Frat Bro Dropped in Cornell 7 Lawsuit, Press Sec Not a Lawyer, and Clancy Holdout Juror Speaks: Positively Legal

As you know, I love true crime. And here on the MK Show, we like to bring you the latest law and crime stories whenever we can. If you enjoy these stories as much as I do, I feel like we're crime solvers, don't you? I feel like we might be doing good. And I also feel like it helps you when a new crime gets committed in helping to figure it out. A lot of the true crime community actually does participate by sending tips into law enforcement and in some cases, they have been integral in solving cases, even some of these true crime podcasts at times have been helpful, at times not helpful, but at times helpful. So in any event, look, you got to check out MK True Crime if you are into this kind of content. MK True Crime is a channel featuring three shows where you can listen to some of your favorite legal experts from the Megan Kelly show. Kelly's court regulars like Mark Garagos, Matt Murphy, Dave Ehrenberg, Phil Holloway, Ashley Merchant, Mark Eiglarge, and John Aspelborg. Those are two of the OGs back with me 20 plus years ago doing these segments believe it or not, discussing all the latest true crime news and stories. You can't get enough of three shows, one feed, new episodes every week. They cover the headlines, the legal strategy, and the people who live it. Enjoy this episode and follow MK True Crime. Go ahead and subscribe right now. Just wherever you get your podcast, go to that little purple button on your phone. Type in MK True Crime, hit subscribe. You're good to go and you can do the same over on YouTube. It's MK True Crime on all podcast platforms. Hello and welcome to Positively Legal. I'm Mark Eiglarge, one of your hosts, and my bio says that I'm a former prosecutor adjunct law professor. That's right, I teach advanced trial advocacy. And I'm a veteran criminal defense attorney. I'm father of three. I wrote a book about happiness. And the best thing is that I'm co-host of a show called Positively Legal with John Aspelborg. That's you. That's the cue. That's my cue. Is that my cue? Oh, yeah. That would be it. Your name. So I guess I am John Aspelborg, criminal defense attorney and founder of a law firm aptly named John Aspelborg law. I know they notice the Cornell seven case continues on and it will for a while. The former Cornell fraternity president was just dropped from Jane Doe's civil lawsuit. I wonder why we're going to bring you the latest details on that. And also the lone holdout Lindsey Clancy juror did an interview with Fox News. We're going to talk about it. Did you think it was necessary, John, how does that impact the upcoming possible retrial? I can't wait to talk to you about that. But first, John, but first, John, it's a happy hour. It is. It's the one time I don't have a drink. It's so funny. I came rushing in here and I didn't even have a drink. Let me find some type of beverage here. Here we go. Okay. I found myself something to drink during happy hour time. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm. No. Yes. Since it is happy hour, can we begin by discussing why you're so late today? See, they didn't know that. It's really happy to have that. We don't have enough time now. Right. So, as I had a court appearance in Gainesville on Friday, and then over the weekend, I stayed in Gainesville to be with my precious offspring, my two kids who go to school there, want to just graduate, but she's going to go to law school. Had a wonderful time on my way back on Monday morning. A judge in an Orlando case said, okay, we can hear your motion for reduction of bond tomorrow, meaning Tuesday. So, if this airs on Wednesday, it was today. Mm-hmm. So, I, five minutes from the Bright Line train, as I was about to head back to South Florida, said, hold on, take me to some hotel, because I'm staying the night, and I found a hotel, and I stayed the night, and I prepared, and argued that my clients, $2.5 million bond be reduced. That's what I did today, Johnna. And then I just took the train back, and then I, I got off the train, I took an Uber back to my house, my dogs who missed me, peace and quiet, my two white, beautiful golden doodles, they wanted to play with me. She had the ball, quiet had the ball in her mouth, she wanted to play. No, Daddy's just playing with you, and I came here and didn't even have a chance to pull out my beverage for a happy hour of time. That's what I do for this show, Johnna. Oh, thank you for gracing us. For heinous, hang on a minute, because I guess because I'm not from Florida, and I'm not familiar. I don't really know, so Gainesville or Orlando close to each other, is that it? Kind of like a couple hours from each other, two hours from each other. Two hours from each other. Gainesville is two hours north of Orlando, Gainesville, the home of the University of Florida, Gators, where I went to college, undergrad, yes. So hang on now. Of course, the thing that I'm honing in on in this tale of woe, is that, are you wearing the same suit today that you were wearing on Friday and Monday? All right. First, I'd object to relevance, however I'm going to answer it for the record, and that is no, when I got home, I ripped off the t-shirt that I was wearing that I changed into to make myself comfortable on the Bright Line train. And I put on a new shirt, one that smelled nicely. I tucked a new hanky into my jacket, and here I am, Johnna. How was your day? One last question, Mr. E. Garsh, are you or are you not wearing pants? I am wearing, guess, what do you get, guess, and then I'll tell you. I guess not, I guess no, because you never wear pants. You never wear pants. Well, I rarely wear anything that covers my knees. The question is, am I doing that today? And by the way, what are pants, like matching slacks with the jacket, is that what you mean? Yeah, a suit pants. Oh, I can almost assure you that might never happen. But did you want to guess? I'll jump up and show you. I mean, why not? All right. Is your knee, are your knees exposed? No. They're not exposed. Oh, I know. Today they're wearing pajama bottoms. Are you wearing pajama bottoms? Well, the real mark eyeglasses, please stand up. Are you ready? Are you ready? Yes. I'm ready. I'm wearing. He's getting on shit. Oh. Blue jeans. Jeans. There we go. Okay. Okay, John Bond, Jover. You can take a seat. Right. Right. Okay. All right. And did I get the bond lowered you ask? Oh, I just, you know what? I didn't ask. You know why? I assumed you did. You're that good. Or you don't give a shit. No, I do give a shit. I do. You did. I mean, 2.5. That's a lot. Of course you got it lower. It was white collar, non-violent fraud, but it was extremely extensive. He's facing potential life sentence. And I, I said to the judge, I start off with judge as I