Part One: Dr. Death: The Texas Death Row Psychiatrist Who Killed So Many People

Summary

Behind the Bastards – Part One: Dr. Death: The Texas Death Row Psychiatrist Who Killed So Many People

Release Date: July 29, 2025

Hosts: Cody Johnston and Robert Evans
Guest: Steven Monticelli

---

Introduction

In the premiere episode of "Behind the Bastards," hosts Cody Johnston and Robert Evans delve into the dark history of forensic psychiatry in Texas, focusing on Dr. James Grigson—dubbed "Dr. Death." This episode explores how Grigson leveraged his psychiatric expertise to influence death row decisions, raising profound ethical and legal questions.

---

Dr. James Grigson’s Background

Dr. James Paul Grigson Jr. was born on January 30, 1932, in Texarkana, Texas. Coming from a comfortable, upper-middle-class family involved in the tombstone business, Grigson's early life was steeped in the business of death. His competitive nature was evident from childhood, engaging in intense chess matches with his brother, who later became a professional pool shark and gambler.

Graduating from Southwestern Medical School, Grigson pursued psychiatry, eventually teaching the subject and developing a niche in forensic psychiatry. His career trajectory would later intertwine with Texas's death penalty system in a manner that would leave a lasting, controversial legacy.

Notable Quote:
"It's always acceptable." – Steven Monticelli [00:38]

---

The Evolution of Forensic Psychiatry

Forensic psychiatry, less than a century old during Grigson’s early career, initially focused on determining mental competency for legal proceedings. Early applications often involved questionable practices, such as postmortem insanity diagnoses to influence wills and property conveyance.

As the legal system increasingly sought to define insanity, forensic psychiatry became entangled with societal and legal power structures. Michel Foucault's analysis highlights how psychiatry expanded disciplinary power rather than purely serving scientific inquiry.

Notable Quote:
"It's a bit poetic." – Cody Johnston [11:11]

---

Dr. Grigson’s Methods and Ethical Concerns

Dr. Grigson emerged as a central figure in Texas's capital punishment system by asserting that he could predict a defendant's future dangerousness with certainty—a claim starkly contradicted by psychiatric research. His approach involved:

• False Pretenses: Grigson often conducted interviews under the guise of assessing competency, only to use the data to argue for the death penalty.
• Lack of Direct Examination: Frequently, he made definitive statements about a defendant’s likelihood to reoffend without firsthand evaluation.
• Bias and Profit: Testifying for the prosecution yielded significant financial rewards, motivating Grigson and others to align their psychiatric opinions with prosecutorial goals.

Notable Quote:
"Most of these people are not willing to say, well, he is a doctor, he's a psychiatrist. He must know he's using. He's talking well about it." – Cody Johnston [29:20]

---

Supreme Court Cases and Legal Implications

By the early 1980s, Grigson’s practices attracted legal scrutiny, culminating in pivotal Supreme Court cases:

1. 1981 Supreme Court Case:

   • Issue: Grigson's dual role in competency assessments and death penalty recommendations.
   • APA’s Stance: The American Psychiatric Association (APA) filed an amicus brief condemning the reliability of psychiatric predictions, citing a mere 30% accuracy rate.
   • Court Ruling: The Supreme Court upheld Grigson’s methods, emphasizing the adversarial trial process despite ethical concerns.

   Notable Quote:
   “Psychiatrists should not be permitted to offer a prediction concerning the long term future dangerousness of a defendant in a capital case.” – APA Brief [56:57]

2. 1983 Supreme Court Case – Barefoot v. Estelle:

   • Scenario: Grigson testified that Thomas Barefoot, convicted of murder, was a high-risk sociopath likely to reoffend.
   • Controversy: Grigson rated Barefoot's sociopathy on an inconsistent scale, ultimately placing him above his own system's maximum.
   • Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld Texas's use of such psychiatric testimony, despite dissenting opinions highlighting the ethical breaches.

   Notable Quote:
   “In a capital case, the species testimony of a psychiatrist, colored in the eyes of an impressionable jury by the inevitable untouchability of a medical specialist's words, equates with death itself.” – Justice Harry Blackmun’s Dissent [72:38]

---

Impact and Legacy

Dr. Grigson's influence extended to over 25% of Texas death row inmates by 1976, many of whom were poor and marginalized individuals with limited access to competent legal defense. His practices exacerbated systemic biases, particularly against Black and Hispanic men, and contributed to wrongful executions.

The episode underscores how Grigson's unethical methodologies exploited the intersection of law and psychiatry, undermining the integrity of the judicial system and the psychiatric profession.

Notable Quote:
"He'll take the stand, listen to a recitation of facts about the killing and the killer, and then, usually without examining the defendant... assure them the defendant will pose a continuing danger to society." – Cody Johnston [37:58]

---

Conclusion

"Behind the Bastards" provides a chilling examination of Dr. James Grigson's role in perpetuating the death penalty in Texas through dubious psychiatric practices. The episode highlights critical issues of professional ethics, legal accountability, and the profound human cost of such abuses of power.

As the hosts wrap up, they emphasize the enduring need for vigilance against similar abuses in modern forensic psychiatry and the legal system.

Notable Quote:
"So there's this doctor Death psychiatrist telling juries to kill people... That's deeply unethical." – Cody Johnston [72:58]

---

Looking Ahead

The episode sets the stage for future discussions, promising to explore specific cases of wrongful executions influenced by Dr. Grigson and the broader implications for Texas's judicial system.

---

End of Summary

Transcript

[Robert Evans]

Call Zone media.

[Cody Johnston]

Time to party. It's not time to party. It's time to be sad. Welcome to behind the Bastards, a podcast that exists to make your week worse so that you're more irritable and frustrated around your friends and family and at work and just a. Just a less happy person, you know, all together. That's our behind the Bastards.

[Robert Evans]

Stop talking about it.

[Cody Johnston]

For some reason, this is profitable. My guest today, Steven Monticelli. Steven, how you doing?

[Steven Monticelli]

Oh, I'm pretty awful.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah.

[Steven Monticelli]

Pretty awful.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, yeah, that's the general vibe. Everybody seems to be awful.

[Robert Evans]

Did Robert get your last name right?

[Steven Monticelli]

What did he say? I blacked out.

[Cody Johnston]

I said Monticelli.

[Steven Monticelli]

I mean, it's Monticelli or Monticelli. It just depends on, you know, which side of Ellis island you're on.

[Robert Evans]

Fair enough. Fair enough.

[Cody Johnston]

That's right, the right side. I could do like a Monticelli, like a little finger gesture.

[Robert Evans]

Because you're Italian.

[Cody Johnston]

Oh, yeah. No, no, no. Stephen and I can both say the two slurs that Italians can.

[Steven Monticelli]

Anyone can.

[Cody Johnston]

Anyone can.

[Steven Monticelli]

It's always acceptable.

[Cody Johnston]

It's always fine.

[Robert Evans]

I feel very outnumbered today. Cause I don't have a beard. And you're both Italian. And the blonde hair.

[Cody Johnston]

I'm not. You know, there's some wonderful things about having Italian heritage, but I think when your country invents fascism, everyone gets to make fun of your forever. Like that's just a fair rule. That's just a fair rule.

[Steven Monticelli]

It hasn't even really been that long. We need a little more time.

[Cody Johnston]

Less than a century or just about a little over a century since it started, I guess. Steven, how do you feel about Texas, the state that we both came from and that you still reside in?

[Steven Monticelli]

Oh, complicated feelings. Very complicated feelings. Robert, do we have time for that? I'm not sure.

[Cody Johnston]

Well, that's what we're going to be talking about all week. Specifically, we're going to be talking about one of the things Texas is most famous for. I'm not talking about shiner Bach beer. I'm not talking about some other less pleasant things than Scheinerbach beer. Well, I am. I'm talking about one of those things. I'm talking about our death row.

[Robert Evans]

Oh, I thought you were going to talk about them trading Luka Doncic to my Lakers.

[Cody Johnston]

No, I feel like it's been a long time since anyone in Texas made good sports related choices. That's valid. That's valuable.

[Robert Evans]

This is an Iheart podcast.

[Ad Voiceover]

Let's be real. Life happens. Kids spill, pets, shed and accidents are inevitable. Find a sofa that can keep [e-mail] Starting at just $699, our sofas are fully machine washable inside and out so you can say goodbye to stains and hello to worry free living. Made with liquid and stain resistant fabrics, they're kid proof, pet friendly and built for everyday life. Plus, changeable fabric covers let you refresh your sofa whenever you want. Neat flexibility. Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa anytime to fit your space, whether it's a growing family room or a cozy apartment. Plus, they're earth friendly and trusted by over 200,000 happy customers. It's time to upgrade to a stress free mess proof sofa. Visit washablesofas.com today and save that's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[John Lithgow]

Hello, I'm John Lithgow.

[Cody Johnston]

We choose to go to the moon.

[John Lithgow]

I want to tell you about my new fiction podcast, One Small Step for Man about Buzz Aldrin, one of the true pioneers of space.

[Cody Johnston]

You're a great pilot, Buzz.

