Abby Zwerner Awarded Millions, Kohberger Film Sparks Outrage, Donna Adelson Keeps Promise to Appeal

Summary

---

MK True Crime – Episode Summary

Podcast: MK True Crime
Host: Phil Holloway
Guests: Dave Aronberg, Mark Garagos
Episode Title: Abby Zwerner Awarded Millions, Kohberger Film Sparks Outrage, Donna Adelson Keeps Promise to Appeal
Date: November 7, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this episode, Phil Holloway leads a roundtable with legal experts Dave Aronberg and Mark Garagos, discussing several headline-making stories: the civil verdict in Abby Zwerner's shooting case, the controversy around restitution and a Lifetime film linked to Idaho student murders and Bryan Kohberger, Donna Adelson’s formal appeal in the Dan Markel case, and a former news anchor charged with her mother’s murder. The hosts offer deep dives into legal nuances, victims’ perspectives, and media ethics — making for a lively and layered discussion of the true crime landscape.

---

Key Topics & Highlights

1. Abby Zwerner’s Civil Verdict: Virginia Teacher Shot by 6-Year-Old

[01:02 – 19:05]

• Case Recap: Abby Zwerner, a first-grade teacher, sued former assistant principal Ebony Parker for failing to respond to multiple warnings about a 6-year-old student bringing a gun to school. Zwerner was shot and continues to carry the bullet in her body.
• Jury Verdict: The jury awarded Zwerner $10 million (out of the $40 million sought). Interest begins June 1, 2024.
  • Quote (Jury Foreperson): “We, the jury...find in favor of the plaintiff, Abigail Zwerner, and assess her damages at $10 million.” [04:16]
• Legal Discussion:
  • Collectability: Mark Garagos questions if the verdict is collectible, raising issues of insurance and sovereign immunity.
    • “It’s one thing to get the verdict...ultimately, at the end of the day, is this collectible?” – Mark Garagos [05:27]
  • Liability and Insurance: Dave discusses how the outcome of Parker’s upcoming criminal trial may affect insurance payouts — insurance might not pay if Parker is found criminally liable.
    • “Now Abby Zwerner has the incentive to hope that the defendant here is found not guilty of the crimes, because...if she's found guilty...that gives an out to the insurance...” – Dave Aronberg [06:48]
  • Negligence vs. Intent: Deliberation about whether Parker's (the assistant principal) failure to act is gross negligence or an intentional act, with implications for insurance coverage.
• Notable Moment:
  • Zwerner’s attorney stresses ignored warnings:
    • “All this talk about we didn’t think it was a real threat...Why are you agreeing with Ms. Kovak to search the bag if you don’t think it’s real?” – [12:16]
• Defense Perspective: Sandra Douglas (defense attorney) argues Parker could not have predicted the incident.
  • “No one could have ever predicted this. We all did our best.” [15:25]
• Witness Testimony: Amy Kovach shares in-court that she reported the possibility of a gun, but her concerns were dismissed:
  • “I reported that it was a gun...the whole time I assumed she thought it was a gun because that’s what the girls reported.” [17:08]
• Cross-Examination Value: Emphasis on the truth emerging under oath.
  • “You’re supposed to take what’s on the witness stand under oath as the actual evidence. That’s the altar I worship at.” – Mark Garagos [19:05]

---

2. Bryan Kohberger: Restitution Fight and Lifetime Film Controversy

[20:35 – 34:11]

Kohberger’s Restitution Dispute

• Restitution Details:
  • Kohberger (convicted Idaho killer) now claims poverty and seeks relief from paying $27,000 restitution to victims’ families, though he previously received “five figures” in support.
• Idaho Law: No “Son of Sam” law exists in Idaho, so perpetrators could potentially profit from books or films about their crimes.
  • “Idaho does not have a Son of Sam law, which means...if this guy writes a book...he can keep some of the revenue.” – Dave Aronberg [21:48]
• Family's Loss: Some restitution covers funeral expenses, “just to keep the remains.”
• Defense Motivation: The panel debates whether the defense is engaging in “frivolous advocacy” and what purpose dragging out restitution issues serves.
  • “We are required to do zealous advocacy, but that does not mean that we have to do frivolous advocacy.” – Phil Holloway [25:57]

Lifetime Movie Sparks Outrage

• Family Reaction: Outrage as Lifetime begins filming a dramatization of the Idaho student murders.
  • “We do not want Kaylee being portrayed in a slasher film. They are not characters. They are real people. It’s heartbreaking. It’s embarrassing.” – Gonzalez Family [28:00]
• TikTok Uproar: Actors post lighthearted dance videos from the set, fueling anger.
  • Olivia Gonzalez (Victim’s Sister) Responds:
    • “My sister Kaylee Jade Goncalves isn’t a character... Maybe you should just think about what you put out into the world, like dancing around in between scenes.” [30:33]
• Legal/Moral Reflection: Mark Garagos notes you can't legislate “good taste,” and that most such portrayals fall under protected speech.
  • “You can’t legislate good taste. You got to take a little bit of the good with the bad...” [31:47]
• Forensics Update: Idaho police release images of the knife sheath used as a key forensic link to Kohberger.

---

3. Donna Adelson Appeals Dan Markel Murder Conviction

[35:38 – 44:58]

• Background: Donna Adelson is convicted for orchestrating the murder of her son-in-law, Dan Markel. As promised at sentencing, she immediately files a notice of appeal.
  • Quote (Donna Adelson): “I've always respected the law. I've never gotten a parking ticket, but I'm going to prison for a murder I did not commit. I do intend to file an appeal...” [36:04]
• Legal Analysis:
  • Appeal Seen as Routine: Dave Aronberg declares the appeal is perfunctory, and there’s little chance of reversal:
    • “This appeal's going nowhere. Just like the appeal of her son, Charlie. Both of them are gonna serve the rest of their lives in prison.” [36:50]
  • Strategy: Appeal likely to allege bias by the judge; panel agrees the original trial was solid.
• Rumored Plea Deal:
  • Jailhouse informant Drina Bernhardt claims Donna was offered a 10-year plea bargain in exchange for not charging other family members. Both sides’ lawyers deny this.
    • “She really thought she was going to get off. Yes. She told you that? Yes.” [39:31]
  • The group expresses skepticism and note details may emerge in a future habeas corpus filing.
  • “If Dave is right, and he almost always is, they will lose the appeal...then do a writ of habeas corpus.” – Mark Garagos [41:03]

---

4. New Case: Former News Anchor Charged with Mother’s Murder

[44:58 – 51:23]

• Incident Details: Angie Mock, a former news anchor, is charged with fatally stabbing her elderly mother in Kansas, claiming self-defense.
• Witness Account: A neighbor describes Mock as “filled with blood...pretty shaken up and she just ran off.” [45:31]
• Self-Defense Claim:
  • Dave’s skepticism: “Right now I would be reluctant to believe in any self defense claim when you're dealing with an 80 year old mom...” [46:25]
  • Mark urges presumption of innocence and notes the need for more forensic details.
• Ongoing Coverage: Hosts promise to follow the forensic investigation and legal process in this developing case.