was reading the 105 page arrest affidavit. I was waiting for the time that when he went to the clerk's office and allegedly committed fraud, that he executed her. It wasn't there. There's no violence alleged here to justify a 2.5 million dollar bond. Ultimately, she took off a million and a half, which I still felt was too much. And she said, come back if you can't post a million dollar bond. And the family said they're going to, they're working on it. So. Yeah. The family said, hang on, let me lift up this mattress. I will grab the million dollars and we will post them on. No, no. One of the stipulations is you've got a prove. It's called a nebbia requirement here. You have to prove where the source of the funds are coming from and they have to be legitimate and clean. That's exactly what I do. And I vet my, my fees for legal fees. I will never take money unless I know that it's from a legitimate source. You, Johnna, what are you taking all that tainted dough in New York? No, I tell them if they can't come up with the money, just go ahead and print it. I'm okay. I'm okay. Right. We'll wander it through, you know, one of those, one of those, don't, I mean, we have them. Have you ever walked this side bar? So of course I'm kidding for anybody who doesn't know. But that, have you ever walked into a place like a restaurant, for example, like I walk into some restaurants? I've done that. But I actually like, and there's never anybody in there though the food is good and then I'll be like, it's because nobody eats it for in the afternoon, like you do. I mean, that's the problem. Well, I didn't say I was there there for the blue plate special, I'm like, this must be a money laundering outfit because nobody's here ever. Yeah. Like a mugs are a store really mugs. That's all you sell. Right. Right. I'm always labeling places like money laundering places. Come on. Not even good customer service with the mugs. But let me do today. Tell me. We talked about me. What you just give me a, give me a taste of what led you to this point, you obviously had your hair done because it looks fabulous, John. Oh, no, no, no. It should not look fabulous. I am getting my hair done this Friday. So it should not look, yeah, this is this is what happens before you get it done. My goodness. I woke up like this, Mark. So no, so I didn't do that. I've had, so last week as you, you might remember, I think I told you, I was on trial in a divorce trial and you were like, oh, my God. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Right. So hold on. Viewers, did she not say at the top again that she's a criminal defense attorney and then she talks stories about doing family law? I mean, come on, come on, Johnna, so I had to trial go. What happened? >> So three days. >> Three days, we completed the custody, the child custody, portion of this divorce trial. We have to come back in January, the money stuff, but you know what it's like. So it was three days of trial. You don't get anything else done in life for it, or anything like that. So for the last couple of days, like you, I have been non-stop, which is why I was three minutes late for getting on the air with you today, but you were 10 minutes late, so I was actually early. >> A net of seven. Are we really going to keep itching about it between the three and the 10 equals seven? And did you get what you wanted for your client? Did you get the time share that you wanted? She is very, very happy. We got her 95% of what you wanted when we got out of child custody. That is a win. >> That is a great win. Okay. So did you not like the husband or the other guy, like did you, or you thought he was an okay guy? Like the other guy that you wanted to keep the child from, did you actually honestly believe that he wasn't suitable or you were just fighting for your client? >> No, no, no, no, no. We didn't want to keep the child from, which I don't, you know, when I have a client, in a custody battle. >> Yeah, so sometimes you do, though. >> No, only if the other parent is like a monster, if the other parent is a decent parent. >> That's why I'm asking. >> The goal isn't to keep the child away. There are different things that go, that go along with that. Although he did do one weird thing in my presence that nobody else noticed. >> Are you about to say penis, tell me what would happen. >> No, no, but it struck me kind of weird and I'm going to gossip about it at some point in the old house. >> You go ahead. >> To it now for a while. >> Okay, so we're in the hallway outside of the actual courtroom because there was a break and we didn't, we stayed with the client and so, but he left, he left with his attorney and he was coming back. When you come back from court, if you're not an attorney, you have to go through the metal detector. It's like being in an airport, you got to take off anything metal. So he was, he had to take off his belt when he was walking back in the courtroom. By the time he got to where I was standing and my co-counsel and the client, he was putting the belt back on and I actually had to ask him a question now, granted, you're not supposed to talk to the other party, but I had permission, his attorney was standing right there. >> Sure. >> To just ask him, right? >> Right. >> So I go to ask him a question and his, and he's putting on the belt and his response was, I feel like I'm getting dressed in front of a bunch of ladies. >> Right. >> And I was like, you know what? >> Right, right. >> No, save that. >> Yeah. >> So I didn't even acknowledge it. >> Okay. >> I'm like, is that a yes? Is that a no? >> Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Anyway. >> It is unusual. I also took my belt off for the metal detector today in Orange County, in Orlando. And I'm literally walking and I hadn't put it on yet. And I'm just walking down the hallway, trying to put my belt on, it felt weird. >> What a creep. >> Speaking of that. Did you want to pivot and talk about something more substantial, like that press secretary? >> We have. >> That press secretary. Can we talk about that for a second please? >> We have to talk about her. Okay. >> I'm dying to get your thoughts on that. I mean, first of all, can we just start with, was this the best public speaker you can get? It's all I'm asking. Let's start there. I mean, forget about whether she went to law school or not, Katie Zechariah, whatever her name is. Forget about whether she actually went to law school, whether she's a lawyer, whether she passed the law on all these issues. Is that the best we can get in terms of public speaking? Yes, John? No. >> I am going to defend her in one area. And that is, I imagine she does have fabulous hair. I can't imagine how nervous one must be, first day on that, like that's a job, that's a big job. And I can't imagine how nervous she would be. And