Lindsay Clancy Debate: Guilty or Not Guilty, Lawyers REACT w/ Andrew Branca, Ashleigh Merchant, Richie McGinniss, Matt Miller

Welcome to Tim Cast. IRL. We are currently waiting the final verdict. I don't think we're gonna verdict. But as of the pre record, we're doing this on a Friday. We are minutes away from the judge in the Lindsay Clancy case coming out and telling us what's going to happen. Now, the judge did say he was going to declare a mistrial, but the defense asked for an emergency one hour appeal, citing the Americans with Disabilities Act, I guess, insinuating that the juror is discriminating against Lindsay Clancy for being paralyzed, which obviously is a long shot. But this this defense is is is really going for it. So it's looking like it's gonna be a mistrial, but we will we will see. So it's gonna happen in real time right now. We've got it pulled up. We got a we got a bunch to talk about. We got a full packed house. Joining us, the return of a legend, Richie McGinnis. Thanks for having me, Tim. Who are you? What are you doing? Richie McGinnis. I was actually a witness in a different murder trial, Kyle Rittenhouse. And I work with Matt over at Politibrawl. And I'm the author of Riot Diet, in which I cover a lot of that situation over there in Kenosha. And I'm happy to be here. Right on. It's good to have you both back. Richie, it's been a minute. And we got a couple lawyers joining us to talk about what's going on. Hey, I'm Ashley Merchant. I'm a criminal defense attorney out of Atlanta, Georgia. And I'm also the host of the MK True Crime podcast. Andrew Branca, also a criminal defense attorney. I'm also the host of the MK True Crime podcast. Andrew Branca, also a criminal defense attorney over at LawSelfDefense.com. Do a lot of political commentary as well at The Branca Show on X and YouTube. And the boys. Psh. Sup? Hey, Carter. I'm hanging out here with Carter. Do you have a camera? His camera's off. You know what? It's cocked a little bit. I'm going to go fix that in a second. Speaking of cocked. Yeah, me and Ian are here. We just started the show, Ian. That's true. Carter said it. Sure. I'm just pointing it out. So we're hanging out. The big news of the day, of course, everybody is waiting with bated breath. On the outcome of this Lindsey Clancy jury. The last we heard, there's one guy who is like she's he's not budging. So they can't get a unanimous verdict. Now, the defense said, can we can we pull the jury and see what they're hung up on? Because there's a potentiality he might agree she's not guilty on most of the charges. Maybe some others, but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen. We don't know for sure. But that's why we brought these lawyers in so we can talk about what's going on. And we actually did a show a minute ago about more of the nuance. This is in court and all this stuff. But as it pertains to the news, what do you think we're going to see as of the latest development? Well, he's I think he's trying. I think Kevin Reddington is trying desperately to find some judge who's willing to stay this case and, you know, let him get this jury on the record as to what they're doing for first degree. So there's multiple different charges. There's first degree, which is the one that actually carries the most penalty, carries life without parole. Then there's second degree. And I think what Kevin Reddington wants is he wants a verdict of not guilty on those, because if he gets that and then he gets a hung jury on the other charge. All they can go back to trial on are the other charges. So in a perfect world for him, if he had to try the case again, he'd only have to do it on a manslaughter. Let's we got some lawyers here with opinions on how the law works. But let's let's ask the boys. What do you guys think? You guys are unrelated to law because you're not guilty. I say not guilty because she threw herself out of a window and paralyzed herself from the neck down like that's her waist. It's the waist. Stay on my jury. It's the waist down. She had my jury. It's not. It's the waist down. I thought it was the neck down. If she hadn't tried to kill herself, if she just killed three kids and was sitting there rocking in the corner, put her in center away. Yeah. But what if what if what if she was trying to jump out the window to make it look like it was a suicide attempt and she didn't actually expect to break her back like shooting herself in the foot? When she jumped out, how did she jump out? Did she like that in her butt? It's disputed. That is highly disputed. You're about to get into some Patrick Clancy conspiracy theories with that. That is a big dispute. Really? People think that he pushed her out. Yeah. And that's why she landed the way she did, because apparently how she landed was because they're saying couldn't have happened if she actually jumped out the window. Maybe she took a gainer. So I was about to say that is some major Patrick Clancy conspiracy. She like jumped and landed. I mean, there are people on TikTok that like mapped out where her butt. Oh, I love it. We should pull it up. Oh, my God. Seriously, if you look up how she landed, you're going to find a ton of Patrick Clancy. I just pulled up threads. I'm not going to. I'm not going to. First post. All of this stuff. Patrick did this. They were too lazy to actually investigate like they should have. He did. He did some shady stuff on his trip that night. A phone handoff. I am a little upset about the investigation. And I do. I do hear that. I mean, the jury wants some answers. And that's what fueled these conspiracies. They didn't do any DNA testing. Didn't do anything. There's three dead kids. Like, do your job. I have kids. I think guilty. Just lock her up, throw away the key, electric chair or whatever. Just because you hate what she did. We're big fans of the Oubliette. I mean, look, and I was like having testified in the Rittenhouse trial, I saw how little the facts mattered for many people. I mean, look, and I was like having testified in the Rittenhouse trial. And you're seeing something similar with what's going on on TikTok here. But, I mean, I just can't have any other opinion other than that. I think most people can't get past that. That's the problem. Past what? Past the fact that she killed her three kids. I mean, other than the conspiracy theories, that's not really in dispute. But just legally, I think if the jury follows the law, they're going to have to find her not guilty. What about her like Googling all of the different stuff beforehand and that implying some degree of premeditation? Doesn't that imply that she's not as insane as? She definitely is. I mean, I think there's a degree of premeditation because she did plan these out. It's whether or not she planned them out while she was in psychosis or she planned them out because she wanted them dead. So I'll tell you, for me, for me, and a lot of jurors, they want a reason. Why did someone do something? Are you a thug? Are you trying to kill someone? Are you a violent person? Are you a bad person? Do you want your spouse dead? Do you want your kids dead because you hate your kids? She loved her kids. And the testimony was she loved her kids. So for me, that was really lacking. And so it made it much more credible that she had this mental illness because why else is she going to kill her kids? I mean, even her mother-in-law testified that she loved her kids and was a good mom. Okay, but so then why isn't the thug on the street who stabs a woman to death, why isn't he crazy? Why isn't that psychosis? Right, because he actually has a violent tendency. And so in cases like that, if he's violent and he's doing this repeatedly, you're going to have testimony that he's violent. Well, hold on. What was that? You want me to take this sack of silver and beat Richie to death with it? Yes, I'm crazy, Richie. Get over here. All right, I'm ready. It's my time. And they'd be like, Tim Poole has never done anything like this before. It's completely out of character. And I'd be like, you saw it on the show. I said, I heard a voice, told me to beat him with this little case of silver coins. I'd like to see you try. But you're not doing it because you don't want him dead. I don't want Richie dead. No, it's a joke. So the only reason that she would have her kids dead is because she's crazy. The argument would be that she actually wanted them dead. That's why the argument with Tim is that he didn't do it because he didn't really want to, but she did it because she really wanted to. No, stop. I don't want to hurt Richie. Don't make me. Because he's not crazy. He's not crazy. And he doesn't want him dead. But if he was crazy, you might kill him. There is a small elf standing on your shoulder, and I have to destroy it. Were all the kids in the room with her when she was strangling them one by one? No, she took them one at a time to the basement. That kind of indicates, like, after the first one? That's the worst fact, in my opinion. The fact that it was like 13 minutes or something, that's the worst fact. That's where I would have a hard time with that one fact. The husband is on her side? Yeah. So the husband testified for her. Her ex-mother-in-law testified. I mean, these are people that should hate her. She killed their grandkids. She killed his kids. They testified that she was a loving mother. She had no reason she would want her kids dead. Loved them, and that she was seriously suffering and had history of mental illness. So for me, the fact that she didn't want her kids dead and loved her kids and had mental illness makes it a lot more believable. Oh, my God. The state's rationale was that she wanted to kill herself. And she cared so much about how her children were raised. Raised her kids like she could. She didn't want them left behind. Right, right. And if she was going to be dead, she wanted those kids in heaven with her. That was her motivation. And the ex-wife testified about that. I figured it out. Patrick didn't do it. Patrick didn't. They did it together. Yeah, they both were like. Let's start that conspiracy theory. Oh, my God. Well, that conspiracy will never fly because all of these women want to defend Lindsay. Have you seen the memes they've posted? There's like a poster and it's like justice for the kids and Lindsay. You got to pull something up. Look at the Bratz doll reenactment. Where is that? On the X? Y'all haven't seen it? Oh, I saw it. Oh, my God. My paralegal found it. How do I find it? I can send it to you. Wait, I think I. I bet you found it. Is it the TikTok lady? Yes. Is it this? Yes, yes. Oh, my God, y'all. Oh, it's so quiet. It's one of the craziest things I've ever seen. On today's episode of the Women of the World v. Patrick Clancy, I'm going to prove that Lindsay Clancy's bedroom was staged using Bratz dolls and a shoebox reconstruction of the crime scene because I noticed something that absolutely nobody else has noticed, not even the blood experts. And if they did notice, they strategically omitted it from their testimony because it proves that Lindsay Clancy is innocent. I've managed to semi-accurately dress Lindsay in a black tank top and jeans. I'm telling you, this is one of the craziest things I've ever seen. But unfortunately, my male Bratz doll didn't come with a weaker jawline and he doesn't have accurate clothing to what Patrick was wearing other than the first pair of shoes. Let's do a quick tour. This is the doorway. This is the navy shelves. This represents the mirror. Blood spot A. This represents the pillow next to the mirror. I've just depicted using just a pencil here just for reference. Blood spot B. Blood spot C. And our drawers along with our knife. And I've roughly indicated where the cups were and the spray bottles on the bedside table there. Then we have our Lindsay. I would hire her as my defense attorney. I mean, it's a great little reenactment. It wasn't really a thing back when Bratz was. showing this to the jury and like just give me a minute like here's the theory that lindsey She had the window shut on her neck, but unfortunately, I have a more plausible explanation as to what's happened to Lindsay and why her thyroid was crushed, so let's get into it. I've also made sure I can move the bed because it's vitally important. It's 10 minutes long, so. Oh, yeah, she does a lot of work. You don't need to watch the whole thing. You get the flavor already. From here, from the exterior. I assume there was no video of the strangulations. This wrist is now. Can they tap her phone to listen to the strangulations? That's interesting. They didn't do that. I mean, they didn't do much of anything, but I wonder if she even had her phone. Could the defense have said to the female jurors, this is the women of the world versus Patrick Clancy? No. I think they might have gotten an interjection for that if they did that, a little bit. I didn't watch the case, but was it really just about sympathy for the human of Lindsay Clancy? No, so what it really was about was Battle of the Experts. So in Massachusetts, the state has to essentially disprove that she's insane. I mean, they use a different term. They use criminals. But they had to disprove that beyond a reasonable doubt. And the defense not entertain another killer? Or no, because she admitted it. She said she did. I mean, she admitted it, but if you look at the conspiracy theorist, when she admitted it, she was heavily medicated, intubated. I mean, she didn't admit it when she was. That proves it. So if I was in Massachusetts and got high and then killed someone, I could say I was crazy. No, you can't get high and do it. But I'm talking about with psychiatrists that I was prescribed. No, no, no. He's onto something. What if I drugged Ian and then Ian killed the guy? Oh, you could totally use that. Yes. It's like you just get away with murder. If he drugged you and you didn't know it, oh, yeah. What if a doctor gave me a prescription and I didn't know the side effects? What if it was accidental? You drugged him accidentally? Yep. It doesn't matter. It only matters what happened to him. No, no, no. As long as he didn't drug himself. But then there's no criminal culpability on me either. Right. You're good then. So I had my medication prescribed to me. And when I opened it up, a pill fell out and landed in his cup. He didn't know and drank it, lost his mind and killed somebody. You're both good. But if you did it on purpose, you go down for whatever he did. Of course. You go down for the murder, though. On today's episode of Tim Castile Explains How to Get Away with Murder. You go down for murder then. Not if it was an accident. That's why I asked. She was high on pharmaceuticals, correct? I think so. I think that there's a huge angle there. But the problem was they said they were therapeutic amounts, meaning that they weren't like she didn't take them outside of the recommended doses. Who said they were therapeutic? The doctor. The doctors. The doctors. So they did blood tests. The experts, they actually did a blood test and said, when I say therapeutic, meaning, you know, what she was prescribed. So she didn't like overdose on the meds, but she was on them. And they were psychotropic meds and they were taking them off and on. And here's the other thing that I think was important. So she was diagnosed with bipolar disorder and they gave her all these SSRIs. SSRIs are the antidepressants. They drive you into mania if you don't have the other side. So like the doctors were pumping her full of the SSRIs. And if she really was bipolar, that'll drive a person into mania. So will they charge the doctors? The complicating factor was she went to like six different doctors. Yeah. They didn't know about each other. So they're each prescribing their own set of. Oh, we got something here. The filing. I'm pulling it up. Oh, the lawsuit. I saw Fox had it, but they. Yeah, Fox. Oh, the appeal. The defense attorney, Kevin Reddington's appeal. The court's refusal to consider evidence that a juror is refusing to file applicable law. Yada, yada, yada. Here, the removal is particularly important because the juror's reasoning reflects a bias against those who are not. Yeah. Those who suffer from debilitating mental illness. I mean, he's pulling it out at this point. Like, you've got to love that man. Wow. That's who you want if you're charged with a crime. He's amazing at his job. I'd hire this guy. If you're charged with a crime, you want that. So the argument is that everyone agrees she's mentally, she was, you know, mentally ill. And this guy's choosing not to say not guilty because he's discriminating against the mental ill. I wonder if there was something else in that note. You know, like, I will never find a mentally ill person. Or what if it's just because. If she's crazy, it doesn't mean she wasn't guilty. The holdout juror wasn't writing it out. Right, the poor person wrote it. So who knows what they wrote? But maybe they said he's claiming that being nuts doesn't excuse you for murder. Maybe. And then they're like, okay, he's holding it against her. This is a wild argument because it's like. It's creative. It basically means that if an expert says you're crazy, everyone has to agree. Otherwise, they're discriminating against you. Isn't half the country crazy at this point? More than half? What percentage of the country is on SSRI? But you mean the female half? Oh, 51% then? Yeah. 51% of the population? All of them. It's actually just liberals. I'm not joking. What percentage of liberals are on SSRIs? All of them. Dude, if I could get a therapeutic dose of psychotropics from the doctor and kill people and be innocent because. Don't give him ideas. Isn't this a slippery slope? Isn't that what she's doing? So many people are mentally ill. Doesn't this set a dangerous precedent? It does. But if you think about it, I mean, I keep going back to the fact that she doesn't want her kids dead. You know, this is not something. This is not something that she's taking a pill and then using this as an excuse. Like, she's horrified. And if you watched any of the trial, that lady is horrified. I mean, she wants to kill herself. She has tried to kill herself. Like, she is miserable. She did not want her kids dead. But then why did she work pretty hard at it? I know, but I fully believe that in a sane mind, she didn't want those kids dead. But just like every other law and every other precedent, if you, okay, good faith, yeah, she didn't want to kill her kids, but aren't there evil people who could exploit that and then create a paper trail that makes people think they didn't want to kill their kids, but they actually do? And then they kill them and say, whoops, I'm insane. They could. So the difference here is, so the difference here, though, is that they had this, the defense actually had some really good experts, like credible experts, experts that work for the state regularly that said she was insane. So, I mean, yeah, you could buy an expert, of course. I mean, you can find an expert that'll say just about anything, but you can't find a good one. And they were really credible. So that's what the state was really thinking about. How would they know? Right? Never? They weren't diagnosing her at the time. They're talking to her later. And they can't go back in time. Yeah. Get in her mind and see signs of psychosis. Nobody ever can with mental illness. Right. So to me, that's an inherent impeachment of their testimony. But