[John Lithgow]

That's the story you think you know. This is the story you don't. Buzz, starring me, John Lithgow, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Cody Johnston]

Did it occur to you that he charmed you in any way? Yes, it did. But he was a charming man. It looks like the ingredients of a really good grand spy story. Because this ties together the Cold War with the new one. I often ask myself now, did I know the true Yan at all? Listen to Hot Agent of chaos on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts, Smokey the Bear.

[Ad Voiceover]

Then you know why Smokey tells you when he sees you passing through.

[Cody Johnston]

Remember, please be careful. It's the least that you can do.

[Ad Voiceover]

After 80 years of learning his wildfire prevention tips, Smokey Bear lives within us all. Learn [e-mail] and remember, only you can.

[John Lithgow]

Prevent wildfires brought to you by the.

[Ad Voiceover]

USDA Forest Service, your state forester, and the Ad Council.

[Cody Johnston]

Stephen, what do you know about Texas Death Row?

[Steven Monticelli]

Well, I know it's pretty bad. It's one of the worst in the nation. It's sizable. And there was a period of time, I believe, when we got rid of the death penalty and then we decided to bring it back, if I'm not mistaken.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, there was a period of time in which the whole country was kind of like, we need to take a look at how we Handle because the death penalty was stopped nationwide for a while and then reinstated in 1976 after some supreme court rulings. We'll talk a little bit about that. But since the death penalty was reinstated in 76, Texas has executed more people than any other state. We're at, I think, 595 right now. I've seen a couple of different numbers, but they're all around 600, like, since 1976, like, somewhere in that vicinity. Last year, I think we, Texas, executed five people. So we execute a lot of folks. And as we'll talk about, we've executed a lot of folks that we know are definitely innocent over the last 50 years or so.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

It happens a lot. And even recently.

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah. In the past year or two, there's high profile cases.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah. And if you look at, like, a lot of innocence project cases where it's like, oh, we now have evidence this guy was pretty much definitely innocent, but they got executed. Texas is often the state that they were executed in. And today we're not talking about the whole system. That's a different episode, probably. We're talking about one guy who had an outsized role in making the system the way it was and who has probably done more damage to psychiatry as a discipline than maybe any other single figure outside of, like, you know, the Nazi period.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Like, we're talking about a guy who was known as Dr. Death, but in Texas, and, you know, there's another Dr. Death that was famous Jack Kevorkian, who's the, like, advocate for a patient's right to die. I think if you. You and I grew up around the same time, you probably remember hearing stories about Jack Kevorkian, who also got called that he was a very different guy. There's some, like, weird and questionable stuff about Kevorkian, some, like, eugenics edge stuff that he wrote about privately. But he's not really someone we'd focus on in this show. I think fundamentally what he was doing is, like, more or less fine, with some potential room for quibbles there. The Dr. Death we're talking about is Texas's Dr. Death. And he did not assist people who wanted to die with doing so painlessly and with dignity. Instead, he took it upon himself to use a psychiatric degree to feed dozens and dozens of human beings to Texas's death row. He was the doctor who would sit down and tell a jury, this man has to be executed or he will kill again. That was his business. And his name was Dr. James Grigson. Have you ever heard of this guy?

[Steven Monticelli]

So to Be honest. No. When you first reached out and mentioned Dr. Death, there was another doctor in North Texas who had also been given that moniker.

[Cody Johnston]

We've got a couple of them, huh?

[Ad Voiceover]

Yeah.

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah. And so that was the person who I immediately thought you were referring to.

[Robert Evans]

Way to go, Texas.

[Cody Johnston]

Mm.

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah, but he was like some surgeon in Plano and some botched stuff happened and a bunch of people died.

[Cody Johnston]

So, yeah, not bad. Not bad. I'm sure we'll cover him. Bad, like elective surgery stories is. Is one of our bread and butter. It's just like bad doctors who get people killed that way. But Grapeson. No.

[Steven Monticelli]

Didn't hear about him. No.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, there's a. You know, it's awful, obviously, if someone's just like, incompetent or not taking care and kills people accidentally. But this is a guy who, like, his business was convincing juries to kill people, right. And it made him, like, a fairly wealthy man. And so, yeah, that's the guy we're talking about today. Dr. James Grigson, who was born James Paul Grigson Jr. On January 30th of 1932 in Texarkana, Texas. And if our listeners haven't been to Texarkana, how do you. How would you describe Texarkana? It's like a little bit of Texas, a little bit of Louisiana, a little bit of Oklahoma, you know?

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah, the lake culture is a big thing. Lake Texoma is a huge lake. And so, yeah, think about kind of the grimy, like, you know, swampy bayou culture, but it's inland, around a lake.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, inland swamp culture is, I guess, a good way to put it. When I was a kid, because I grew up in southern Oklahoma, for a while, I had to go there to get allergy shots. So Texarkana is permanently on my shit list as like a city of pain. But not for any good reason. Just cause they had a doctor in. The town I grew up in had fuck all. So I guess I shouldn't be angry at them anymore. But, yeah, I didn't like getting allergy shots anyway. That's where James Paul Grigson Jr. Is born. His mother is Ethel Mae McLeod, and his father is James Paul Grigson Sr. Obviously, we have very little about his upbringing. The few details we do get paint a picture of a kid who came from, like, a comfortable background, probably upper middle class. It's a little hard for me to tell, but he admitted in a 1990 interview that as a kid, his family's money came from the tombstone business.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

They had a license to Sell. There's apparently a trademark type of marble that everyone used to use for headstones that's called Rock of Ages, right? And for whatever reason, you had to have like a license to like, you had to be like a, like a distributor to sell this shit, right? This one type of fucking marble that only this one company could license and his family were the only ones who could sell it in like four states, including Arkansas and Texas. So my guess is they did pretty well, right? That's one of those businesses, like people are always going to be dying. So yeah, I mean the tombstone business, not a bad one to be in. And it's interesting to me that kind of from the very earliest moments of his life, this guy's financial comfort is always tied to death as a business, right? For his whole life.

[Robert Evans]

So crazy.

[Steven Monticelli]

It's a bit poetic.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, it really is. Now, one of the few details that we get of his childhood came from an article called travels with Dr. Death by journalist Ron Rosenbaum for Vanity Fair. And Rosenbaum quotes him as claiming in this interview, quote, he and his brother would come home from work and lock themselves into epic fratricidal chess matches hour after hour, night after night. The doctor's brother went on to become a professional pool shark and gambler. So he's both this very competitive person. His big influence growing up is kind of a con man, right? But he doesn't go for like the petty con man business. He chooses academia, right?

[Ad Voiceover]

That's.

[Cody Johnston]

He and his brother split, his brothers goes off to be a pool shark. But James has got to have that like DNA, that like desire to. I've always got to win. And also I have kind of loose morals, morals about how I make my money, right? That seems to be something he and his brother are both kind of simpatico on. He goes to Texas A and M with a small tight group of friends who all opt for careers in the Navy. But Jim gravitates towards science and he winds up entering a pre med program. He goes to Southwestern Medical School. And while he's starting college, while he's starting medical school, he gets married to Mary Lee Stone and they start having kids, eventually four of them. He supports his growing family by working two full time jobs and three part time jobs at the same time, per his obituary. So that's what his family would later claim. I don't know if he's working, what is that, 140 hours a week, something like that, and going to school. But that's what he later claims. This guy is not a reliable narrator So I don't know, maybe he's not putting in quite that much effort, or maybe he found some really good bullshit jobs. Either way, he gets into medicine and he really likes doing his clinical rotations. That obituary notes. Jim loved the excitement of the emergency room, but the hours of a psychiatrist allowed more family time. He loved the challenge of figuring out puzzles, the human brain being the most complicated. When finished with formal school, Jim thought he could learn more by teaching. He taught psychiatry at Southwestern for four years. During this period, he developed his specialty of forensic psychiatry, which became the passion of his career. And that's the kind of clean version of his backstory that clearly he told his family and that, yeah, they wanted to believe is that he starts teaching and he just kind of develops an interest in forensic psychiatry.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

As it's developing as a discipline, and just falls in love with the field.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That's what he's saying. So pretty anodyne backstory so far, nothing too sketchy here, except for the fact that forensic psychiatry kind of has a sketchy history as a discipline.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

It's not always been the quest for knowledge of the human brain. A lot of times it's been the quest for like, well, I believe certain things about people that I don't like. And it's really nice to be able to claim scientifically that this is true.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

You know, there's not as thick a line separating psychiatry from phrenology in the early part of the 20th century as we'd like to. Right.

[Steven Monticelli]

Not to mix up our fields too much, but it dovetails with the lovely practice of lobotomies, which some of us wish we could bring back at this point in time for our own success.

[Cody Johnston]

Just for mercy's sake. Yeah, maybe they had a point. Right. Yeah. Nice pick in the old frontal lobe. Sounds nice. Right about now they might have been.

[Steven Monticelli]

Onto something like Freud, but that's another conversation. Yeah, but an apt field for someone who may have had slightly con man esque tendencies to fall into in this, the time of this story.