so I would give a little bit of a pass because she was obviously nervous. Now, and if you listen to this, we'll talk about it. Apparently she did not have a lot of time to prepare, which mistake number one, if you don't have enough time to prepare for something that big, you got to either get up to speed or delay or do something to avoid a performance like that. >> Speaking of performance, you go to Broadway tonight. It's opening night, they forget their lines, you know, they're nervous, it's Broadway. It's really good for you with the dance hands. They forget their lines, are you that, you're going to excuse that behavior that they forgot their lines? This is the big leagues. You got to be ready for the big leagues, Johnna, come on. You got to be ready for that. You can't go in being nervous, practice, or say you're not ready, but do not go in there and shit the bed. That's what she did in terms of ability. Let's start there. >> People do that, my first ever TV appearance, which I hope is buried somewhere and will never come. >> Me too. >> Never? >> Me too. >> I was so nervous that more, I couldn't, I was squeaking literally squeaking outward. I had no air in my trachea and I was like, and then on top of squeaking, I was doing this, like a million, it was so embarrassing. >> You belong not in the White House as a press secretary until you're ready and now you're ready. You see, that's the difference. This is a logical choice, by the way, if anybody were to consider it, but for real, but now let's get to the other more controversial part, okay? >> Much more controversial part. >> All right, they claim that she went to law school, okay, so let's just say they vetted who they have. >> She did go to law school. She went to heaven and she graduated. >> Okay, fine. >> She has a jurist doctorate degree. >> Fine. >> Did she or did she not hold herself out to be a licensed practicing attorney by the words that she used, calling herself a lawyer instead of an attorney? Isn't that the same thing, Johnna, and doesn't that imply you passed the bar? >> So that's the thing, no, that's the thing. I don't think there is a difference, and maybe I'm wrong, and you can think there's no difference. >> There's no difference. >> Lawyer and attorney, to me, same thing. >> Right. If you're not a licensed lawyer, I don't believe you're allowed to say I'm a lawyer versus an attorney. And here's why. You think the general public gives a shit, knows the difference, looks that up, no. You are almost deceiving the public if you hold yourself out as a lawyer versus an attorney. She should have said, I have a jurist doctorate degree, I have a JD, right? But don't hold yourself out as a lawyer, but here's the thing, why didn't anybody know this, before she took the mic? >> Well, let's go to the sought where I think it all happened. Let's go to the room where it happened, sought number one, because it was loud as hell. Listen to this, sought number one. >> [LAUGH] >> Did she see the attorney, where did she pass the bar exam, which state, what did she say? >> Call up, where did she pass the bar exam? >> Where did she pass the bar exam? >> Mr. President. >> Mr. President, what's up, what's up, what's up, what's up, what's up? >> For all we know, she said, Vachina, I don't know what she said. I don't know what she's saying. You can't hear anything. That's not the best place to get a response, but it looked like she was saying China. And- >> She did say China. >> Right, I mean- >> But she didn't pass the bar there either. >> I know, in fact, apparently I did some research. You have to be a citizen to take the bar in China, like they're not going to let non-citizens take it. So we know that didn't happen. You don't think this is an accident, you think she was clearly misleading, right? I think she was caught off guard, didn't think it was going to be a semantic issue. It's more than a semantic issue, but obviously the reporters all knew that she hadn't passed the bar anywhere. That's why they asked the question, and this is why I just don't know if, when she got the job, okay, the resume, right? Yeah, oh, I see here, you went to Pepperdine, okay, are you licensed to practice for anywhere? Oh, China, oh, okay, next, like, well, but in her defense, she doesn't need to be a lawyer to do this job. So I do want to defend her- >> They just say- >> Then just say I'm a non-practicing lawyer. Let's go to sat number two. >> No, I'm not a lawyer. So what do you call it, I'm a- >> I'm a JD, I guess. >> I'm a denial delinquent. >> I would be okay actually, she said non-practicing lawyer, I think. I think I could probably defend her more, let's see what happens on Hannity, sat number two. >> You took the bar exam, but you didn't pass the bar exam, correct? >> Yeah, it's Sean. >> Okay, so- >> And so- >> It's because I'm a child. >> So for background, I graduated Pepperdine, got married in the same week. And we had all intent to move out to China. I had already pre-registered for the bar exam and during, basically during the summer. I knew I would be living in China and the results of the bar were inconsequential. And I sat for it because I didn't want to have a withdraw status. And then I moved over to China and where I did get a job in an international practice of a Chinese law firm. I was doing multi cross-country border transactions and multi-million dollar shareholder agreements. But I want to ask you specifically, I know that part of the story that you did do all of that. Yes, but did you ever take the bar exam a second time? I did not, so you said you consulted with many people, and they advised you that it was okay to call yourself a lawyer, but not an attorney, correct? Correct. Really? Who told you that? Donald? Who told you that? You know, come on, John. No, no, no, no. Donald, as in Trump, is what you're saying? No, no, Donald Duck. No, no, no. But you know, this just reminded me of something, though, because I'm sitting here. I don't think there's a difference between lawyer and attorney. However, I have been fooled myself when it comes to calling somebody a doctor who's got a PhD, and I'm thinking, you know, they can prescribe my Botox, but they can't because they're only a PhD. I've been fooled by that. Right. Right. But that's not unlawful, right? PhDs are allowed to call themselves doctors. I almost don't care what anybody calls himself until and unless they're in a position of trust, a position of power, where the world is watching, where the kids are watching, where people are, are evaluating how you handle questions, whether you tell the truth or not in public, that all matters to me, you know. See, is it that matter to you? I don't like being misled. No, no, absolutely matters. And that's why like when she starts talking to Sean Hannity and going through the whole, let me have excuses