---

5. Closing Segments: Listener Mail & Rants

[53:04 – End]

Legal Mailbag: Death Penalty Appeal Process

[54:17 – 58:30]

• Jurisdiction Matters: Appeal length and execution likelihood vary by state; e.g., Texas is much faster than California or Florida.
  • “In California...you could be tried, convicted, and languish on death row for decades and decades.” – Mark Garagos [55:45]
• Current Controversy: Florida recently lowered the jury threshold to 8-4 for the death penalty phase.
  • “The first defendant that gets sent to die...by a vote of 8 to 4...is going all the way up to the US Supreme Court…” – Dave Aronberg [56:59]

Panel Rants/Closing Arguments

[58:59 – 63:06]

• Mark Garagos: Comments on a D.C. acquittal of a man charged with assault for throwing a Subway sandwich at an ICE officer, calling the prosecution excessive.
  • “Janine, you’ve got much bigger fish to fry...this was a case that rightfully should have been a not guilty.” [59:32]
• Dave Aronberg: Rants on the normalization of antisemitism across the political spectrum (“horseshoe theory”), especially criticizing Tucker Carlson for giving Nick Fuentes a platform.
  • “For Jewish people, it's been whiplash as antisemitism has become normalized on, on the far left and the far right.” [62:44]
• Phil Holloway: Addresses the reality and dangers of false confessions in criminal justice.
  • “Nearly 30% of cases...overturned by DNA evidence are overturned on the basis involving a false confession.” [63:06]

---

Notable Quotes & Moments with Timestamps

• “We, the jury...find in favor of the plaintiff, Abigail Zwerner, and assess her damages at $10 million.” — Jury Foreperson [04:16]
• “It’s one thing to get the verdict...ultimately, at the end of the day, is this collectible?” — Mark Garagos [05:27]
• “The law is that you're to view with disbelief what is said out of court orally. And you're supposed to take what’s on the witness stand under oath as the actual evidence.” — Mark Garagos [19:05]
• “Idaho does not have a Son of Sam law...he can keep some of the revenue.” — Dave Aronberg [21:48]
• “We do not want Kaylee being portrayed in a slasher film. They are not characters. They are real people.” — Gonzalez Family [28:00]
• “My sister Kaylee Jade Goncalves isn’t a character...maybe you should just think about what you put out into the world, like dancing around in between scenes.” — Olivia Gonzalez [30:33]
• “You can’t legislate good taste...” — Mark Garagos [31:47]
• “I've always respected the law. I've never gotten a parking ticket, but I'm going to prison for a murder I did not commit. I do intend to file an appeal...” — Donna Adelson [36:04]
• “That appeal's going nowhere. Just like the appeal of her son, Charlie. Both of them are gonna serve the rest of their lives in prison.” — Dave Aronberg [36:50]
• “Mark, if you’re right, and he almost always is, they will lose the appeal...then do a writ of habeas corpus.” — Mark Garagos [41:03]
• “Right now I would be reluctant to believe in any self defense claim when you're dealing with an 80 year old mom...” — Dave Aronberg [46:25]
• “Nearly 30% of cases...overturned by DNA evidence are overturned on the basis involving a false confession.” — Phil Holloway [63:06]
• “For Jewish people, it’s been whiplash as antisemitism has become normalized on, on the far left and the far right.” — Dave Aronberg [62:44]

---

Structure of the Discussion (with Timestamps)

• [01:02] – Host Introductions & Show Overview
• [04:16] – Jury verdict in Abby Zwerner case; damages & payment debate
• [12:16] – Closing arguments: Plaintiff details ignored threats
• [15:25] – Defense’s closing argument
• [19:38] – Kohberger restitution and defense tactics
• [28:00] – Lifetime film controversy: Family outrage & actor backlash
• [36:04] – Donna Adelson appeal: Legality, plea rumors, future prospects
• [44:58] – Angie Mock case: Media, forensics, self-defense
• [54:17] – Listener mail: Death penalty and appeals
• [58:59] – Panel closing arguments/rants

---

Tone & Style

• Professional, Direct, and Candid: The legal panel speaks seriously and with authority but maintains accessibility and touches of dark humor.
• Empathetic to Victims: Strong recognition of the impact on victims’ families throughout.
• Balanced: Both prosecution and defense perspectives are highlighted; advocacy for due process and legal principles is consistent.
• Critical of Media Sensationalism: The panel questions motives behind true crime entertainment and the ethical lines crossed.

---

For Listeners Who Missed the Episode:

This episode delivers nuanced legal analysis and heartfelt commentary on multiple national true crime stories, offering a rare look behind the scenes at courtroom strategy, the ongoing fallout from high-profile murders, and the emotional harm caused by both real-world violence and insensitive media portrayals. If you want an informed, no-nonsense rundown with room for debate and context, this roundup encapsulates all the most important moments and insights from the MK True Crime team.

---

Transcript

[Narrator/Advertiser]

My uncontrollable movements called TD tardive dyskinesia felt embarrassing. I felt like disconnecting. I asked my doctor about treating my TD and learned about in a prescription medicine clinically proven for reducing TD in adults. That's always one capsule once daily and number one prescribed. People taking in can stay on most.

[Mark Garagos]

Mental health meds in can cause depression, suicidal thoughts or actions in patients with Huntington's disease. Call your doctor if you become depressed, have sudden behavior or mood changes or suicidal thoughts. Don't take in serious side effect may include allergic reactions like sudden, potentially fatal swelling in hives, sleepiness the most common side effect, and heart rhythm problems. Know how in grezza affects you before operating a car or dangerous machinery, report fever, stiff muscles or problems thinking as these might be life threatening. Shaking, stiffness, drooling and trouble with moving or balance may occur.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Take control by asking your doctor about Ingrezza.

[Mark Garagos]

Learn more at ingrezza.com that's ing R E Z Z A dot com in.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Grezza.

[Phil Holloway]

If you could hear love, what would it sound like?

[Mark Garagos]

Son, can we talk about your drinking?

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah Dad, I think we should helping those closest to you think about their excessive drinking. Maybe that's what love sounds like. [e-mail] An OHA initiative welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway, your host for today. I'm a criminal lawyer, I'm a former prosecutor and I'm an ex cop. I have been in and around the justice system for the better part of 40 Years now and I think that I know what a great true crime show looks like and we have one in store for you today. So here's what's on our MK True Crime docket. First, we have the civil trial of first grade teacher Abby Zwerner who was shot by her six year old student. This trial has come to a close. On Thursday, a Virginia jury returned their verdict. We'll bring you all of those details. Also, Brian Coburger is back in the news because his prison slush fund has been revealed in court but by his lawyers to be so small that he just doesn't seem to have the cash to pay restitution to his victims families as he was supposed to do as part of his plea deal. Speaking of Bryan Kohberger, a new Lifetime movie is in production about the Idaho college murders and the young actors in the film are already sparking outrage and we will explain why. And also, less than a month after Donna Adelson was sentenced to life in prison, for plotting the murder for hire of her former son in law. She has officially filed a notice of appeal in her case, just like she promised us she would do. I'm pleased today to be joined by my fellow MK True Crime contributors, Dave Ehrenberg, the Florida lawman, former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida and managing partner at Ehrenberg Law. And of course, Mark Garagos, criminal defense attorney to the stars and managing partner of Garagos and Garagos. Guys, we're going to have to start of course with this Abby Zwerner case. We've been covering this trial extensively here on MK True Crime. It's a case that our audience has told us that they really want to hear more about. But before we get into it, by way of reminder, this was a 2023 case. In 2023, a first grade teacher by the name of Abby Zwerner, she was shot by her 6 year old kindergarten student. This despite warnings that went unheeded by school administrators that the child had a gun with him and was possibly dange. Abby has sued former assistant principal ebony Parker for $40 million. And we have just learned the outcome of the trial yesterday. Let's take a look and listen as the jury returns its verdict. Madam Clerk, will you please read the verdict?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

We, the jury on the issues joined, find in favor of the plaintiff, Abigail Zwerner and assess her damages at 10, $10 million. The award and award interest beginning on June 1, 2024.

[Dave Aronberg]

Thank you, madam.

[Phil Holloway]

Thank you very much for your service.

[Dave Aronberg]

It is an important service to all.

[Phil Holloway]

Of us and I know it has.

