEAKER_00] All 800-plus clinicians are in network with major insurers, so you can use your existing insurance instead of paying monthly subscriptions or out-of-network costs.

[00:18:51] [SPEAKER_01] This means you can meet with a licensed psychiatrist who takes the time to understand what's going on, builds a personalized treatment plan, and supports you over time with consistent, evidence-based care.

[00:19:03] [SPEAKER_00] Getting started is easy and just takes a few minutes. Complete a short online assessment, get matched with clinicians who fit your needs, and schedule your first visit in days, not months. Head to talkiatry.com slash msheet to complete the short assessment and get matched with an in-network psychiatrist in just a few minutes. That's T-A-L-K-I-A-T-R-Y dot com slash msheet to get matched in minutes. Talkiatry.com slash msheet.

[00:19:31] [SPEAKER_00] I'll also note, none of this actually goes to guilt or innocence for Michael Jerome James. We still don't know hardly anything about what exactly the case against him is. So this is something that, I mean, it sort of almost like doesn't really tell us anything about the strengths or weaknesses of that. And it certainly doesn't tell us if he's guilty or innocent. So I think it's important to keep all that in mind.

[00:19:56] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, because for the purposes of this argument, whether or not he's actually guilty or innocent is totally immaterial. And I want to stress what you said. Because of the way this case was handled through the grand jury process, whatever evidence convinced that grand jury to issue the indictment against Mr. James is unknown to us. So as we sit here, we could have a situation where the evidence against him,

[00:20:25] [SPEAKER_01] the secret evidence against him, could be incredibly strong. This could be an ironclad case that he's definitely a thousand percent guilty. On the other hand, it could be a situation where the evidence is incredibly weak and it's a put up job. And it was some mistakes were made and he never should have been facing these charges. He could be completely innocent. It could be a situation somewhere in between where the evidence is maybe a little ambiguous. It's more of a 50-50 case. We don't know.

[00:20:55] [SPEAKER_01] We don't know. But again, that is totally immaterial because what they're saying here is the grand jury that issued the indictment and issued these charges against Mr. James, they never even should have been looking at him because of this jurisdictional loophole. Because he allegedly committed these crimes as a child, only a juvenile court could be looking at him.

[00:21:23] [SPEAKER_00] Or rather, you know, not looking at him as far as investigatively, but charging him at all.

[00:21:28] [SPEAKER_01] Yes. There's this jurisdictional gap. The grand jury, according to this filing, didn't have the authority to hear the case. And we were talking at the top of the show about how when a person who is a juvenile commits a crime, it's considered a delinquent act and not a crime.

[00:21:52] [SPEAKER_01] It's long a principle in Indiana law that an alleged delinquent act you commit as a juvenile doesn't, in retrospect, become a crime just because you're a few years older. That's not the way it works. So they're saying under the terms of the law, under how we define things, this grand jury never even should have been looking at him.

[00:22:19] [SPEAKER_01] They had no authority to issue this indictment. Does that make sense?

[00:22:25] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, it makes sense.

[00:22:26] [SPEAKER_01] So then we turn to this question about this new law because the courts or rather the legislature passed a new law to try to close this loophole. Because, again, no matter where your position is on this case or other cases, I think, at least in theory, we could all agree we don't want to have a situation

[00:22:52] [SPEAKER_01] where anyone can get away with murder because of some quirk of the law.

[00:22:58] [SPEAKER_00] Yeah, no.

[00:22:58] [SPEAKER_01] No one wants that. So the legislature did pass this law in 2023 saying, no, this loophole no longer exists. And I will note that in this filing, Mr. Cunningham makes a point of saying, we're not arguing that when the legislature did that and closed that loophole that it was unconstitutional or wrong.

[00:23:26] [SPEAKER_01] We are not challenging in this filing their authority to do that. What we are challenging is how that law has been used in this one particular case against our client. Does that make sense?

[00:23:41] [SPEAKER_02] Yes.

[00:23:41] [SPEAKER_01] They're saying it is wrong to take this law from 2023 and apply it to the past. And we've talked to some people behind the scenes. And the argument that we've heard most often from people on the law enforcement side is,

[00:24:05] [SPEAKER_01] no, those concerns don't really apply here because all this law does is not inventing a new offense and saying this thing that wasn't a crime before is now a crime. All it's doing is just making some jurisdictional things clear. Oh, it would have been in this court. Now it's in that court. No big deal. What do you think of that argument?