as to why she's not really like, stop it. That wasn't the way. She doesn't need to be it didn't need to be a lawyer to do this job. And she should have just flat said, I'm sorry, there's been a misunderstanding. I am not a practicing lawyer. I don't need to be one to do this job. Don't go into. I went to China. Then I got married. Then I had kids and then I don't stop. Just stop. China, how about when you're, when you're caught with your hand in the cookie jar and people know you've misled them. What about, and this is a foreshadow to my rant today, what about looking in the camera and saying, you know what? It was inadvertent if it was or you know what? I misled. I apologize. You know, I didn't mean to do it. I said I was a lawyer because someone told me that. But I can understand why people thought that meant I passed the bar. I meant no harm. Just own up to it. Just come clean. I am so tired of people bullshitting, Johnna, just be real. Fall on the sword. We're all human. And that's what she should have done. But she should have had to do that before she got the job because it's embarrassing for her. Yeah, embarrassing for the administration. It was unnecessary. She might have been a perfectly good look. Caroline levitt is a tough act to follow. Tough act to follow. I don't know if she was going to come close, but no, not a chance for her attorney, tomato, tomato. Yeah, got it. Let's call the whole thing off. And here it took a watch group to file a complaint with the state bar of California calling for an investigation. I don't know what they're going to do with that. But yeah, oh, yeah, that was done. Yeah, I know. I know. But you stop it. Get your foot. People get your foot offer throw. It's done. It's over. Leave it. Leave it alone. Okay. So you want to talk Cornell seven? We're going to do that in the next block. We're excited to do so a lot going on with that case. And we'll be right back. Welcome back to positively legal. Now, Mark, a defendant and Jane Doe's civil lawsuit was just dropped from the case. Yep, yep. Next. So, so do you do you want me to I can I can make it like the biggest deal or I can make it nothing. Which one do you want me to argue? You know what? I actually I'm going to do both. I don't think it's I don't think it's a big deal. So okay. So here's the argument. Here's the argument. Okay. The argument has been from people. And just so we're clear, anybody watching this. I'm not taking a position. I wasn't there. I'm smart enough to know how little I know. I'm waiting for an unbiased investigation that I will not get from Leticia James. So I don't know that I'm ever going to know what really happened. Plus, we're hearing the facts from people who are shit faced. And so there's believability and accuracy. We're getting facts as they believe them. But are they really accurate? And I think that's the argument here. Then step on yourself. No, I'm here. The argument is that she believed that the president of the fraternity was this one particular guy. And I'm not going to mention his name. And from that, just understand what came from that mistake. This guy then gets named in a civil lawsuit. They personally served him with the civil lawsuit. He freaks out, clutches his heart that he's being accused of this heinous this. He's now part of this whole thing. Oh, but Mark, his role was only as a president. No, he's part of this. He's worried about his entire future. The guy sacrificed in high school to become a Cornell undergraduate. And now he's being sued and he has to get a lawyer and he pays a lot of money for the lawyer and ultimately final day realize, oh yeah, he wasn't the president. You screwed up. Your team screwed up. Where else are you screwing up? All right, I'm off the soapbox. You go, John, huh? Make nothing out of this. Go ahead. They named the wrong guy. Yeah. Right. So you have to dismiss him. It's called disclosure. You dig head. They have to dismiss. Right. I mean, that's what you do. If you screw up. Right. That's wrong guy misspelled whatever wrong time. So, you know, instead of making him file a motion and incur those legal expenses. Oh, how generous of them once they realize the air really, they went and did the right thing. You're plotting them for that. But I will also say along your lines, like they sued everybody and their brother. So we say, right? They included people that really don't have probably any responsibility, although, you know, you sue the deep pocket. You do all that thing because you want to throw everything up against the wall and see if it sticks. That's what I don't like oftentimes about certain civil cases. Oh, and oh, by the way, Mark, not only do we do divorces, we do personal injury too. Oh, for the love of God breaking news. Johnna is not a criminal defense lawyer like she alleges. She does it all. She's a door lawyer. Anything that comes through the door is for Johnna. But let me ask you this. You had mentioned, oh, that's what she do. You just shotgun and sue everybody. I mean, I sue something. Yeah. When they go after the tuna and they throw out the net. And there's a sweet innocent dolphin or two that gets caught up in the tuna. Do you give a shit? Are you just going, well, it's part of the deal, whatever. So this sweet innocent guy who had nothing to do with this fraternity, he wasn't the president, Johnna. He wasn't like they alleged. He had to get a lawyer. He was part of the Cornell 7. Can you imagine today's modern day, you know, stamp of crap, right? And now and now I was going for scarlet letter. I forgot. But yes, scarlet letter. There you go. You're branded. You don't really, you're just minimizing it. They did the right thing. No, but do you, do you know his name without looking at your notes? No, you don't. You know why? Nobody gives a shit about that guy. All we care about is the Cornell 7, all the, all the legal, really? Yes. Yeah. You know who cares? You know who cares? Oh, that guy. No, hold on. Hold on. I'm getting to it. I'm getting to it. I'm going to give you, I'm going to tell you, I don't know it because I don't follow this stuff, right? But I'm going to tell you who does know it. Sot number five. These ladies know what, Johnna, they're protesting in solidarity and I bet you they're including this guy in their rants. Oh, you're going to hate this. Look at this, she is nervous. Everyone in the lawsuit, everyone. Ladies, they dismissed me from the lawsuit. We don't care. Your response, Johnna. What do you, what do you think of that? I, they know his name. I applaud any group that could Zumba wall protesting. Okay, like, you know what I do, Mark, when I wait, when I come to the office and I make my coffee, it takes like a minute, you know what I do? I do crunches while I'm waiting. Like it's multitasking. Yeah. And I love that. Uh-huh. They don't know his