MK True Crime – Episode Summary

Podcast: MK True Crime
Host: Phil Holloway (criminal lawyer, ex-cop, former prosecutor)
Guests: Mark Iglarsch (criminal defense lawyer, former prosecutor), Dave Ehrenberg (former Palm Beach County State Attorney)
Date: September 19, 2025
Episode Title: "Adelson and Murdaugh Seek New Trials, Tyler Robinson's Eerie Texts, Failed Trump Assassin on Trial"

Overview

This episode dives into some of the most gripping headlines from the true crime world, featuring legal and jury fallout from the Donna Adelson and Alec Murdoch cases, chilling developments in the Charlie Kirk assassination, and bizarre turns in the trial of the alleged would-be Trump assassin, Ryan Ruth. Legal experts Holloway, Iglarsch, and Ehrenberg dissect motions, appeals, conspiracies, and the strange intersection of media spectacle and criminal justice in America.

Major Topics & Discussion Points

1. Donna Adelson: Motion for New Trial After Murder-for-Hire Conviction

• Background: Donna Adelson, convicted for orchestrating her son-in-law Dan Markel's murder, seeks a new trial in Florida almost immediately after her verdict.
• Claims: Alleging judicial bias, juror misconduct, and unfair pressure regarding her right to testify.
• Legal Analysis:
  • Dave Ehrenberg: Points out these motions are typical, especially for defendants unaccustomed to facing consequences. The cited grounds (jurors speaking on social media after trial, judge’s supposed bias) are weak:

    "None of these grounds, and I've looked at them all, to me, move the needle at all." (04:06)

  • Mark Iglarsch: Questions the rush to file (before sentencing) and notes none of the supposed errors cross the threshold for a retrial:

    "Nothing really here, if proven, would rise to the level where the appellate court would say, yeah, that was error." (05:41)

Jury Social Media Activity

• Contentious Issue: Two jurors gave TikTok interviews describing deliberations and opinions about possible future prosecutions.
• Juror Quotes:
  • "Within the first hour, hour and a half, I want to say everyone was agreeing that she is guilty." – Juror 7 (07:14)
  • On other family members: "She [Wendy] insulated herself from her family...very well. But she was 100 involved." (11:00)
• Panel's Response:
  • Iglarsch finds public juror commentary distasteful ("it just smells"), fearing it edges into courtroom-as-entertainment culture (09:50).
  • Ehrenberg argues it's legal and offers transparency: "As a prosecutor, I would love to have access to that." (09:50)

Grounds for New Trial – Further Breakdown

• Emotional Reactions: Jurors commented that Adelson’s courtroom outbursts seemed staged; defense claims jurors' response was inappropriate, but panelists agree deliberations were already complete.

  "He was right. She was crying out without any real tears." - Ehrenberg (15:20)

• Witness Credibility: The defense points at discrepancies in jailhouse witness testimony as a ground for appeal, which Mark Iglarsch and Dave Ehrenberg dismiss as classic jury questions, not appellate issues:

  "These are arguments for the jury, and they failed." – Iglarsch (17:04)

• Pressure to Testify: Claims the judge rushed Adelson to decide whether to testify are likewise dismissed:

  "The judge gave it time. I don't think the appellate court is going to disturb on that issue." – Iglarsch (21:02) "If you have neither [facts nor law], you pound the table." – Ehrenberg (22:27)

2. Alec Murdoch: South Carolina Supreme Court Considers New Trial Amid Jury Tampering Allegations

• Core Issue: Allegations the trial clerk (Becky Hill) improperly influenced the jury, including entering the jury room and urging them not to be swayed by the defense.

  "I'm a defender of due process... If the clerk unduly influenced the jury by making comments like they allege she did...the appellate court should give great consideration." – Iglarsch (24:33)

• Legal Standpoint: High bar to show such interference altered the outcome. Jurors questioned post-trial reportedly did not change verdict because of her.

  "The question is, were her actions enough to change the jurors minds?... the evidence was overwhelming." – Ehrenberg (26:46)

• Cultural Fallout: Media and public attention remain high, with new Hulu series in production.

