Donna Adelson Defense’s Rocky Start, Plus Sheriff Shoots Judge Murder Case, and Burning Man Homicide

Summary

MK True Crime Podcast Summary

Episode: Donna Adelson Defense’s Rocky Start, Plus Sheriff Shoots Judge Murder Case, and Burning Man Homicide
Host: Mark Eiglar
Panelists: Ashley Merchant (criminal defense attorney), Phil Holloway (criminal defense attorney, former law enforcement)
Date: September 3, 2025

---

Overview

This episode of MK True Crime dives into three trending criminal cases:

1. The ongoing Donna Adelson trial, focusing on her defense’s unstable opening and pivotal testimony details.
2. The jaw-dropping Kentucky case where a sheriff shot a judge, with layers of small-town scandal.
3. A homicide investigation at Burning Man and a look at fatal risks in festival environments.

The panel offers seasoned courtroom, legal, and investigative insights, along with lively, sometimes irreverent banter.

---

1. The Donna Adelson Trial

Current Status & Key Questions ([02:24] - [28:00])

• State Rested, Defense on Deck: Prosecutors have completed presenting their case; defense is calling witnesses. The case’s centerpiece is the accused Donna Adelson, portrayed at trial as a loving grandmother rather than a criminal mastermind.

Key Issues:

• Did the State present enough direct evidence, or is the case built mainly on circumstantial elements and interpretations of Donna’s actions?
• How much does Donna’s attempted flight to Vietnam show consciousness of guilt?

---

The Vietnam Flight: Guilt or Misunderstanding?

• State’s View: Fleeing suggests she’s guilty ([05:15], Mark: “Fleeing shows consciousness of guilt, right, Ashley?”).

• Defense’s Lens: Multiple witnesses claim innocent reasons—family events like her grandson’s bar mitzvah or needing a break—plus her alleged tendency for bargain travel ([05:31], [08:24], [10:12]).

  • Ashley: “I wish the defense had presented a little more evidence as to why Vietnam... Something, you know, give me something.” (08:24)

• Phil: “She didn’t just want a tourist visa; she wanted like, an emergency visa... I’m beginning to wonder if they should maybe relabel that... a fugitive visa.” ([08:58])

• Theme Problem: Defense lacks a clear, consistent story “just throwing things up there and seeing what sticks.” (Ashley, [10:12])

---

Lead Investigator Cross-Examination ([11:19] - [13:35])

• Strategy: Defense attacks the main investigator’s certainty and the lack of direct evidence (emails, texts, DNA, fingerprints, confession).
  • Ashley to Investigator: “Isn’t it true you don’t have any physical evidence linking Donna Adelson to this crime?... No confession? No DNA?” ([12:25])
• Phil’s Critique: The defense didn’t land a knockout—"I wasn’t very impressed with that” ([14:51])

---

The Snitch (Jailhouse Informant) Bombshell ([15:20] - [25:55])

• Jailmate Testimony: Patricia Byrd claims Donna confessed—“She said she did it... to keep her grandkids, but it wasn’t supposed to go that far.” ([19:08])

  • Phil: “To me, that testimony rings true, despite the fact that this is a jailhouse snitch.” ([21:49])
  • Ashley: “This is a lady who would probably sell her own mother out for a ham sandwich or a honey bun at jail. Come on.” ([22:04])

• Scripted Perjury Allegation: The informant claims Donna tried to get her to lie, giving her a “script.” Handwriting analysis said script written by Donna.

  • Ashley: “Handwriting analysis is junk science. My fifteen-year-old could forge my name...” ([25:31])

• Corroboration Twist: Jail video backs the witness’s claim—“showed them sitting together... working out something that looked a lot like the document” ([24:30], Phil).

---

Text Message Evidence ([26:22] - [28:00])

• Messages between Donna and her daughter Wendy after her son Charlie was convicted.