name either. They don't probably even know their own names. Wow, that was harsh. I don't know. All right, you want to talk about the governor because that's pissing me off. Yeah. Let's talk about her. Get Kathy Ho, Ho, Ko, her name. Kathy Kathy, Kathy Ho, Ko. Yes. No, it could be Ho, Cho. All right. Yeah, you know, some people do pronounce it that way, but it's, it's Ho, Ko. Okay. Uh-huh. You got, uh, you got to, you got to, you got a problem with her? Well, we are still, I mean, we are still waiting. We have not had, uh, hearing on the motion to, uh, unapointment with Tisha James. Oh, yeah, you think that's really going to happen because sought number three that I'm ready to throw at you is this governor, understand where it comes from. Now, for her to appoint somebody neutral, objective, independent, you think that she has to take an independent approach. first, to show that she's not biased. Sat number three might undermine her position that she's being neutral on this thing. >> State Attorney General Letitian James is being criticized for having made statements that suggest she's already prejudged the case. You have also made statements that sound like you have prejudged the case, including saying, quote, this woman, this young woman had already endured something that is utterly unspeakable. What do you say to legal experts who say James' statements could jeopardize the investigation as appearing impartial? >> For me? >> Yes. >> Listen, I'm a mom. I dropped a daughter off at a college campus. There should not be a culture that allows for a young woman to be so brutally attacked on a fraternity, and then literally have the courage to go ask for help from law enforcement. You know how difficult it is for a victim to have to tell her story to strangers, but she did it, and also the evidence seemed very clear, and I'm not prosecuting this case. Seemed very clear that the boys and the fraternity were trying to cover up what they had done. There were a lot of acknowledgments, a lot of texts that were coming up. So I said this, I want there to be an independent investigation. That's underway. But also, it became clear to me that the district attorney had already denied the opportunity to interview this young woman. I come from family of prosecutors. You should know enough to interview a victim of a crime and not just dismiss it. That's why the law says the governor may have shallow point, the governor's shallow point, the attorney general in case of special prosecutions. The attorney general can speak for herself on her 20th. >> John, I have so many things to say about this, I'm going to let you go first. >> Okay. First of all, she keeps referring to the accuser as a victim. She said that she was attacked, the overwhelming evidence, evidence, Mark, why don't we start there? Let's define evidence, shall we? Evidence is not a 100 page civil lawsuit with allegations contained therein. >> Agreed. >> Allegations, okay? Even the text messages, which, if you're going to talk evidence, okay, is evidence that this was a consensual act, not some sort of brutal crime that she was partaking of her own free will, after also partaking of her own free will to get drunk. So first of all, and this isn't even evidence, they're not evidence yet, you know why they're not evidence yet? Because there's no criminal complaint filed and a civil action contains allegations only until something has been proven under oath and has been proven incredible, etc, etc, what say. >> Okay, I am not necessarily jumping on the, she wasn't victimized bandwagon, she might have been. >> Because we don't know the governor. >> And I, because I don't know yet, I applaud the governor in theory, right, that if there's a climate where a woman is being harmed, I too have a daughter who's on a college campus right now, and I want her to be heard, and I want all those generic things that she said I agree with, but you are a governor who claims that she's not prosecuting the case, who clearly then doesn't know all the facts, who is immediately condemning these guys because for every action there's a reaction, when you call her a victim and you say that she went through something horrible, like Latissa James did, then what you're saying is that what she's saying is true. And it's just the optics, that's my concern, it's about fundamental fairness, okay? This is less about which one is guilty and which one is innocent. It's more about fairness because we can't have a process that is not fair. Are you with me? And that's why I have a problem with this governor. You just reminded me of something, this is a little off, that's all right, you're a little off. You know, I can't, I can't think of a case off, a case name off the top of my head, but I have, okay, Peterson, let's say, no, no, no, no, no, the closest I can come is Duke, let's fast forward into the future, right, pull out our crystal balls, let's suppose for argument's sake, that the Cornell 7 are indicted, tried, and acquitted, okay, do you think that the Zumba protesters and the Kathy Holkles are going to accept that acquittal and say, oh, you know what, guys, we had this whole ball, oh, the evidence didn't show a crime, sorry, my bad. Yeah, but you know what though, I would defend their right to not say my bad, the same way people should defend my right to say merely because OJ was acquitted of the murder in his criminal case, that that wasn't the jurors speaking the truth, that was, you know, a ridiculous verdict. I'm not casting, you know, any, any aspersions on the jurors, they had reasonable doubt, but that doesn't mean that I independently looking at the evidence believed that he was innocent. We know that the system lets nine guilty people go so that one innocent person is in strip of their liberty like that. So not guilty doesn't mean that they're innocent, it means that there's not enough evidence to those particular jurors, the court of public opinion or the screaming ladies in the court of public opinion in that one video, they have every right to continue to point their finger at people, right? Even if it's one of my clients who are Snow White innocent or one of my family members, it's their right under the First Amendment. I'm not happy about it, but I'm not happy about a lot of things people say. I think that that is troubling for our entire system of justice because if you're going to pre-judge and think people are guilty and put them through the whole, more than ahead it, put them through the whole thing of having to live as a defendant, pre-trial trial, then when 12 people come out and say, eh, it's just not there, then why shouldn't they be owed an apology? Look, I agree with you, I don't like it. I've ranted about it. I don't like that people pre-judge, they don't know the evidence, they hear a little bit of a sound bite, they