would you never find out? They're giving it like what they think is their best guess. Yeah. But they can't have any degree of certainty. They weren't there. They had a medical degree, is what they said. Medical degree of certainty. But honestly, how would you ever? Mental illness is great. Well, if she'd been diagnosed with psychosis before she killed her kids, that would be more credible to me, right? It makes it look much less like a fabricated legal defense. Because psychosis was never mentioned. Until after she killed her kids, got a defense attorney who knew he needed psychosis for the legal defense. That's not true. Because she was diagnosed with bipolar, too, which does have psychosis as symptoms. And she had had some hallucinations. But it's not common. She didn't have a man one. It's another one of these really uncommon things. Right. It is. Right. So having psychosis and being able to plan, very unusual. Can it happen? Yes. But it's very uncommon. Having bipolar and it extends to psychosis, very unusual, very uncommon. And when you take uncommon events that all need to be strung together. Like pearls on a string and everyone's uncommon and you multiply them out. The fact that that would lead to this kind of insanity that would release criminal culpability. That's what I don't find credible. Why can't we just throw people who have psychosis in jail along with everybody else? Oubliette. Oubliette. Explain it, Ian. It's a hole. It's a deep hole. Dark. And back in ancient France, it means to forget. Oubliette. And they would take people and they'd throw them down in this 40-foot pit with rats and other dead bodies that are rotting. And they'd just close it up and walk away. way yeah you would basically in today's capital punishment if you wanted someone to die but you didn't want to kill them publicly you would put them in the oubliette and be like i guess they died in prison oh my god that seems like a little bit too much what about an island yes you mentioned the island i'll have like that actually wait hold on they're not talking about sending her to you know the cape they're talking about sending her to a mental institution a forensic for it's jail what difference so so we have uh an idea here at tim cast about the island and as a criminal defense attorney i'm curious what you think the idea is when someone it's just you know they're really bad we just drop them off on an island and leave oh my god and there's no laws and they can just deal with everyone oh my god i love it yeah i've always thought that let's monetize it set up cameras you turn oh yeah you get to watch i think it's like it's like if you had i mean they kind of do that it's kind of prison that kind of what we don't got to spend it's basically the chas yeah that's the chas yeah that's kind of what we don't got to spend money on it i mean a chapter in the book is called lord of the chas because they just gave him an island just like the kids and that's like those places where they're they you can use drugs like out in public and stuff like yeah but then you get gretta toonberg sailing up and freeing them and being like we need to get them off the island yeah it's too much it's too dangerous to punish people just send them the poor does say that i think clancy should be in prison this is gross she killed her kids killing children isn't a symptom of psychosis home she's going to a forensic mental institution which is not i mean it's it's just like prison but it actually treats you and actually gives you but can you explain to me like why it is that that precedent was established where if you have psychosis then all of a sudden you're no longer treated the same as a public policy mostly yeah it mostly goes back to old england where they did not think so the original goal of punishment is deterrence it's to make sure that people don't do it well if you're crazy you can't be deterred because you're crazy so why are you cultable culpable why should you be locked up if you can't deter someone who's mentally ill they didn't have tiktok back then they did not and they did not have rats dolls right now when half your population is completely crazy they didn't and i don't know why they didn't have tiktok back then they didn't i think we need to change and honestly most juries don't go with insanity i mean it is a defense that loses almost all the time like i've had one client i've been doing this 25 years i had one client that was found insane and it's crazy because i say crazy but the state's doctor said he was completely sane i go to try to go to trial with him and he literally crawls under the table and wouldn't come out and i'm like he's sane let's go like it's not sane do you think that she'd be found guilty if the jury was 12 men yes i don't know if she'd be found guilty i think it might still be I think there's some men that are just like postpartum um like i trust you but i'm not touching that you know what i mean like i've never done it i don't want to go there i don't want to say it's real i don't want to say it's not real y'all you get crazy sometimes you know like maybe something's going on like i think there's i think there's men out there that think that i mean patrick doesn't think she's guilty her own husband well clearly a man of poor judgment though yeah yeah agreed i wouldn't trust that guy but i mean well i mean don't even get me started on him but like if you know if he doesn't i mean he's intimately involved he knows everybody and he's not finding her responsible so that could be completely self-protective right i mean if he looks back and says oh my god i should have seen something i should have done something just said he could say hey for all i knew she was fine fine mother she loved her kids right nothing no red flags for me to see i mean he should have done something though like everybody kind of should have done a little bit more to protect the kids but yeah if you have a crazy spouse i mean i had one and she kept threatening suicide and i eventually was like you know what i gotta go i'm going to the park with my friends and i left her there and on our way to the park an ambulance came driving by me in the other direction i was like i think that's for her yeah and we just kept going to the park i found out later it was she had taken a bunch of pills there were no kids involved she easily it's just at some point you just can't make someone not kill themselves the camera jostled are they coming back we are way over time that's usually an indicator yeah like they're they're framed they're getting the framing ready i mean i think the cameraman like steps up and hits it right right right or steps on the platform and it moves the camera so what is this hung is it anticipated to be a hung jury on the murder charges alone it sounds like it may be if so if his appeal that he just did doesn't work it's going to be a hung jury on everything period which means they can charge it again everything whole thing over how long how far away until they can bring up the case next week do they have to be different attorneys nope different jurors yes different jurors different jurors right they have to pay they have to start from square one so they start over same judge all that but they get different jurors um the thing for me about retrials that sucks is you have a transcript from the first trial so it becomes so cumbersome and longer because you've got prior testimony that you're going through and it's like it just takes forever do they call the same um people to retestify yeah but they can call new people so like if one of the witnesses sucks or the jury didn't like them they can fix that jeez i was terrified with the written house trial do you remember that nbc reporter followed them back to their hotel yeah yeah i was after i testified and i was like am i gonna have to do this again yeah wow imagine right it was yeah but what if you refuse like so he's a i could have refused because the subpoena out of state i didn't have to honor the subpoena out of state so only if they domesticate it they would have they didn't domesticate your subpoena in that i have no idea i don't know i was like i'm going anyway yeah i don't think they had to because i told the prosecution called me because they knew the defense was going to call me so i just told them i would i would do whatever i had to do to tell the truth but yeah apparently i didn't have to honor the out-of-state subpoena no what what if what if what if you get subpoenaed like they they compel you to testify and then there's a mistrial how many mistrials have you done in they give up like is it usually just like if it's a mistrial another mistrial they just depends on the da that's the thing the da can totally decide to keep retrying it and but can they can they compel me to keep coming back what if i say i'm not doing this they can compel you to keep coming back there is a point where they could probably read your prior testimony oh okay but that's nobody wants red testimony what if your testimony changes oh oh oh that's a big one testimony changes then they impeach you your prior yes yes but which one's true what if you're like you know likely to be the more accurate memory the one closer to the event or the one today yeah but that one was three years after so it's you know the whatever statement you gave right after the event but you're gonna read your testimony yeah you're gonna prep you know they zoomed out again you're gonna there something's happening but you're gonna read your testimony but that's a lot of work i mean retrials are not fun what if what if what if they come out and it's just like somehow they all change their mind she's guilty like that the ad the ada filing was so offensive to the jury that they all said oh screw this she's guilty i think if they retry it though i think they'll fix the prosecution i mean they could they could retry this in a week and make it clean what did the prosecution do wrong they so in closing they were sympathetic they were not sympathetic during the trial they know she's mentally ill like she's mentally ill she tried to kill herself i mean they just didn't accept that and they they went overboard with like a lot of the gruesome details and prosecutors do that a lot here we go here we go it's happening we actually haven't i want to hear the boston girls now in session for the purpose of the record we return back to the matter conwell forces lindsey clancy off hotties are present excluding the jury all right council it's my understanding that um the sjc uh issued their order that the emergency request for relief was denied and the temporary stay is lifted um and so it would be my intention at this time to call the jurors back in um and as i indicated to you before to declare mistrial i understand your honor and uh at the risk of uh incurring the wrath of the court i'd like to uh raise an additional issue just for purposes of the go right into the law um because this i believe constitutes a violation of the united states constitution and coalition uh in our the supreme court shut him down in massachusetts so he wants to go fed jury reports he's great through a poor person that amid deliberation that a juror refuses to follow the law the issue is handled under federal rules of criminal procedure 23b but the law itself that we're dealing with uh clearly indicates that a judge has the authority to excuse a deliberating juror for quote good cause end quote and allow the remaining 11 jurors to return a valid verdict and or with the substitution of one of the jurors that have been waiting obviously as alternates um while the first circuit acknowledges that a juror's refusal to follow the law or instructions constitutes good cause for dismissal that does impose procedural issues as to how the court would navigate uh which would require a hearing um the core standard is united states versus sepal vader s-e-p-u-l-v-e-d-a first circuit 1993 and in that case your honor which is significant precedent the first circuit addressed the underlying concept of nullification of the application and where a juror refuses to follow the court's instructions and in the sepal vader case the court held that while jurors possess a raw power to acquit for any reason they have a significant duty and their duty requires them to apply the law as given to them by the court if a juror abdicates this duty it triggers the court's authority to intervene and the court would then have a procedure where you would inquire just like a hearing like we were suggesting that the court should have a hearing so i would suggest your honor that clearly under the first circuit law federal law as well as the argument to the court massachusetts law that we have a juror who has according to the four person is the only person who is basically holding out so to speak and unfortunately they're not holding out based on a good faith issue with the facts or with the law but they're holding out as a result that even though they have agreed and expressed doubt i'm refusing to apply the laws you've given it so i would ask again that you conduct a hearing and understand that you're probably going to deny that for reasons as i stated uh earlier this morning um that request will be denied shocker all right um so we ready to bring the jury in so it's a mistrial then mistrial yep confirmed well he's gonna it's about to be now but no it's been the jury the jury's the jury's not telling the judge anything the judge is going to tell the jury it's a mistrial so they don't read anything like they don't handle the jury won't read anything the jury's not making the decision here the judges they made their decision can she go home now now she's still institutionalized she and well she's so she goes in the same position she was in before the trial and she's not on bond what an advanced group of monkeys we are man why are they showing that why are they showing that 12 deliberating jurors and six alternates in the matter of commonwealth versus lindsey clancy all other parties are present all right thank you madam clerk all right members of the jury uh at this point i'm going to declare that the jury is uh deadlocked and i'm going to declare a mistrial all right uh i just wanted to make a comment kind of history i love it buff and during world war ii winston church could only cause trouble he's got the key up just shut up say less when england pretty much stood against nazi germany alone and so churchill oftentimes had to talk to the citizens and say let us brace for our duties and i'm going to say let us brace for our duties i always liked that phrase and i thought of that phrase when all of you were agreeing to be on this jury he agreed to brace for that duty and you turned out to be trash you knew how long the case was going to go you knew how difficult the case was going to be to listen to facts wise but still you braced for that duty and i just kind of wanted to also let you know i watched every day day after week after week, all of you, performing that duty that you're braced for and I just kind of wanted to let you know I understood how hard everybody worked in this case understood that you all gave everything you could and probably more than you thought you could and so on behalf of myself I just want to thank you so much that you should be proud for what you did you brace for that duty you perform that duty and I just kind of wanted to thank you behalf myself in behalf of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts thank you so much the only thing I am gonna ask one more thing is that what I'd like to do is be able to come back and thank you personally I'm going to talk to the council for just a couple of minutes so if you can stay just for a couple of minutes not to go over the the deliberations or anything like that but just to thank you personally again for for just an incredible commitment and dedication that each and every one of you showed here so I just want to thank you so much and with that you're discharged thank you so it was Clancy Hitler then was that is that his point right that's right I saw a poll on Twitter who would you rather have look after your kids I mean that's actually a tough question like who I love my kids well but Hitler when art school Hitler like 1942 said at the end of the the evidence that just kind of wanted to echo again I wanted to compliment all three council a trial like this so hard so difficult and so I just kind of wanted to thank the three of you for your efforts in regards to this and so with that if you talked I think we should probably pick a status date any where we are trial assignment date I I know I would like to argue a 25B2, and that has to be done within five days. So, I mean, I would like, if possible, to have this on for a hearing on a motion for required finding reconsideration 25B2 on Tuesday. And my request, assuming that you deny that motion, would be that we impanel the following Monday. Oh! That would require a man to check my schedule. And also, so. To clarify, I'm saying comment on your day off. As a defense lawyer, like, that's a lot. My thinking is to try it sooner rather than later, but I'm not sure that's sooner. Kevin Reddington just bounced his pick off the table. He totally did. He's good. Witnesses schedule. Like, setting aside the atrocity, like, Kevin Reddington just. Maybe sometime later in the fall. How did she get such a good lawyer? Right? Why don't we pick a date? Maybe a couple of weeks down the road, so everybody can get their calendars together. Monday. Monday, let's go, and I'll take the first 12. We met the next Monday. Oh, okay. He wants to argue on Tuesday, and then the next Monday. A motion for required finding reconsideration within five days. But you can file it. Maybe if they have a hearing within the five days. I'd like to, but I mean. I know you'd like to, but I, you know. Maybe we could do it later in the week. Maybe not Tuesday. Okay. Maybe Thursday or so. Sure. I'm going to be out of the state until the. I have a dinner with her. You don't need her. As long as it's filed. Go forward with that one. Do you want to pick. What we can do is pick that status date, trial assignment date, and actually then do the argument for the 25, Rule 25. Okay. I'm not sure the prosecutor's availability is going to be relevant. No. Of course the government is like, I'm actually on vacation for the next two weeks. I'm on vacation. The 28th? This single juror is going to. Write a book and be a legend and. Oh, he's going to. Every single show everywhere. What's it called in 30 Rock? The Rural Juror? Yeah. He's going to walk out in his he-man. Yeah. I would ask if it's agreeable. I mean, X is blowing up with like, legend, hero, he refused. Kevin Reddington? No, the juror. The juror. Once people find out who this juror is. That's fine. Fox News, Rogan, you name it. So the juror admitted doubt, but then refused to call innocence? That's. So. So the four. Four. Four. Four. Four. The four person sent the note. So we only know what the four person said that juror was doing. That's essentially what they said. And imagine this. Imagine, like, we're deliberating, and you're, like, everyone's saying not guilty, and I'm the one saying not guilty. And then you say something like, but you have to admit it's at least possible that she was crazy. Sure, but I don't think so. Ah, that's doubt. Right. So they might be saying he expressed doubt when he was actually saying, but not