[00:24:31] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, just as a taxpayer and a citizen of Indiana, I hope that prevails.

[00:24:39] [SPEAKER_01] Here's the problem with that argument. As we've indicated at the top of this program, if you're in the juvenile system, you get lesser penalties for your offenses or your delinquent acts. You get treated more generously. Number of reasons for that. We elaborated on them earlier, but that's indisputable. Would you agree with that?

[00:25:07] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:25:09] [SPEAKER_01] Now, if a law changes the system under which you will be charged and processed and dealt with, and if it takes you from the juvenile system, which is more generous, and puts you into the adult system, which is less generous, that means that the offense is going to be treated more seriously,

[00:25:34] [SPEAKER_01] and the punishment you get is going to change and is going to change for the worse. And so is it merely a jurisdictional thing if at the end of the day, because of that, you are getting a much more serious punishment? What do you think?

[00:25:51] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, again, I'm not a lawyer. What the law seems to be trying to do makes sense to me, but I understand the argument.

[00:26:01] [SPEAKER_01] I'm just curious. What do you think? Do you think if you are changing the punishment a person gets and making it more serious? Is that...

[00:26:09] [SPEAKER_00] Is that what? Is that appropriate? Yes, it is. It is appropriate. If someone kills people and, you know, yeah, I would want them to be punished appropriately. But I understand that that makes it more legally dubious.

[00:26:24] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I think it makes it more legally dubious. I am concerned that when you make punishments more severe and you apply it to things in the past, that rights might be violated.

[00:26:37] [SPEAKER_00] Kind of feel like China and Blake Dickens' rights were violated here, but I don't know. I get it. I get it. I get why it's a problem. But if you're asking me to, like, sympathize with somebody in that situation, I can't. Like, on some level, I don't really care. Like, I'm just being completely honest with you. But I think it's important for the defense attorneys to make these arguments at the same time.

[00:27:03] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. I'm not happy with what... I'm not happy with the outcome they seem to be arguing for. I want an outcome to a case that is based on the facts of that case. And...

[00:27:17] [SPEAKER_00] That's what I want. And if the case against Mr. James is terrible, I hope it's thrown out. I mean, just... Like, but that's a separate issue. That's not what we're talking about here. Right? If it's a very weak case and there's nothing against him, I don't want this man to suffer in jail. Right?

[00:27:33] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:27:34] [SPEAKER_00] But if there is a good case against him, I want that to be presented to a jury. But if we're cutting off the process, like, even before that, nothing happens. I mean, man, that just seems like a big disaster to me. Like, just from a... Not from a... Like, listen, I'm not a lawyer. I don't... You know, all these legal things are just... You know, they're interesting. But I'm just thinking about, like, the public effect of this guy being charged, arrested, thrown in jail.

[00:28:03] [SPEAKER_00] And then it comes out, oh, sorry, we can't prosecute him. Man, for a case like that, I mean, that's just going to be such a mess. Again, that's not why... The judges shouldn't base things on that at all. I'm not saying that. I'm just thinking about the fallout from this. Like, it almost... It's like, what will happen then? Because it was also a grand jury. So we won't even know. So, like, this will all have essentially happened. And he'll be let go.

[00:28:29] [SPEAKER_00] And we won't even know necessarily, like, what the deal was with that. I mean, that's just such a baffling outcome. But it's one that seems plausible.

[00:28:41] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, it seems plausible. I don't like the idea of a person being able to get away with murder. I don't like the idea of Mr. Jerome James's fate being based entirely not on innocence or guilt, but on some sort of quirk in jurisdictional law.

[00:29:01] [SPEAKER_00] Obviously, it's not his fault that the law is like this. I mean, so that's kind of on the legislature when they initially created this loophole. Although, to their credit, they did attempt to fix it. It's just maybe too late. Yeah.

[00:29:15] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:29:16] [SPEAKER_00] You know, to me, it's like with him, I don't know. It's just it's a baffling situation to be in where things might actually stop before they get started. And I just my heart goes out to the Dickases and the people who loved China and Blake. This is really an uneasy feeling that this kind of may not go anywhere as a result of some of these things. But, you know, I understand that ultimately the rights of the defendant are paramount to everything else.

[00:29:45] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah. And to be clear, I'm not sure if the legislature created this loophole or the court system did. We'll cover that in our upcoming episode. But at the end of the day, if this option is available for the defense team to argue, they have to do it.

[00:30:03] [SPEAKER_00] I'm not saying they shouldn't. They should, obviously.