  • Donna: “Your brother protected you for years. Now you are not guilty... You can bury me in the dress that I bought for Lincoln’s bar mitzvah.” ([26:39])

• Interpretation:

  • Phil: “Vague and ambiguous enough that they can cut both ways.” ([27:03])
  • Ashley: "These texts show a mother... saying, ‘I’m done fighting. Bury me in that dress.’ That doesn’t mean guilt.” ([27:44])

---

Defense & Prosecution Critique

• Underlying consensus: Defense isn’t capitalizing on weaknesses—scattered cross, weak theme, little fire ([55:03], Phil in closing argument).
• Should Donna testify?
  • Ashley: Yes: “A client should always take the stand in their defense if they can. She is going down unless a client tells me flat-out they did it” ([53:53]).
  • Phil: No: “She’s going to get eviscerated on cross... These prosecutors know this case up, down, left, right, through and through.” ([54:11])

---

2. Kentucky: Sheriff Shoots Judge Case

The Shocking Facts ([30:08] - [44:54])

• Incident: Sheriff (Sean Mickey Starnes) shot Judge Kevin Mullins in his chambers, caught on camera, then surrendered. Both had a friendship, with the sheriff formerly serving as the judge's bailiff ([31:32]).
• Motive Murkiness: Possible small-town sex ring, judge involvement with sheriff’s daughter, and more.
  • Phil: “There’s going to be more to this that will make it all make sense... perhaps the judge was involved with the sheriff’s daughter...” ([31:35])
  • Ashley: “There are sex parties, there are swingers. This whole community apparently was swinging. This judge was involved with litigants in this courtroom.” ([33:02])

---

Legal Strategies & Bond

• Defense move: Fight for bond release so the client can properly assist with his defense ([33:02]).

• Prosecution argument: Flight risk due to community ties, possibility of witness intimidation ([34:39], Phil).

• Panel consensus: Despite the gravity, bond could be appropriate ([35:44]).

• Defenses: Only realistic option is mental state (temporary insanity, irresistible impulse, or manslaughter due to passion) ([37:19], Phil).

---

Victim “Trashing” & Small Town Bias ([39:09] - [44:54])

• Sex Party Allegations: Multiple witnesses claim judge ran or participated in sex parties, had sex with litigants and jail inmates, and “the whole town” was aware ([40:31]).

  • “It was just, like, so normal” ([40:31], witness).

• Venue Change Debate:

  • Ashley: Keep it local: “No, no, no. You don’t want a different venue... This jury pool is going to know all this stuff.” ([40:58])
  • Phil: “There’s a great reason why you don’t want to try elected officials in the county where they are elected. It’s too small of a jury pool…” ([43:29])

---

Phil’s Quote on Public Perception:

• “The question legally, guys, is, is this a murder, or was this some type of manslaughter? ...He could qualify for temporary insanity...” ([31:35])

---

3. Burning Man Homicide & Other Festival Dangers ([47:10] - [49:26])

• Incident: Man found dead, pool of blood, homicide suspected; comes after prior festival deaths (electrocution, drug intoxication).

  • Ashley: “There’s probably stampedes... people on substances... witnesses aren’t going to be reliable.” ([48:34])
  • Phil: “This Burning Man goes back... It’s really taken on a life of its own. But apparently you’re taking your life into your own hands if you just set foot in the place.” ([47:36])

• Legal Challenges: Investigating a crime in a transient, chaotic, post-festival desert is extremely difficult.

---

4. Odd Legal Case: The Kevlar Rifle Duel ([49:26] - [52:23])

• Facts: Two Texas men decided to “take turns” shooting each other with rifles while wearing Kevlar helmets. One died, the shooter faces murder charges. Alcohol involved.

  • Phil: “This is like the stupidest thing I’ve seen in a long time when it comes to firearms... I cannot overstate just how ridiculously stupid and tragic and preventable this was.” ([50:07])

  • Ashley’s Defense Angle: “Mutual combat... If the victim was a willing participant... It’s like, if two people want to take it outside and have a fight, is it a crime?” ([51:30])

---

5. Listener Mailbag ([52:23] - [54:09])

• Reads a passionate Donna Adelson case email from listener Kelly.
• Ashley: “A client should always take the stand in their defense if they can.”
• Phil: “She’s going to get eviscerated. These prosecutors... are a lot smarter than she is.”