enough. Or he could have been saying, I don't care that she's mentally ill. I know. I know that the law says that that's reasonable doubt, but I don't care. And the other thing, too, is they wanted to poll the jury because it could have. I would have polled the jury. It might be doubt only on, like, one issue. Yeah. So, like, it was, what, three charges? First, second, and manslaughter? Yeah. So they could all agree on first and second, but the one guy is saying, no, I think it's manslaughter. And so when they're, like, he expressed doubt, it may have been doubt on the first two charges. Like, he might have said, I don't think she premeditated it. Right. Right. And then it would only be second, which is huge, because the retrial then could be, like, it could be in front of a judge, not a jury. Although I don't think Kevin Reddington would do that. I think he'd want a jury, but it makes a difference. Yeah. It definitely makes a difference. And besides, if you can whittle off a charge, you want to whittle off a charge. Yeah. As a defense lawyer. I mean. Yeah. Massachusetts is one of those states where the defendant can demand a bench trial, meaning there's no jury. The judge acts as the jury. Yeah. And there's nothing the state can do about it. Yeah. This is the new left-right divide. Like, all of these liberals are posting, like, this is ridiculous. And, you know, I don't completely disagree. But I don't agree with the politics. But the idea is, you have a not guilty finding, except for one person who will not uphold the law or adhere to the law. I would not want to be innocent and have some person in a jury for political reasons or personal reasons refuse to say not guilty. Right. And that's how you have to think about it. You got it. So the Constitution requires us to put out the atrocity, put out the kids. Victims are not in the Constitution. We don't protect their rights in the Constitution. We protect citizens' rights. We protect all humans' rights. But that's the thing. So everyone's caught up on what happened. And it's atrocious. Nobody's disputing that. But the Constitution doesn't worry about that. The Constitution only worries about her rights. So here's an interesting question. Like, we all know jury nullification. They can just acquit because they're like, I don't care. But can they convict? Can they? They can. What's the opposite of jury nullification? They can. Certification. I'm not sure. Jury certification. Certification. And the failsafe for that is the judge. So I'll tell you the answers. There is a standard that if they do convict and there's no evidence, they have to reverse it on appeal. It's insufficient evidence. It's Jackson v. Virginia. It's a U.S. Supreme Court case. Can you get a directed verdict for Univir? Yeah. The other thing is you should be able to get a directed verdict. But judges don't do that. And what that is is, like, if the jury convicted and there's no evidence, then I could argue as the defense lawyer to the judge, you need to direct a verdict of not guilty, which basically means you need to force a not guilty verdict. They can do that. And that can happen. I mean, imagine a crime has, like, five required elements. Yeah. And the state literally introduced zero evidence on one of the elements, just as a technical matter. What are the elements, just for those that are— Well, I mean, just, like, look at murder, right? You took a human life. It was premeditated. You did it in this county. Venue, time. Like, it's crazy, but a lot of times cases— Oh, yeah. Here's a question. Like, let's say somebody, like, somebody lives in Kentucky, and they follow a woman from Kentucky, cross state lines into, I think, what, West Virginia is a good state, and then kill that woman. Ooh. I know this. Well— It's like this. Yeah. So, like— Right. Which venue is proper venue? Both. It can be—you can have the kidnapping in the state— No, no, not kidnapping. He's filed the person once they were in West Virginia. They can be prosecuted in three different places. They can be prosecuted where they were kidnapped, prosecuted where they were killed, and also prosecuted in the federal system because they crossed state lines. But not kidnapped. Okay. So a woman's, like— Oh, they were stalked. So they can be prosecuted for stalking in the first state. That state, though, stalking, no one cares. Let's say there's no stalking. Let's say they're both from Kentucky, and they both, happenstance, end up in, you know— In West Virginia at a local bar. Like, because they live on state—near the state line, right? All three places. They can be prosecuted. But the murder would be prosecuted in the state where the actual murder happened, but the feds could actually prosecute for crossing state lines. So has it ever occurred where, like— You know, for instance, we're in West Virginia, but Virginia, Maryland, and PA are all within a stone's throw. It's like the Quad State. Oh, it happens a lot. What if—has it ever happened where, like, say, somebody in Maryland— two people from Maryland are in PA, and one person gets murdered, but then Maryland prosecuted. In Maryland for that murder. Has that ever happened like that? Even though it didn't happen in Maryland? Yes. Is there a venue challenge? There is. So there's a case in Georgia—I worked on the appeal— where the person—it's a death penalty case. The guy's on death row. And he kidnapped a lady in Georgia and took her to Tennessee and killed her in Tennessee. He got charged with kidnapping with bodily injury. He's the only person on death row for a non-homicide case because he's on death row for kidnapping with a death resulting, but the death didn't result in Georgia. So they couldn't bring it up. But it's still there, so— He's not on death row for the murder. He's on death row for kidnapping with a murder resulting. Murder resulted in Tennessee. Kidnapping happened in Georgia. So let's say somebody lives in Kentucky, and then he murders someone in West Virginia and goes back to Kentucky. Mm-hmm. So can Kentucky, or let's just say this, a guy from Kentucky goes to West Virginia, kills somebody, goes back to Kentucky. Can Kentucky do anything? Not if he didn't commit a crime there, no. So West Virginia issues a warrant for his arrest. They'll just grab him on the warrant. Yeah, a little extra item. That's Kyle Rittenhouse right there. So what does West Virginia do? Do they file to the feds and say, we need the feds to go in and. No, they can issue their own warrant. The other state will honor the warrant. Yeah, we have this thing, it's called the interstate compact with all the states. And so any state can issue a warrant and another state has to actually get you. The state that wants you has to pay for you to go there. What if the state doesn't want to? And he can live in Kentucky and not be extradited. That's kind of crazy. He'll have a warrant for the rest of his life. Wasn't there a case where a woman got an abortion and then one state issued a warrant over it, but the other state wouldn't honor it? Probably. I think that happened recently. I would guarantee that's happened. Yeah, there was one where two women talked and one woman advised her on how to go get an abortion in another state and they called it a conspiracy. I can see that. I mean, it happens a lot on the international level. Yeah, I was about to say that. Somebody will. Somebody will commit a murder in America, flee to Europe, and we'll try to extradite them from Europe, and Europe won't send them back unless we promise not to execute them. What about that strip in Wyoming or whatever? You know what I'm talking about? The, like, strip that is not part of the U.S. or. Well, no, it's because it's like a national park. Oh, oh. So there's no residents, so there's no peers. There's no. Yeah, that's. Well, you couldn't get a jury of your peers because there are no peers. Yeah, so how do you. So the story as it goes is. Let me pull it up. I know what you're talking about. Yeah. That's never happened, and I think everybody hopes it'll never happen, but someone will go and commit a crime there for, you know, just to see. But it's the zone of death. That's what it's called. But the thing is, there apparently was some guy who committed a crime there, and the feds charged him. Do they have a map on this one? Well, that's actually smart. The feds would have to do it. The federal land? Because the feds draw from, like, a larger. Yay. And so he tried making the argument that this strip has no. There's no jury of my peers. Therefore, you can't charge me. And they said, we're going to do it anyway. And you're going to fight the federal government to take a plea deal, and he agreed to take a deal. Yeah. Because the feds, their jurisdiction is not just the state. It's the whole area. The zone of death. The zone of death. That's crazy. And that's. In Yellowstone, that's where they murder everybody, if you've ever seen the show. Oh, yeah. On the show, they do. Yeah. He's taking a train ride, and then they drive him off to the strip and dump the body, because they're like, no one lives here, no one searches. And they mention in the show, there's no jury of a peer, so nobody could be charged anyway. Well, no one's going to find the body. I mean, think about it. Something's going to eat it. Have you. Did you ever do, like, criminal defense stuff? No. Have you guys ever done, like. I imagine you've done murder. Have you ever defended murderers? Oh, yeah. I've never done a murder. Only from the other side, the self-defense angle. So when a person comes to your office, charged. If they're charged with murder, they usually don't come to my office. I usually have to go to the jail. Right. They're not out, mostly. But they're out every once in a while, they're out. Do they solicit you? Yes. They, like, call your office and say. So. Loved one, usually. When you meet with them in the jail, are you worried about surveillance? Like, they're going to violate. Like, the cops might secretly try and record you? Oh, yeah. Yeah, we have certain things we do to make sure that. White noise generators? Well, I mean, there's certain things that I can say that they're supposed to minimize, but I don't always trust them. Well, it's because. If I think they're listening, or if I know they're listening because there's a wiretap, I will always say some colorful things about them on. Because they won't be able to use it in court or anything. They can still listen. And they can use that for investigation. And then find a justification. So if he says something, like, look, I ditched the weapon. They'll never find it. It's in the regime. Or, like, my theory. You know, if I'm talking about my theory. That's why I always meet with clients in person. So when you. So when you're in, like, a secure environment, like, let's say they get bail. They're in your office. Do you ask them, did you do it? Not usually. Because I usually don't want to know that. Yeah. Would you have to admit it? It's not the relevant legal question. It just isn't. Yeah, it's really not. It's really not part of my analysis. I would not be able to put them on the stand. And let them testify that they didn't do it. If you knew. Yep. Interesting. But I will tell you, most cases, the truth is somewhere in the middle. Yeah. You know, it's rare that they just did it. And it's exactly how they said it was. I do a lot of legal consults for self-defense cases where I never talk to the defendant. Yeah. Yeah. Unless the defendant's going to testify. If they're going to testify, then I need to know what they're going to say. Yeah. But if they're not going to testify, I just look at the evidence that the jury's going to be presented. Have you guys ever had a client that you could just tell right when you looked at them they were evil? Yes. Oh, yeah. Yes. And then you were like, I got to make sure this guy goes free. Yeah. Well, I have to do my own thing. I mean, so I. What are you guys on the spot? I am a super Constitution lover. Like, I love the Constitution. Every, all of my answers, everything is based on the Constitution. I'm like obsessed with the Constitution. I have it hanging on my wall. So I fully believe that our system only works if someone like me will defend someone that is awful and horrible. And I concur with that. I just have an odd legal practice. So my practice is consulting to other attorneys. They're the lead counsel on their cases. They're pros. They're providing the seller's advocacy. They call me for an expert opinion on the self-defense law aspects of the case. But I'm not going to take money from people and then give them a report that says their client's guilty. I wouldn't. I just don't feel that's the right thing to do. So if I look at the case and I'm like, listen, this self, this is just not going to work as self-defense. Well, obviously, then they don't want to hire me anyway. Yeah. Do you guys often get clients that just, I already know the answer to this, but they just think they're so smart and they cleverly covered things up, but they are dumb as a box of rocks? Oh, yes. Just remember the average. The Q's 100. Most of the clients are dumber than that. Right. And like, I mean, I'm trained to cross-examine, so I can subtly cross-examine a client and figure that out. You know the story of the guy who robbed a bank and he rubbed lemon juice on his face? Oh, my God. Because he was told that lemon juice is used in disappearing ink. And so he thought that by rubbing lemon juice on his face, the camera wouldn't see his face. So instead of wearing a mask, he just wiped lemon juice on his face. That's just sad. He's that dumb. That's sad. That's insanity. That's sad. Like, maybe you look good. That's sad. We actually have. I have to. So. So in Georgia, we still have mental retardation as a defense. Really? And there's that word. Yes. That naughty word. You know, I just realized Ian can kill anyone he wants because all he needs to do is make the jury watch any episode of the show. Well, that's what I keep thinking about. If I get five doctors to describe me in five different medicines and they don't know, then I can be like, hey, nobody's at fault. Are the doctors going to get charged for negligence for over-prescribing Lindsay Clancy? Well, you know, they sued. I don't know if you saw her. So Patrick sued the doctor. For medical malpractice. Which is just civil. And they get hit with criminal charges? No. In the future, Ian's going to be on trial for triple homicide. Call me. And the defense is going to be like, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'd like to play you this compilation from Tim Castile. Ten minutes long and it explains everything. Clearly insane. He is truly insane. Clearly insane. They're going to watch it and they're going to be like, not guilty. I don't understand what he was saying. The man needs help. I can't convict. Well, no, you asked that. I pulled it up. Less than 1% of cases end in an insanity verdict. So, I mean. Well, that's about to go up. And also. I think four. So the states don't have it, right? No, three don't have it. Yeah. I think it's three. Something like that. The most. It's very rare to get more than three mistrials, but there have been documents of four trials. How many states have no contest? A lot of them? Yeah. They just call it different things. Oh, okay. What does that mean? That's only really for traffic cases. Oh, okay. No contest. Like, if you get a traffic ticket and you just don't want to go to court, so you just want to pay it, but you don't want to plead guilty, you plead no contest. Nolo contendere. That's the Latin term. You're not admitting guilt, but you're saying I'll pay it. But you know what they all have? The batteries, stuff like that. They all have something called Alford versus North Carolina. And Alford plea is different. Oh, yeah, yeah. What's that? We've talked about that before. Yeah. Alford plea is where you admit guilt, but you're not admitting to the facts that the state basically believes. So, like, you're saying that you think the state will convict you and you want to take a plea and be sentenced, but you're not agreeing to what they said you did. So, like, maybe I killed her, but I didn't mean to kill her. I killed her with the knife instead of the gun. And the state thinks I killed her with a knife. That's Alford. A lot of times it's a way of taking care of the client. It's a way of taking care of the criminal stuff without opening yourself up to civil liability. Have you guys ever watched Better Call Saul? Yeah. Yeah, of course. You know the scene where he's defending the liquor store robber, and then he asks the defendant, can you point out the person? He's like, right there. He's like, would you be surprised if I told you that's actually not the defendant? Would you please stand? He's in the back of the courtroom. I feel like that's exculpatory. Yeah. The witness misidentified a guy. I had that happen once. It's allowed? So, it's been 20 years. It was one of my first trials. I had an armed robbery. And my client had been in jail for three years. And my client was tiny. And all of the police reports were this tall guy had robbed three different stores, like CVS, Walgreens. And I was like, it's not the right guy. It's not the right guy. So, we get into trial. My client's been in jail for three years. And the victim is up on the stand. And the prosecutor's like, can you identify the guy that robbed you in the courtroom? And it was the longest two minutes of my life. This guy is like. And he goes back, and he's like, nope. It's not here. It's not here. And he literally was like, get up. So, I drag my client up. I stand in front of him. I'm like, look. And he's like, that's not him. Wow. Yeah. It really happened. It was one of those TV moments. But what if you did a stunt like that? Would that be like a mistrial? Or what would that do? No. Is the judge going to hold you in contempt? Well, we used to have. So, we don't really have lineups anymore. But we used to have lineups. And so, we had all this misidentification happen all the time. And that used to be a theory. Like, you would have someone else who kind of looked like the guy sit at your table and then see if the witness could actually pick the right person out. Oh, wow. We've done that. Or stand-ups. That's even worse. What's that? The cop's just. Oh, my God. Something happens on the street. And a cruiser's driving around looking. Just grabs the suspect and drags him over by the window. And is this him? Is this the guy that. And of course, the person was just beat up or whatever. They're like, yeah, I guess so. It's another black guy. Jeez. Yeah, it's awful. Yeah. They don't really do those that much anymore. Wow. I know. I know. It's crazy. Well, I think Richie's right. Everyone's crazy now. Yeah. You know what's going to happen? Every gangbanger in Chicago is going to go get a psych evaluation right now. And they're going to be like, oh, doc, there's elephants everywhere. And they're telling me to burn things. And you're like, this guy's crazy. gonna believe it because in this case so filicide like we were talking about earlier when you kill your kids there's studies that the most common reason you kill your kids is some hallucination some altruistic thing i was looking it up at the break like it's um and this this was interesting in the lindsey clancy trial so the guy that wrote the book on this was lindsey clancy's expert philip resnick he's like he's the one that wrote