[Dave Aronberg]

Been a difficult service, but one that is necessary for the resolution of disputes in this country. That I am very proud that we.

[Phil Holloway]

Get to exercise those rights.

[Dave Aronberg]

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you are excused.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, Mark Garrigos, after. Let's see, over the first three days of testimony, this seven person jury heard from 16 witnesses called by Zwerner's legal team who described the events as how they unfolded that day. And they talked about the toll that it took on the teacher who by the way, is still carrying that bullet inside her body. Mark Garagos, was this the right verdict and was that the right amount?

[Mark Garagos]

Well, it's about one fourth of what they asked for, if I'm not mistaken.

[Phil Holloway]

And.

[Mark Garagos]

As a lawyer who does trial work and plaintiffs work, I always want to know. I have friends who get large verdicts and sometimes they get the large verdicts and they're not collectible. Who is paying or theoretically is paying for this is my first question. Because before I say, is it the right verdict? I want to know if there's somebody. I mean, it's one thing to get the verdict. And I know for lawyers sometimes you use that to kind of to show your skill set, but ultimately, at the end of the day, is this collectible, is my question.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, you know, Dave, that's. Mark raises a very good point because they say you can't get blood out of a turnip, so to speak. And this defendant in this case, you know, she's facing criminal charges of her own. She's got charges pertaining to child neglect, and that case is due to go to trial next month. I mean, is there insurance here? Does she pay this out of her pocket? Dave, you're the expert on all things involving civil liability, so tell us who's going to pay for this?

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, thank you for making the expert of all things. That's. That's a new title. I put that on my epitaph.

[Mark Garagos]

Phil just qualified you. I'm going to find. I'll submit on that.

[Dave Aronberg]

No, no, please. But apparently it's interesting that now Abby Zwerner has the incentive to hope that the defendant here is found not guilty of the crimes, because if she's found guilty at her upcoming criminal trial, then that gives an out to the insurance that is involved that could pay part or all of the amount to not pay at all if you're found guilty of a crime. So. So it's a very interesting situation now where she won the civil case, which went first, which is unusual because usually the criminal case goes first. But this apparently was a strategy of the assistant principal to put the civil case first and maybe show the hand of the witnesses against her. And now Abby Zwerner has some different motivations than normal victims, saying, yeah, maybe if she's not found guilty, I'll get paid. Because there is a fund for. For these types of situations that she could get paid from. But it's less likely if the assistant principal is found guilty of a crime.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, you're referring to the Virginia Risk Sharing association, which, as you mentioned, that's an insurance pool made up by public bodies statewide, which includes the Newport News School board. But see, the insurance company has an argument to be made here. I think that, look, if this person is committing a crime, normally, you know, insurance doesn't cover criminal acts. Right. But this is more like a gross negligence kind of thing. Mark Gerard goes, do you think that the insurance company would be. Would be off the hook because she's also accused of a crime there.

[Mark Garagos]

So this is an interesting issue from this standpoint. In California, for instance, there are two code sections that even if you're charged with a crime, you can make a claim. If you were, if the crime is for something you're doing in the course and scope of your employment, so to speak, that you can then kind of lay claim to the employer. The employer has got to reimburse you. I've done that a number of times. The other nuance here is was the lawyer, the defense lawyer being paid by the insurance company under what's called a reservation of rights, where they say, okay, we're going to provide you a defense, but if it turns out that you get held liable, liable for some act that takes you outside of the policy and generally, as you've noted, Phil, that's a intentional act, generally will take you out of a coverage for negligence, then at that point you've, they've got a way and something to fight with. Then you've also got on the criminal cases, you've said if there is a conviction criminally, that could then say, okay, then that fits into the reservation of rights and we're not going to pay. And a criminal act is outside the scope. Look, it's tough enough to collect with insurance companies as it is when you did nothing. Just, just imagine when you're found liable for something, how tough it's going to be to get the insurance to pay.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, you know, the, the, you would think that the deeper pocket, so to speak, would be the school system. But we have things called sovereign immunity in the United States. And so it's oftentimes very difficult to sue and collect judgments against government entities unless the particular state in question has passed law that would waive sovereign immunity in certain kinds of cases. But speaking of the lawyers on the case, by the way, Phil, that's a.

[Mark Garagos]

Great point because they passed a law in California that kind of a look back law for sexual abuse. Interestingly, they then it started to kind of snowball and now they want to sunset. Not only sunset it, but exempt municipality, you know, like the county or somebody running the probation department or somebody who has a dispatcher who's out of control because all of a sudden these abuse verdicts or things of large verdicts end up potentially pushing these municipalities into bankruptcy. And now I think one of the look back laws that's making its way through California, even in California they're starting to exempt the municipalities.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, I don't know all things related to sovereign immunity, but I did write a law review article about it when I was in law school. And it goes back to old England, right, the English common law, where it was said that it's just not right, so to speak, to sue the king in his own courts. And of course, we don't have kings in America and we have a different legal system. But that idea, along with lots of other things from English common law, has filtered its way into our legal system. But I wanted to talk real quick about the attorneys in the case because the attorney for the plaintiff, Kevin Beniason, I guess, is how I pronounce his name. My apologies to Kevin if I mispronounced it. But you know, he has argued that the defendant Parker failed to act despite multiple warnings. Now, so that the question is, is her failure to act, is that an intentional act so that it would throw it out of insurance coverage, or is that some kind of negligence? I think if we can roll slot 6, we this plaintiff's attorney in his closing argument arguing that the threat was very real and that it was ignored.

[Dave Aronberg]

All this talk about we didn't think it was a real threat, it wasn't a credible threat. Why are you agreeing with Ms. Kovak to search the bag if you don't think it's real? And when they say, did you search the person? And the response is, we already checked.

[Phil Holloway]

The bag, guess what that tells us? We thought it was real and we.

[Dave Aronberg]

Don'T know where it is anymore. We don't know where it is anymore.

[Phil Holloway]

And then the boy outside of Ms. West's classroom crying, remember Crying, not wanting.

[Dave Aronberg]

To go back into Mrs. Z's classroom.

[Phil Holloway]

Where he's supposed to be, says, bullets and shoot. The boy showed me bullets. JT showed me bullets and he said if I told anybody I would shoot bullets. Shoot gun. The only way you can shoot a.

[Dave Aronberg]

Bullet is if you have a gun.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, Dave, obviously, you know, I mean, if we weren't talking about a six year old, we could invoke the saying, you know, triggers don't pull themselves. It had to be, you know, an intentional act. But children, especially at the age of six, we don't imply impute criminal liability, but clearly the child intended to shoot his teacher. But the question is, did the administrator intend for that harm to occur or was she merely negligent? What do you say?

[Dave Aronberg]

I don't think that anyone would say that the assistant principal intended the harm to occur, but she was pretty much reckless in my mind, even worse than negligent. I mean, she knew the history of this six year old. This six year old has in the past engaged in Violence strangled a different teacher. The six year old grabbed Abby Zwerner's cell phone before this incident, days before, smashed it on the ground. He pulled up the skirt of a girl in class and felt her up. And because of his misbehavior, his parents were required at least one of them to be in school with him at all times. And the week this happened, the week this tragedy occurred, his parents were not there. So the assistant principal knew what's going on and instead of saying let's deal with this she actually ordered the staff at the school and the teachers not to touch this kid, not to do anything. Let the parents come and show up, don't do anything. So this is worse than just negligence and inaction. This is actual action to protect this kid at the expense of Abby Zwerner and others were put at risk.