---

6. Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• "I wish the defense had, as the defense, presented a little more evidence as to why Vietnam. Because, you know, that's kind of... Why Vietnam?... Give me something." —Ashley ([08:24])
• "She said she did it, and she did it to keep her grandkids, but it wasn't supposed to go that far.” —Jailhouse informant testimony ([19:08])
• “This is a lady who would probably sell her own mother out for a ham sandwich or a honey bun at jail.” —Ashley ([22:04])
• “Handwriting analysis is junk science... My fifteen-year-old can forge my name.” —Ashley ([25:31])
• “I cannot overstate just how ridiculously stupid and tragic and preventable this was... use a little bit more common sense, mix less alcohol with guns...” —Phil ([50:07])

---

7. Closing Arguments ([55:03] - [58:47])

• Ashley: Rants about the unfairness that only incriminating statements are usually admissible; calls this “ridiculous” ([55:03]).
• Phil: Thanks show’s behind-the-scenes team, and criticizes both prosecution and defense in the Adelson trial for lacking “fire in the belly” and a cohesive theme ([56:27]).
• Mark: Thanks courageous judges/prosecutors who still take risks in sentencing and acknowledges the mounting pressure/chilling effect on the US justice system ([58:47]).

---

8. Timestamps for Major Segments

| Topic | Start | Highlights | |-------------------------------------------------------------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------------| | Introduction & Episode Overview | 00:35 | Mark introduces major stories, panelists | | Adelson Trial: Evidence & Defense Analysis | 02:24 | Decision points on “consciousness of guilt” | | Lead Investigator Cross & Snitch Testimony | 11:19 | Cross-exam strategies, jailhouse informant | | Handwriting “Script” and Surveillance | 22:32 | Script evidence and video | | Adelson: Text Messages | 26:22 | What texts do/don’t prove | | Panel on Donna Testifying | 53:33 | Should she take the stand? | | Sheriff Shoots Judge: Facts & Legal Analysis | 30:08 | Bond, possible motives, legal defenses | | Sex Parties & Venue Change Discussion | 39:09/40:58| Witnesses on judge’s misconduct, venue strategies | | Burning Man Homicide & Festival Risks | 47:10 | Difficult investigations, death waivers | | Kevlar Rifle Duel: Legal Absurdity | 49:26 | The “mutual combat” defense | | Listener Mailbag | 52:23 | Fan reacts to Adelson coverage | | Closing Arguments/Rants | 55:03 | Panelists’ closing thoughts |

---

9. Tone

Lively, direct, and occasionally irreverent; the panel mixes legal gravitas with sharp wit and sarcastic humor to enhance complex true crime topics for both legal insiders and casual listeners.

---

For full trial coverage, live analysis, or to watch upcoming closing arguments, visit the MK True Crime YouTube channel.

Transcript

[Ashley Merchant]

It's Wednesday.

[Mark Eiglar]

Adams, I see you're trying to distract.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yourself from your own banal thoughts. Let me help.

[Mark Eiglar]

Here's a recording thing made of my latest root Canal.

[Ashley Merchant]

Wednesday Season 2 is now playing only on Netflix.

[Mark Eiglar]

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm your host for today, Mark Eiglar. I've been a trial lawyer for over 30 years, a former prosecutor, adjunct law professor, and most importantly, an avid pickleball player. Here is what we're going to be discussing today.

[Ashley Merchant]

Did she say she wants him killed?

[Mark Eiglar]

No.

[Ashley Merchant]

Did she say she was planning to have him killed?

[Phil Holloway]

No.

[Mark Eiglar]

She said she did do it and she did it to keep her grandkids.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yes, I've had sex with him in the chambers. I've had sex with him upstairs. A homicide investigation is underway at Burning Man.

[Mark Eiglar]

After a man is found dead and.

[Ashley Merchant]

Deputies say he was in a pool of blood. Football season is back. On Prize Picks. We make decisions every day. But on Prize picks. Being right when you make a decision can get you paid cash. So kick off the season right by getting 50 bucks instantly in lineups when you play your first $5. With millions of users and billions of dollars awarded in winnings, Prize picks is the place to put your takes to the test. Just pick two or more players across any sport. Pick more or less on their projections and if you are right, you could win big. Prizepix is available in 40 plus states including California, Texas, Florida and Georgia. Prizepix does not play around when it comes to your money. All transactions on the app are fast, safe and secure. Download the prizepix app today, use code Megan and get 50 bucks instantly in lineups when you play those 5 bucks. That's code Megan on prize picks to get 50 instantly in lineups when you play $5. Win or lose, you're going to get 50 bucks in lineups just for playing. Guaranteed Prize picks. It's good to be right. Must be present in certain states visits. Visit prizepicks.com for restrictions and details.