3. Charlie Kirk Murder: Tyler Robinson’s Arrest, Eerie Texts, and Possible Co-Conspirators

• Update: Tyler Robinson charged with capital murder, faces death penalty. Texts to roommate/lover Lance Twiggs revealed.
• Surrender: Robinson wanted a "gentle, comfortable, inviting" police surrender to avoid SWAT or violence.

  "A gentle surrender. What next? Pink fuzzy handcuffs?... They took a risk here and it paid off." – Iglarsch (34:26)

• Panel Analysis:
  • Ehrenberg condemns Robinson’s lack of remorse and generational callousness.
  • On conspiracy, text evidence doesn't clearly implicate the roommate, who appears to have learned about the crime after the fact.

    "There is no duty to report. Someone could know something, but not aid and abet before, during, or after, and it not be a crime." – Iglarsch (38:11)

Accessory Liability and Investigation

• Police are scrutinizing all digital communications for evidence of premeditated, shared planning.

False Confessor & Child Porn Discovery

• A separate man falsely confessed and was later found with child sexual materials upon arrest. The panel roundly condemns his actions and notes how accident led to an unrelated but important arrest.

4. Ryan Ruth: The Failed Trump Assassin's Bizarre Trial

• Self-Representation: Ruth, accused of attempting to assassinate Donald Trump during his campaign, is representing himself in federal court, making farcical requests (strippers at trial, a golf duel with Trump).

  "This is a slow guilty. We know it is." – Iglarsch (45:16)

• Emotional Fallout:
  • Clip features Ruth’s daughter, who continues to view her father as kind and misunderstood:

    "I just want the world to know who my dad is for who he is and not for what the media has painted him out to be." (46:25)

  • Panel's take is mixed: Ehrenberg is unsympathetic, Iglarsch acknowledges both possibilities—a loving father and a dangerous criminal.

5. Listener Q&A: Can a Recovering Addict With Felonies Become a Lawyer?

• Question from "Chance Law": Recovery, academic success, but low-level felony record; wants to attend law school.

  "Congratulations for your sobriety. It takes a lot to overcome addiction and turn your life around." – Iglarsch (53:17) "[Getting into law school] is possible. The bar is harder with crimes involving moral turpitude, but honesty and time help. Still—do it." – Iglarsch & Holloway

6. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• Table-Pounding Legal Maxim:

  "If you've got the facts on your side, pound the facts. If you got the law on your side, pound the law. And if you have neither, you pound the table." – Dave Ehrenberg (22:27)

• Concern Over Stealth Jurors:

  "I worry about stealth jurors, people who secretly hold these twisted views and may try to get on juries just to acquit murderers in spite of overwhelming evidence of guilt." – Mark Iglarsch (56:41)

• On Social Media’s Impact on Trials:

  "Maybe I'm old school...but I don't like these TikTokers thinking that justice is something to, you know, have fun with." – Mark Iglarsch (07:48)

Timestamps for Key Segments

• Donna Adelson Verdict Read: 03:19–03:37
• Juror #7 Talks Deliberations: 07:08–07:46
• Debate on Jurors & Social Media: 09:02–12:49
• Juror #5 on Donna's Reaction: 14:09–14:55
• Breakdown on Appellate Arguments: 16:12–22:50
• Alec Murdoch Jury Tampering Allegations: 24:33–28:08
• Charlie Kirk Case, Robinson’s Surrender: 32:49–34:26
• Panel on Robinson's Generation & Remorse: 35:12–36:11
• Discussion of Conspiracy Possibility: 38:11–39:59
• Ryan Ruth Trial, Daughter's Interview: 46:25–47:35
• Listener Q&A About Law School: 53:17–54:57
• Closing Arguments by Panelists: 54:57–61:52

Tone & Language

• Legal expert, sometimes wry, always direct.
• Panelists express both professional detachment and moments of personal outrage or empathy.
• Frequent candid asides, banter, and generational jibes.

Final Thought

This episode distills high-profile cases’ legal and emotional wake—peeling back not only the mechanics of appellate review and evidentiary disputes, but also the new reality of justice in an era dominated by social media, conspiracy theories, and public spectacle. The expert panel’s combination of hard truth, legal wisdom, and occasional dark humor makes this episode essential listening for anyone tracking the intersection of law, media, and the cultural churn of 2025’s most incendiary crimes.