the book on what's called altruistic filicide and he says that there's five motivations for a woman killing their kids altruism acutely psychotic fatal maltreatment unwanted child or spouse revenge so we know we don't have unwanted child no spouse revenge no fatal maltreatment that's where you like starve them so it's acutely psychotic or altruistic altruistic is like you think you're saving them so you combine those so throw them in jail if they think they're saving them and they kill them but throw them in jail so okay what were they sorry that's your um altruistic yeah acutely psychotic so real quick altruistic is like you i was saving my kids from hell yes psychotic is just like detached from the dark lord told me to do it what's the other one spousal revenge fatal maltreatment which is like you starve your kid yeah um unwanted child and spouse revenge would it would it would altruism would it fall under altruism if they were like my child is possessed by the devil and was too dangerous and had to be stopped i think it would so what he's saying he's the expert and you know lindsey clancy got him so altruistic occurs when a parent believes the world is too cruel for the child or because the child is enduring suffering real or perceived because i perceived and it's often entwined with intended suicide a mother who is suicidal may not want to leave her children motherless in a cruel world and that's exactly what they said remember that gobles did with his kids before they took over hitler's bunker he had made sure they all took cyanide pills so that they weren't captured by the allies murdered his family but remember that twilight zone crazy and he also killed himself that might have been rational because the soviets would have done horrible things but who's coming up with all these categories isn't it just some kind of like freudian pseudoscience like it's a forensic psychiatrist yeah i i took ap psych in high school and it's all a bunch of bs i mean you can't like we were talking earlier you can't take a flu test or a covid test and there's no like positive you know that's what i was saying can we recreate this psychosis in a scientific setting no then it's not real so what you know we call them the soft sciences pretty soft if you ask me it sounds like the altruistic arguments just sounds like a very late abortion that's what it sounds like to me well that was one of the ones where it said unwanted child it's like oh the world is so bad also this is this is the meme is usually with some type of psychosis the meme is that when we started getting this advocacy for uh at birth abortions conservatives were like the next thing they're gonna say is they can kill their kids and then you get lindsey clanson here we are yeah exactly nothing new i mean think about it but it's andrea yates what 20 years ago like this but we didn't have tiktok i'm telling you support the the argument is this it never it's it's it's never from the top to the bottom it's a gradient meaning you get massive widespread support the women versus and lindsey clinton versus the world and they're arguing she did nothing wrong she was suffering and she was drugged and this is pushing pushing the overton window over so eventually you get well yes she should be locked away because what she did next when you get a woman who gives birth and then kills the baby right away they're going to argue but this is no different than an at-birth abortion so and they're going to keep moving that line you know in canada they do that so they treat the filicide killing of a child who's eight months of age or younger as less severe than of the child oh my god that's that's nuts that's insane wow that's insane earlier you said that the criminal justice system is about deterrence not punishment it's supposed to be when did they decide that because i want punishment i know well theoretically from england it's supposed to be deterrence because we want a safer society we're not supposed to be punitive we really are punitive in reality yeah in theory it's supposed to be about making the world safer we're supposed to have police that prevent crime not just prosecute it you know in theory we just don't really do that anymore i think that anybody would never prevent no would they prevent crime they'd have to be there ahead of you have to be doing yeah well they do in cities there's a lot of crime prevention if you're doing community policing if you're present in the community people tend to not come out and do the crime in your face tend to i mean it does work no but they do it a block over right i gotta be really i think uh i think we don't have enough psychological manipulation of criminals i think we need to take a page out of the uk's book and anybody who supported lindy clancy on the internet they should go to their house and arrest them and be like you're not mentally stable sorry it's well no all the women who defended lindsey clancy claiming that patrick did it are doing it because they plan to murder their kids and then yeah exactly arrest them jail everybody jail they're gonna be like i'm crazy look what i was posting on the internet round them up but i don't like this is the rhetoric that she got drugged because i think she chose to drug herself and then she did crazy things after she chose to do that to herself so i mean it's all her like whoa like if if richie shoots ian it's a crime but if he takes drugs first he's not gonna be able to do it he's not gonna be able to do it he's not gonna be able to do it he's not guilty well that's why they didn't get that charge yeah the judge said no because kevin reddington tried that one tried the you know involuntary manslaughter and the judge was like no that was ridiculous was it court like documented that she was drugged and not that she drugged herself we don't even know how many drugs she was taking we know how many drugs she was prescribed it was 13 or 14 different medications but they have all the bottles and most of them are full missing one or two tablets here's a question what if uh the voice was real i'm not saying like i'm like what if somebody literally right was messing with her like intending her to drive her crazy and drove her to it or demons what she thought it was real that's the whole thing she but no no i'm saying for criminal culpability is hearing is uh if yeah it was a command if if you keep hearing someone say do it or else do it now yeah do you have a defense for there's a voice and then they find out there was a speaker secretly implanted and a guy was actually doing it oh and they had technology that actually can do that like no saying like a guy can put a voice into your head without other people hearing it sure sure vibrates your skull because we like like metaglasses of the voice of god well it's it's uh with with the al red device we can project sound but we also have lasers so like talking plasma ian mentions you can you can have a laser hit a wall and then create a high frequency sound but just back to the legal questions i'm curious if they discovered like let's say in the middle of the trial they found evidence that there was a speaker in her couch that was actually transmitting a recording saying kill your kids would that be a legal defense would you get off can it induce psychosis right if she had psychosis then she doesn't have criminal culpability well it's not it's a it's not a question of psychosis what if she said i kept hearing a voice and i was telling people he told me i was crazy and then only now did they find a speaker was actually picking the voice and i wasn't crazy the whole time but i thought i was is she gonna get get is there a defense there there's a defense it just depends on the jury but i mean you can put that defense up without a doubt you could put up because is there is there it's like a legal doctrine for this like you were coerced it would be the criminal responsibility because there's nothing that says like the flu you know there's nothing that says you're you're insane so you don't have to have like a documented long mental illness that could be something that was triggered some type of psychosis or something here's a question we brought up on the show the other day and um our assessment was that you're responsible for killing someone even if you're threatened to do so but uh i'd like to get clarification from actual experts if richie put a like took uh ian's loved one and then said if you don't murder this person i will murder your family member is ian criminally responsible for that murder that's self-defense defensive self or others because no he's not saving anybody no no no well it it depends on how it depends on how close in time it is to the situation like is he holding the gun to his head and saying i'll kill him if you don't like he gets a he gets a call and there's richie with a gun to ian's mom's head saying i want you to shoot breaker right now or i kill your mom and then ian goes no i'll do it and he kills him yeah is ian responsible for killing andrew i would argue yes i i thought the other party is is responsible in their own way for their criminal conduct and inducing that coercion coercing that but you're not going to get the legal system's not going to apply a lesser value on my life than on that other person's life and in the law they're both equal value lives i would have a duress defense it's like heat of passion you've probably heard the the defense where you know a husband goes in and his wife's cheating on him and then you know in the heat of passion he kills the guy like it's a lesser included i i think uh and i'm not saying yeah he's still culpable it's just not like first degree it would be it would be like in my in my opinion if you are threatened with the harm of a loved one unless you kill another person the charge should be greater yeah well it should be it should be substantially greater why uh deterrence we're not talking about an issue of insanity which i understand you're not going to deter crazy person but if you are told uh like someone says hey i'm going to harm your family member unless you kill the man in front of you right now but i'm thinking i will be i will i will get a like the things they will do to me are so substantially worse i can't do it right it shouldn't be i i feel like when you say they're going to do worse to you than you're dying right well your kid dying see i mean do you care if you go to prison no i'm going to say this is this is this is a challenge to save my kid well i have how many how many people would you murder to save your kid yeah a thousand me i mean a thousand that see yeah that's why there's there's there's degrees of duress right like i would yeah i mean that's that's an interesting question i mean you have a kid too if xi jinping kidnapped your kid and was like now your kid will die and the only thing you could do is launch a nuke and wipe out all of china to save your kid would you do it yes oh my god i would it's tough right my kid i know i'd do anything i'd die for my i mean i'd if they said point him at barisma huh your kid would you appoint him on the board of barisma no no no no how far would you go to save your kid percent only if they give me ten percent only if they give me ten percent see that's entirely different the gunman in this metaphor has a gun literally to your head i would just shoot the guy or i'm gonna shoot you in the head and he does shoot the guy does he go to prison for murder or do i as the duresser that's the question i was asking but it's even more it's not i'm gonna go after kid it's i'm gonna end your life oh right right you'd be charged okay richie you're you're a defense but he'd be charged yeah you're on a spaceship with a bunch of aliens and the aliens have the glorblot device uh up to your kid's head and they say destroy the earth or we kill your child done see you guys so it's it's all a matter of legal arguments right so he would be subject to being charged his legal defense would be the defense of duress yeah and he's still charged be acquitted on that you say subject to being charged means he may not even get charged but sure prosecutors can always not charge i think about soldiers when they're given an order to go massacre village search and destroy like they don't go to prison for it i'm not sure they're off an order to massacre village then they'd be more settled than that what's that massacre village well they say search and destroy kill everything that moves they're all viet viet cong you know there's no questioning it and you go and you do the job you realize they were just kids and oh you're going to you're going to listen they're only violating the laws of the country they're in but it doesn't matter us is going to get them out no no you misunderstand you if i'm like let's say i'm like i'm like the commanding officer right and you're the guy flying the helicopter and i say i want you to fire missiles and blow up that village and then you're like oh man who goes to jail you do because i throw you under the bus and i i deny it i never told him to do that and then the chain of command said apparently ordered it the lieutenant yep carried out the order and told his troops the troops did it and then the captain denied of course of course and it goes to prison yep and the soldiers get off captains oh my god what the me lie perks the only good one my life me lights me lie me lie me lie and the captain the lieutenant and the soldiers testified that the captain gave the order multiple times it was screaming go we we don't have time for this uh go finish it off and then then they threw the you guys you guys know the story of the uh the coup in in turkey i think it was this was like 10 years ago so a bunch of uh turkish soldiers went to the bosphorus bridge and then all of a sudden this battle ensued there's like a helicopter shooting at people and the media reported that these soldiers were attempting to stage a coup against erdogan who was traveling out of the country he turned around and came back and then they arrested a whole bunch of scholars and politicians the conspiracy theory is that and i don't even think it's actually a conspiracy theory i think there's some evidence this may be the case but i'm not entirely sure i'm not from turkey these were low level like you know just uh low ranking soldiers in the turkish army who were ordered by the higher-ups that there was a terror attack and we need to secure the bridge they had no intention of staging a coup they were just they were just told oh my gosh the theory is that erdogan wanted the coup attempt so he could round up his political adversaries and remove them from power including academics so they send a bunch of soldiers to the bridge dumb as a box of rocks and clueless thinking we're here to guard the bridge then the media says they're they're staging a coup civilians came out and beat them to death and dragged their bodies yeah wow yep so they're always going to throw the bottom guy here's the thing anything can be a defense in this country if the judge lets me argue it really pretty much pretty much what's an example of that being kind of agreed like what's the craziest thing like the craziest defense like the crazy thing a judge has let you do or someone you've seen well they usually don't that's the thing they try to curb it but i mean a lot of times a lot of a lot of cases you've got a defense like ignorance of the law like maybe you didn't know or maybe they didn't know their age that happens a lot i mean there's a there's a fine line like in georgia just for example 16 is the age of consent for sex 18 is the age of consent for pictures this is not a popular subject but it's a very interesting one yeah so you can have sex with a 16 year old and it's not a crime but if you take a picture of her then it's a crime yeah take a naked picture a lot of a lot of people don't know this audio recording of the sex nope can't do that either that's a crime these things are always recording that is sexual exploitation this thing is all about it in the bedroom so i know it's not a popular i'm using it as an example it's not they're not then go after google for recording i mean they should because it's sexual exploitation of a child they should this is actually pretty crazy that most people don't realize the average age of consent i think is 16 in the united states yeah it's 16 yeah they think it's 18 it's not no they don't well a lot of people think it's 16 and in trouble i have a lot of these cases where they're like oh well i had sex with a 17 year old oh but i took a picture of her boobs and then they're i think sexual exploitation that is but that's one of the ones where so for a judge you would want to argue but it's legal to have sex with her but i can't take pictures of her you'd want to be able to argue i judge i know a guy who got convicted of that oh i have a ton of clients on a competitive shooter yeah he's uh he was an older guy he was in his 40s and somehow he was hooking up with really young girls so it's gross anyway but he didn't get convicted for having sex with her he got convicted because they took some pictures while they were doing it yeah yeah yep what if she took pictures like what it's the same thing still a crime that i'm like if she took pictures of him yeah yeah but she's the younger one yeah so as long if he sends them to her like she sends them if they transmit them and enjoy so 20 year old and 16 year old hookup 16 year old female takes pictures of it and then sends it to with this is how dare you this is wrong don't do this i'm gonna report this to the police he goes to jail possession of child pornography even though he reported it and saying this was sent to me so in the federal system you if you report it immediately you can have a defense you still get charged but you have a defense but most state courts you don't have a defense what anybody can text you anything at any point yeah yep in the federal system so so i actually have had experts that went to see if my client downloaded it and how long they looked at the image because i've had clients that were sent stuff that are like uh you know like when it really happens is if you download porn you know you download 20 images and maybe one of them is an underage but you didn't actually try to download someone underage if you delete it really quick that's a defense in federal court but it's not in state court so this this is why this comes up what will happen is you'll have some people who collect child porn they don't have one or two images yeah they have thousands of images they have hard drives full of this stuff and it'll be a pastor at a church and he'll have a computer problem and someone will try to help him with the computer and discover all the child porn and the pastor will go oh my god i had no idea that was there i'm insane i was i plead insanity someone just sent it to me oopsie did you guys see the recent ruling that artificial intelligence ai generated images of children is legal so long as it's not real what's what's going on with that have you followed that at all i have it's weird i mean i get it from the defense standpoint because the the theory on child porn why it's illegal is because the kids are harmed making it right so if kids aren't harmed there's technically no harm but as a society we think it's gross so yeah it's not that uncommon actually this used to come up before ai because people would do drawings was that illegal it