[Phil Holloway]

Well the. Because we are fair here at MK True Crime and we like to give both sides of things. We've got SOT 7 here which is the defense lawyer Sandra Douglas in the closing argument and referring to witnesses who may have inconsistent testimonies or inconsistent statements throughout the case.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Let's roll sight seven which Amy Kovach to believe. Try this one. Amy Kovach text to Dr. Parker two days after the incident. Look at this. Amy Kovach to Dr. Parker. You are an amazing person and educator. No one could have ever predicted this. We all did our best. We did what a true teacher will do in this situation. Be there for our children in school. As I look back, I should have sent JT out of the room with a note and a job to deliver it around the school. And I could have gotten that book pack but I didn't. We can't look back. We can only move forward. I love you and I'm proud to work with you. But that Amy Kovac didn't come to trial. She sat here and she threw shade at Dr. Parker. She dissed her work and she threw shade. Not this Amy Kovach. Remember that?

[Phil Holloway]

Well, I do like her style. I do like that style of a passionate closing argument. The Amy Kovac that she's referring to. Mark, she's the one that referred to. Well she talked about Parker dismissing the gun in the pocket because she said he had little pockets. Because I know this is something that you want to talk about but before you do that, let's roll SOT 8 so we can see what Amy Kovac said.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

What do you tell Dr. Parker at this time?

[Phil Holloway]

So again I tell her that I went and checked the bag. I told her Just what I said to you all. What was in the bag?

[Narrator/Advertiser]

And then I also tell her that.

[Phil Holloway]

Abby texted me that they were out at recess, that he took something from the bag and he put it in his pocket.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Did you tell her you thought it.

[Phil Holloway]

Could be a gun?

[Dave Aronberg]

I mean, I told her that I.

[Phil Holloway]

Reported that it was a gun. I mean, the whole time I assumed she thought it was a gun because that's what the girls reported.

[Dave Aronberg]

And I went and reported to her.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

And what did she say in response to you? And you said he put it in his pocket.

[Phil Holloway]

She did say that, you know, well, he has little pockets. And I said he put it in his jacket pocket.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

And I was kind of mad, you.

[Phil Holloway]

Know, and I walked away. Mark, it seems like there's a different Amy Kovac when she's simply sending a message to her boss, maybe kissing the boss's ass a little bit. But when she gets in court under oath and she realizes that she has to tell the truth, maybe then that's when the truth comes out. What do you make of it?

[Mark Garagos]

Well, it's one of the reasons that the three of us make our living and put food on the table by virtue of cross examination. An amazing thing, what happens out of court and what happens in court. And that's one of the problems for witnesses, or it's actually one of the benefits, if you will, of. Of the court system once you get somebody who has to tell the story and can be questioned and can't kind of shade it or round the corners to different situations. So I always opt for. In fact, the law is that you're to view with disbelief what is said out of court orally. And you're supposed to take what's on the witness stand under oath as the actual evidence. So I, I always lean. I follow that. That's my. That's the altar I worship at. So I would. I vote for what happens in the courtroom after a vigorous cross examination.

[Phil Holloway]

AI agents are everywhere, automating tasks and making decisions at machine speed. But agents make mistakes. Just one rogue agent can do big damage before you even notice. Rubrik Agent Cloud is the only platform that helps you monitor agents, set guardrails and rewind mistakes so you can unleash agents, not risk. Accelerate your AI [e-mail]. that's R U B R-I K dot com.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Did you know gold is up around 40% this year? That's not speculation, it's reality. And if a portion of your savings is not diversified into gold, you're missing the boat here. Are the facts the US dollar still too weak, the government debt still growing. This is why central banks are flocking to gold. They're the ones driving prices up to record highs. But it's not too late to buy gold from Birch Gold Group and get in the door right now. Birch Gold will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into a tax sheltered IRA. In gold you don't pay a dime out of pocket. Just text MK to 989-898 and claim your free info kit. There's no obligation, just useful information. The best indicator of the future is the past and gold has historically been a safe haven. So text MK to 989-898 right now to claim your free info kit on gold. MK to the number 989898. Protect your future today with Birch Gold.

[Phil Holloway]

I want to go ahead and move on to our next topic if we could. Of course, this being the convicted killer Brian Coburger. Guys, he's fighting to withhold money from the victims kin folks after reaping five figures from supporters. The judge even is upset about this because we have Kohberger now saying look, he can't pay the restitution that he was ordered to pay that he agreed to pay, which was around $27,000. Right. He received, as the judge pointed out, five figures from family and supporters before he even entered his plea. So I don't really understand this because normally restitution is not that big of a deal. But clearly if there's restitution owed to these families, he owes it and it's been, you know, he's got some money and if he's got some money, he ought to be required to pay it. Mark and Dave, I'll start with you Dave. Can you explain why these lawyers are back in court now saying that he should not, Coburger should not have to pay this money.

[Dave Aronberg]

I think they were emboldened by the fact that he escaped the death penalty. I think it's like, all right, you know, they were facing annihilation and then they got a win. They saw that the prosecution decided to let it go and didn't want to try the case and the families were on board with it. Except for at least one family. And I think now he's just trying his true colors. All right, let's keep going. Let's just, let's avoid having him having to pay the family. And his mind got money on the Internet and they shouldn't have to pay anymore. But of course, as a former prosecutor, I think this guy should be ground into the ground because Kohberger got away with one to be able to escape the death penalty. And now he's trying to avoid his restitution payments. You know, Idaho does not have a Son of Sam law, which means that if this guy writes a book or gets money from the TV rights and there's already a TV show already out there about to go to air soon, and then he can keep some of the revenue. So the family is right to say, hey, you need to pay up. You got enough already. You got enough grace and breaks in this. It's time for you to be able to pay up because these families have been destroyed because of you. Some of this money is for the earned to buy the urn. I mean, how sad is that? Just to keep the remains. So I'm for the families on this. I can see why the lawyers are keep pushing it because they already got the benefit already from prosecutors and they're just not stopping it until they get more.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, all right, Mark Garrigos, tell me.

[Mark Garagos]

You know what I love about the MK true crime is how many defense lawyers do we have actually? Is Dave practicing defense now?

[Dave Aronberg]

I am now.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah, we all are.

[Mark Garagos]

Right? I know you are, Phil, but you're the, you've got the, the slippery slope. You went some people would view as a downward slide. I, I view it as an evolution. You know, you've gone from a cop to a prosecutor to now you finally found the right calling which is the defense. Dave, on the other hand, did you see his face when he just says, yeah, now I'm doing the criminal defense. It was like he was smelling sour cottage cheese.

[Dave Aronberg]

Mark, what is it? Your father had the best comment about a former prosecutor becoming a defense lawyer. Can you repeat that?

[Mark Garagos]

It's so funny you say that as he's sitting right there. He used to talk about the fact that minute he left the DA's office and I told this story before we. I was conceived the same month, January of 1957, if the math and I was just stated correctly, was. Was the month that he started in the Lada's office. And he was stayed there for 13 years. And I always thought my first name was Dumb and my middle name was Shit because that's all he ever called me. But he always used to lament the fact that the minute he left the DA's office, they wouldn't even let him take a file out of a courtroom anymore. On a Thursday, he's a da, the clerk would hand him the file. He could walk upstairs to Another courtroom. He come in there as a defense lawyer on a Friday, and it was verboten. So Dave knows what I'm talking about there. There's a certain kind of heavy lift in the system when you go to the defense side.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, speaking of the defense side, this is. So my question back to Coburger is, why are the defense lawyers coming back to court now quibbling over restitution? The guy has pled guilty. He agreed to pay this money. He's been sentenced and ordered to pay it. What is in it for the defense to go into court right now? Because apparently, you know, this guy got lots of money from donors and supporters, you know, that were sending him money. The judge called it five figures. There's zealous advocacy is what we are required to do, but that does not mean that we have to do frivolous advocacy and we don't have to engage in advocacy that really, I think, is beyond the pale and really is harmful to the surviving family members of these victims.

