Devil and the Deep Blue Sea (BONUS): Chris Lane and Matt Martens on the West Memphis Three & the Criminal Justice System

Christianity Today | Aired: August 27, 2025

Episode Overview

This bonus episode dives deep into the complexities of America’s criminal justice system through the lens of the infamous West Memphis Three case—a chilling example of how mass hysteria and cultural panics (like the Satanic Panic) can warp investigations and devastate innocent lives. Host Mike Cosper, joined by co-producer Rebecca Sebastian, brings together two seasoned lawyers, Chris Lane (prosecutor) and Matt Martens (criminal defense and civil rights attorney), to discuss justice, wrongful convictions, courtroom storytelling, law enforcement accountability, and the corrupting influence of politics and public pressure.

Key Discussion Points & Insights

Introducing the Guests and Their Roles

• Chris Lane: Floyd County, Indiana prosecutor for over 15 years, passionate about “seeking justice for all,” ensuring both victims and the accused are protected (05:27).
• Matt Martens: Criminal defense and civil rights attorney in D.C., former federal prosecutor, and author of Reforming Criminal Justice: A Christian Proposal. Emphasizes importance of only charging/prosecuting the truly guilty and is invested in overturning wrongful convictions (06:24).

The Art and Ethics of Courtroom Storytelling

• Both guests agree: cases are won by who tells the most compelling, evidence-backed story—not by legal technicalities alone.

  • Matt Martens (08:11):

    “You win a case by convincing the fact finder...that the story—the narrative that you have—is one that puts your client on the side of right. ”

  • Chris Lane (10:14):

    “How do we learn? I mean, if you look at Christ, how did he say? He told stories...a story I can grasp onto.”

• Difference lies in technique: Lane as prosecutor “paints a picture” for the jury, while defense works to “throw paint on it” and disrupt the state’s narrative.

Lessons from the West Memphis Three Case

Hysteria and Its Impact

• The “Satanic Panic” narrative—the idea of evil hiding in plain sight—shaped the investigation from the start. Law enforcement tried to fit evidence to a pre-existing story (“devil worshiper next door”) rather than following the facts (20:20).
• Chris Lane (21:38):

  “The mistake that you will make and they teach you not to make, is when you walk into a scene, your assumption is wrong...you have to go where the evidence leads.”

Groupthink and Pressure

• Highlighted the critical law enforcement training to avoid default assumptions and groupthink by designating someone to argue the other side in major case reviews (23:00).
• Lane: “You can’t let groupthink happen...I designate someone. Their job is to dispute whatever we’re doing. Because you can’t let groupthink happen.”

The Weight of Public Outrage

• Murder of children creates immense pressure for authorities to deliver a quick resolution, which can lead to dangerous shortcuts or tunnel vision.
• Lane (25:16):

  “The public has elected you and...they hire you basically to solve these crimes...there is that desire, but that really comes down to the whole system working to prevent you from going off the rails.”

• Both lawyers stress the role of checks and balances: defense lawyers, judges, appellate courts, and even designated “devil’s advocates” within investigative teams.

The Power and Danger of Community Hysteria

• Martens (27:22):

  “What struck me...was that crowd jeering at those boys. It sort of harkens back to what drove lynchings...that can turn into this fervor that overcomes rationality.”

The Reality of Wrongful Convictions

How Perceptions Have Changed

• Martens (30:14):

  “For most of the century, wrongful conviction was viewed as fiction...Since the advent of forensic DNA, we know as a scientific fact that it happens.”

• Cited nearly 4,000 exonerations since DNA evidence became admissible, with the court system gradually accepting the horrifying reality that mistakes and misconduct do happen—even with robust legal safeguards.

Systemic Accountability—Or Lack Thereof

• Martens advocates for systemic “look backs”: When exonerations happen, there should be an official, systematic review to learn what went wrong—yet such retrospectives are exceedingly rare (13:56, 19:31).
• Lane agrees, but points out limitations when most “actors” are gone and calls attention to the difference between honest mistakes and criminal misconduct (15:10).

The Limits of Redress and Immunity

• Prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity, making it nearly impossible for even grossly wronged defendants to sue for damages—“invented out of thin air by the Supreme Court,” says Martens (56:51).
• Most compensation programs for exonerees are paltry, even if they exist at all.

The Role and Pitfalls of Conviction Integrity Units and Prosecutor Activism

• “Conviction Integrity Units” designed to review past questionable convictions can be powerful tools—if run by neutral professionals, not activists. Both warn of letting any ideological agenda dictate outcomes (32:54).