varies from jurisdiction so the the ian brought this up and he had concerns that like what if someone draws a picture so uh what if like one of the things that people do is they draw children but call them elves and it's like very obvious that they're making pre-ubescent little girls but it's an elf well you put in front of a jury and ask them how they feel about yeah well so so then it's like okay like where the challenge is from for me i actually think it's pretty simple like lock them up yeah like those are we have moralities we make these right we have moral lines for illegality like on the flock camera debate you know some people are like we have to allow flock cameras to defend the first amendment my answer is no we have moral lines on different subjects right different subjects yeah but the concern uh that people bring up is like where is the line then if what what if it's a clearly a child with a pig's head right right is it then like i don't care like stop playing games we know what you're trying to do and why you're doing it right if it's ai like it's the i mean the law as it is right now no it's not going to be illegal the the problem with the awful yes the problem with the ai law is that how do you then determine what is real and what isn't i know and how as a as a person how do you how do you comply with the law i mean the answer is just don't have child porn whether it's real or not but but do you think that this will get this will get overturned and they'll be like no you can't do it no i well i think that they're going to i think that it's yes i think they're not going to be allowed to so so to my to clarify a judge ruled you can't criminalize if it's not a real person yes it's going it's is that going to be appealed like is the prosecution i think it will last i think it'll stand it'll stand i bet they could criminalize it it's just the state police power they can say hey we allow these images to go out even if they're artificial it just encourages pedos to be more interested in kids plus like the likeness i mean you can have a photo of a kid on some mom's instagram and then you know turn that into whatever that's a big fear would i i start to criminalize the intent of creating it just the data that would turn into code later that might produce the picture of a not a real person and that's so dangerous because that data could be used for other things this is why i think people should be criminalized for putting their kids on the internet yeah without their consent oh yeah and well for their own social media cloud it's just a slip that should be that should be a criminal offense patrick patrick of ohio asks how do we how do we uh so so now we need to prove the child is a person or not i know they already do so that's a real person you've had to prove for years that they've always had to prove that they've proved the years and the age so it's it's really crazy it's they actually have like known images and the hashtag data for it and they can prove it and the here's the thing when you talk about child porn everybody's like this is disgusting nobody likes it every i mean obviously it's disgusting we want to criminalize it we want it to be bad but then you think about like what you were talking about you make the creator what if you know someone created it and they didn't know it was a child i mean there are certain defenses to it yeah i see have you guys data in general then is like a slippery slope towards criminalizing you know schematics for 3d printed guns which they've tried to do yeah and that's super risky right have you guys seen that woman who's like in her late 20s but she's got a genetic disorder that makes her look like she's seven years old no but and she's like a tv show and there's like a guy dating her and everyone's like it's it's pretty messed up because i mean this woman is in her late 20s she wants to have a family but no matter who she's with that person is like basically a pedo okay so let me you that someone of age having sex with someone who looked like a seven-year-old or having sex with someone who is actually 13 but they look like they're 27 both i i i i feel like it's it's equal like the the but the problem is i kind of i i sympathize with this poor woman right because she's dating a guy that everyone is calling a pedophile yeah and it's part of the show where it's like when when he leans down and they kiss people start yelling at him and like they get in trouble but she's in her late 20s and she has every right to live her life you know but i'm like any look with all due respect to this poor woman any guy that wants to be in that relationship no the luckiest pedophile in the world i guess there's another guy called has bula that michael mike tyson famously was wrestling he thought he was a little kid he's like in his 20s i think a lot of it is the perception of youth that is criminalized because they don't really like you said if the woman's 16 or 15 but she looks like she's 23 no one's gonna i mean they might the legal team might use it as an opportunity to crush someone but no one would even realize that it might be a crime to begin with right yeah but nobody gets in trouble for that no no one gets in trouble for that because they have a picture of a cheerleader who happens to be 15 years old the pictures these i have friends in the fbi who work these cases and the images they're all kids they're all obviously kids they're awful there's thousands of them this is not some incidental someone has a you know on the edge kind of phone you know you know you know i'm wondering i have to say the term rape is so vague there's there's violent rape forcing sex against someone against their will and then there's a guy's 20 and then the girl's 17 and it's not right it's a different word should be used statutory rape is too date rape is we don't yeah it don't even get me started because we don't have date rape in most states like it's it's such a different offense it needs a different word like like stat like we need to stop especially after me too it's it's insane how many people are you know just because of that i'm wondering why we haven't seen like uh actually i'm sorry no we have seen some of these things where these like pedo catchers get a wrong guy or a random guy there was one real risk yeah i see those all the time of course and they grab some dude it's like what have you got the wrong dude well this happened they were uh apparently this the woman they were using so this woman was running accounts and stinging guys yeah and she made a mistake on one of the accounts she never said she was underage right so the young guy went to meet up with her thought he was meeting someone of age she then tells her team no look i told him i was a minor and he's like that's not my account oh because they're doing like a hundred at the same time yeah and so the guy was like here's the messages she said she was older and her account says 21 or whatever and then they i think ended up suing them and they end up getting in trouble wow that's a good way to get shot yeah right if you grab the wrong guy and he sees three or four big dudes start shoving them around yeah some of these videos are crazy because they'll like they'll walk into the store where the guy's supposed to meet the kid and it's like beating the crap out of them and then people are just standing there watching it it's like i get it you know what i mean but the the well i don't know i'm not the wrong dude yeah i'm not going to advocate no most of the time they're not but if you're in public and you're beating a guy you got to be careful someone's going to shoot you yeah this is this is what i was uh uh who was i was just talking to somebody about like criminal trials and uh and i and i said imagine and never everybody knows especially like you guys in criminal defense imagine uh there's two guys uh you know in a park and then one guy picks up a rock and chucks at the other guy's head and the guy dodges then the guy grabs another rock and says i'm gonna kill you and then the guy grabs another rock and says i'm gonna kill you and then the guy grabs another rock and says i'm gonna kill you and then you walk up and see the victim draws gun and shoot and kill the other person you just watched a guy shoot a guy right so you call the police and they say what happened like that guy just shot that guy and there's no witness to say actually the guy with the guns like he was he was threatening to murder me he had a rock in his hand and he was throwing them at me but so people will come up and they will see after the fact and they don't understand who's the aggressor actually that's kenosha in a nutshell if we hadn't been there you know yeah i mean people were would have made the argument that he did just they claimed rittenhouse killed three black guys they still say it's an argument that all the time for flock cameras is the transparency of of crime but but no no no no hold on the flock cameras are not filming everything 24 7 many of them are like low frame rate like nine frame per second the condors are video cameras they they could pick it up but what's ethically do you guys think about condor flock cameras i hate them i hate them but i will say they have exonerated many people but i hate that i hate the i hate the criminal world it's very helpful to have those i mean i've had i used to do work for um this company that had trucks this was years ago they they would um it was like a the gas company you know and they had the trucks that went around and fixed stuff and they would get in accidents and every time they got in an accident they would end up getting sued so they thought it was cheaper to hire me to go defend all of them well they had dash cams i will tell you not once did the dash cam match what the police found so every single time the police would make a charge they would charge someone with causing the accident and every single time when i would pull the dash cam it would say complete opposite so they would believe whoever got in the accident you know the other person and disbelieve the commercial driver the driver of the truck and every single time the dash cam proved that my driver was innocent i mean they obviously have you can exonerate people right they're capturing video they'll capture video of the occasional crime that'll help solve the crime to me it's a public policy question i mean we could put a cop up everyone's ass too right that would stop a lot of crime the drone on we want to live that way yeah like that's the problem i don't live in every house right you got a cop living in your house it's going to help stop crime but nobody wants to live like that you'd be shocked though now we're getting a lot of ring camera videos like it's oh yeah how many ring cameras and i'll have one case and i'll have like five ring cameras because people will catch little bits and pieces of the arguments it's very interesting that's also the along the argument of like some crime is good like some law is evil and like the nazis for instance they made things legal that were evil and then they would go and round up jews and it was legal so the crime would be to lie to the authorities and say i don't have a house and then you save these people's lives so there are instances where you need to let people gotta rise up law to fix the system right i mean imagine how cameras would have come down if there was a million flock cameras during covid yeah of course in britain i heard so these things all have utility but the question is you always have to think to yourself if i'm going to create this tremendous power right and it's not just that it's a camera it's that everything is recorded and networked and searchable it's the scale yeah changes everything right a bucket of water is one tsunami is a different problem right they're both water but the scale is very different if you're going to give this power to somebody you have to ask yourself all right i i'm not worried about giving it to that dude i trust that dude he's going to do the right thing with it but he's not in the job forever someone else gets control not to change the subject but the the j6 pipe bomber uh we have the fbi released one minute of footage of like choppy black and white footage because the feds are in control of who sees the footage so there are definitely thousands and thousands of this this pipe bomber walking around dc and yet they get to control what everybody sees same thing with january 6th so if the feds are in control of that of the cops it's like oh but you know i trust them i don't sorry if this power was in the hands of my worst enemy yeah what could they do to me exactly yeah no but the truth is if i had the power i would be uh altruistic yeah yes beneficent so don't don't destroy cameras but definitely if you do destroy flock cameras here i would i would you know if someone if someone said you know like if like a being came to me and said we're gonna allow you to give one person supreme authority and ultimate power of earth i'd be like ian hands down yeah hands down and then you take a bunch of meds and kill everybody oh no you got to build a better system this is what i want the chinese to do is set up a republic so they can go down and the iranians too like they need a republic they call it the people's republic of china and the iranian republic uh they need to actually make a republic and let go of the we're heading in the opposite i hit that back i wouldn't give you in the power because you'd like give it to a dog or something i don't want well what we need to do is decentralize the authority somehow and let but if you give everyone access to the flock i feel like there's this thing called like a constitution or something that we could richie if you if you had you ever see that movie um with um what's his face ricky gervais i think no no no it's not ricky gervais it's um who's the guy from shawn of the dead oh i know yeah simon pegg yeah you ever see the hot fuzz you're talking about hot fuzz he's also in that you ever see the movie where he gets all your money gets it's called absolutely anything i think it's called where he gets uh aliens give him uh reality warping powers at the end he gives it to his dog oh yeah he's like oh nobody should have this and he gives the dog the dog is robin williams i guess oh am i the dog in this situation no i'm saying how many people would you kill if you had that power uh anybody who messed you guys know you guys know what death note is yeah i've heard it but i don't remember the anime you guys know i do yeah oh it's anime uh manga into anime but that's the how they all go so uh high school kid finds a notebook yeah uh there's uh grim reapers in japanese it's called shinigami death god and uh one of them comes up they each have so death gods can write your name down and whatever life you had left they get so they live in this death god realm where they just write down people's names and write their cause of death so this one he's got two because you know happenstance he drops it to see what happens in the human world high school kid finds it and he's like an honor student and he decides he like writes a guy's name down the guy dies as a holy crap this is real so he decides he's going to kill every criminal on on in the on earth all from heart attacks so that everybody recognizes a pattern has emerged and that someone is killing everybody and it's an intentional act uh what would you guys do with it how does he know they're a criminal though see that that that now you're not you're getting the philosophy of death note this is because if he watches too much cnn that's what he did he would he would watch tv and uh pull up and he watched tv and then see which network so in the in the in the anime you have to know what they look like and know their name and you have to you have to you have to be thinking about that specific person that way you don't accidentally kill people with different names he then got access because his dad was a cop to police records and he would use that but aside aside from that if you had a notebook you could write on anybody's name and kill them how many people would you kill oh my god nobody we used to kill a lot he's seen his eyes like quite a bit he's like a lot i got a long list the 13 14 1500s in europe they would every year they'd kill one percent of their population trump the worst psychopaths you know the trump is in it actually they would execute them trump is actually that's what contributed to the western civilization being a high trust society we killed off all the low trust people so after uh death note's one of the most popular uh anime and manga of all time whoa and then uh this was i think donald trump it is monkey trump so something like i don't know seven years after the end or maybe like 10 years after the end of death note they did a one shot which is like a an epilogue where uh some kid finds that the and then i'm sorry i think i think uh ryuk gives the kid the death note like we're gonna do this again but the kid's not stupid and he's like i'm not gonna use this i'm gonna sell it so then he publicly announces the world somehow like the internet that it's for sale it's actually really great writing and then everyone's like stupid there's no way you can collect the money the moment they find out who has it you're done so what he does is he says you know donald trump offers like a trillion dollars for the death note so they can kill anybody they want and he says deposit five million dollars in the bank account of every japanese citizen and then i'll transfer the death note uh to you so that way they can't figure out who the beneficiary is because he's like everyone in japan will get the same benefit as me but we'll all be rich and so then trump buys it and trump has the death and then he kills everybody in japan uh i i don't remember exactly what happened but they don't call him trump but it's very obviously trump yeah oh it's clear wow yeah to be fair to light yagami he did kill a lot of convicted criminals too mostly they were convicted but they didn't kill anybody and they didn't kill anybody and they didn't kill anybody but then he started just killing people accused that were on the team yeah yeah he went overboard it's kind of an argument for monarchy or feudal aristocracy like if you think about a family that's groomed to just care about the long-term well-being of that nation rather than changing of power every four years or whatever term now here's the other thing too um so long in in the in the in the show so long as their death is within the realm of physical possibility you can direct how they die however you want so for example if you say a guy in new york tomorrow will die in los angeles that's impossible so he'll have a heart attack if if the if the cause of death that as written cannot be carried out as written because it's physically impossible they just have a heart attack would you be like i want an albatross to carry him 600 yards out into the ocean no because an albatross can't lift a human but what light does is he says he says like the prison inmate uh stabs himself and then writes in his own blood on the wall and then dies and it happens this is it i don't like it because crime does not equal evil there's so many criminals that and then and then that's not even the argument about some you wouldn't something shouldn't be illegal that are illegal not a single person what's that that's why we