[Mark Garagos]

I don't know. But I will speculate, since we do that. Great. Here. My speculation is that there was some break in the chain of the stipulation to the restitution. Normally, what happens. I have a restitution hearing that's on set for tomorrow. It was on a case that was originally a murder, just like Coburger, reduced to an involuntary manslaughter. And then there's restitution. You have a number of ways to do restitution. You can have a hearing. Dave is probably. How many of those do you think you've done in your day, Dave?

[Dave Aronberg]

I mean, overseen a bunch? Yes.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Yeah.

[Mark Garagos]

So you could do it that way. You could say restitution per civil judgment, which means you're ordered, as a condition of your release or your sentence, to pay whatever the restitution is if and when somebody gets a civil judgment, like what we just talked about in the previous segment. Or you can just stipulate, like they did here. I'm wondering. Or I suspect, and to your point, Phil, you don't frivolously argue positions. So if the client says, for instance, if Kohlberger said, I agree to it, they did it on the record, and the judge said, are you okay with that? Did you waive your right to a hearing for you as the lawyer, to then say, no, I. I'm not agreeing to this. Later on, you have to have some legal basis. You just can't go in and say, no harm, no foul. I'm going.

[Phil Holloway]

I. I just don't. I don't I don't get it. I don't get what the point is to come in and argue about this now, but spe outrageous things related to Brian Kohberger. Lifetime has now begun production on a movie. And before we talk about the outrageous TikTok videos that the cast members have now published in between the, I guess, the scenes that they were filming, I want to just read to you the reaction from the Gonzalez family. Just on the idea that before the ink is even dry on this plea agreement that, you know, they're now in production of this movie. And this is a quote they say on Facebook as of November 4, 2025. With everything that our family has been through, it's hard to fathom that people are now making a movie. This is a nightmare for us. We do not want Kaylee being portrayed in a slasher film. They are not characters. They are real people. It's heartbreaking. It's embarrassing. And Kaylee would not want this. I wish people would just stop, please. We just want it all to stop. I don't think people realize how hard this is for our family. It's November 4th. The days are tightening around us. It gets harder and harder to breathe. There's no relief from the pain that radiates through your entire body. We are doing our best just to try to get through these days. Now that is the reaction from the family. But it gets worse, guys, because now there are outrageous TikTok posts. And before we get into that, it makes sense to just see what we're talking about. If we could roll SOT2, you'll see the Lifetime movie actors dancing Britney Spears style in between the filming of scene. Dave Aronberg, Too much too soon. Your take.

[Dave Aronberg]

I mean, it's just the generation. You have these young people, they're actors and they're having fun. They're obviously not method actors where they got really into the roles because they're there on a break, dancing around. And I can see why the families would be upset. I think it is callous to post it on the Internet, but. But this is the generation that posts everything on the Internet. I wouldn't take it personally. It's just who they are. And at the same time, I mean, that message you said from the family, that, oh, that was heart wrenching. I mean, I felt that. And the pain does not go away. And it would be nice if these young actresses and actors would at least think of the families before they post something like that. But again, this is the day we're in and the generation we're In.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, Olivia Gonzalez, a sister to Kaylee Gonzalez, publicly reacted to the Tick Tock videos. If we could roll slot three, you can see Olivia Gonzalez reaction.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

And I love to do iconic.

[Dave Aronberg]

Hi.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

So that's not iconic. My sister Kaylee Jade Gonzalez isn't a character character. You're young, so maybe you don't know, but I've looked at the past stuff you've done, and I think, you know, there is such a thing as defamation, which can be crushing to a career. Not that you really have one, but if you'd like one, maybe you should just think about it. Maybe you should just, just think about if Kaylee was your sister. Maybe you should just think about what you put out into the world, like dancing around in between scenes. Maybe you should think about the projects that you take on. Maybe you should think that if you lay with dogs, you might get fleas.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, powerful words, Mark. What is your take on this? And also, also tell us what you think about this implied or maybe very express threat of a possible defamation case.

[Mark Garagos]

Yeah, I'm, I, I don't even understand it. I give her a pass. You know, you're talking about somebody who's lost a loved one. Doesn't make a lot of sense legally to me. It doesn't even make a whole lot of sense. You know, think about the parts you're going to take. I mean, you know, if you're somebody who believes in free speech and believes in the Constitution, most of this stuff is constitutionally protected. And you can't. One of the things you can't do is you can't legislate good taste. I used to have a mentor who used to, he said if he, if he was king, he would wave his hand and he would add to the, the criminal code or the penal code. Felony stupid. And I understand that. I get it. But you know, part of the, you got to take a little bit of the good with the bad, so to speak, in that you cannot and the law doesn't allow you to just criminalize people who have no taste.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, before we get to the Donna Adelson news after the break, it's worth briefly noting that Idaho State Police have released images now of the K Bar knife sheath that Brian Kohberger left behind at the University of Idaho crime scene. The photos were included in public records release of more than 2,300 pages from the case file. Forensic technicians tested the sheath for DNA evidence and they ultimately recovered a sample on the snap of that sheath. The sample later turned into a tip developed by investigative genetic genealogists at othram Labs in Texas and I want to refer you back if you missed it. I was able to interview David Middelman from Othram Labs last month here on MK True Crime. It's a fascinating interview that sort of takes us behind the scenes as to what that genetic genealogy looks like and how it came to play in this Bryan Kohberger case. Next we have Donna Adelson making good on her promise to appeal her conviction. Remember, you can email us too. By the way, we love to read your comments and your story suggestions. Email us@mktruecrimelmaycare media.com and don't go away. We'll be right back.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Cash Flow Crunch on Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by Ondeck or Celtic Bank. Ondeck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans and amount subject to lender approval. Streaming November 16th on Paramount plus, it is the return of Landman, TV's biggest phenomenon from Taylor Sheridan, co creator of Yellowstone. Academy Award winner Billy Bob Thornton is back as Tommy Norris and managing higher stakes than ever before. It features an all star cast including Academy Award nominees Demi Moore, Andy Garcia and Sam Elliott. In the wake of his former boss's passing, tensions come to a head as Tommy and Demi Moore's character Cami Miller struggle to maintain control of emtech's oil. And with his father, played by Sam Elliott, coming back into his life, Tommy must juggle both of his roles as an oil man and a family man as pressure builds and his worlds collide. Do not miss the hit series everyone is talking about. Landman's new season starts streaming November 16th only on Paramount. Plus.

[Phil Holloway]

Former news anchor Angie Mock has fatally stabbed her elderly mother in what she claims is self defense. We'll get into that bizarre story, but first, Donna Adelson, convicted in the murder of her son in law Dan Markle, has officially filed her appeal as she promised us that she would sought for. Is Donna at her sentencing hearing telling us all about it?

[Dave Aronberg]

I've always respected the law.

[Mark Garagos]

I've never gotten a parking ticket, but I'm going to prison for a murder I did not commit.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

I do intend to File an appeal.

[Dave Aronberg]

So that hopefully I have the opportunity.

[Mark Garagos]

To be given a fair trial outside of Tallahassee.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, you know, Dave, I know how much you follow this case. You knew the victim in the case, Professor Dan Markell, I guess you could say she has lots of respect for the law, except for the laws against murder in the state of Florida. This appeal, though, it seems to me, you know, it's pro forma. This is what we expect. Is there anything unusual about this as far as you can see?