[Mark Eiglar]

So we're going to be diving into the Adelon case. We're in week two of the trial. Prosecutors made their case last week, or attempted to, and the defense now is calling their witnesses. Plus, we're going to be going to Kentucky where the sheriff shot the judge. It's not a weird Eric Clapton song. The sheriff shot the judge and he's been in custody since September. No bond for murder. We're gonna talk about that crazy case. And also Burning Man. It's a festival that I've wanted to go to for years. In Nevada. And apparently people are dying. We'll talk about that. And we're gonna talk about it with a dream team. I mean, some people talk about these topics in their mom's basement and they know nothing. We have an all star lineup. I am privileged to be with two of the top lawyers in the country who don't just talk the talk. They're in court every day zealously fighting for their clients. We've got Phil Holloway, he's a criminal defense attorney and former law enforcement officer. And also Ashley Merchant, former, who is a top notch criminal defense attorney. I almost want to get in trouble just so she can defend me. They're both MK true crime contributors and I welcome you guys to the show. I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts.

[Ashley Merchant]

Good to see you. We'd be happy to defend you. Come to. They say come to Atlanta. What is it? Come on vacation, leave on probation in Atlanta.

[Mark Eiglar]

Let's. If you can get me probation for the stuff I'm going to do. That's very generous. Great.

[Phil Holloway]

Tall order. Tall order.

[Mark Eiglar]

All right, you guys ready to talk Adelson?

[Phil Holloway]

I've been ready to talk, Adel. So this is one crazy case you got going on down there in Florida, Mark. Yeah.

[Mark Eiglar]

All right, well, listen, they. They say don't judge us for the 23 million. We got 23 million people. Don't judge us for the 21 million who do crazy stuff. Okay. All right, so let's talk about Adelson. All right. The state rested their case last week. I want to jump right in. Just ask you, you know, Phil, right off the bat, did they make their case?

[Phil Holloway]

I don't know. I mean, I like to think maybe they're just. Maybe they're over that goal line. I mean, look, it's. I was looking for one big piece of evidence that we didn't get, which was the now infamous or notorious video of the alleged mother in law mastermind Donna Adelson getting on that flight to Vietnam at the jet bridge in Miami at the airport. And, you know, she's got this one way ticket to Vietnam and they've got her in court looking like some, you know, you know, elderly granny who, who wouldn't hurt a flea. But you contrast that with this video that, that we've just, just shown here for those on the viewing audience. And it's just night and day. And so I was waiting for that. But they rested while describing that arrest but not showing it. And I found that very perplexing.

[Mark Eiglar]

Right, because fleeing shows consciousness of guilt. Right, Ashley? But oh, yeah, but the defense. Hold on. The defense called their first witness and. And then a few after that who seem to suggest that she was gonna come back. What's the argument from the defense side?

[Ashley Merchant]

They had a lot of witnesses that said that. They had a number of witnesses that all said, oh, well, there were reasons that she was going to Vietnam, there were reasons that she couldn't get a return visa. And, you know, that's what they've really spent the majority of their defense case on, which is unfortunate. You know, it's one of those things that isn't really. It's not DNA, it's not fingerprints, it's not something that is 100% evidence of guilt, but it's something that the state spent a lot of times on time on, and it's consciousness of guilt, like you said. So they're bring all these people, but I think they're also bringing all of these people to try and humanize Donna. I think, you know, bringing these friends to try and humanize her, not just explain why she was going to Vietnam.

[Mark Eiglar]

That's a good point. I mean, anyone she ever said God bless you to seems to be taking the stand. But the first witness out of the gate was her longtime best friend since 2009. Harvey fixed the tooth of this person's love interest. And then apparently they were, you know, friends since then. But what was significant about her testimony I found was that Donna didn't cry, like just a little bit. She was very emotional when she heard the news that her son in law, who she's accused of playing a role in his tragic demise, somehow she wasn't laughing. She wasn't saying, ha, ha. I mean, this is powerful testimony, isn't it, Phil? Don't you think I'd help the defense? She was. She was crying hysterically, you know.