have a legal system yeah but i mean like there are people who are evil yeah who who are going to kill like like in self-defense you wouldn't stop somebody like you wouldn't kill anyone if it was in self-defense but i would be able to do that on the note no no let's put this way like let me ask you you're in a convenience store yeah and you just happen to be carrying your beautiful scar 20s and fully decked out 30 round mag and a guy comes in and he puts a gun to the old lady clerk's head and says i'd kill him and he pulled you shoot him dead 100 now what happens if you are across the street and you got your scar 20s fully decked out you can hit him from there you're gonna do it right if i could do it from yeah yeah perfect now you're on a rooftop you know 500 feet out and you see the guy point the gun and pull the hammer back and you got the scar 20s they're fantastic it's three you know 308 you take them out yes now you're watching on tv a bank uh a hostage situation and there's a guy with a knife to the throat of a child and he's digging it in and you have the notebook oh and they're like john smith right now is about to kill this child at the same time and you're watching on tv oh yeah i'd do it then and then you're right like after the fact or like abstract if it's actually right there and i can prevent it from happening yeah but like you're watching on tv a thousand miles away and you have the notebook and you do it then so let's say that there's like uh saving a life right yeah you're saving a life that's the self where it's at the same time exactly where's the limit you know driving recklessly what if someone's driving recklessly and you have a drone watching them and you can open fire on the car and you see hold on i don't i don't want to deviate because i so so i'm i'm trying to go somewhere this i don't deviate so my next question was obviously international conflict foreign affairs war right so uh you we find out that uh uh strike is about to be carried out on you know somewhere would you be like i'm gonna stop this and write the name of a foreign world leader or whatever yeah like vladimir putin's about to invade ukraine because i would be saving i would be saving lives i think that's completely or what if you know they're about to bomb a school in iran who's about to the united states or the united states well that i mean it actually so here's here's the here's who am i who's on my death list you don't know who's controlling the drone you're gonna stop you know what i mean but i'm saying you've got putin declares we like we're sending troops into eastern ukraine would you write putin down yeah but what if he's going to kill them right then yeah what if it triggers world war three you gotta run a lot of names at that point you know just writing them down like crazy it just never ends well that's why i don't want that power you know that's the whole point i need to know everything i need to know exactly what who i was killing and what the effects were from that to write them off and kind of tried to go down that road of killing all the bad guys yeah it doesn't work like doesn't work very well that's that's why i'm like there's a fine line so in your other examples it was all immediate it's like self-defense yeah am i having to do it for self-defense right there yeah but if i'm making a calculated decision i'm going to kill these people to save the world that's different it's got to be immediate to me it's it's just like when you get to that scale you don't know that you're actually saving the world when you do this you know and i'm lucky that i'm not in that position so i don't have to make those choices you know although technically i think that because the window for the death note is 28 days you could write every world leader's name all come together go on tv and declare world peace because you can control their actions before they die you'd have to sacrifice them to have them all come together and sign sign a treaty of world peace and then they have to die if they sign that treaty could they live in order to control their actions they have to die you can control their actions before death but what you do is tough you you make the point of death from like choose your evil global you know terror group and then all the world leaders came together to end and then this one terror group kills them and then you have the whole world united against one terror group and then you get world peace how long is that world peace going to last i know yeah and what's the other fallouts from my actions at this point so what's the uh where i'm picking and choosing like what in a notebook that changes human behavior what's the what's the story uh of the uh um it's like play-doh and i don't know what's the story of the uh um it's like play-doh and socrates or whatever that if you were invisible that all people what do you know what i'm talking about like this how people would treat you if you were no no no no that all people when given the ability to commit commit crimes without accountability will do so yeah let me look that up what is that called yeah i i know the theory you're talking about there's a name for it i think people don't realize how often ring of gigas rhymes and they don't even know it the story of the ring of gigas it's from a play-doh and he argues that someone finds a ring that grants them invisibility and when they uh let's see the legend is gigas of lydia blah blah blah it grants using the ring as an example this section of the republic considers whether a rational intelligent person who has no need to fear negative consequences for committing an injustice would nevertheless act justly and uh you know what do you guys think if if you were given a ring of invisibility would you wrong anybody for any reason no matter how minor no you wouldn't you wouldn't walk into a casino and just take one thousand dollar chip it's gone no i don't even want to win the lottery like i want to build it from scratch so i don't think i would do that and i know a lot of people that you would snatch all the 25 000 chips we all have the opportunity we can all commit crimes all day long and yes yes but the point about the the ring is that most people don't the argument is that you an upstanding citizen when given a ring of invisibility would commit crimes you otherwise would not because you can't get caught i would go to like the best waves in the world and just drop in on everybody and surf whatever wave i wanted that's the only crime with me and but it's the only crime i would commit because no one would know that i was dropping in on them that's that's the crime i would commit because then i can surf whatever wave i want and they don't have to say hey you dropped in on like environmental crimes yeah i go to i go to a pipeline crimes of inconvenience yeah yeah you wouldn't just want to go to a casino so in all reality if you took high value chips from a poke from a casino you're never cashing those in it's impossible the moment the moment you walk in with them they're like where'd you get these like it's not like they track all of the most people are not playing with thousand dollar chips so casinos that's why that dude in vegas who snatched all of the chips and then fled got caught because you can't use them yeah when it how they're going to track everything you track everything you do there's there's no reality where you can even buy them so if somebody went to a so this is a i think was a bellagio he he ran in a motorcycle helmet ran and grabbed a bunch of chips and ran out yeah if you're in if you're like a mafioso you can't do anything with them because when you buy 100k in chips with 25 000 chips they write your name down take a picture of you and say you have four you know i had this book when i was little and in the book it was like a children's book but they got this cube when they could wish for anything and it would appear and then they found out halfway through the book that it was coming from somewhere else it was being taken from someone else so no matter how much you want and how much you desire it's someone else it's coming from someone else coming from somewhere yeah you've got to have a moral code like most i mean most crimes aren't caught most people commit crimes and it's not caught we just don't commit them because we have a moral compass we have a moral code i guess that's the question like jaywalking jaywalk more if i had an invisible ring well so how about this if you had if you had telekinesis would you cheated a casino no you play roulette you put you put the max bet 200 bucks on 26 and then you say because i do try and do that 500 bucks the force you are 7 000 i think you i think that she tries to use i do it anyway i i what do you mean i'm actively trying to do that i ask i i've i asked the roulette dealers is it is using magic cheating like if i have if i've and you get flagged and they follow you around no if i said that i said if i use magic to make the ball land where i want is that cheating they just laugh and i'm like how about the telekinesis device yeah your profile oh that one because i know your head's gonna end up on wood vice they will they will kick you off any game if you're winning oh yeah like you can't win at a casino let me explain everyone you can't win at a casino because they won't let you yeah if you ever actually were on a heater and winning a lot of money they will tell you to stop no matter what the game is yeah you're shut down yeah that's crazy yeah but polymarket is awesome polymarket have you seen the polymarket on lindsey clancy no no god that's why i was being sarcastic oh man how much money they make the thing is though prediction markets is you don't wait for the end you can cash out before so the only thing you really need to know about a prediction market is will press occur in your favor i wonder if there was a prediction market for the hung jury i bet you there is like like well that's basically basically that's that's um did you see george santos got banned because yep because he because it was whether or not he would appear at the state of the union like why are why are we doing this we do we really need to make betting markets on everything i think it's i think it's the train ai it's the train ai so that our computer overlords are actually the ones engineering it there was a prediction market on it figure out how there was yep activity all right yeah uh-huh yeah so there's one for me that's it that's that's why i'm looking at you because you're probably the only person who buys in on it it's true oh my gosh that's a darpa we can get more yes on the outcome of the lindsey clancy trial in the world and then and see how people react to predictions i mean i think we bet because it's fun to bet and hey richie but i got one for you this is sick also like desperate who will attend a white house press briefing this year currently i'm number one you are really yeah uh 88 000 wage not very big but the reason i don't that when i found out that they made a prediction market based on me that's i'm kind of offended by that let me know and i'll pop a bet in there see that i already publicly announced on the show and you can see exactly when i said on this show i am talking i was talking to lisa and i said let them know i want to i want to come to a press briefing i don't care which one and they said well carol if it's out so we'll let you know like as soon as we do they're like they were like tim you can come whenever you want just you send this message we'll walk in uh so i said i do intend to go but um i have questions i have i have questions so um what does it mean to attend a white house press briefing what constitutes proof uh let's see resolves yes if tim pool attends any white house press briefing which takes place in the james s brady press briefing room after issuance and before 2027 so does that mean i have to be in the room is it attending a press briefing if i'm just outside the room watching and filming but i don't open the door you got to be in there what if it's in the oval because you know the press briefing it says it says in the press what if i take a picture of myself outside the room saying heading to the press briefing today i'm here but i never actually go in what if i put on a b i have a white house press pass what if i put on a beanie and a pool mask yeah and a mask you literally just wear my whole clothes i'm just like yeah i'm i identify so here's the here's the point it resolves to yes as long as any news agency or i claim i was there whether or not i actually was so i've thought of a couple scenarios what if i take a picture outside and i'm like at the white house press briefing today people are going to say that proves he was there he took a picture outside right what if i never actually go in how about this what if i say i'm going but don't i don't post a picture i say i will be at the white house press briefing today and then no one sees me on january 1st i post the photo saying yeah i was there i said i was there so the issue is cal she says even if i was there unless it's confirmed before the end of the date it doesn't matter if i was so let's say i go and say nothing and then next march i post that i was there like doesn't matter it had to have been proven before the closure but what if i tweet just text i am currently here and you're wearing a burka and nobody no no no i just i'm here so no one actually sees any photos or evidence like what if i tweeted right now from the studio in west virginia i am at the white house press there needs to be something in that that says what you what it takes to prove it uh my understanding is that if right if i if i go live yeah from the studio and i point the camera i pull up the screen i say i am about to tweet right now that i'm actually at the white house press briefing and then i do yeah that will count as me having wow this is like the invasion of venezuela wasn't a bunch of people were mad because it like didn't count as an invasion yeah we put boots on the ground and yep and that was an invasion there's got to be some fine print on all these some lawyers drafting some fine uh i read this contract and i'm like yeah this is going to get wonky it's just stupid it'll end up in litigation why do we need to bet on that so here's it here's it do they care because we're training the ai they get their vignette either way right no but exactly they're making money here's the problem uh i was at a press briefing last year what if i take a picture from it yeah last year post it right now and say attend it uh just just attended uh or having attended this recent press briefing was absolutely incredible i'm glad i get to go to the white house and see these things it's ambiguous that i actually go i said i did but i never really said i went now so they're gonna be fighting like crazy like does this did he go i don't understand like he said he did others are gonna say the people who bet no we're gonna be like no he didn't that's an old photo that's not old that's him there now i want my money no you can't have your money it's insane and then so that that's the that's the craziest scenario if i take the picture from last year that no one's ever seen before yeah and post it now and say really excited to have attended the press briefing learned so much there needs to be a calci certifier like a team of elite people from calci right that are just all around the world at all times what are the odds of that here's what here's what i'm gonna do let's bet on it i am going to put on the exact same clothes that i wore last year when i went i'm going to go take a picture in the back of myself then i'm gonna tweet attending the press briefing was really incredible uh it was so amazing to see i'll never and then i'll write i'll never forget how amazing carolyn levitt was when she was uh you know uh doing the press briefings so it's very ambiguous 2026 has been such a good year make that the point oh my god the reason why it's ambiguous is that i want it to be maybe it was 2025 maybe he's saying he's there now everyone will start fighting over whether i did or did not go and then uh how will they be able to determine it now here's the best part if they can't determine based on me literally posting i went to the press briefing because it may be the year before and they don't pay out and then on january 1st i just tweet here's the other photos when i was there at jd vance's press briefing i was like oh my god why wasn't that good enough it's it's it's insane the point i'm bringing up is this we had a guy in new york wager on the temperature of new york bring a blow dryer and blast the sensor yeah so that it would guarantee to hit and he'd make money people are betting that i will or will not be there and i did not agree they could do that yeah so if i make it so if i do this everyone's going to be fighting over whether i was there or not cal she will have to make a determination as to whether or not it's proof that i was there what if i wasn't what if cal says tim pool was there and i said whoa whoa whoa that was just me saying from last year i never i did not go what if the secret service guy sees you at the checkpoint and then makes the bet is that like insider trading that's not allowed it's allowed so it's not it's not insider it's not insider trading because i'm in public what if i go to a to a restaurant across the street a cafe and i say everybody in the building right now there is a prediction market wager on me to attend a press briefing oh my god i'm about to walk across the street and enter that building right now do with that information what you will what if there's a predictions market on lindsey clancy and i'm her lawyer can i bet on it no yeah that's insider trading so that's insider i can't tell me about the case but that's insider trading and any of my employees cannot make a buy contracts on the my attendance yeah but i'm not technically an employee i'm a contractor i don't know if that matters it does matter you're playing a stupid semantic game that's clearly defined i don't know i thought so what just i have my own company i work with tim cast from time to time i have a contract with tim cast okay is still illegal yes it's not about my brother it's a violation of the cftc and it's explicitly against the rules and you are getting semantics what about my brother though your brother doesn't work he doesn't have any your brother's clean i'm gonna go hang out what if he tells his brother and then i see that beanie walking up well it's already at 71 so you're like i gotta be honest like well then i'll just put everything i got on there i feel like having you on here is implicating you and the odds are no good you bet a thousand bucks all right don't how about this don't i see you coming with your beanie and i tackle you and then i bet no and ensure that you're not you break can't go back in there what if what if you put on my clothes and i put on your clothes you then go in and shake the hand of some journalists but i got tim pool nice to meet you and then they report tim pool is here what if you hold on change your name to tim wait wait wait hold on let me finish part of it short it so they say tim pool is here because i don't know who you are and they're like oh wow it's tim pool or someone looks back and then they tweet it i'm outside and then everyone the press briefing. It resolves to yes, Tim Pool attended. I then immediately go live