think that they're now, they have a cause, their life has purpose. I hate everything about it, but we live in a country where that is totally legal and it's First Amendment protected, it's offensive is outrageous, but I defend all that because it's their right. I also then get to point my finger back and say, you effing morons, why don't you learn more about the case before you start jumping on a side? That's all, and I'm not saying they're wrong by the way, but they can be wrong. I'm just amazed at how people jump to a side like they're picking a team in fantasy football and then they stay on that side, yeah, you do that, no matter what and they don't change their opinion. All right, so Exhibit A, look at you. This is a good, this is a good segue, although I prefer Segu. Into something else I want to talk about speaking of juries, I want to, we have some update on the loan holdout. Yes. Mindy Clancy. He admitted, he admitted he should have gone with the 12? What happened? No, no, he came at it. He did his first public interview, Fox, Fox is getting all the interviews. I know. I know. He's guys, so, and he's defending himself, because remember, they came out fire in Brimstone against this guy that he was following the law. Right. Specifically, they said, you and I were talking about it. He said he had reasonable doubts, but he wasn't going to follow the law no matter what. And I immediately said, wait a second, first of all, he doesn't owe them anything. There's nothing in the law that says you must defend your position to these people and when they get in your face, that somehow you have to articulate what you're feeling. Bullshit. He doesn't have to do that. But did he have reasonable doubt? Let's go to sought number six and you judge. Did you have reasonable doubt? No. Your attorney said you have had a mountain of evidence. What was your evidence? Well, definitely, I had a lot of evidence to back up my claim, but because I had a respect of the other jurors in the court system, I will put that to sleep from now until, you know, they go through the process of the court system. I imagine that had to be 10-set moments here in a jury room. There are 11 people who say Lindsey Clancy is not guilty by reason of insanity. They're taking a different position. Were there moments that were tense? Yeah. There were moments that were tense. There were moments that were tense as we were deliberating. Of course there were. And by the way, when he's referring to, I don't want to talk about it because of the jurors. Is he talking about the jurors that he served with or the future jurors in the next trial, assuming there is one? Do you know what he meant by that? I don't know what he meant by that, but I have a feeling that he's probably sought legal counsel, obviously, as he should. And before he did this interview, they probably said, you know, let's not flap your gums. There's a hearing coming up, I think next week, in this case, or no, beginning of November, in this case, on certain aspects. So I think he had to be cautious in what he was saying. And that's probably why he's just not going to go there at this point. So don't you think that these interviews increase the chances of creating more of a divide on this case because it's almost like, it's almost. he's become like the Fox News slash right wing slash Republican position on this case, just my perception, right? And so then there's more people on that team, and those people are going to show up for the next jury duty. Again, assuming there's a trial, and now there's more division. It can't be any more divided than it already is, right, Mark? So so if you want to speak your piece because you've been vilified, he has been vilified in the court of public opinion, right? You've been vilified. You want to speak your piece. You're not going to go into unfriendly territory, right? You're not going to go on the MS now or MS wow, or whatever the hell that station's called. You're going to go where somebody's going to ask you, hopefully some fair questions and not rub your nose in anything. And that's why he and I would have done the same thing. If you're going to speak at all, at least speak in a form where you can get out what you want to say and not have and not have the questions posed at you as statements that that aren't yours. We talked about, we talked about how methodical she was. Like one of the arguments was how methodical she was one child by one job by one child, which tended to undermine the defense's position that she was kuku for kuku pubs. Let's listen to what he thought about that sought number seven. We'll talk about that in a moment. methodical. I thought lensi was in the execution of the children. So that was really big for me. With you know from watching the video and also listening in the courtroom. The you know the top process that goes behind and to fulfill the commitment of doing that. I thought it was it was logical. You know he's backing up what he's you know why he made that verdict. It's not what I wanted based upon the evidence that I saw, but I absolutely zealously support his right to have a different take on it. That's what systems about. That's exactly what our system about. And I'm glad that he said that because a lot of a lot of us were surmising that's you know what he was thinking because some of us had the same thoughts. I do have a question as to why why did this interview continue in a car like did they get kicked out of the wherever they were having the interview. I don't understand. Next they're going to be in a plane. They're going to be climbing the mountains. They get stuck for a few days. No food. No water. Roller coasters going up. I have a protein bar. We're not done. Right. So did did the defense lawyer put a target on his back? You know a lot of us allege that that you know what Rennington did was problematic. I still believe that you know a defense lawyer has the zealously defend his or her client you know and what's said in the court of public in the court you know while it impacts the court of public opinion you know you have some leeway you're a lot of say certain things in court and it's not the famitory but did this guy feel like Rennington put a target on his back. That's not number eight. Let's see what he said. I want to play a sound by from Kevin Rennington. It was the day of the mistrial. He used a pronoun. He or him four times listen to this. That juror told you that he would be able to apply the law to the facts as you asked he is as the law states. He is not being honest with you at the sidebar. Kevin Rennington claims that the SJC said he before he did we can find no record of that. The fact that he said he took the pool of who could be the whole out juror from 12 down to three. There were only three men on the jury. Do you feel that Kevin Rennington put