[Dave Aronberg]

No. And she was right. She did not commit this murder. She. She helped pay for it. She helped plan it. She was the instigator. And there were hitmen who were hired by the family to do this. So she is a principal because of that, and she's going to prison for the rest of her life. Now, I don't see any grounds, reasonable grounds for her appeal. I think they're gonna lean into the alleged bias of the judge. And you can see that they were taunting the judge during sentencing. The father, Harvey Adelson, and even called the judge biased to his face. And the judge let it just roll like water over him. He did not take the bait. He did not jump down their throats. He didn't wanna give any reason for the family to go to the appellate court. Said, see, here's what I'm talking about. So, Judge Everett, kudos to you. This appeal's going nowhere. Just like the appeal of her son, Charlie. Both of them are gonna serve the rest of their lives in prison. Now, the big question is whether the daughter, the ex wife, Wendy, is next to next. I think she will be, although there is a difference of opinion about it.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, speaking of that, Mark, I want to get your take on it, but before I do, I want to talk about. Well, there was discussion at one time about there possibly being a plea deal for Donna Adelson. The lawyers for both sides have come out and said, no, no, no, there is no such plea deal. But now, Mark, there's been a. There was a jailhouse snitch by the name of Drina Bernhardt, okay? She testified at the trial. She recently went on Surviving the Survivor podcast, and she says that there was a potential plea deal on the table. Let's go ahead and roll SOT5, and then we'll get Mark's take on the other side.

[Mark Garagos]

I don't know if the public was aware, but she was offered a tenure.

[Phil Holloway]

Plea and the rest. If she would have taken that 10.

[Mark Garagos]

Years, then the rest of the family wouldn't have been convicted. You know, charged, and she didn't do it.

[Dave Aronberg]

So, I mean, this is absolutely fascinating.

[Phil Holloway]

What you just said.

[Dave Aronberg]

Donna was offered, guess Tim Jansen was right about certain things that everyone's been beating them up for this whole time. So Donna told you she was offered a plea deal of 10 years.

[Phil Holloway]

And.

[Dave Aronberg]

And what would that consist of?

[Mark Garagos]

Then her family wouldn't be charged in. In return for that.

[Phil Holloway]

But she didn't.

[Mark Garagos]

She didn't do it.

[Phil Holloway]

And when I said, well, wow, that's huge.

[Mark Garagos]

Why not? Because I'm gonna beat trial.

[Dave Aronberg]

So, you know, she really believed she was going to beat the system. She really thought she was going to get off. Yes. She told you that? Yes.

[Mark Garagos]

I mean, she knew it. She just knew it.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Yeah.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, Mark, that's Drina Bernhardt. She's an inmate recently released from the Leon County Jail. She was talking a lot, apparently, with Donna Adelen in the Leon County Jail. You heard her say right there, there was a plea deal, 10 years. Plus they promised not to go after any additional family members. Does that make sense to you, Mark?

[Mark Garagos]

Well, this is what I know. I know that I asked this question to Dave Aronberg, and Dave Aronberg told me I was dead wrong. So I always believe with Dave when Dave tells me I'm dead wrong. Dave, didn't we discuss this? And I said, I heard, but although maybe I didn't. I didn't have the 10 years. I asked you, I think, was she offered time served, and she turned it down. And you said, absolutely not. Is that right?

[Dave Aronberg]

By the way, that is what Joel Walman of Surviving the Survivor. Kudos to him. That's what he's referring to about Tim Jansen. Tim Jansen, who's a defense lawyer in Tallahassee, said what you just said, that Donna Adelson was offered time served. Just give up Wendy. And she rejected. And I said, no way. And so now what's coming at it was sort of the opposite. You take 10 years and we'll let Wendy and Harvey go free, which I don't believe either. So I believe neither of these. These things.

[Mark Garagos]

So I will tell you what. I'll make a prediction how we'll find out. Well, the prediction is if Dave is right, and he almost always is, they will lose the appeal. Once they lose the. What's called the direct appeal, they will do a. A writ of habeas corpus. They will allege in the habeas corpus. Being a defense lawyer, I know this well, that the defense lawyer was ineffective as assistance of counsel. By the way, there are A lot of people who might jump in and argue that right now or they were arguing it during the trial itself. I'll just leave it there. Even though that was a former judge, if I'm not mistaken. Dave can correct me. Who was the defense lawyer? Right.

[Dave Aronberg]

Well, yeah, she resigned from the bench under a cloud of controversy, but yes.

[Mark Garagos]

Okay. And then during that writ of habeas corpus where there will be an allegation of iac, that is when they would put forward I was offered this, I was or there was an offer, the I, it either wasn't communicated accurately, it was communicated inaccurately. The prosecutor will then have to turn over their file. The file will have exactly whether or not there was an authorized offer that was made, even if it was an offer. And Dave can correct me if I'm wrong, but I've never met a prosecutor in a high profile case who's willy nilly making offers that he hasn't run or she hasn't run up the proverbial flagpole and that will put the end to this discussion.

[Phil Holloway]

I personally y' all didn't ask me, but my take is I don't believe her. I don't believe maybe she's not lying. Maybe she's just simply mistaken. Maybe she was duped by Donna Adelson, who I believe to be a just a liar, just out and out liar. I don't think you can believe a word that comes out of her mouth. So that would include things that she may say to her fellow inmates in jail. Maybe she was just saying, look, I would agree to plead guilty and I'd even take 10 years if they would just take Wendy out of the equation or maybe even her husband. Some people are saying that he might be at some type of jeopardy here as an accessory after the fact. But I think that if that plea offer was in fact made that I'm sure it looks very, very good to her now in the rear view mirror. But time will tell. The lawyers for both sides have said that there was no such plea deal. I think it's going to be an interesting footnote in this case. But maybe when the appeals come out, the lawyers involved in that appeal, the second round of it probably as you mentioned, Mark, they will dig deeper into that and they'll discuss what, what types of plea negotiations, if any, were relayed to the client. But we've got another topic to get to here, which is there's a former news anchor now I don't know if you guys saw this, but a former news anchor out in Kansas, she's been charged with murder after allegedly stabbing and killing her 80 year old mother. Police responded to a reported cutting at a residence in wichita, Kansas at 7:52 local time on Friday, October 20, October 31, Halloween. Police found a woman later identified as 40 year old Angeline Angie Mock standing bloody outside the home. They entered the residence and found Mock's mother, Anita Avers, 80 years old, unresponsive in her bed with multiple stab wounds and she later tragically passed away. Interestingly enough though, Mock, Angie Mock previously worked as a news anchor and reporter for Fox 2 in St. Louis from 2011 to 2015 according to her LinkedIn profile. Let's go ahead and take a look at her. News anchor real sot9 he was in town.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

They're leaving today. I don't know where my tissues are. That's all right. The Ferguson unrest has captured international headlines. People in this community are baffled by.

[Mark Garagos]

The latest development behind me.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

It is a much different scene from yesterday. A grandmother and a two year old boy are recovering this morning from gunshots.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, and then we have a neighbor who encountered this bloody Angie Mock. SOT10 if we can play that, I want to then talk to my panel about the self defense claim here in this case.

[Dave Aronberg]

There's a woman who came and approached.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Our vehicle with blood. Like her hands were filled, her body was filled with blood asking to call 911.

[Phil Holloway]

I asked her if she was okay.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

And she was pretty shaken up and she seemed scared and she just ran off. I'm just glad that we were able to help, you know what I mean? Like we never know what anyone's going through. This happened randomly but as long as we were able to get 911 and see what we can do, that's all I really care about.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, so Castro there has she, she told Kake News that the, the woman Mock comes out and says she stabbed her mother to save herself. Without I guess any further details we are left to speculate as Mark points out, that we do so well here on the show. Dave Ehrenberg so what kind of self defense claim do you think this could possibly be based on what we've seen.