[00:30:06] [SPEAKER_01] They should. They should. I want to read something else from this filing that I found interesting. Quote, Johnson County Prosecutor Lance Hamner told Fox News that authorities identified Mr. James as a suspect several years ago, but concluded Mr. James could not be charged in adult court because of the way the law was written. Thereafter, according to Hamner, we went back to the legislature and drafted a new law.

[00:30:33] [SPEAKER_01] End quote. That sounds kind of bad to me. Maybe I'm taking the wrong point of view, but it sounds like we went back and we created a law just for the purpose of punishing this one person.

[00:30:49] [SPEAKER_00] I have the opposite reaction. I feel like if you're noticing, oh, my goodness, there's this gaping loophole that's creating a huge problem in a prominent case in our community. We need to fix this. That's actually what I would want to see from local leaders and politicians and prosecutors. So I. Even if you want to say that they were targeting James to a certain extent, this thing needed closing.

[00:31:18] [SPEAKER_00] And it sounds like they got it closed where at the very least, after a certain point of time, this won't be able to happen again. Although it may not fix things for the past.

[00:31:27] [SPEAKER_01] Yes.

[00:31:28] [SPEAKER_00] That doesn't bother me at all.

[00:31:30] [SPEAKER_01] If a 14 year old boy in 2023, after this law was passed, commits murder, we wouldn't be in this situation 20 years later.

[00:31:41] [SPEAKER_00] No. So, I mean, I tip my hat to prosecutor Hamner. I feel like that's what he should have done. If you see something, say something. You know, like if he'd been like, well, I guess I guess there's nothing we can do. I'll just sweep that under the rug. I mean, that would be the wrong move. I like I. You should be trying to get this tried. It's not. This is not a car theft case. Two people were butchered in their own home.

[00:32:08] [SPEAKER_00] This is something that's incredibly important to Johnson County, as it should be. And if they feel like this is their guy and they feel like the evidence is there, they should be doing everything they can to prosecute it, in my view.

[00:32:21] [SPEAKER_01] Yeah, I certainly understand that. But when you are writing laws just to punish individuals, as that quote suggests, is a possibility, on some level, I find that disturbing. I want to say that I found this brief, again, to be very well done. And to some extent, I did find it persuasive.

[00:32:46] [SPEAKER_01] But the beauty of our system is there's always another side to be heard from. So I'm not going to make my final determination about where I personally follow this until I see how the state responds. Certainly emotionally, I want to have it just thrown out. And by talking to thrown out, I mean this motion, not the case itself. Emotionally, I'd like to see the evidence against Mr. James in a trial. But intellectually—

[00:33:15] [SPEAKER_00] Or at least pretrial hearings or something.

[00:33:16] [SPEAKER_01] Or at least pretrial hearings.

[00:33:17] [SPEAKER_00] Like, if it's a terrible case, then I would want to get dismissed pretrial, right? Like, I'm not saying, like—

[00:33:23] [SPEAKER_01] If it's a terrible case, I'd love for it to be dismissed on the merits.

[00:33:26] [SPEAKER_00] Right, exactly. And that's where I'm like, I don't—it's nothing—my feeling— Listen, I don't know enough about Mr. James or about the case against him to really feel any type of way about guilt or innocence at this point. I'm truly neutral on that. And if he's an innocent man, I totally understand being like, let's just use whatever we've got to get out of this.

[00:33:49] [SPEAKER_00] But if, you know, but as somebody who's watching the case and as somebody who knows people in Johnson County and in that community and knowing how much they want to know about this, I feel like the public access to information would be greater if we saw things play out pretrial at least.

[00:34:09] [SPEAKER_01] So emotionally, I want the trial definitely to go forward. Intellectually, I'm not sure if that is the right and legal move. And we will see what their response is. I hope they have an amazing response that puts all of our doubts to rest.

[00:34:27] [SPEAKER_00] I mean, I think they've tried to do a lot of work around fixing this loophole. So I would imagine that they would be well-positioned to be able to argue against this. And, again, I think all the work that they've done simply speaks to how important this case is to Johnson County.

[00:34:45] [SPEAKER_01] It's an incredibly important case to Johnson County. And if this does succeed and Mr. Jerome James finds the case against him tossed out and he's a free man, it might be difficult for him to continue living in the area, I imagine, because a number of people would feel that he got out on a technicality and may still be guilty.