[Cody Johnston]

It's a perfect field for that. And it's perfect in part because it's really new. Forensic psychiatry as an idea was less than a century old when he starts studying, had kind of begun, it depends on how you date it. But somewhere around a little over a century to less than a century old when he starts going to school, and that doesn't mean that it had been kind of really settled in any sort of way as a discipline for most of that period of time, we kind of start seeing the early gasps of what becomes forensic psychiatry near the middle the 1830s, 1840s to kind of the mid to late 1800s. And initially, when the field first got involved, when psychiatry first starts getting involved in criminal justice, in the solving of crime and the judging of people who've been accused of crimes, the work of psychiatrists who are getting into that field is kind of initially less focused on what it will be, which is, are these people competent to stand trial? Was this person aware of what they were doing? Are they likely to offend? Again, it was less focused on stuff like that than on stuff like the adjudication of wills.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Like initially, forensic psychiatrists were often brought in because someone would die and give their money to someone the family didn't want it to go to. And so you'd bring in this kind of proto forensic psychiatrist to determine whether or not the person who had died was compos mentis when they signed their will. And I found a really interesting article on this because it dovetails with what Grigson's career is going to become in the American Academy of Psychiatry Law journal. And that article notes, the evidence suggests that postmortem diagnoses of insanity were employed through the middle decades of the 19th century to maintain stable and predictable patterns of property conveyance in the new republic. But such diagnoses then became something of a fad, a way to raid a state. For courts and legislatures reacted against that trend during the last decades of the 19th century, when fundamental social stability was no longer an issue in order to protect individual testators and limit the power of forensic psychiatry. So it starts off as a way for people to go like, hey, I think I should get some of that guy's money, and if I can hire a better professional than the other guy, right, then I can have this adjudicated. And so psychiatrists start throwing themselves. I'm an expert on whether or not someone. I can tell it by their handwriting or whatever. And it becomes. Comes this huge grift, and it's just destroying people's estates and ability to inherit. And so the courts have to come and be like, all of these fucking psychiatrists who are getting in the middle of the probate process, the estate process, are like con men, and like, we need to get you the fuck out of here. This has to stop. And that basic pattern is going to be repeat itself in death penalty cases in Texas from, like the 70s through the 90s, right? But it's the same pattern. So I think it's really interesting that it happens first a Century earlier in, like, the estate world and will process. Jesus Christ, it's so cool.

[Steven Monticelli]

Of course, it starts with the money, but then as we develop this larger carceral state and institutionalization process, it bleeds into that. And then we, I guess, get to what we're talking about today. This. This guy who seems like a real piece of work, based on my brief reading.

[Cody Johnston]

Yes. And it's. It's interesting because it. It's kind of killed fairly quickly in a couple of decades when the thing at risk is rich people's inheritance.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

When it's about that, governments start acting pretty quickly to put the kibosh on it once things get out of hand. So when the grift switches to, like, let's just convince juries to kill poor people, we'll talk about how they're doing that later, don't worry. But when it switches to that, there's not as much interest in fixing it.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Because no one's got any money. It's cool stuff. You love to see it. So basically, the first forensic psychiatrists, or a lot of the first forensic psychiatrists in this country, I mean, you wouldn't have called them that, but they're in that line of dissent, were hired guns. They were brought in in order to come to a specific conclusion based on who was paying them. And that a lot of what was happening here was not really in any way different from bribery. Now, another thing is going on in this early developing field throughout the middle of the 1800s, not just in the US but over in. And this is that the court systems and the legal systems of Western nations are increasingly interested in how you define insanity in a legal sense.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Now, this has been done going back. You can go back to classic. You can find cases in, like, ancient Greece and stuff that, you know, are relevant to this. So there's a. This is not just, you know, a century or so of history in terms of people being interested in this and the legal profession, but it really starts to get professionalized, you know, in the middle of the 1800s. And it's kind of in this early modern period that people start accepting and building into the legal system the idea that someone can be too out of their mind to be as truly responsible for their actions.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That there is a degree of. If a person is, you know, dealing a degree with a certain degree of incapacitation, they're not fully responsible for even the most heinous crimes.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That's one of the things going on here. There's some less positive things going on Too, including, again, eugenics is happening in this period. So there's also interest in how do we determine who sick so we can stop them from breeding and passing on their sickness. That's the dark side of this. But one of the good things is that early defense attorneys are a lot of the people who are most interested in pushing. We need to be defining when someone is not compos mentis, even if they absolutely did the crime, because that should matter. And there's a bit of a debate. I found some articles from historians who kind of study the history of insanity as a legal concept. There's a little bit of a debate as to whether or not we should see this medical concept as something that was first pushed by legal experts, primarily defense attorneys. In other words. And thus is an example of the expansion of the power of law.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That the law was really responsible for pushing this concept into the science.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And for incentivizing early psychiatrists to have an interest in declaring people to be insane.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That that was something that came about in part because the law was pushing it. And one of the people who argued this was Michel Foucault, per an article in the Journal of Medical History. Though psychiatric expertise for a brief moment may have been introduced as an alternative mode of power, it soon found its place alongside the law in the medico legal apparatus of the 19th century, thereby expanding power rather than usurping it in this manner. The alleged humanization of punishment in the 19th century was countered by the expansion of disciplinary power. In other words, while some of this is good, the fact that we're saying, well, some people really can't be held responsible for their actions, what you're also seeing here is the law asserting a degree of control over who gets a full set of rights because of their mental state.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And that. That's kind of the dark side of this.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Steven Monticelli]

It wasn't just a matter of whether Johnny did a crime and was out of his gourd and shouldn't be held accountable for it. It was a matter of should Jane be put into an institution where their freedom of movement is restricted and applied with medications or forced to take some sort of procedures they would not otherwise have agreed to do?

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah. If the law is saying, hey, we need you to define insanity because we're going to use it to declare that certain groups of people are treated differently and restricted in different ways by the law, that's really an expansion in the power of law in a meaningful way. So, yeah, in other words, there's kind of a couple of different major developments that set the Stage for our Dr. Death right. In the late 1800s and the early 1900s, which is that forensic psychiatrists are often being used as hired guns to secure desired results in court, and that that's very much at the root of the profession, and that the concept of insanity and definitions of mental health become incorporated into the legal process in a way that is going to make medical diagnoses a relevant aspect of how the state can prosecute people and what it can do to. Rosenbaum, who's the writer who spent the most time with Dr. Grigson, describes him as a country boy with a killer instinct who, after getting his MD Attended a psychiatric residency at Parkland Hospital. He again, he teaches for a while, but Rosenbaum asserts this doesn't provide him with enough of a challenge or enough of an opportunity to compete.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Like, and that's kind of this journalist who knows the guy best is like, I think it's naturally, there's not an adversarial process in traditional psychiatry. Your psych isn't supposed to be fighting you. And like, this guy wants psychiatry. He wants to win at psychiatry. So the court process provides him. If he can get involved in court cases, then he's part of an adversarial process, which means he can win and someone else can lose, and he could prove that he's better.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Than someone else.

[Steven Monticelli]

Put points on the board.

[Cody Johnston]

Can put points on the board.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

The kind of traditional way good science and academia is supposed to go did not suit the pool shark in him. And so he decides, I'm gonna find a. That I can win at psychiatry. And that's why he gets into forensic psychiatry. Now, Rosenbaum claims it's the duel of wits with dangerous criminals which enthralled Grigson. And this is likely that Grigson would say certain things himself. He had some quotes where he would basically be like, batman, like, I'm at a war with crime, right? Criminals. Like, I'm arraying myself against the most dangerous and deadly criminal masterminds in the world. And he really wants to portray himself as this genius chess master. He'll talk a lot about his childhood chess game and then this adversarial process with all these murderers and whatnot. And he wants you to look at them as like, he's constantly. Every week he's fighting Hannibal Lecter, right? Like, that's who he's going up against. And that's just not true. That's not at all true. And we're going to talk about how off this belief he has about himself that he really pushed in every interview he ever did is but first. Next we're going to talk about some ads.

[Steven Monticelli]

Oh Jesus.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah. Good response to ads.

[Ad Voiceover]

Tired of spills and stains on your sofa? WashablesOfAs.com has your back. Featuring the Annabe Collection, the only designer sofa that's machine washable inside and out. Where designer quality meets budget friendly prices. That's right, sofas start at just $699. Enjoy a no risk experience with pet friendly stain resistant and changeable slipcovers made with performance fabrics. Experience cloud like comfort with high resilience foam that's hypoallergenic and never needs fluffing. The sturdy steel frame ensures longevity and the modular pieces can be rearranged anytime. Check out washablesofas.com and get up to 60% off your Anna Bay sofa backed by a 30 day satisfaction guarantee. If you're not absolutely in love, send it back for a full refund. No return, shipping or restocking fees. Every penny back. Upgrade [e-mail] Offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[Steven Monticelli]

A foot washed up a shoe with.

[Cody Johnston]

Some bones in it. They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable.

[Ad Voiceover]

These are the coldest of cold cases, but everything is about to change.

[Cody Johnston]

Every case that is a cold case.

[Ad Voiceover]

That has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA using new scientific tools. They're finding clues in evidence so tiny you might just miss it.

[Steven Monticelli]

He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen. I was just like, ah, gotcha.

[Ad Voiceover]

On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors, and you'll meet the team behind the scenes at othram, the Houston lab that takes on the most hopeless cases to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Kelly Harnett spent over a decade in prison for a murder she says she didn't commit.

[Robert Evans]

I'm 100% innocent.

[Ad Voiceover]

While behind bars, she learned the law from scratch.