[Dave Aronberg]

So far against an 80 year old woman that she was in reasonable fear of her life and the only real evidence is her self serving statement that she made on 911. I don't think there's much evidence of self defense but we just don't know all the evidence yet. And right now I would be reluctant to believe in any self defense claim when you're dealing with an 80 year old mom who apparently has no priors and there's no evidence that she was the aggressor. And the only evidence that it's self defense comes from the mouth of the defendant. So, you know, I'm skeptical, but then again, I'm only recently a defense lawyer, so I'll leave that to Mark.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, if anybody can make a self defense claim, Mark Garrigo surely can figure out how this works.

[Mark Garagos]

I, I'm gonna, I'm gonna err on the side of the, the hallmark of the criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence. All you have is you've got a deceased and you have statements by the accused that in most jurisdictions isn't enough even to bring a charge. But we'll see. I, I, I don't think that there's enough here to, for any kind of a murder charge yet. And I think we should wait and see what happens. I mean there's a, you know, you've got, you have to understand something. Even though you have a, somebody who's deceased and even though you've got somebody else, the, the eyewitness who we just played, who I, I think you referred to as Elisa Castro. Phil. She said that the woman approached the, the accused approach. She was, had bloody hands and she seemed very distraught. And so all of that is consistent with something in the, more consistent with a manslaughter or a self defense than it would be a murder in my.

[Phil Holloway]

Mind.

[Mark Garagos]

Doing what we do best, which is speculation.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, putting on my former cop hat for a minute, I can tell you that if you have a scene like that, you can expect there to be lots of forensics. There's going to be blood spatter, there's going to be all kinds of things there that can sort of paint a picture, if you will, of what exactly physically, mechanically happened on that scene. And we're not privy to it, but this is one that we're going to be following here at MK True Crime because this Angie Mock has been charged with this murder, first degree murder. She's being held on a million dollars bond and it's, you know, it's going to be an interesting case.

[Mark Garagos]

Aren't you surprised she hasn't bailed out?

[Phil Holloway]

Well, a million dollars is one of those kind of bonds that nobody is ever really supposed to make, except probably some of your clients.

[Mark Garagos]

Mark, I hold the record in various jurisdictions for the highest bail that anybody's ever made. So, but you know, there's at least, I always preface stuff with, in California, in California, the Bail bondsman. You know, years ago, the attorney general put out an opinion that 10% was kind of a violation of antitrust, that it had to be negotiated. So there are bondsmen for a million bucks who would probably bond her out if it were in California for a fraction of the 100,000. And you'd think that a news anchor was making enough or at least have resources enough that they could bond out. But also, I. One other question. I know that our next segment is questions and closings. I have a question for Ehrenberg. How. Because you seemed, once again, Dave, I'm psychoanalyzing from afar, a little disappointed that you're recently on the defense side. So how recently is this?

[Dave Aronberg]

Since January. But I was in court today, and mark to your point earlier, and I was there for first appearance for a defendant, and I asked the public defender for a copy of the probable cause affidavit. And she gave it to me. Thank you. And then she made me sign paperwork to take it with me. And this is what your father said, like, excuse me, I can't take this sheet. It's public information. I can't take it with me. No, I gotta sign it out. Very different than when I was the state attorney.

[Mark Garagos]

I was gonna say it's a revelation. Isn't it just the. That that cloak of invincibility in the white hat is evaporates.

[Phil Holloway]

Oh, look, look, we are always swimming upstream. And look, there are lots of innocent people that do find themselves wrapped up in the justice system, people that are maybe not as guilty as they're accused of being as well. And we're. All we're just trying to do is get a fair outcome, but yeah, it's always swimming upstream. All right, we'll leave it there for this segment. Coming up, we have your. Your questions and closing arguments, but we also have a very special announcement. Stay tuned.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Cash flow Crunch. On Deck's small business line of credit gives your business immediate access to funds up to $200,000 right when you need it. Cover seasonal dips, manage payroll, restock inventory, or tackle unexpected expenses without missing a beat. With flexible draws, transparent pricing and control over repayment, get funded quickly and confidently. Apply [e-mail] funds could be available as soon as tomorrow. Depend. Depending on certain loan attributes, your business loan may be issued by On Deck or Celtic Bank. On Deck does not lend in North Dakota. All loans in amount subject to lender approval. Talk a lot about personal responsibility on this show. Well, here's one aspect that's really important. Your health and I'm not talking about following whatever the experts recommend. I'm talking about real data driven decisions based on your body's actual numbers. We demand transparency in government but most of us have no idea what's happening inside of our own bodies. Disease can develop silently for years before symptoms appear. By then you're playing catch up with expensive treatments instead of preventing problems when they are cheap and easy to fix. Well, I want to tell you about Jevoty. They are revolutionizing preventative care with something radically different. 100 plus blood markers tested at your home, personalized supplement packs shipped directly to you based on your deficiencies, biannual retesting to track progress, plus ongoing virtual consultations on your schedule. This is healthcare independence and you get 20% [e-mail] Megan with code Megan that's Gojevity. G-E-V-I-T-I.com Megan because nobody should control your health decisions but you.

[Dave Aronberg]

We're back.

[Phil Holloway]

We'll get to your closing arguments ending your mail. But first, Megyn Kelly is going on tour and we're going with her. Megyn Kelly is taking her show, the Megyn Kelly show on the road. She believes it's now more important than ever to be talking about what's true and what's real. So get ready for an evening of no bs, no agenda and no fear that you won't want to miss. And I gotta tell you guys, Ashley Merchant and I will be at the Atlanta or Duluth, Georgia stop on November 8th, 8th tomorrow and we are very, very excited. I want to hear where you guys are going to be.

[Dave Aronberg]

Dave, I'll be in, I'll be at the 305, the James L. Knight center in Miami. I'll be there with Mark Iglarsh. We're going to start the show talk True crime. So if you're down there, please say hello.

[Mark Garagos]

I'm going to be with my, the guy who is my, used to be my adversary in the Orange County DA's office, former homicide prosecutor Matt Murphy, now my sidekick on True crime. We're going to be at I believe November 21, right before Thanksgiving will be down in Anaheim. So come see us there.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, look, I think that it's going to be a good time. We're very excited about it and we're happy to share the MK True crime experience with a live audience as well. By way of special announcement before we get to the mailbag, special announcement here. MK True Crime will now be featured on the Megyn Kelly channel on Sirius XM as part of Megan's podcast playlist, MK True Crime will now air Tuesdays at 10am Eastern Time and Saturdays at 9am and 10am on Sirius XM channel 111. So check that out. All right, here we go. By way of the legal mailbag, we have Matthew, who writes in. He says, I listened to you all on Megan's podcast and I followed you over to this new show. Love it. Really appreciate the different angles that each of you bring, with some folks being more from the prosecution side, Dave and others on the defense. Mark, you talk about the death penalty cases, and one area that's unclear is the appeals process. Some seem to go on forever and others eventually run out and the offender is executed. What drives the difference? Would love a deeper dive on this process. Love the show and keep going. All right, so I'm going to start with you, Mark. What kind of answer do you give to Matthew with his question about the death penalty process?

[Mark Garagos]

It really depends on it's almost entirely, in my opinion, jurisdictional driven. Driven. And what do I mean by that? First of all, is it federal? If it's federal, it's you're on a much, much faster track. I remember the Oklahoma, Oklahoma City bombings and Timothy McVeigh was tried, convicted and executed in what would have been record time if you compared it to the state of California, where you could be tried, convicted and languish on death row for decades and decades. And I think at one point somebody said you are more likely to die of natural causes than to be executed. So their jurisdiction drives everything. Texas is generally considered, along with Alabama and some other states, to be on the the fast track or rocket docket. And some of the other states have both outlawed the death penalty, or in essence, like California, there's a moratorium on its execution. That's what drives everything.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, Dave Aronberg's in Florida, where there's an express lane to the death chamber there. What procedurally is different in Florida?