outside and say that's not me i'm not in there right now who is this but it already paid out i think the question that we're really driving at here is what is tim pool my point ultimately is this it doesn't matter what's true these things are predicated upon uh nothing almost and what's going to happen is everyone's going to go to war over what really happened because they want money i think there's some precedent over you being able to sue cal sheet for putting your name on their server and and promoting you and using you for their tools like people have a right to not be described not to be uh maybe they don't have a right to not be like uh objectified and and used for like malfeasant purposes and if they're playing games with you to make money and they're using you that doesn't i will say that's right like who decides these i will say this we have a cal sheet sponsors the show from time to time uh so we we do have a a sponsorship from cal sheet that has never stopped me from saying these things and they've never had an issue with it i respect that uh but i have a question for the lawyers i mean what is the legality of them selling contracts in my name about whether i will or will not do something yeah who comes up with that yes but like they're they're using my name and likeness to sell a contract do they have a right to use my name and likeness on contract sales i think they have a right to do that my concern would be how you can't profit off of it obviously you know like you said like you obviously can't profit off it because you could manipulate the outcome but i also i i argue so they they've said it's a violation of the cftc insider well hold on i am not party to this contract sale right i have nothing to do with this at all you want to sell a contract on my name i can do whatever i want you can't tell me what i can or can't do yeah you're not a party to it so i i take i take a lot of issue uh with this because they've told me i cannot participate nor anyone my family or who works for me in the sale of a contract as to my own actions i have nothing to this company i did not approve this i never signed anything saying somebody could do it yeah because if you tell me you're going and then i tell my brother you're going and he bets a shitload of money and makes a ton of money yeah let me ask how is it even regulated like where is this incorporated is it in a state cal she's all over the country it's it's banned in some states but here's a question for you guys so so if they're allowed to post a picture of me with my name saying you can buy a tim pool contract why can't i do that for lebron why can't i sell pictures of lebron and charge people a hundred dollars per contract but what would you be saying about lebron he's going to go somewhere well you get a physical contract with this picture on it yeah and um it's a rare photo that he sells but doesn't matter because they're using my photo without my consent right and it's a contract that he'll uh eat a banana uh at least one banana pudding this year i think they can use your photo it's the out you can sell my photo they're not selling your photo there's on contracts in my name they're not selling your photo they license those photos copyrighted i think that's a some lawyers together i'm ready that photo is fair use yeah i mean i do foresee this becoming a lawsuit but i think more about how the payout is like someone's gonna bet and then there's gonna be a photo and they're gonna be disputing what's real and what's not real i'm gonna go and say this uh it's an 88 000 pool i am a small fry in the world of cal she but aoc is currently sitting on a 200 million dollar pool now hold on she's a public figure yeah that's different so uh you're allowed to use like the images of images of trump or trump's name because a public figure but there are many people in this who are not and i do not see how it is legal to create an industry that sells contracts using celebrity names when the business of the celebrity is their name and likeness well the contract's a bet i mean that's what they're selling they're selling a bet indeed uh and you're not a party to it and they're making money off of it yeah right as soon as he reads it he becomes a party to it as soon as he sees that he's a party to it he's a party to it it's real he's now party to the but he's not benefiting from it like he's not part he's not one of the sides of the contract he didn't make the contract he's not benefiting i just i'm knowing that his actions are going to determine who gets money and who doesn't that's not what i'm talking about talking about it's a type of benefit can i sell a product using robert downey jr's name yes or no it doesn't matter what the product is i i'm going to sell you a piece of paper that has robert downey jr the actor with a picture of him on it and you can buy it off for 20 bucks they're selling the opportunity cost they're selling a bet there's a you buy an actual contract with my name on it it's it's a they actually give like a picture you can actually pull up the contract and what it says the contract there's no picture on it though so i'm quite hold on i know i'm curious if i posted robert downey jr's picture and then under it it said buy this contract that says robert downey jr and it's underneath a picture of robert downey jr i can do that you have so for a contract to exist there's got to be something on the other side you've got to actually get some consideration so what am i getting if i buy if a person buys the contract the robert downey jr contract what do they get if robert downey jr eats a banana split by the end of the year i will send you a a second uh a picture of his name of his name yeah because you're not selling robert downey jr you're selling a bet on whether or not he does something so but but but you're getting a piece of paper with his name on it to hang up so you're getting the contract itself are you buying that piece of paper are you buying the chance to win more money if you win the bet i suppose the question is why would it matter what if you write a magazine article about robert downey jr uses a picture of him and then you sell it okay question if on my website yeah i wrote an article timcast.com with a picture of robert downey jr framed those images of him and put a quote from my article i can do that you can't sell his image like that well it's a newspaper article it's mine it's called fair use though but yeah i was gonna say where'd you get where do you take it you can take a piece of uh i'll i'll take a i'll i'll go and find that's not fair use because the product itself is the is the if you're making commentary that's fair use so if so but if that's that's the product that you're selling is my commentary on this if what you're selling is the piece their likeness and that's the basis upon what you're selling it then that's not all right the same so i'm going to take this picture right good i like that one because it's on wikipedia so it's in the creative commons or it's in the public domain it might be creative commons but let's just say hypothetically it's it's in the public domain click in and find out and then i say there are more details it'll tell you this this is probably creative commons non-commercial it's got an author and if it is creative commons non-commercial then you can't use it sometimes they say you can use it you are free to share a mixed attribute share a like the rights warning some rights yeah really licensed public domain domain so oh it says public domain yeah they've retained they've retained some rights it says although this work is freely licensed or in the public domain right it says it says some rights rights but my point is this there are photos in the public domain i can i can sell i can sell the photo if it's in the public domain yeah you can put it in your book yeah you can put it in a book and sell the book i just think that there's an issue are you adding value are you doing commentary are you doing all those fair use things my my issue with this is they are monetizing my work without my permission are they though are they monetizing your work they're monetizing your image no no will i attend a white house press briefing this year so they are telling people based on the work tim pool does yeah if certain conditions are met we get to profit from it so they're telling people based on the work tim pool does stuff yeah and we are selling they're selling yes and no so you can buy no tim pool won't go to the white house sure but you're still buying odds they're not buying your work product yeah they are they are profiting off of the work that i do that you did it yeah but people are profiting off the work you do when they talk about you if you can take your video yeah do commentary or someone can go money off that on youtube outside and be like blah blah blah blah about tim pool and then it goes viral when people do that i can take that video and i can use it right but you can take this and use that you can use this to i cannot i cannot engage in this the way i can with it right but you are using this you're actually using their their content right now right no no i i am not selling contracts on whether or not okay here's what we can do so i yes on tim pool attending the white house press briefing i guess you could what would prevent that then okay that'd be kind of fun you should do that that's actually really good right now what are the what are the rules on can an individual sell event contracts oh the problem with the contracts like that are the betting and gambling rules weird it's heavily you need to be licensed yeah how about i call polymarket and i'm like hey you gotta be one want a contract will cal she pay out yes on tim pool attending the white house press briefing and then i can sell those and be like it's not a it's it's it's not insider trading how do you i don't know what they'll end up doing but i am gonna go if i were to quit my job liquidate all my bitcoin and then just hang out for the next whatever three months four months outside of exactly where you have to enter to get into the white house with a bunch of big dudes just to ensure you don't go in there and bet no the pool isn't big enough that the pool is not big enough okay what do you mean you you can't make any money if if you bet 10 million dollars you'll get paid out two thousand dollars on no i'm betting you're saying i'm betting no i'm not allowing you to enter i'm going to physically keep you from entering so uh is that insider trading if you bet five tim pool if you bet five million dollars you'll get paid out fifty three thousand they had a lawsuit over something similar yes it's this point in betting on that there's no money in the pool that's the point so you're you're blow out the odds if you add yes but if i put a lot more money in the pool then isn't doesn't it go up so let's i'm gonna try to uh let's say three fifty it's only eighty thousand dollars if you 350 pays 855 so it no becomes a favorite how she has good lawyers the question is like if you can bet know and then ensure that it what i don't like exactly what i don't like is that they're selling contracts in my name barring me from participation through threat of criminal enforcement i never agreed they could make wagers in my name i'm not party to those wagers i've i i'm not benefiting from them why can't i buy something so so imagine let's let's try this someone's selling pictures of lebron james from the public domain and lebron says i would like to buy one saying you're not allowed legally don't look at me you'll go to prison if you buy that that seems insane to me i don't like this yeah that seems yeah george santos agrees yeah well i mean i yes george santos the the bet was whether he'd attend the state of the union what do you do you bet no it's less about pictures more about selling will lebron win the next game and he can't bet on that but that's because he's part of an organization that has agreed to these rules and he's a prize to them so if you're a boxer and you agree to throw the match so that someone can win money that i understand is criminal but if you made this wager outside of me with no permission from me or questions or anything i can do whatever i want you have no right oh there's a ton of lawsuits on this right now really yeah using people's names and likenesses about calci and yeah essentially who governs them if it's what you said the ftc or right they're arguing that uh they've argued that if i were to buy on my for this now they've it's banned but let's say you know i told richie like hey i'm gonna go buy that we'll split the money that that's a criminal element that's under the cf let me know let me know with the profits right no no but but they're arguing they would refer it as a criminal action yeah like you like like the reporting is that santos is being criminally investigated i understand but but sure but if it's criminal it's not their rule being enforced right some legislation of course created a rule yeah this is the point what gives how could there be a system created that creates criminal culpability for me without my permission based on actions i would take i don't think they could ever i don't know i would defend you to it's like it's like a law being passed saying specifically andrew branca can't buy a hot dog from the store otherwise you go to jail right like that's what no that's ridiculous that's ridiculous you text me you say i'm coming to dc i say let me know next time you're in dc hey i'm coming to dc for the press briefing boom i bet on it i make a bunch of money and then i go hey tim come on i i gotta i gotta vacation for you there's no you know that is that that's illegal is that they decided to sell a contract in my name and if i decide to buy on it yes or no i've committed a crime that's the argument but if richie buys on it it's not and then i take you on no that's still that's still a crime it's gonna be just like i build a skate park that's still a crime why insider trading so cfc say it's insider trading if you tell me you're coming to dc this this is the issue that i do not like with this if i tell you hey i'm heading the press briefing and then you you have inside information as to my actions and if you buy on it that's inside information and if you buy on it that's inside trading and it's a crime but i'm not a trader doesn't mean anything and this isn't regulated why am i beholden if bill gates came to you and said yeah the stock's gonna tank and then you sold all your stock it says i was trading i would never invest in bill gates that this is my point they've created a weird insider trading criminal culpability this is crazy like the on the fly randall and now here's the here's here's the crazy thing what if uh like i tell ian i'm going to the he happens to overhear it and then buys exactly it says tim pool never gave me any information i i heard it from ian then they say well but we know your friend so we're going to argue that he informed you and then i have to defend myself against someone that i know buying this it's insane this is absolute insanity it is crazy it's i understand lawsuits are crazy i understand if you are a corporate officer and your wife sells all her stock and you're like i never said anything to her and they're investigating you but i don't work for kalshi i never agreed to let him do this how could it be possible that richie has criminal culpability now if he happens to guess right or or santos for that matter let's do it and then take it to the supreme court yeah if you get charged with that i'm your girl i'm your defense lawyer right here i'm not uh i've actually asked i asked a long time ago why don't we get certain gun restrictions like the machine gun stuff overturned yeah i think as do you actually and it's because nobody wants to get arrested buying a machine gun yeah you have to do then be the precedent it's right it's a 10-year federal felony yeah you maybe you win but nobody wants to go to prison on a gun charge right yeah and the courts won't deal with something that's hypothetical right i mean you know you can't challenge something that's hypothetical yeah what are some of the court cases up against kalshi and so what so most it's states it's a lot of states that are having a problem because the federal government's allowing it and the states want to regulate it because the states super regulate gambling activities like super it's lucrative you know so there's um a couple different states that are it's interesting which ones yeah that's the interesting part um i'm i'm i will say this i like kalshi generally um i think it's fun i think it's fun to track how people are are putting money on contracts it's the wisdom of the crowd i think it's informative i think it's better than polls my my gripe is this one particular issue with what responsibilities do i have when they chose to put my name in there without my without my permission maryland does not like kalshi let me tell you that maryland definitely does not like kalshi nevada and new jersey that's interesting they're two of the ones that sued um new jersey because they had like the most losses like everybody's losing money that's what i'm thinking so it makes sense if you think nevada and new jersey you got atlantic city and you've got that's why yeah there you go what do they have maryland they have ocean city does that gambling ocean city ocean city maryland i don't know is that gambling they have gambling no gambling why does maryland care i'll find out maryland does have because maryland has casinos or five casinos maryland that's why then so those are the three states that are really into it it's all money let's uh let's let's grab some of the from the from the members settle down says question for tim kalshi had to sue the government just to let americans bet on elections and you won why is dc so scared to let us bet on politics when wall street can bet on literally everything else i find that most of these things you find a lot a lot of this stuff there's no reason it's just it's the way it's always been and it's hard to make things move like so what i'm dealing with in west virginia is why is poker social poker not casino poker illegal so if me and the boys want to play a game of texas hold'em amongst ourselves there's no house why is that illegal pokemon is legal so children can get pokemon decks wager money they can put money in a pot play a game and the winner gets the money that's legal despite the fact the law says it's illegal well it's because this is how things are done and to make these changes you have to tell someone it has to be changed so i can tell you why dc doesn't like it it's because it's too easy to manipulate these things you can set up one of the other for office small numbers like 80 grand like you have in your thing here and one of the parties dumps three million dollars into it yeah now it makes it look like they're their candidates overwhelmingly favored and perception becomes reality right people say well i'm not going to send that guy money he's going to lose cal she says so yep indeed if you guys want to get some questions in for the last few minutes of this year amazing show i won a bunch of money up in 2016 oh yeah that would have been illegal yeah that was that was uh predicted back in the day remember that i just met with my buddies who were all like there's no chance and i was like really give me your odds wow predicted was