[Robert Evans]

He goes, oh God. Harnett jailhouse lawyer and as she fought.

[Ad Voiceover]

For herself, she also became a lifeline for the women locked up alongside her.

[Cody Johnston]

You're supposed to have your faith in God, but I had nothing but faith in her.

[Ad Voiceover]

So many of these Women had lived the same stories.

[Robert Evans]

I said, were you a victim of domestic violence?

[Ad Voiceover]

And she was like, yeah, but maybe Kelly could change the ending.

[Robert Evans]

I said, how many people have gotten other incarcerated individuals out of here? I'm going to be the first one to do that.

[Ad Voiceover]

This is the story of Kelly Harnett, a woman who spent 12 years fighting not just for her own freedom, but her girlfriend's too.

[Robert Evans]

I think I have a mission from God to save souls by getting people out of prison.

[Ad Voiceover]

The girlfriends, jailhouse lawyer. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[John Lithgow]

Hello, I'm John Lithgow.

[Ad Voiceover]

We choose to go to the moon.

[John Lithgow]

I want to tell you about my new fiction podcast, that's One Small Step for Man. It's about Buzz Aldrin, one of the true pioneers of space.

[Cody Johnston]

You're a great pilot, Buzz. As far as I'm concerned, the best I've seen.

[John Lithgow]

That's the story you think you know. This is the story you don't predisposition.

[Cody Johnston]

To depression, alcohol abuse and suicide.

[John Lithgow]

We'll see Buzz try to overcome demons.

[Cody Johnston]

What do you say, Buzz? Another beer.

[John Lithgow]

And triumph over addiction.

[Robert Evans]

Here's to you, Buzz Aldrin.

[John Lithgow]

Good luck to you and become a true hero.

[Cody Johnston]

Buzz and I will proceed into the.

[John Lithgow]

Lunar module not because he conquered, but because he conquers himself.

[Steven Monticelli]

Buzz, we intercepted a Soviet radio transmission.

[John Lithgow]

Starring me, John Lithgow.

[Cody Johnston]

Can you put it through?

[John Lithgow]

Can you Translate on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts?

[Steven Monticelli]

Columbia.

[Cody Johnston]

And we're back. Well, I don't know about you, but I'm planning on purchasing that product and or service. You know, I'm gonna use money as a means of exchange in order to buy goods and services. That sounds fun to me.

[Steven Monticelli]

We love the money form.

[Cody Johnston]

We love the money form. What kind of money do you use, Steven? Are you one of those. Do you like to drag around those big 500 pound wheels and whirl them across the ground and use those as a means of exchange?

[Steven Monticelli]

I like cuneiform tablets.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah.

[Steven Monticelli]

Or anything that you can really feel the heft of it when it's in your pocket.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, yeah. Cause I like that too. So much better than, like, I never call a company anymore. I'm not gonna get stuck on the phone with a chatbot. If I have a complaint, I'm going to like, hammer into like a mud tablet. I'm gonna hammer into mud and dry it and then I'm gonna mail that cuneiform tablet to whatever Company and complain about the poor grade copper that they're selling me, you know.

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah. The only issue is I find that they don't take it on the online gambling sites that may or may not have been. Been advertised before this.

[Cody Johnston]

No.

[Steven Monticelli]

So that's the. That's the one downside. But I'm keeping myself straight these days, so I'm doing what I can.

[Cody Johnston]

That's good. Cuneiform is good for that. Speaking of keeping yourself straight, Dr. Grigson is fascinated by people who can't keep on the straight and narrow.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

These are habitual criminals. These are folks who have serious impulse control issues, which is obviously the majority of folks who wind up committing capital crimes. Right now there are a number of kind of different psychiatric diagnoses that we use today for these kind of people. The word Grigson uses and the word that you find over and over again in all of the reporting on his work is sociopath.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

He is fascinated with sociopaths. He likes to diagnose people as sociopaths.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And it's very important that you understand. Cause this is my pet peeve. Sociopath and sociopathy are not medical diagnoses. They absolutely are not. No one is diagnosed as a sociopath. It's not a medical diagnosis. It is a term people like to use because they think it is, but it's not. Now, it used to be the term that was proper that people tended to use kind of interchangeably with sociopath is psychopathic.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And psychopathy is what a lot of these people, a lot of people who commit murder, particularly people who again, are kind of these career criminals, career violent criminals who have a lot of issues with impulse control, who don't really seem to have much in the way of empathy. Psychopathy is the term that was used for a long time to describe them. We don't use that anymore.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

The current diagnosis that those people tend to be given today is antisocial personality disorder, or apd, which has replaced what we call psychopathy.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

But it's important you know that at the time Dr. Grigson was working, psychopath would have been the medical term for the people that he was declaring to be sociopaths. And when you're talking to like a regular person, like when your friend's like, oh yeah man, my boss did this or this, and I think he's a sociopath. It's fine, I don't care. I'm not gonna. I don't correct somebody. Just in your daily life, if you're a psychiatrist, you should get the term. Right, right. You shouldn't just make. You shouldn't just be using a term that's not a medical diagnosis for a guy that you're declaring has an illness that him more dangerous, like for the purpose of a death penalty hearing.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Which is what's going on here. This just really bugs me now. Psychopaths, which is again the term when he's doing these diagnoses, or people with apd, which is what we use today, are people who don't feel guilty for impulsive or violent actions. They lie to others easily and without qualm. They rarely have close relationships, and they often fall into criminal behavior. Hannibal Lecter is probably still the number one cultural touchstone as to, you know, what we used to call psychopaths. But the V majority of people with APD are not geniuses and they're not good planners.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That's kind of a key aspect. This isn't everyone, but most people with APD have horrible impulse control. They're not good at planning. They're not good at like plotting out genius getaways.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That's why a lot of these people get caught is they don't tend to be. A lot of it talks about how they're below average iq. I have my issues with iq. But these are not people who make good decisions that allow them to be like dexterity.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

They're not one step ahead of the authorities. They're deciding in a moment to commit a violent crime and then running like fuck and leaving a shitload of evidence. That's the norm.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

These people are not masterminds. The ones who are, you know, might have been diagnosed as psychopaths or have APD who don't have these problems, who do have good impulse control, who are better at planning, we know, tend to gravitate towards one of a couple of different careers. They're overrepresented in business like MBAs, executives. They are overrepresented in law enforcement and they are overrepresented in the clergy. They go for jobs. The folks who do have that Hannibal Lecter mastermind capability, they go for jobs where they're protected, right? By what their job is, where people don't look at them or assume because of their social status that they'll be doing the fucked up shit that they're doing.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Steven Monticelli]

It also provides them a certain amount of power to wield over others, to fulfill whatever those twisted desires are and then cover it up should they need to.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And there's also like, you know, like all of this stuff Is a spectrum.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

People who have aspects of this, like, you know, there's a degree to which certain things that we tend to attribute to this group of people, like not being overly empathetic, can be a benefit. If you're a surgeon, maybe it's not that bad that you don't really get bothered by cutting into somebody, because your job is to cut into people.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Which in surgeons are overrepresented with aspects of kind of the things. And this criteria has been shifting. We've really started to accept in the last couple of decades that our old diagnoses of psychopathy were pretty flawed, and they're still pretty flawed, but we're moving towards a more rational understanding of this whole phenomenon. But it's important you know that even by the standards of the time, Dr. Grigson, when he talks about these murderers who he calls sociopaths, he's just wrong. Like, he's just wrong by the medical standards of the time and certainly by the standards of the day. So in the 1960s, fascinated by sociopaths, Dr. Grigson starts selling himself as a forensic psychiatrist to prosecutors and defense attorneys. Initially, his business is limited to what were called competency exams. This is deciding if a defendant is sane for the purposes of standing trial. And there's nothing wrong necessarily with that idea. I mean, there's some issues with how it was applied, but this is not immediately a problematic field. He would claim that he got into doing this because when he first started, he had a lot of. Of errant beliefs about psychiatry as a result of his liberal education. At first, I got the shit conned out of me in medical school. I was as liberal as any psychiatrist you'll ever meet. You know, most psychiatrists will say, if you commit a crime, there's something wrong with you. And I don't really think that's true because like most people who commit crimes, it's like, I don't know, most psychiatrists would be like, oh, you got like, possession of small amount of marijuana. You must have a mental illness. Or you didn't pay a speeding ticket for too long because you couldn't afford it and you got a warrant. You have a mental ill, and that's like. Even like petty theft. I get very rarely is going to get you diagnosed with a mental illness. Like, I don't think most psychiatrists say this.

[Steven Monticelli]

No, no, not at all.

[Cody Johnston]

No. And it's, you know, it's also probably not even the case with murder necessarily.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Because most of the evidence, even at that time, suggests that the majority of murders are crimes of passion.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Which is people who are otherwise sane and who are otherwise functional who lose their shit in a moment in a disastrous way.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Not somebody who. They're not. Most murderers are not people who want to keep murdering.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

It's like a thing that happens in a moment of passion. And, you know, it's debatable generally as to whether or not there's anything you would diagnose them with as. So I just think he's. I think he's mis. Like, he's describing the rest of his field badly because his entire career is going to be spent defining himself in opposition to every other psychiatrist. Like, he hates everyone else in this discipline because he thinks they're all wrong. So he has to make up lies about what his fellows are doing. So he claims that he comes in with all these ideas about, oh, all these people must just be sick, and then he spends several thousand hours interviewing accused murderers, and he starts to understand, oh, no, all of the other psychiatrists are wrong. These people aren't sick. They were just mean. I often think there ought to be a diagnosis, you know, mean son of a bitch. So really good scientist here. Just. That sounds rigorous. That's falsifiable. I love a psychiatrist who says shit like this.