[Dave Aronberg]

I think this the appellate court judges are more conservative. And at the federal level, though, you still have habeas and you still have ways that slow it down. It's far from perfect. It is slow. It seems to take forever, even in Florida. One thing to watch in Florida is that Florida now lowers the burden to get a death penalty verdict to 8 to 4, meaning that you still have to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. It still must be unanimous, but the penalty phase only needs to be 8 to 4. That's the lowest of any state. And the first defendant that gets sent to die by lethal injection by a vote of 8 to 4, maybe even 9 to 3, is going all the way up to the US Supreme Court to see if that number survives the analysis under the Eighth Amendment ban on cruel and unusual punishment. And Mark, I think I'll surprise you. I think that 8 to 4 is too low. I didn't support that. I think it should be 10, 2 or higher.

[Mark Garagos]

Well, in California, you can't even get a civil judgment with eight to four. You got to have nine to three at a minimum. I mean, I do. Look, if you're going to put somebody to death, it ought to be unanimous. So I, I just, I, I think the death penalty, to quote a former very conservative California Supreme Court justice, death penalty machinery is broken and there really is no need for it.

[Narrator/Advertiser]

Yeah.

[Dave Aronberg]

And by the way, I'm not going to argue against unanimous. I think that is probably the best system if it's unanimous, if you're going to do the ultimate punishment, although I've been convinced to lower it to 10 to 2. But still, I'm with you on unanimous.

[Mark Garagos]

All right.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, Matthew, there you go. There's an answer from two of the very best in the business. This actually is a topic we could do an entire series of shows on, but we'll leave it there for now. Coming up next, right now we have the closing arguments. This is the opportunity for each of us to give a minute or so. We call it a rant, but not necessarily a rant, but just something about anything that you want to talk about. Mark Garagos, we'll start with you. What's on your mind?

[Mark Garagos]

I'm going to do a rant and then I'm going to check off because I've got a heart out here. My rant is the breaking news and it's a, an acquittal in a case that was in Washington, D.C. prosecuted, at least in her office by a friend of mine, Jeanine Piero, who you may remember, you guys may remember Judge Jeanine, who's now the U.S. attorney there in the District of Columbia, and she prosecuted a young man who was being prosecuted for throwing a Subway sandwich at an ICE officer. And the jury took seven hours to acquit this man who was charged, and I think rightfully so. There was testimony that the person who, the ICE agent who had had the sandwich thrown at him had been given gag gifts of sandwiches and he had displayed them. And it was the jurors themselves had said they debated whether or not to, that there was really an assault. It was in a package, even though the agent testified that the sandwich had exploded on him. Getting mustard everywhere. There's an old play by play announcer the the in Los Angeles for the Lakers named Chick Hearn, who used to say the mustard came off the hot dog. In this case, the mustard did not come off the subway sandwich. This guy was acquitted. And Janine, you've got much bigger fish to fry. Along with the the edibles motif, this was a case that rightfully should have been a not guilty.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, thanks, Mark. All right, Dave, your turn. What's on your mind with your rant for the day? Your closing argument.

[Dave Aronberg]

Okay. Well, you know, in a previous video here, I've called out the antisemitism of the far left. I was critical of those who called for ceasefire now and then. After there was a ceasefire, they were silent. It's like they were disappointed. And that folks like Mark Ruffalo and Greta Thunberg and so many others who had said nothing after Hamas started butchering Palestinians. No Jews, no news. I've been critical of Mehr Elekt Mandami for his rhetoric. And now I want to mention the anti Semitism on the far right, the horseshoe theory, in effect. Yes. Candace Owens, who refers to Jews in the state of Israel as demonic, trying to tie Israel somehow into the murder of Charlie Kirk. That's deranged Tucker Carlson of the great replacement theory in his hatred of Israel and the people he dislikes the most, in his own words, are the Christian Zionists. But now Tucker platformed the worst of the worst. Nick Fuentes, that's a Nazi sympathizer he put on for two hours on a show. An admirer of Hitler, well known white nationalist, Holocaust denier, outspoken anti Semite. Now, I don't believe in cancel culture. And you can platform whoever you want. And I am not critical of Tucker Carlson for putting Nick Fuentes on his show. I am critical, though, of fluffing him. I'm critical of throwing him softballs, giving him two hours to spread his hate. By contrast, if you look at the way that Tucker turned the screws on Senator Ted Cruz, who does support Israel and has called out the rise of anti Semitism in the Republican Party, you can see the difference. So this is all causing fits for the Republican Party. The head of the Heritage foundation spoke up when he didn't have to, but he did it to support Tucker Carlson and his right to say what he wants, which again, don't support cancel culture. I get it. But now they back down at Heritage because they realize we should never fluff a guy like Nick Fuentes. He's a vile, anti Semite Hitler lover. And for Jewish people, it's been whiplash as anti Semitism has become normalized on, on the far left and the far right. So kudos to Ted Cruz. He says that I believe we are facing an existential crisis in our party and our country. And he asked publicly, how many Republicans do you see standing up and calling this out? Some do. Clearly not enough. That's my rant for today.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, well, today I'd like to spend a moment talking about an issue that's come up, well, more than a few times in my career that, that most people are not aware of. And this actually kind of dovetails into our discussion just a few moments ago about the death penalty, because it's come up in that context as well. I want to talk about false confessions. False confessions are a very real and well documented phenomenon in psychology and criminal justice. They occur when individuals admit to crimes that they did not actually commit. This is oftentimes due to factors like police coercion, psychological pressure, misinformation, mental health issues, or perhaps even a desire for notoriety. And sometimes there's just no explanation at all. Research has shown that false confessions contribute to a significant portion of wrongful convictions. For instance, the Innocence Project reports that nearly 30% of cases are overturned that are overturned by DNA evidence are overturned on the basis involving a false confession. Studies have identified hundreds of such cases since the 1980s, highlighting how interrogation techniques can lead innocent people to confess in cases of exoneration. And by that I mean cases where somebody is convicted, but they are demonstrably proved, oftentimes through DNA, to be innocent. So in exonerations, over 20% of defendants provided incriminating statements or full confessions to crimes, even when they were later proven to have not committed those crimes. And I mean proven demonstrably. There are high profile examples such as the Central Park 5 and the West Memphis 4 and others that you can read about. And while some of these defendants are coerced, others are actually these confessions, although false, they're actually voluntary. And this distinguishes them from true confessions. And that can be the challenge. How is a jury or a judge or a prosecutor or the public supposed to be able to tell the difference between a real confession that is genuine and truthful and a false confession? And sometimes it can be very difficult to understand and to see the difference. So it's clear that the public needs to be educated on this topic. I think law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and even juries need to be especially cautious when evaluating this type of evidence in criminal cases. And that's it. That's our show for today. Thank you so much for being with you, being with us today. I'd like to thank my fellow contributors Dave Aronberg and Mark Garagos and thank you for joining us today at MK True Crime. Don't forget, send your questions, your story, suggestions, thoughts, comments, especially if you have a criticism for Dave Aronberg. You can email that to mktruecrimelmaycaremedia.com that's mk truecrimevilmaycaremedia.com have a great week. If you could hear love, what would it sound like?

[Mark Garagos]

Son, can we talk about your drinking?

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah, Dad, I think we should. Helping those closest to you think about their excessive drinking. Maybe that's what love sounds like. [e-mail] an OHA initiative.

[Mark Garagos]

Extra value meals are back. That means 10 tender juicy McNuggets and.

[Phil Holloway]

Medium fries and a drink are just $8 only at McDonald's for to time only.

[Mark Garagos]

Prices and participation may vary.

[Phil Holloway]

Prices may be higher in Hawaii, Alaska and California.

[Mark Garagos]

And for delivery.