a target on your back? That's a leading question. How did that make you feel? I mean John a question we lost an opportunity that did he put a target on your back listen that's an agenda when you're a reporter asking that say how did that make you feel? Did it put a target you're suggesting the answer it's a leading question. They're not in a courtroom. No, but it's better journalism. I would have liked to have known how that made you feel. Let him use the words and then if he says I don't know or it bothered me she could follow up and say well some are saying that you know you might have felt like you had a target on your back. Is that fair? I just don't I want to know what he thinks. I just didn't think that was a good way to ask it. But it didn't name the guy. He said he and he's allowed to do that in court. You don't take exception to that to you. They said he. I think it's I mean what he is saying here was it was to say they or this particular juror and eventually it was going to come out. But that's not to me. That isn't the thing that put a target on this jurors back. I think we'll put a target on his back is what happened outside the courtroom when he was on the microphone with his fan club you know thrown panties at him in the background saying that he he screwed this up for everybody and and you know it how is he going to sleep at night. You know I kind of think to put the target on his back. Yeah I had a problem with that. I have a real problem with that. I think that it sets a precedent that you cannot be alone hold out juror anymore and I'll tell you who's going to be the people who get hurt the most people like Reddington me and you we count on loan holdout jurors to stop our clients from being convicted when they have a reasonable doubt. I've been saved many of my clients have been saved by the one or two loan holdout jurors right who say you know what sure they must have done something why would they put all the resources towards this thing but I don't think they proved it. I think that maybe he did it or at worst probably but that's not enough. We need those jurors in our system. I love that point Mark. I absolutely love that point. I mean alone holdout jurors going to save your client probably temporarily any client probably temporarily. But right how are how are 12 people who don't know each other before this event happens in any trial. You're going to sit in a room locked in a room you know free pizza at noon big deal right and hold their ground right right we're at the same time at the same time how do you have a reasonable debate inside a jury room when you've got you know three over here and nine over here the how do you do that and not worry about what's going to happen to you when your jury duties over and you're just happy that you don't have to do this again for another six years. That's an interesting that's that's what I'll always remember about this case. It was the first high profile case where what went on in the jury room got discussed analyze criticize it sets horrible precedent for the future and that to me is a problem. That's a future rant or maybe it was the past one but you know what yes no matter because when we come back yes and I go off the record with some brand new rant don't go anywhere friends we're coming right back welcome back to positively legal and we're going to go off the record so you're not going to hear this it's just going to be off the record it's just our private little rant just between ourselves and all right maybe you do hear it and Jana I always can't wait to hear what you've selected as your topic. Jana let's hear your rant. I'm going to say mark my off the record today is a little off the beaten path nice okay here we go. I know you come here for the crime after all our channel is named for it we deliver high profile and there I say the most gruesome live trials complete with the blood and the guts and the gore oh my but today friends I am going off the record not about murder but rather it's next of kin divorce unlike murder I can say with certainty that more than half of those listening to my voice right now have lived through at least one that's because according to the stats the divorce rate for first time not tires is just under 50 percent while those on marriage number two have a 60 percent chance of divorce and those on marriage number three basically don't stand a snowball's chance in hell of staying together forever unless of course you get married at the ripe old age of 94 in a nursing home while on a ventilator in a weird way divorce has an odd if not macabre connection to murder for example we've had some very recent cases involving spouses who were murdered because divorce was somehow a less appealing option Kaleb Flynn Corey Richards, Alec Murda, Chris Watts, Brian Walsh and that's just using one hand. As an attorney with hundreds of divorces under my belt I can say with a straight face that those going through divorce should really have their own section in the DSM-5 which is the diagnostic and statistical manual of mental to his orders. Poblish by the American Psychiatric Association. I say this not to be callous, but because divorce can make ordinarily sane people go temporarily psycho. Maybe not let me lace my husband's martini with fentanyl psycho, but more like let me make a voodoo doll of his likeness and step on it repeatedly with the sharpest teledos I own kind of psycho. My front row seat to the trials and tribulations of divorce has bestowed upon me a keen insight into what makes divorce the adjective to which it is referred to most often. And that is ugly. I mean, when's the last time you heard anyone refer to their divorce as amazing or delightful or fabulous? Unless you are Gwyneth Paltrow and live in a fantasy land filled with $6,000 genes, the only conscious thing you do while uncoupling is to wish a freak accident resulting in a slow and painful death, I'm your soon-to-be ex-spouse, preferably while his life insurance policy is still good. Since so many of you or those in your world have or will experience divorce, today I am giving our audience a little inside baseball into how to survive it without ending up as the star in our next murder trial. Tip number one, if your goal in getting divorce is to think of new and improved ways to punish the other party, you are going about it all wrong. The spouse who wins divorce is not the person who can make the other party the most miserable. Spoiler alert, you're getting divorced because you already are miserable. Keep in mind, the end of your marriage is also the beginning of the rest of your life. The goal, therefore, is to do what it takes to make the rest of your life better than what came before. Tip number two, during divorce, stop expecting your ex to behave as though he or she is still in love. They're