  • Martens: “Activists are good at pushing for integrity units...not for running them.”
  • Lane (35:10): “You go in with an agenda...you then become an activist. You should resign. That’s not the role of a prosecutor.”

• Lane and Martens sharply distinguish between public servants upholding the law and “progressive prosecutors” or “activists” who pick and choose what cases or laws to pursue for political gain—a fundamental risk to rule of law.

How Politics, the Media, and Public Perception Erode Legal Trust

• Both warn that politically-motivated prosecutions—regardless of party—erode trust in rule of law, turning America from “a nation of laws to a nation of men” (37:55, 46:14).

  • Martens: “It’s not a nation of laws, it’s a nation of men grabbing the levers of power and pulling them to their advantage.”
  • Lane (43:41): “Our judiciary has no police, army...it rests only on the faith of the public. If it loses that, you turn toward force.”

• Examples cited include prosecutions of public figures where political motivation appeared to override legal merit (38:40–48:00).

Confessions, Plea Deals, and Structural Failures

• The “Alford plea” in the West Memphis Three case let the accused maintain innocence while pleading guilty—a legal fiction that satisfied no one and undermined accountability.

  • Martens (51:13, 54:46): “People confess to things they didn’t do. We know as a scientific fact that’s not true [that confessions equal guilt]...It’s hard to achieve accountability when the person providing it is the one being held accountable.”

• Martens lists structural causes of wrongful convictions (56:51):

  • False confessions,
  • Bogus science (e.g., bite marks, unreliable forensics),
  • Jailhouse snitches,
  • Inadequate funding for defense,
  • A system that presumes “once the jury has spoken, the jury has spoken” and resists double-checking mistakes.

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On the subjectivity of stories in court:

  “My opponent will come in and say, here’s these three dots, they make a triangle. And I’m like, well, but if I add one dot, maybe it’s a square...We're all looking at these data points, these pieces of evidence, and trying to figure out, is it a triangle...or is it a circle?”
  —Matt Martens (08:11)

• On policing groupthink:

  “One person is always to take the other side...attacking every angle...basically we have someone be the defense attorney and to poke holes in the argument or evidence, forcing us to understand.”
  —Chris Lane (23:00)

• On wrongful convictions and pressure:

  “By the time these kids [the West Memphis Three] get to trial, the community has already decided...now it’s going to require a heck of a judge and a tough jury to say, yeah, there’s not enough here.”
  —Matt Martens (27:22)

• On conviction integrity units and activism:

  “Activists play an important role in life...But once the decision is made that we need to do what the activists...came to a conclusion we need to do, it’s probably not a great idea to let the activists then staff that entity.”
  —Matt Martens (32:54)

• On political prosecutions:

  “We should not be using the criminal justice system to comb through people’s lives to find ticky tack offenses that we can weaponize against our political enemies. That is not the rule of law.”
  —Matt Martens (48:40)

Notable Segment Timestamps

• 05:27–07:02 — Lane and Martens' backgrounds and motivations
• 08:11–12:38 — The role of narrative (“story”) in courtroom victories
• 13:56–19:31 — How the system (does not) handle wrongful convictions; structural accountability
• 21:38–24:26 — Training to resist assumptions and groupthink within investigations
• 25:16–29:39 — Public outrage and its influence on prosecutions and juries
• 30:14–32:21 — Forensic DNA, wrongful convictions, public perception over time
• 32:54–37:55 — Conviction Integrity Units and the “activist prosecutor” problem
• 39:45–43:41 — The rise of politically-motivated prosecutions, its effect on public trust
• 48:40–50:56 — “Show me the person, I’ll show you the crime” (Soviet Union reference), risks of prosecutorial targeting
• 51:13–54:46 — Absurdity of Alford pleas and plea bargains with presumed innocence
• 56:51–62:50 — Compensation for exonerees, prosecutorial/qualified immunity, underfunded defense, and the urgent need for front-end reforms

Tone & Conclusion

Candid, reflective, sometimes grim but deeply educational and committed to reform. Both lawyers stress that while grave mistakes are often made, most actors in the justice system genuinely strive for truth and public safety. The lesson for listeners is sobering: the system’s complexity and political vulnerabilities demand vigilant safeguards—including humility, accountability, and, above all, a resistance to popular hysteria.

Final note from Mike Cosper (62:50):

“This was very insightful and also very discouraging...I wanted people to hear Chris and make sure we’re not villainizing people trying to keep us safe. But I wanted them to hear from Matt as well—it gives us a lot to think about.”

End of content summary.