[00:35:04] [SPEAKER_00] He would have gotten out on a technicality. That doesn't, as I said on the show before, technicality, we always hear that in cop shows. Oh, he got off on a technicality and everyone. Oh, I'm so mad about that. At the end of the day, technicalities do preserve all of our rights and we shouldn't discount that. Although I think it's, we should also not discount that it's very frustrating to see that happen in a heinous crime. Like, we can acknowledge intellectually that that's important while also acknowledging that it is emotionally valid to be frustrated about that.

[00:35:33] [SPEAKER_00] So I think both can be true. I tend to think the intellectual side should prevail in how we view these things. But let's not at least, like, let's not dismiss the emotions of that. And, yeah, I would hope that if he somehow walks on this, that he's at least willing to speak to the media to share his side of it. I think that could be very helpful to understanding what happened here.

[00:35:57] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:35:58] [SPEAKER_01] My concern, again, is just the idea of applying a law retroactively and passing a law in 2023 and trying to apply it to things that happened in 2006.

[00:36:10] [SPEAKER_00] To me, it sounds like a jurisdictional issue. I'm not going to lie. Like, when I hear that, I'm like, that makes sense. That makes a lot of sense.

[00:36:16] [SPEAKER_01] How do you respond to the fact that changing the jurisdiction results in a much stronger punishment?

[00:36:23] [SPEAKER_00] Don't murder people. Don't murder people, kids.

[00:36:28] [SPEAKER_01] So it sounds like you're more on the other side. I'm kind of in the middle. I have some concerns.

[00:36:35] [SPEAKER_00] I'm not. I defer to what a judge thinks on this, honestly. I have my own. I admit that a lot of how I'm reacting is probably more on the emotional side of wanting the knowledge, of wanting to have a case dismissed on its merits rather than just as some sort of procedural thing.

[00:37:57] [SPEAKER_00] It's a really bizarre legal loophole that we have in the Hoosier State here.

[00:38:22] [SPEAKER_01] What are we releasing next week? They had to make this argument. They made it, I think, about as well as they could have. I can't imagine a better brief on this than what Mr. Cunningham prepared. It's an outstanding brief. I, on some level, found it persuasive. The whole idea of trying to apply a law written in 2023 to events 17 years earlier I find very bothersome and troubling.

[00:38:50] [SPEAKER_00] Well, I guess we'll see what happens. We'll be looking forward to the response from the Johnson County Prosecutor's Office and how they're handling some of these issues.

[00:38:57] [SPEAKER_01] I hope they do an amazing job with their response and put all my—

[00:38:59] [SPEAKER_00] Well, you want to always see good lawyering across the board. I would imagine that they probably have thought through this, given if they were instrumental in spearheading this legislation. I would imagine this is not catching them by surprise. They're not sitting there like, oh, my goodness, what are we going to do now? I think they probably were expecting this.

[00:39:17] [SPEAKER_01] Yes, I'm sure they were as soon as the news of this arrest came out. I think everybody was aware that this issue was out there.

[00:39:26] [SPEAKER_00] It was going to come down to this. Yeah. So given that, we would hope that, you know, it's going to be strenuously argued. But ultimately, regardless of how good the arguments are, it's going to come down to what a judge thinks and then perhaps what higher courts think.

[00:39:41] [SPEAKER_02] Yeah.

[00:39:42] [SPEAKER_00] Well, thank you for researching this, Kevin. I've been worried. I've been not worried. I've been curious about this since the news dropped yesterday. So I was definitely excited to get your take and see what you thought of this entire 50-page summary of, you know, the law and what they're arguing for. So thank you for doing that. Anything else to add?

[00:40:01] [SPEAKER_02] That's it.

[00:40:02] [SPEAKER_00] All right. Thanks, everyone, for listening.

[00:40:03] [SPEAKER_01] Thanks so much for listening to The Murder Sheet. If you have a tip concerning one of the cases we cover, please email us at murdersheet at gmail.com. If you have actionable information about an unsolved crime, please report it to the appropriate authorities.

[00:40:24] [SPEAKER_00] If you're interested in joining our Patreon, that's available at www.patreon.com slash murdersheet. If you want to tip us a bit of money for records requests, you can do so at www.buymeacoffee.com slash murdersheet. We very much appreciate any support.

[00:40:48] [SPEAKER_01] Special thanks to Kevin Tyler Greenlee, who composed the music for The Murder Sheet, and who you can find on the web at kevintg.com.

[00:40:57] [SPEAKER_00] If you're looking to talk with 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.