not. No one is ever woken up on a Tuesday, turned to their spouse and said, "Hey, baby, I love you so much. What do you say we call it, quits?" Unmet expectations in divorce and life are why we get belly fat and wrinkles. The only expectations you should carry with you through divorce are the ones you paid your lawyer for. And tip number three, divorce is not a sport. Do not recruit your kids to be on your team. Kids are not your personal chess pieces, pay checks, or mini therapists. As Judge Judy once said, always love your children more than you hate your ex. Enough said. Those are my top three tips for how to get through divorce without committing murder. But I would be remiss if I didn't leave you with one tip on how to avoid divorce in the first place. In marriage, each of you will have moments where you have fallen out of love. The secret to staying married is not falling out of love at the same time. Great tips, Johnna. Very nice. Thank you, Mark. Not that you need them. No, you're 27. You're a happily married life. It is marriage is challenging in my wife, but I always turn to each other. Usually during a date line murder mystery or something like that, we say, "Can we not get divorced?" Let's not get divorced. She's like, "Okay, let's not get divorced." It's horrible. You know? It's hard. Nicely done. Okay, I'm ready. Here I go. One thing that really, really bothers me is that very few people say these two words that need to be said more often. I'm sorry. Wives, children, politicians, teachers. People don't seem to want to say those words. I think that they think it might be some form of weakness, but it's just the opposite. It shows courage. It shows strength. We saw it back in the day. JFK did it when he said, you know, during the Bay of Pigs, Fiasco, "I screwed up." It also happened during the Civil War. Abe Lincoln wrote to then-general Ulysses-esque grant and essentially said, "You're right. I'm wrong." This is during the Civil War. We don't hear that much from our leaders, and we certainly don't hear it much from our president. It would certainly be nice. You don't lose respect. You gain it. Here's my problem with it. A lot of the kids are next generation. They're in a climate now where the adults, the leaders, they're not saying, "I screwed up. I was wrong. I'm sorry." So they don't do it much either if they can pull their faces out of their electronics. They're not doing it much. We're setting a poor example. Now, you don't have to be perfect. We will make mistakes. That's guaranteed. But I just ask, please consider saying those two words more. I'm sorry. The world needs more of that. I absolutely love that. This is one time where I'm going to say you are 100% right. I got to 100. Not 99.9. Nothing can diffuse an argument, a bad mood, an argument about to happen, than saying those two words. I'm sorry. Are you good like that? Are you somebody who will take ownership real quick? Are you like some others in my immediate sphere that I get it like on my birthday or maybe a special holiday? No, no. Now at my ripe old age of 39, I am more quick to apologize, because I think it's a yeah, I am more quick to apologize because I'm okay with being infallible. There was a time when I couldn't say the words, I was wrong, just like Fonzie couldn't say, remember Fonzie? I was wrong. I was wrong. Yes. That's not about him. Now I'm happy because I am fallible and I'm okay with being fallible at 39. But it doesn't affect your ego. People are afraid. Their ego's not their amigos, so they don't want to say they're wrong because it makes you know, it makes them feel bad. I mean, what about that? Yeah. No. My ego and I have come to terms, I think, a long time ago and the ego, your ego can really get in the way of having an enjoyable light, it can get in the way of happiness. Mark, you're the author on it and I'm sure. Let's talk about it. Let's talk about it because it's time for gratitude. To me, the antidote to stinking thinking is gratitude. If you're going through a tough time at any given moment, just flip the thoughts to what you're grateful for. That which is what we're going to do as we end our show. Every time before I go to sleep, I write down the top five things for which I'm most grateful. I've been doing that for 20 years. Johnna, what are you grateful for at this moment? I am grateful for having the opportunity to talk about some of these inner dare I say non-legal topics with you and all of those who are listening to us and hopefully still listening to us without being like, what the hell are these two told what, what is it? Dr. Phil or is this possibly? No, no, they can get it. They get it. Our people get it. They get it. And I also want to, so let me say that. Let me be grateful for all those people. So you made me look at the comments from last week's show, which you know, I usually do like this and I did and I want to say thank you to all the people who did write very nice things about us and about the show. That was a nice little surprise and I really appreciate that thing. Yeah. No, I'm extremely grateful to for all the people who listen, who view us. I'd be even more grateful if you tell friends to come. I mean, we got a special thing going here. I'd love to see more comments, even those that are not good, or if you would call it not good, lose mark. Yeah, okay, that's cool. That's good. Let's talk by yourself. You know, I love it all. I really do. Please keep those comments coming in. I'm extremely grateful for the time that I spent with my kids this weekend. It was just beautiful time. It's just wonderful. I'm grateful that I came home, got to kiss and hug my wife. My two dogs are waiting for me. I can't wait to go play with them. Grateful that I gave it my all in court and fortunately got a decent outcome. And I'm just, I'm grateful for you, Johnna. As always, I'm really appreciative. Thank you. Did all. Okay. See you guys next week. We'll see you all next right. Let's take it home. Guys, thank you all for joining us. Comment below. Invite your friends. We read it all. I give your comments, thumbs up. Thank you so much every now and then I comment back too. And I'm extremely grateful. Johnna and I both really are. We look forward to seeing you. Johnna, you want to say something? I'm sorry. One little last thing, guys. Go, go. When you're making your comments, whether they're good or bad, when you look up on the channel and you see that we are this close to 100,000 subscribers, call all your friends, create some fake, create some fake profiles, whatever you've got to do. Okay. No, I don't believe in that. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Naturally, let's make it real. Let's make it real. Let's make it real. Anyway, guys, we look forward to seeing you next week. I hope you choose to have a wonderful week. Take care.