[Steven Monticelli]

Incredible. Incredible. I mean, I'm trying to imagine someone in a modern profession just saying that they spoke to a bunch of people.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah.

[Steven Monticelli]

I mean, it reminds me of thinking, like it has something to do with humors. Like, oh, they're just all mean.

[Cody Johnston]

They got mean. Son of a bitch disease.

[Steven Monticelli]

There's nothing more to it. You can't read into it any further.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah. Yeah. It's literally like that scene from the Simpsons when Homer gets an elephant at the end where there's like, some animals are just dicks. So over time, he goes from declaring people not competent or competent to stand trial to declaring more and more defendants perfectly sane.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Like, he starts as he's doing this, coming to the conclusion that, like, almost nobody deserves to, you know, get off or deserves to have, you know, their sentence mitigated as the result of the this. And his justification for this shift is something that he kind of perfectly crafted from his media appearances to appeal to the law and order set in North Texas, which is where he mostly practiced quote, these days, when they'll have tears falling down from their eyes, I've learned to give this response. You can knock that shit off. You're not fooling me a bit. And you can't believe it. Tears will just dry up like that.

[Robert Evans]

Okay.

[Cody Johnston]

So he's crafting his image perfectly for the place and time that he's set in.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

This is going to go over pretty well with juries. He's very popular with Texas juries for a long time. He also wears a cowboy hat a lot of the time, which is like de rigueur for a certain kind of guy. Anyway, it's a little unclear to me whether or not he ever had a liberal period as a psychiatrist. If this is just, again, part of the image he crafts, because it sells well that, like, oh, I used to be one of those liberal soft on crime weenies, but then I learned the truth, Right. Either way, he starts testifying about the mental status of people accused of capital crimes in 1967. And the main shift here is that he's no longer testifying. Is this person competent to stand trial after 67? He's primarily testifying. Should this person be subjected to the death penalty?

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And to explain why. Why is a psychiatrist involved in this? Why does that matter?

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Why would you allow a psychiatrist to testify about this? This comes down to something that quite unique to Texas, but is almost unique to Texas in this period. So his first years practicing come during a very messy time for the death penalty.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

There are a bunch of subcommittees and committee meetings in the early 70s after there's this kind of moratorium on the death penalty in Texas, where they're trying to figure out how do we as a modern state continue to have a death penalty? What should that look like?

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Because we're past the age of some Texas Rangers just going in and hanging people.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

We can't do that anymore. Walker, Texas Ranger, doesn't look nearly as good if he's literally putting people in a gallows. So how do we actually build this into our system in a way that's modern? And this is part of. There's this massive debate nationwide at the federal level over the death penalty and what the laws should be about it. And Texas being Texas, we're going to want to find a way to both keep executing people and justify it as a matter of necessity. We don't want to seem backwards while we're doing it. So like most Texas laws, the process of creating a modern death penalty standard to kind of replace the old ways was rushed and messy. Texas Law Review describes the Texas legislature's process as somewhat confused, which is generally accurate with how the legislature works today. Time is a flat circle, my friend.

[Steven Monticelli]

Generous description.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, generous description. Kind to the state and House and Senate, who both wind up with different and conflicting standards.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

They both propose, like, very different sets of rules for how the death penalty ought to work. And they find themselves having to reconcile this in a very short time frame. And I want to quote from a passage by the Texas Law Review to give you an idea of how messy the process was. With only Memorial Day weekend to go before adjournment, the House called a conference committee to resolve the differences between the two bills. On the very last day, the conferees presented a scheme which appeared in neither the House nor the Senate bill, along with newly minted language about a probability that the defendant would be a continuing threat. That same day, both houses passed the committee report by huge margins without specifically considering the new language on future dangerousness. So to get out, in order to get out for the long weekend after, like, deliberating and coming up with their own plans, they back something completely different that no one's read because, like, look, man, are we going to give up? We. I gotta get out to the lake.

[Steven Monticelli]

It's hot. It's hot during the legislature. You gotta get the plans.

[Cody Johnston]

Austin.

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah.

[Cody Johnston]

Come on.

[Steven Monticelli]

Got the barbecue ready to go.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right, Right.

[Cody Johnston]

So the vague and poorly written nature of the initial legalese leads to several years of disputes and ultimately a state supreme court case in 1976. The system that results from this is indeed a modern one in that it creates a several step roadmap towards deciding when and who would be executed.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Basically, there' the Texas legislature builds a flowchart of death to determine, like, we've convicted this guy, should we kill him? So the first thing that has to happen is the jurors have to agree unanimously that the convicted murderer had deliberately sought out to kill their victim.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

If somebody just, like, is drunk and hit someone with a car, that's not a death penalty case. Right. There's not a deliberate intent there, you know, or if you're just Yosemite Samming and accidentally shoots some guy, there's not intent. Intent. So the next thing they have to agree on is that there's some probability that the defendant would go on to carry out future acts of violence. And then the third thing they have to decide is that having taken everything that happened into account, there had been no provocation that had inspired the murderous violence.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

So someone didn't punch you and then you shot them. And, you know, that's not an equivalent exchange of force, but you were provoked.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That would kind of disqualify you from the death penalty, even if you'd get punished otherwise. Now, of These three points, I don't agree with a state like ours doing the death penalty. But the first and third point are at least like, I see why they're in there.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

You want to make sure this isn't just a crime of passion, and you want to make sure there's an imitigating factor.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

That this wasn't part of a fight. That second one, though, that's really problematic. That's pre crime shit.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

I mean, they've committed a. They've been convicted of a crime. But. But you are asking a jury to say, in the future, will this person do violence if not killed? You're asking the jury to step outside of any evidence and make a prediction about someone's future behavior. Do you see how that's maybe a problem?

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah, I mean, certainly a distinction. And the only parallel I can think of is whether someone is released on bail or not, because they might be considered some sort of flight risk or maybe a public safety risk. But if you contain that within the boundaries of holding someone in detainment or.

[Cody Johnston]

Holding them behind bars, this isn't a permanent status. We're not determining this person's whole life.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

You know, even though that doesn't make it not problematic. Yeah.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Steven Monticelli]

There's a possibility they could, you know, spend time in jail and show that they're of no threat and then be released.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Steven Monticelli]

So, yeah, I mean, it's a huge difference. It's requiring people to look into the future with.

[Cody Johnston]

Yes.

[Steven Monticelli]

No real basis.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah. Which is like, weird.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And so this second thing.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

This second point on the flowchart becomes known to the legal community in Texas as special issue number two.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And that's really what a lot of death penalty cases are going to come down to, is special issue number two.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Is this person going to commit more violent crimes if they are left alive for the rest of their life in prison or whatever? And this is almost unique in Western jurisprudence.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

In essence, the state of Texas has codified the duty of a jury in death penalty cases to predict the future. Only one other state in the United States required a finding of future dangerousness when considering the death penalty. It's such a niche piece of legal theory or legal procedure that very few people outside of Texas are even aware that special issue number two exists. Exists. And the broader national psychiatric community doesn't seem to really have initially seen this as an issue that might concern their discipline.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Because they're, you know, it's just that they've got 50 states. They're not Concerned with like this initially as, like a. Why would you even think psychiatrists would get involved in the special issue number two?

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

This would prove to be an error, because if juries were now going to be asked to determine, will a person kill again if left alive, prosecutors are going to start looking to hire experts, special experts for court cases who can speak to what kind of behavior is predictable for what kind of defendant. So Dr. Grixon is going to be among, if not the very first of these guys, of these psychiatrists.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And he describes how he fell into this line of work in doing so as a natural evolution of his previous work. Per an article in Time, he was going about his normal duties, evaluating people for commitment proceedings, when quoting one court veteran, suddenly thought, hey, here's a sane psychiatrist. Instead of playing golf on Wednesday, I started doing legal work.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

So that happens in, like, the early 70s. He started, like, he's been kind of evaluating people in a similar way for a while, but now it's sort of codified into, like, this is how we're determining whether or not to execute people, you know, by the mid-70s. And in short order, court cases now take up most of his professional time. He's making, like $100 an hour, bringing in some $60,000 a year in the 70s, which is hundreds of thousands today. This is a lot of money in the 70s. This is probably somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars a year in modern money.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And again, he's doing like a day of work a week.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

So nice gig if you can get it. Yeah.

[Robert Evans]

He's got the Pat Sajak career path.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah. When interviewed about Dr. Grigson, University of Texas law professor George Dick said he is skillful and persuasive, and he doesn't talk down to the jury. Most importantly, Dick said Grigson is more willing than most colleagues to make predictions about a defendant's future behavior and really strong ones.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

He's willing to say this person will definitely. As opposed to other psychiatrists who'd get up and be like, well, you know, it's not uncommon for people with this to reoffend. But I can't say he will say, oh, I can guarantee you 100% this person will kill again if you don't execute them now.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

You're not supposed to do that. No.