the uh coin was the original i think and it's what's fascinating is that despite being one of the originals it's basically non-existent as far as polymarket and cal she owned everything yep uh we got this from kevin he says uh how long do you think clancy would stay in the mental hospital if found not guilty messages only require six months and she hasn't had an episode since the murder i think she'd be out within a year and i think it's a question because look she was only ever a threat to herself and her kids well her kids are safe now right i mean they're gone and all she has to do is convince somebody that she's not going to kill herself anymore she's not feeling i didn't realize that feel suicidal and not feel suicidal ever it's crazy she's got to convince two state doctors and she's got to convince there's no mandatory duration that she has to stay in there no six months for observation this insanity thing's got to go but hold on hold on so um andrea yates has been in under an insanity same facts almost essentially for 20 years but she's saying she's she's a danger to herself so right so you know the question is if she doesn't want to stay be there anymore how hard is it for her to get out all she has to do is say i'm i'm just i don't feel suicidal anymore yeah i don't feel like she would get out though i mean honestly that the likelihood but it's possible that's the problem i think it sounds stupid sounds like somebody's gonna game this thing but i don't think a judge is ever gonna let her i have the best question ever oh okay you both seen uh both have seen better call sol yeah of course oh god it's not that realistic the courtroom parts are in the show it's not that realistic i mean some of the the lifestyle stuff when he's when he's doing the hearing i think this might have been arbitration with his brother and he hides the battery the cell phone battery oh my god do you remember that one no but uh the his older brother had a phobia of electricity oh so he's like anything electronic and he's like there's a phone in your pocket yes and then he opens it there's no battery he's like i knew it and then he's like actually and they had the battery in his pocket it's like i mean that stuff is yeah that's that doesn't really happen but i will tell you court is kind of wild especially like the lower level courts i don't know if you guys ever watched night court years ago like you remember night court like years ago you can watch old episodes of it that stuff happens in the lower level courts yeah it's crazy it was like the get the people that would come in in the middle of the night yeah the pro se it's like it's like the drunk tanks you know pro se people overnight people who are arrested on petty crimes and stuff people who are drunk is it like lawyers laughing about it like to each other during the trial and you're like it's i think uh it's like comedy because you're like drunk people my cousin vinny is the most accurate legal movie ever made it's taught in law school isn't it oh yeah it is the cross-examination but i will tell you the most accurate ever is the practice it's old the practice not law and order no i can't even watch it it unnerves me so much like oh practice have you ever seen i what didn't they do uh i think there was a single season of law and order uh trial by yes and it was like it was mostly the court proceedings and less of the but it got canceled because it was boring it was stupid because like you don't get breaks like that it was so wonderful i was like they go to court for an hour and then they get six hours to prepare no like i'm in court for nine hours straight i mean lucky if i get a granola bar even even in law and order they these these when they show the court case yeah i don't think people notice that when they actually they actually in the show will mention it's six months later oh yeah in the next scene change they're like this was not they came back and it was like six months later they came back and those cases don't happen i mean that's not those crimes don't happen well actually uh the writing for law and order is based on real crimes wow so uh no i guarantee not the svu there is no no no no no i was got no i'm thinking the svu oh the regular law and order i loved but the og law and order i og law and order was awesome there was an svu that was based on a real case and it won but it blew my mind because i knew the case it was out of illinois it was a woman who worked at uh o'hare airport and i can't remember exactly what it was it was like a body was found in a trunk or something but i'm watching this episode of i think it's svu and i'm like oh you recognize what is this it's like how do i already know what's going to happen and i'm like i'm so so confused and i'm like now the lady's gonna run away i'm like they're gonna find the car there's the that's crazy what's going on and then i was like oh my god this is a famous case they made a tv show out of it oh my god so what they like to do the reason the secret to law and order why it's been in the air so long is that they just look through court records for interesting cases that makes sense for the regular for the og one the og one was great but svu is like everyone's being raped all the time all the time and there's like 17 people are being raped and it's just crazy and then they're being tortured while they're being raped and i'm like this doesn't happen and stapler's beating them up in the in the interrogation room or whatever yeah yeah all right but you know they're fun shows i gotta i haven't seen i wasn't what's it my cousin vinny yeah i haven't seen it so long it's a good movie yeah it was a good movie they do play that is that the one where like the uh the jersey hooker lady like realizes something or whatever no no no like there's a woman on the stand yeah marissa tomei yeah and she's like oh my god i'm gonna get a perm right she would never get a perm oh no that's um that's um legally blonde oh legally blonde that's i mix up my you know also very realistic very realistic definitely oh yeah that's right elle is like she wouldn't have done that because she just got in a perm and she can't that would have made the whatever go out of her hair and have you ever seen anything like that where like the hobby of some legal expert realized a story couldn't be true because they were involved no nothing like that but we do go down some rabbit holes i will say well so what i can say is i'm sure it's very often that someone's story might involve an esoteric like let's say this let's say like a skateboarder was charged with a crime or whatever and in his story he mentioned doing uh he said he did a mctwist down a stair set and you're just going like okay so after i was skating like i did this mctwist on the stair set and then you know that's when i saw the body anybody who skates knows he's lying you can't do a mctwist on a stair set but if you didn't skate you'd just be like i i would have looked that up i would find that out but i don't think i don't think you can even look up mctwist and understand why it can't be done downstairs i would find a skater i would 100 find a skater yeah because then they then they'd be like i guess technically you could do it it's basically uh a mctwist is kind of like an inverted 540 it's a stylized 540 i don't know how you're doing that on a stair set right that story doesn't really make sense i tried to get my husband to do a stun gun on me once because i was convinced that it wouldn't leave the marks that the lady had said it was left and he was like i feel really uncomfortable with this i was like i need a demo i need to see actually leave that's like the tv show though no idea i'm like that yeah i do that that'd be a funny tv show he's like i feel like we gotta prove it stun me like i need to see what the mark looks like wow i mean i didn't think the mark matched you ever feel like it's actually weird huh like being in a courtroom you ever feel does that ever feel like weird because you're playing a role yeah it is like acting but i love it it was very weird testifying on the stand it was like that's weird this is what i want to say surreal like the last thing i'll say is we wrap up the uh the manipulation always like exactly have you guys seen good lawyers who have like done an oscar winning performance like with with trying because what i would do to those female jurors i would have them bawling their eyes out and begging for kleenex as i told this story to defend or prosecute you want the jury to feel what it's like to sit in your client's chair so that is it's but we call it storytelling you know but but what we try to do is we try to do it in a way that's not storytelling because we want the jury to understand what it feels like in how far can you go with it can you say it's a layer you go as far as the judge will let you i mean you should test the judge right if you really want to push the boundaries you just keep going and going and going so if you said something like every good lawyer's been hey calm down what if you said you can directly address the jury i'm right we can talk to the jury so we can but only during certain arguments but like in closing yeah oh yeah oh okay so closing i'm talking right at him what if you said i want you all to close your eyes right now I want you to imagine the look on your child's face. Yeah. I want you to feel. State can't do that. But defense can. And you can. We can do certain, yeah. But would you get away with this? Certain parts of it, yeah. You start getting in trouble when you start saying, just imagine yourself as the victim here. How would you feel if this had happened to you? I want you to imagine that moment when you woke up, you saw your child, they look up to you. They're everything. You're their everything. They love you. You love them. You would do anything for them. I want you now to imagine everything's blurry. And when you wake up, you are holding your child's dead body. You can do that. You're allowed to do that. Yep. And then you start crying. Yeah. And then you say you realize what you've done. I mean, what the best lawyers do is they make, you need to make your technical legal argument. You mentioned earlier, maybe it was the prior show, of in your closing argument, you're speaking to the jury instructions, right? Because it's an algorithm the jury has to follow. They have little verdict boxes and you want them to make their job easy. So you want to kind of explain to them, this is how I want you to do this to equip my client. So what if you said you're holding your child's dead body, your hands around their neck? You couldn't have done that. There's no way you would have ever have done that. Something was within you that you lost control. I think it starts to get problematic. That's when the judge is going to be like, stop. Yeah. The defense could do that though. The defense can get away with that. Yeah. Yeah. The state would have a hard time doing that. Because what I would want, the argument would be it's prejudicial, it's inflammatory. I'm sure they would object just to cause a scene and then it would be okay. They want to interrupt the storytelling too to break the emotion. That'd be worse. That's what I would do. Yeah. But you basically say like, do you feel it is possible for a loving mother, the way you've felt with your kids, do you think it's possible that in your mind, in your sound, being sound of mind, you would do that? You could do that. I don't think it would work very well though. Not for the defense. No, I don't think that would work that well for the defense. Getting them all crying? Well, in this case, for example, you don't want them thinking about what happened. Because what happens is awful. You want them thinking about her mental illness. So that would probably backfire, but you could do that. And I would say with the crying, I mean, you asked about the crying, like if it's natural, but that's kind of, I don't know. I haven't seen a lot of lawyers cry in court. That's why I'm not a lawyer and I wouldn't presume to know, but like some of the most impactful fundraising I've ever done is when I started crying and got them crying. And then they hand over their wallets. Oh, if you get the jury crying, like for your case. Yeah. That's what I'm saying. Like the reason, so if you want to invoke crying in someone else, particularly with a woman. I've definitely had jurors cry. You need to be crying a little bit yourself because women are more empathic or empathetic. Guys will be aggressive. So actually some guys, it's tough. Depending on the subject matter, if you try pulling my heart is breaking for this loss, a guy might get mad at you. Wow. Yeah. Guys might get aggressive and they'd be like, stop being a, bitch. Yeah. Like there's a few things. That's true though. There's a few things you can get away with, with men in, in, in emotional manipulation, like your kids dying or your dog dying. But there are some things where you don't, you never, it's risky where if you try to pull on the heartstrings of a guy, see, so I'll put it this way. Backfire. When, when, see, I don't know. Like when I was a little kid, if I stubbed my toe, I'd cry. It's like uncontrollable. You know, it's just like, then I, after puberty, I get, I get angry. When my skateboard hits my shins, I'm beat red with rage, punching something angry in the pain. And so I think for a lot of guys, testosterone may do this. Guys don't get sad about things. They get angry about them happening. So you run that risk. Women will, will empathize with you and have a sympathetic response. So if you start welling up there, oh, he's crying. Oh my God. And then you want to, you want to, you want to inject that emotion. I'll tell you, you really learn your jury. Cause I mean, when you do what you're like, you're asking them personal questions, very personal questions. And then you watch them, especially like this case, like a six weeks trial. I mean, you're, you know what they said in what year. So I've already identified, you know, who you are and who you are. So when I'm making a certain argument, I'm making it to you. I'm making it to you. Like I know, cause you told me that you had been in a car accident. And so I'm making an argument and I know you're going to take that back in the jury room. And you're going to talk about that. You told me that your mom did something. And so I'm talking to you about that. Do you guys like write down the jurors? - And then you have like mini profiles on them? - Yeah, oh yeah. And then, like, at some point, I imagine you've, like, I think we've convinced one, four, three, nine. Right. We always, well, we always kind of try to figure it out. And there's usually some jurors that we weren't thrilled about being on the jury because you can't get rid of everybody. You only can get rid of nine. So there's always the jurors you love. The jurors you love, I always say, state cuts. They're gone. The jurors I love, you know, like, we're not going to get our favorites. I always tell my clients that. So we're going to get people in the middle of the road. But there's always going to be a couple that you're like, I didn't really want them on the jury, but they were, you know, the best out of what was left. And those are the ones that you're kind of, like, not really talking to. But there's a couple that you're talking to, and you're kind of hoping that they become the foreperson because the foreperson can be sort of a leader. And keep in mind, when you're going into trial, you already know what the legal arguments and evidence is going to be, right? In theory, the trial should be completely scripted for you. It's only a blank slate for the jury. And because you know what the legal arguments and evidence are going to be, you're already thinking not just about your opening statement. You're thinking about your. Closing statement. And you're thinking about what you want available as building blocks for that closing statement. So when you're doing voir dire, you're looking for the jury for signs that you can leverage in that closing statement. What's voir dire? Oh, it's when you select the jury. So voir dire, it's French for to find the truth, which is crazy. So you're actually trying to get jurors to talk to you. So we're allowed to ask them certain questions. Some judges give us a little more leeway. The judges that do give us leeway, I can tell you my cases, they're usually won or lost in jury selection. And I can tell you my cases. I can tell you once my jury's seated, they probably already know my theory of the case before they've heard anything of it. I think the defense should have final say on all jurors. I do, too. And I think we should be able to talk to them. Like in the federal system where they just put them on you. It's ridiculous. My peers. What does that mean? My peers. That's really just. That's why it's the choice of the accused to choose whose peers are. Yeah. It's a fair cross-section is what they say. You disagree? No, I agree. In fact, that's literally what it means. It was an option under English law. Where the peers could have a jury of other lords to sit on them. Because how would the common people know? Right. Common people can decide. The reason why is because if you're someone whose children were killed and someone who killed children and you have a jury, none of them have kids. Right. That's hard. Yeah. Come on. We do got to wrap it up. We are over. But I want to give a shout out to Hades. He said they want us to check this out real quick. A mother in 1954 drowned her three children. When the system took it easy on her, she did it again. She had kids? We were just talking about that case. Lock him up. We're going to wrap it up. It's Labor Day weekend. You guys got to get on the road. We got to get on the road. It's burger time. It's the last time to get a good swim in. Don't miss out. Thanks for hanging out. Follow me on X and Instagram at TimCast. And actually, we had a great conversation. These fine lawyers here will be joining me on the Tim Pool Show on Sunday. Check out the Tim Pool Show on Rumble and YouTube. Subscribe. Y'all want to shout anything out? Sure. Tony Anderbranca. Do criminal defense. Specialize in self-defense law. Get my free book, Be Hard to Convict If You Ever Have to Defend Yourself at LawSelfDefense.com. And follow my political comments. Commentary at The Branca Show on X and YouTube. And I'm Ashley Merchant. And I'm the host of the MK True Crime Podcast. Thanks. Take it away, Richie. Richie McGinnis on all social media platforms. Just launched the YouTube. Check that out. And check out PolitiBrawl where I work with Matt. And I also wrote a book called Riot Diet. Check it out. Matt Miller, editor of PolitiBrawl. Check us out on Substack and PolitiBrawl Streetcast on YouTube for our man-on-the-street videos and investigations. Follow me at Ian Crosland. It's my name. You can get me on X, you know, YouTube and Instagram, I think, are the best places to follow me. At Ian Crosland. Carter Banks. Yeah. Man, I got to put two mics here. Y'all can't see me on screen, so I'll do one of these. But, yeah, you can follow me at Carter Banks. Been a pleasure having all of you. Great conversation. And, yeah, have a great Labor Day weekend, everyone. We're back on Tuesday. Actually, we're back on Sunday. You can watch the Sunday Tim Pool Show. But then we'll be back on Tuesday because it's Labor Day. Thanks, Frank. I'll see you all then.