[Phil Holloway]

No, no, I don't. Honestly, I don't think that really moved the needle much. I mean, you can always find people who are going to come and sort of sing the praises. You know, these are people that are friends and family, people that automatically have a bias sort of in favor of the defendant. Right? And let's face it, if she goes to this great length to orchestrate this. This conspiracy and to be pulling the strings in this conspiracy as the state has alleged, then if you can buy that, you can also buy that she could be play acting when she's talking to her friends. Look, the argument has been made in this case that, you know, she was sort of setting up the alibis, that she was sort of getting things in place so she could have this defense at trial. So, look, if you're the defense, sometimes less is more. So I might have held off on making so much of a big deal, or at least using this as the very first witness, because they haven't had a theme, guys. We don't know really what the defense is. You got a little bit of this over here, a little good character stuff over there. We really just don't know what their theme is. And I frankly found that witness's testimony not very compelling.

[Mark Eiglar]

Ashley, I want to stay a little bit longer on this, you know, Vietnam trip, because when we heard about it, for me anyway, it was like, oh, come on, you don't flee when you're innocent. Right. And that's what most jurors would think. But the bar mitzvah. They talked about the bar mitzvah, right? Any Jewish grandmother, she wants to go to the bar mitzvah. And they had witnesses testifying she would never have stayed in Vietnam. She wants to go to her grandson's bar mitzvah. Do you think that that resonated with the jury?

[Ashley Merchant]

Depends on the makeup of the jury, but I definitely think if they've got some grandmas on that, that it does, and. Or if they even have mothers. You know, there are certain things that I say in my life I'm never missing, you know, and you're not going to stop me from missing that. And maybe she was going to Vietnam because she was trying to get away from just, you know, all of the things that were happening right then in their lives and just needed a break. I wish they had, as the defense presented a little more evidence as to why Vietnam? Because, you know, that's kind of ra. Why Vietnam? Did she have some, you know, did she study Asian culture in college? I mean, something. You know, give me something.

[Mark Eiglar]

She studied the extradition treaties. Okay, right, Phil, jump in there.

[Phil Holloway]

No, she. She studied. She researched these things, and she. She considered, if you listen to the wiretap, she considered, I think, China and Korea and other alternatives, and. And I guess made her decision about Vietnam. But here's the thing. Speaking of the visa, she didn't just want a tourist visa. She wanted, like, an emergency visa. She's like, you know, I've got to have it now. We. We may have that, but she wanted to say, look, you know, I need this, and I need it now. And I'm beginning to wonder if they should maybe relabel that. Maybe a fugitive visa instead of a terror, instead of a tourist visa, because she wanted it right now and she just couldn't wait. And to me, that all underscores consciousness of guilt. She wanted to get the hell out of Dodge, and I don't think she was coming back.

[Mark Eiglar]

And I'll give Ashley the final word on this subject matter, which I think is so important because risk of flight there at the airport, horrible facts. But a witness did testify from the defense perspective, that she was waiting for the price to go down. Okay, I can say it, cuz they're my people, I assure you. Yes, we like a bargain. Okay, so maybe she was waiting a little bit for that price to dip. She didn't want to buy the price, the ticket back from Vietnam till she can get a better deal. Are you buying that? Did the jurors buy it?

[Ashley Merchant]

It depends on how the defense spins it. You know, this is one of those things that if they can really bring it home, but they needed to bring that home early on, they needed to set the stage in opening. And we didn't hear any about this, anything about this. And so if we had a coherent theme, and you had this theme, you know, woven throughout and you kept hearing, oh, well, Vietnam was a bucket list trip. Oh, she was cheap. Oh, you know, she. She didn't want to spend extra money on Vietnam. She was always trying to find travel bargains. If you had gotten this theme consistently throughout, I think it would have resonated more. I think it just seems choppy now, just throwing things up there and seeing what sticks.

[Mark Eiglar]

Okay, so that fleeing argument isn't solid. I think the consensus is I agree. Now, we all understand that typically in a criminal case, we go after the lead investigator. Usually that's what we do. And that's what the defense did. Because that lead investigator made the conclusion that Donna is guilty at least. Probably. Cuz there's probable cause. But he wouldn't be here unless he thought there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The defense went after that lead witness and I want to play a clip. It's clip number one. You start off. And I've done this before. Have you ever made a mistake? Let's take a look.