[Steven Monticelli]

He was giving his clients what they were paying for, it sounds like.

[Cody Johnston]

Yes, exactly. And there's going to be research in the future that shows that when. Whether or not psychiatrists are hired by the Defense or prosecution biases their findings on. On individuals that they're asked to, like, evaluate, right? That, like, yeah, who is paying you matters, you know, And. And that's important. None of this is blind. It's not the court hiring someone to say, just tell us one way or the other, right? This is prosecution being like, I want another. I want to put a death penalty thing on my belt. You know, like, make sure this guy. We can fry this son of a bitch. Now, this is, again, not something that psychiatrists should be doing or that was ever considered to be okay within the mainstream of psychiatry in this period. But Dr. Grigson takes it upon himself to make himself Texas's most recognized expert on whether or not someone will kill again if left alive. Writing for Vanity Fair, Rosenbaum describes, quote, this is where the doctor comes in. He'll take the stand, listen to a recitation of facts about the killing and the killer, and then, usually without examining the defendant, without ever setting eyes on him until the day of the trial, tell the jury that as a matter of medical science, he can assure them the defendant will pose a continuing danger to society as defined by number two. That's all it takes. What makes the doctor so effective? Both prosecution and defense lawyers will tell you this is his bedside manner with the jury. He is kindly, gregarious, country doctor manner. His reassuring, beautifully modulated East Texas drawl help jurors get over the hump and do the deep. Says one bitter defense lawyer. He's kind of like a Marcus Welby who tells you it's okay to kill Jesus.

[Steven Monticelli]

So he basically does the least amount of work possible and comes out with the most certain opinion possible.

[Cody Johnston]

Yes. With the most certain opinion. He does. And he's not. Again, there's a whole thing about this, the Goldwater rule, based on, you know, that guy who was considered a crazy conservative. And so psychiatrists started, like, diagnosing him on TV as, like, like, you know, paranoid and whatever. And the discipline. The APA was like, you can't do that. You never met the man. You can't just diagnose a guy from television. And he's not even diagnosing them from tv. He's, like, sitting across from a dude reading a police summary of the crime and going like, oh, yeah, Let me tell you what this guy's got.

[Steven Monticelli]

Insane.

[Robert Evans]

So insane. And getting paid so much money to.

[Cody Johnston]

Do this and getting paid a lot of money. By the way, Marcus Welby, M.D. was a TV show about a doctor. Wow. Yeah. James Brolin played one of the characters. So There you go. Young James Brolin.

[Steven Monticelli]

Good stuff.

[Cody Johnston]

So this is like, this is bad ethics. And this kind of starts initially when he's doing this. He's using. He'll go in and he will interview the defendant, but he'll interview them under false pretenses. He'll interview them under the pretenses of determining whether or not they're sane. And then sometimes he'll even be paid to do both. He'll be paid to determine whether or not they're sane. And then he will use that same analysis of them in order to say, oh yeah, this guy will definitely kill again.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Which is really ethically questionable. The fact that he's effectively interviewing people under false pretenses in order to diagnose them in what is, you know, like there's a lot that's going to be like, very questionable about this to a lot of people. But, you know, in, you know, the mid-70s, late 60s, mid-70s, when kind of he ramps up doing this, there's just not a lot of eyes on him.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

In 1975, the National Institute of Mental Health publishes a monograph titled Mental Health and Law, which is based on extensive research of psychiatrists who had attempted to predict long term criminal behavior in their patients. And it found that there was no reliable criteria for long term predictions like the ones Dr. Grigson had started to make for a la carte pain payments. But again, there wasn't really an idea that anyone would do this for money the way that he was. So he's not initially drawing a lot of attention for acting as like a gig worker for the electric chair. He keeps testifying in case after case throughout the late 70s. And for an idea of how uniquely prolific he is, by 1976, which is two years after the Texas State Supreme Court ruling, Grigson had testified against more than 25% of people on death row.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

So he had declared more than a quarter of people set to be executed by Texas to be incurable sociopaths who would kill again. Like, that's. Those are the kind of numbers he's putting up. Wow.

[Steven Monticelli]

Wow. And because there's no overlapping set of ethics between the medical profession and the legal profession, nothing that he did in the court of law was necessarily illegal.

[Ad Voiceover]

No.

[Steven Monticelli]

Even if it clearly went against basic ethics in the medical field.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah. And that's kind of where things. Because things are going to come to a head in the Supreme Court a couple of times over this, over the fact that everyone in his medical discipline is saying this is bad, but it's not illegal.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

So while he is initially kind of lonely, if not quite singular in doing this for a living, he. People start following him when they realize how much money there is. There's so many capital cases in Texas, there's plenty of them for a number of psychiatrists. And people realize he's spending like a day a week and getting like fucking 60 grand a year. Fuck it, you know, Hell, like, a day a week for 60 grand is pretty good money today. You know, like, a lot of people would kill for that gig. So there had been, you know, interest. This is not a thing like. Like, I don't want to paint it as, like, no one had ever considered prior to Grigson trying to predict violent criminal behavior. As that study I just quoted from noted, this had been something psychiatrists had considered. But, like, the data suggested that, like, no, we're really bad at this. And a number of studies published in the 70s were analyzed in 1981 by Professor Jay Monahan for a paper titled the Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior. An amicus brief filed to the US Supreme Court by the American Psychiatric association summarized no psychiatric procedures or techniques had succeeded in reducing the high rate of false positive predictions, I.e. affirmative predictions of future violent behavior that are subsequently proven erroneous. Professor Monahan observed that even allowing for possible distortions in certain of the research data, it would be fair to conclude that the best clinical research currently in existence indicates that psychiatrists and psychologists are accurate in no more than one out of three predictions of violent behavior over a several year period. So the APA, this comes up. There's a Supreme Court case in 1981 over what Grigson is doing. And it's over a couple of issues. Number one, the fact that he's carrying out a lot of these evaluations under false pretenses. He's taking data for a competency hearing, and he's using it to determine whether or not someone will kill again. And just the whole issue with, can we even let psychiatrists predict this sort of thing? And the APA files a brief saying our best guess is that the most accurate we can be is like 30% or so.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Which is not accurate enough for determining whether or not people should fucking die. And that's like the data that the Supreme Court's going to have.

[Robert Evans]

I mean, it's higher than I thought it would be.

[Cody Johnston]

It's actually much lower than that. Again, this is the data they have in 81. Right? Right. But it's low enough to show that, like, what he's doing is Unethical. And this is kind of the first time Dr. Grigson blows up. And there's a little bit of a media sear circus around this case and around Dr. Grigson. This is when he starts being identified as Dr. Death in like a big way. I found a 1981 Time article titled they call him Dr. Death. That really does a good job of summarizing how slapdash a lot of his analyses are.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And this is based on reporting about like how he worked that became a part of the Supreme Court case. He believes that during an hour of examining a defendant's past and searching for remorse, he can determine the likelihood of future violence. Violence. Some prisoners really get their rocks off telling you about these horrible crimes, he says. In a few cases, Griggs isn't has offered an opinion without conducting an interview, relying only on the suspect's record. With enough evidence and arrests, he maintains, you can show where a person is coming from about a third of the time. The pre trial interview convinces Grigson there is hope for the defendant and he doesn't testify for the prosecution. Dallas defense attorney Richard Anderson suggests that Grigson fills a psychological need of jurors. When they're making a life or death decision. They want to believe an individual who would do these horrible things to is a different species from them. He tells them this person doesn't deserve to live. He makes a decision easier. Right, right, right.

[Steven Monticelli]

It's about turning them into some other category of person like we were talking about. And he's doing it with all the rigor of a body language analyst on Fox News.

[Cody Johnston]

That's exactly it.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

But these people don't know shit. They just say, well, he is a doctor, he's a psychiatrist. He must know he's using. He's talking well about it based on me being a layman and not knowing that none of these things are genuinely things that he can diagnose. So this is frustrating.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

And part of what makes this frustrating is that he's not operating in a bubble here.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

The problem isn't thus just you've got this doctor Death psychiatrist telling juries to kill people. The problem is that most deathmate inmates are very poor men.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Who do not have resources to put towards their defense. We are mostly talking about people represented by public defenders and, and I have friends who are public defenders who are in public defense. It's one of the hardest jobs in the world. I have a lot of respect for it. It is also true that it is very common for people Especially in Texas in this period of time for lawyers who are not qualified, who are not good at their job to wind up representing these guys. Cause these are the absolute shittiest shit cases.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

There's no chance you're going to win usually. And a lot of these, we'll talk some about the data, but there's a lot of, of bad representation going on here. And there's also just a lack of resources because prosecutors are much better funded than public defenders. So prosecutors can pay to bring in Dr. Grigson, whereas a public defender may not be able to bring in someone of equal gravity.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

They can't afford a medical professional. So you wind up when Dr. Grigson takes the stand, he's being cross examined by some guy who next to him seems like like a yokel country lawyer questioning a man of science.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right? Right.

[Steven Monticelli]

Even if they could bring in an expert of their own, there's the fundamental ethical problem that puts them in the bind where they're going up against someone who's willing to cross all these boundaries even if they could afford the best person to oppose them. It's very unlikely, if not totally uncertain. Like they would not go out there and say this person's never going to do anything bad again.

[Cody Johnston]

Right? Yeah. The best case scenario probably if you're hiring like an ethical medical professionals that he says, well, I can't say for certain one way or the other. And Dr. Death says I can.

[Steven Monticelli]

Right, Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, exactly. Speaking of things you can't trust.

[Robert Evans]

Oh, sorry.

[Steven Monticelli]

Your introduction of the ad break is what we can't trust, right?

[Cody Johnston]

No, no. I mean it's the only thing you can trust. You know, abandon your family, worship products.

[Robert Evans]

Jesus Christ.

[Ad Voiceover]

Life's messy. We're talking spills, stains, pets and kids. But with anibe you never have to stress about Messes again. @washablesofas.com Discover Anabe Sofas. The only fully machine washable sofas inside and out. Starting at just $699. Made with liquid and stain resistant fabrics. That means fewer stains and more peace of mind. Designed for real life, Our sofas feature changeable fabric covers allowing you to refresh your style anytime. Need flexibility? Our modular design lets you rearrange your sofa effortlessly. Perfect for cozy apartments or spacious homes. Plus they're earth friendly and built to last. That's why over 200,000 happy customers have made the switch. Upgrade your space today. Visit washablesofas.com now and bring home a sofa made for life. That's washablesofas.com offers are subject to change and certain restrictions may apply.

[Steven Monticelli]

A foot washed up, A shoe with.

[Cody Johnston]

Some bones in it. They had no idea who it was. Most everything was burned up pretty good from the fire that not a whole lot was salvageable.

[Ad Voiceover]

These are the coldest of cold cases. But everything is about to change.

[Cody Johnston]

Every case that is a cold case.

[Ad Voiceover]

That has DNA right now in a backlog will be identified in our lifetime. A small lab in Texas is cracking the code on DNA Using new scientific tools. They're finding clues in evidence so tiny you might just miss it.

[Steven Monticelli]

He never thought he was going to get caught. And I just looked at my computer screen.

[Cody Johnston]

I was just like, ah, gotcha.

[Ad Voiceover]

On America's Crime Lab, we'll learn about victims and survivors. And you'll meet the team behind the scenes at othram, the Houston lab that takes on the most hopeless cases to finally solve the unsolvable. Listen to America's Crime Lab on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Kelly Harnett spent over a decade in prison for a murder she says she didn't commit.

[Robert Evans]

I'm 100% innocent.

[Ad Voiceover]

While behind bars, she learned the law from scratch.

[Robert Evans]

He goes, oh, God. Harnett, jailhouse lawyer.

[Ad Voiceover]

And as she fought for herself, she also became a lifeline for the women locked up alongside her.

[Cody Johnston]

You're supposed to have no faith in God, but I had nothing but faith in her.

[Ad Voiceover]

So many of these women had lived the same stories.

[Robert Evans]

I said, were you a victim of domestic violence? And she was like, yeah, yeah, but.

[Ad Voiceover]

Maybe Kelly could change the ending.

[Robert Evans]

I said, how many people have gotten other incarcerated individuals out of here? I'm going to be the first one to do that.

[Ad Voiceover]

This is the story of Kelly Harnett, a woman who spent 12 years fighting not just for her own freedom, but her girlfriend's, too.

[Robert Evans]

I think I have a mission from God to save souls by getting people out of prison.

[Ad Voiceover]

The girlfriends, jailhouse lawyer. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[John Lithgow]

Hello, I'm John Lithgow.

[Cody Johnston]

We choose to go to the moon.

[John Lithgow]

I want to tell you about my new fiction podcast.

[Cody Johnston]

It's one small step for man.

[John Lithgow]

It's about Buzz Aldrin, one of the true pioneers in.

[Cody Johnston]

You're a great pilot, Buzz. As far as I'm concerned, the best I've seen.

[John Lithgow]

That's the story you think you know. This is the story you don't predisposition.

[Cody Johnston]

To depression, alcohol abuse, and suicide.

[John Lithgow]

We'll see. Buzz Try to overcome demons.

[Cody Johnston]

What do you say, Buzz?

[John Lithgow]

Another beer and triumph over addiction.

[Robert Evans]

Here's to you, Buzz Aldrin.

[John Lithgow]

Good luck to you and become a true hero.

[Cody Johnston]

Buzz and I will proceed into the.

[John Lithgow]

Lunar module not because he conquers space, but because he conquers himself.

[Steven Monticelli]

Buzz, we intercepted a Soviet radio transmission.

[John Lithgow]

Starring me, John Lithgow.

[Cody Johnston]

Can you put it through?

[John Lithgow]

Can you Translate on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts?

[Steven Monticelli]

Columbia.

[Cody Johnston]

And we're back. Yeah, we're back giving out good advice.

[Robert Evans]

So that was a hard. That was a hard listen.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, yeah. They can't all be Jim, Sophie. They can't all be Jims. Speaking of things that can't all be Jim's defense attorneys. That said, there are defense attorneys and there are other medical professionals, right. Who from kind of the late 70s, early 80s, start to take issue with what Dr. Death is doing.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Which is kind of what brings that Supreme Court case I had been mentioning in 1981, right? So there's one big case in 1981, and kind of the result of that case. Case is very mixed. Dr. Grixon is told you can't use competency reviews to determine whether or not somebody will offend again. You can't just like, basically double dip this thing. And you can't do it under false pretenses. If you are going to evaluate someone to determine whether or not they're incurably criminally insane and will kill again, you have to tell them. That's why you're talking to them.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right?

[Cody Johnston]

But the Supreme Court also says. But you also don't need to talk to anyone. Like, you could just say shit like, that part's fine, actually. So it's this classic Supreme Court ruling where it's like, oh, good, I think we're on the right track. Oh, no, no. You just actually made it worse. You just made it, like, much worse. So that's 1981. And then the next major battle in this conflict is going to erupt again at the US Supreme Court in two years. There are two cases involving Dr. Grigson at the US Supreme Court. That's how fucked up a psychiatrist this is. Like, that's a lot crazy. So this 1983 case is barefoot v. Estelle. Now, the underlying case that had started years earlier, before it got to the Supreme Court case, is a murder case, obviously. And the gist of that case is that a man with the very unlikely name of Thomas Barefoot was convicted of murdering a police officer. So his Texas jury has to determine Whether or not he should. Oh, Barefoot, Yeah, yeah. Fucking, what a weird name. Thomas Barefoot. So he gets convicted. And so after he's convicted, a jury has to decide, do we death penalty this motherfucker. And obviously it comes down to that future dangerousness question once again. And two psychiatrists are brought in to give their opinions. And one of those psychiatrists is Dr. Grigson. By this point in the early 80s, what had started, you know, Grigson had been not maybe the only guy starting it, but the major one. It's a cottage industry right now, you know, and. And both Grigson and his colleague are kind of in lockstep. Neither of them talk to Barefoot. Neither of them are asked to talk to Barefoot. And this does not stop them from both diagnosing him. Dr. Grigson calls him a criminal sociopath. That's his diagnosis, which is again not a diagnosis. He then says, basically, I like to rate sociopaths on a scale of 1 to 10, and then says, I put barefoot above 10. So he can't even be consistent to the logic of the made up psychiatry he's pract. You can't say I rate this on a 1 to 10 basis and this guy is higher than 10. That's not how that works.

[Steven Monticelli]

It's talking about his fucking guitar amplifier like we're cranking this goes up to 11.

[Cody Johnston]

No, it doesn't be consistent with your bullshit. If you're gonna fake make up your own system of criminal sociopathy, you can't then say, but also fuck the system I made up, you know? So I know this is gonna be hard for our listeners in the year 2025 to accept, but even though that's patently bullshit, the 1983 US Supreme Court kind of sucked ass. And they ultimately upheld.

[Robert Evans]

Shocking to hear Wild.

[Cody Johnston]

And they ultimately uphold the Texas state court's denial of the delay of execution and wound up creating the precedent through this that it's totally fine for. Again, this is where we kind of finally decide, yes, absolutely, a psychiatrist can just show up, never talk to a defendant, and say, yeah, that guy seems crazy. Give me my money. So there are. Again, this is a deeply controversial thing. There's a brief filed by the APA in which they use their most doctorly language to say, like, what the fuck is wrong with you people? People, quote, psychiatrists should not be permitted to offer a prediction concerning the long term future dangerousness of a defendant in a capital case, at least where the psychiatrist purports to testify as a medical expert possessing predictive expertise. The Large body of research in this area indicates that even under the best conditions, psychiatric predictions of long term future dangerousness are wrong. In at least two out of every three cases, the forecast of future violent conduct is, at bottom, a lay determination made on the basis of essentially actuarial data to which psychiatrists and psychiatrists can bring no special interpretive skills. The use of psychiatric testimony on this issue causes serious prejudice to the defendant. By dressing up the actuarial data with an expert opinion, the psychiatrist's testimony is likely to receive undue weight. It provides a false aura of certainty and impermissibly distorts the fact finding process in capital cases. The APA goes on to argue that it's also really fucked up for Dr. Grigson to pretend criminal sociopathy is a diagnosis, because it was. And he shouldn't be telling jury shit like that because it's nonsense. Diagnoses can't be made on the basis of hypothetical questions, period. And this is the only way to describe what prosecutors are asking Grigson and his colleagues to do. Yet the Supreme Court rules 63 on the case, and Barefoot is executed a year later at age 39. The court's ultimate reasoning is fucking stupid. They grant the APA that like, well, you're right in your criticisms of this guy. This guy's clearly like a kook and a con man, right? And you're totally right, he shouldn't be doing what he's doing. But there's nothing constitutionally impermissible about his testimony. And it's fine because of our sacred adversarial trial process, which means that obviously if this kook is saying bullshit, another expert can be brought in to give countervailing opinions which will leave the jury up to be the decider of truth. Even though this is a case of medical professional ethics, which they have no education or standing.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Basically, it's fine because theoretically another psychiatrist could come in, say he's wrong.

[Steven Monticelli]

Your Honor, it's my professional medical opinion that the defendant is a stinky little piss baby and you should probably kill him. You should probably kill him. And that's my medical opinion. And then it's the responsibility of the defendants to bring in someone who's gonna say what? That that guy's insane? But that doesn't seem to have happened either.

[Cody Johnston]

And I love that the jury is supposed to look at these two professionals with like a dozen years of schooling each and be like, which one of them is right? Based on my experience being a guy who didn't get out of jury duty Like, I'm not. You should do jury duty, people.

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah, you should. You should. It's good.

[Cody Johnston]

So there's so much wrong with this ruling. One of the things that's wildly fucked up is that the dissent is written by Justice Harry Blackmun, who is very pro death penalty. Normally, like a pro death penalty justice is like, oh, my God, what the fuck is wrong with the rest of you? Quote, the court holds that psychiatric testimony about a defendant's future dangerous is admissible despite the fact that such testimony is wrong. Two times out of three, the court reaches this result even in a capital case because it is said the testimony is subject to cross examination and impeachment. In the present state of psychiatric knowledge. This is too much for me. One may accept this in a routine lawsuit for money damages, but when a person's life is at stake, no matter how heinous his offense, a requirement of greater reliability should prevail. In a capital case, the species testimony of a psychiatrist, colored in the eyes of an impressionable jury by the inevitable untouchability of a medical specialist's words, equates with death itself.

[Robert Evans]

Okay, pretty good.

[Cody Johnston]

It's a pretty good descent. That's not a bad one.

[Steven Monticelli]

And, you know, I. I appreciate that he's willing to acknowledge all kinds of clowning that goes on in your. Your standard court of law nonsense arguments being deemed. We can handle that. It's fine. We'll give it a pass. But when it comes. Yeah, when it comes to killing somebody, that's insane.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, it's fucking nuts. Oh, man, it reminds me. I watched with a friend of mine who is a public defender a while back. The movie and justice for all with Al Pacino, which I have been told is the best movie about a public defender ever he made. And people should definitely watch it. Like, there's some really good Pacino ing going on in that one. And he is like, at peak Pacino.

[Robert Evans]

Peak Pacino.

[Cody Johnston]

Peak Pacino. Look at him. He's a little bitty guy. He's a little baby in this movie.

[Robert Evans]

So cute.

[Steven Monticelli]

We love a small, angry Italian man.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, just a tiny, furious Italian man. We don't have enough of those in our. Who's our angriest Italian movie star today?

[Steven Monticelli]

Oh, no. I think that era is over, unfortunately.

[Cody Johnston]

That's tragic.

[Steven Monticelli]

They all change their names these days. We only have angry Italian politicians and none of them are particularly good.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, see, Hollywood needs more dei, which is, of course, dramatic Italian inclusion.

[Steven Monticelli]

We're working on that. We'll work on that.

[Cody Johnston]

We're working on that.

[Robert Evans]

That was not it. That was not it. You did not get the letters correct there, buddy.

[Cody Johnston]

It was close enough. I was rooting for you, but it was close enough.

[Robert Evans]

We just have a lot of tiny men in Hollywood. None of them happen to be angry or Italian, though.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah, it's tragic.

[Robert Evans]

Yeah.

[Cody Johnston]

Well, anyway, everybody figure that out. Find me an angry little Italian man. Stephen, you got anything to play plug?

[Steven Monticelli]

Well, I mean, I, I think, you know, if you haven't listened to the viral Texas series I did for Cool Zone on it Could Happen Here, please go listen to that. I just wrote something angry for MSNBC about the awful, catastrophic Texas flood.

[Ad Voiceover]

Yeah.

[Cody Johnston]

Jesus.

[Steven Monticelli]

And that has a lot of preventable deaths that were totally unnecessary because it's too expensive to prevent people from dying. Dying in places where floods are common and historically known to kill people.

[Cody Johnston]

Yeah.

[Steven Monticelli]

So, yeah, check that stuff out. And I guess there's one question I neglected to ask or I don't think you got into, Robert. Was there anything in common that a lot of these people that Dr. Death testified against, did they have anything in common? Like, was there a thread? I mean, were they of a lot.

[Cody Johnston]

Of different races, tended to be poor? Now they're not all. In fact, one of his really like major cases that we'll talk about about next episode is like, it's a white guy that he gets on death row.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

As the result of the actual murder lying about it. So it's not entirely. But yes, his cases match with the general trend in Texas death row, which is that black and Hispanic men are overrepresented.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Steven Monticelli]

There's a long history of trumped up cases involving poor black men in Dallas that may or may not involve death row cases.

[Cody Johnston]

Yes, he is, as a standard matter, more than a quarter of Texas death row cases he testifies on during the several decades that he is involved in it. And as a general, as a rule, the evidence I've seen suggests that it matched the broader demographic problems. And we're not going to go into a ton of detail on that just because, like the issues with the death penalty are broader in that. But yes, like his issues, issues certainly do not escape the overall bias of the system. Like, they are part of. They sort of are in line with the overall biases of the system, it's fair to say. Yeah. And yeah, overwhelmingly though, the number one thing that these folks have in common is that they are very poor and have very little access to any kind of legal resources.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right.

[Cody Johnston]

Because a big part of this is that a lot of these folks are going to be shown or at least heavily suggested to have been innocent after their conviction. That's what we'll be talking about in part two. And a big part of why that happens. It's obviously not separate from race and neither is poverty. But it's because the whole legal system in Texas is set up to make it very easy to kill poor people, even when it's known and it's known by the police and the prosecutor that they've got the wrong person and they're just kind of doing it for numbers, right? Like, well, fuck it, no one's gonna stop us from killing this guy.

[Ad Voiceover]

Right?

[Cody Johnston]

That's a recurring trend here.

[Robert Evans]

Crazy.

[Steven Monticelli]

Well, on that note, thanks for having me to talk about such lovely topics.

[Cody Johnston]

Uplifting. Yes, uplifting.

[Robert Evans]

Feeling good?

[Steven Monticelli]

Yeah, yeah, I'm feeling so much better.

[Robert Evans]

Everything's fine.

[Cody Johnston]

Everything's fine.

[Steven Monticelli]

I feel less awful now. Thanks. Thanks, Robert.

[Cody Johnston]

Thank you. All right, everybody, go to hell. I love you.

[Robert Evans]

We'll be back for part two.

[Cody Johnston]

Bye.

[Robert Evans]

Bye. Behind the Bastards is a production of Cool Zone Media. For more from Cool Zone Media, visit our website, coolzone media.com or check us out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Behind the Bastards is Now available on YouTube. New episodes every Wednesday and Friday. Subscribe to our channel, YouTube.com@Behind the Bastards.

[John Lithgow]

Hello, I'm John Lithgow.

[Cody Johnston]

We choose to go to the moon.

[John Lithgow]

I want to tell you about my new fiction podcast, that's One Small Step for Man, about Buzz Aldrin, one of the true pioneers of space.

[Cody Johnston]

Your great pilot, Buzz.

[John Lithgow]

That's the story you think you know. This is the story you don't. Buzz, starring me, John Lithgow, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Cody Johnston]

Did it occur to you that he charmed you in any way? Yes, it did. But he was a charming man. It looks like the ingredients of a really grand spy story, because this ties together the cold war with the new one. I often ask myself now, did I know the true Yan at listen to Hot Money, agent of chaos, on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Smokey the Bear.

[Ad Voiceover]

Then you know why Smokey tells you when he sees you passing through.

[Cody Johnston]

Remember, please be careful. It's the least that you can do. Don't play me. Fine.

[Ad Voiceover]

After 80 years of learning his wildfire prevention tips, Smokey Bear lives within us all. Learn [e-mail] and remember, only you can.

[John Lithgow]

Prevent wildfires brought to you by the.

[Ad Voiceover]

USDA Forest Service, your state Forester, and the Ad Council. If you've ever wondered what diseases, medieval pee tests and cocktails have in common, you're in the right place.

[Cody Johnston]

On our show, this podcast will kill you. We explore the wild world of diseases, their history, biology and impact. Today, vaccines are, in part, a victim of their own success.

[Ad Voiceover]

They have been so effective in preventing.

[Cody Johnston]

Disease and death that we take them for granted.

[Ad Voiceover]

New episodes drop every Tuesday on the Exactly Right Network.

[Cody Johnston]

Listen to this podcast will kill you on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Robert Evans]

This is an iHeart podcast.