[Ashley Merchant]

You stayed active, actively involved in the investigation, right?

[Mark Eiglar]

Yes, ma'. Am.

[Ashley Merchant]

And, and in fact, you were even there when she was arrested, correct?

[Phil Holloway]

I was there on every single arrest, yes, ma'.

[Mark Eiglar]

Am.

[Ashley Merchant]

You're invested in the case because you were the lead investigator.

[Mark Eiglar]

Yes, ma'. Am.

[Ashley Merchant]

Have you ever made a mistake in your work?

[Mark Eiglar]

Sure.

[Ashley Merchant]

Have you ever initially assumed that one person might be a suspect or a person of interest and later it turned out that they were not the one that committed the crime.

[Phil Holloway]

Not a suspect?

[Mark Eiglar]

No, ma'. Am, no. Not a person of interest, maybe.

[Phil Holloway]

A person of interest, yes.

[Mark Eiglar]

Not a suspect.

[Ashley Merchant]

You've been right from the time you thought that they were a person of interest through them being arrested.

[Mark Eiglar]

Not made a mistake as a suspect. The suspect I deem as somebody we have probable cause on. Ashley, I teach my law students one question too many. Right, Phil? Ashley, you got the first one. Yeah, I've made mistakes. Leave it at that. Then she asked, you ever make a mistake as to what do you make of that, Ash? I think that was powerful.

[Ashley Merchant]

I think it was powerful, and I think she could have gone a lot further with a different area, you know, but this is the problem. We don't really have a theme. Why not ask? You know, isn't it true you don't have any physical evidence linking Donna Adelson to this crime? Isn't it true you don't have any forensic evidence? Isn't it true you don't have any eyewitness testimony? Isn't it true you don't have a confession? Isn't it true you don't have fingerprints? You don't have DNA? You don't have any of that stuff. Why not hammer him with that?

[Mark Eiglar]

Well, she did. Correct. She did, however, press him on whether there was any direct evidence at all. Let's play clip number two, and then I'll get Phil's take on it.

[Ashley Merchant]

You have emails, voice messages, text messages, and later recorded calls. Direct evidence on any of those things. Did Donna Adelson ever say that she wanted Danny Markell to be killed?

[Phil Holloway]

Those exact words.

[Ashley Merchant]

Those words. Did she say she wants him killed?

[Mark Eiglar]

No.

[Ashley Merchant]

Did she say she was planning to have him killed?

[Mark Eiglar]

No.

[Ashley Merchant]

Did she say she was hiring to.

[Mark Eiglar]

Have ones to have him killed? No.

[Ashley Merchant]

Someone to go and kill him?

[Mark Eiglar]

No.

[Ashley Merchant]

Did you say that she intended that he'd be killed?

[Mark Eiglar]

No, she did not say that.

[Ashley Merchant]

I don't have any further questions.

[Mark Eiglar]

Phil, that's effective, isn't it?

[Phil Holloway]

No, it's because so what I.

[Mark Eiglar]

Do you mean? I knew you'd say that. Defending the cop. The former cop defends the cops.

[Phil Holloway]

Oh, no, it's not that at all. The prosecutor never said that she used those words.

[Mark Eiglar]

Right.

[Phil Holloway]

She's not. She's not being accused of using those words. In fact, the prosecutor's whole theme was that she's using code words. She's talking and texting and all this in code with Charlie and everybody else. So I don't think that anybody was expecting. Expecting any different answer. And look, how many lead. How many non leading questions did she get away with without him coming back with some kind of a zinger? In the sot you played before that, she asked all these open ended questions and maybe one question too many, like you point out, Mark, because he was able. The investigator was able to get in some unsolicited remarks that were not what she was expecting to come out. So I think she could have done a much better job focusing on different subject matter and. And also asking leading questions to sort of steer the witness right down the primrose. Primrose past path to whatever conclusion you're trying to lead them to in front of the jury. So I wasn't very impressed with that. But that's just my take. I'm sure Ashley probably sees it differently.

[Mark Eiglar]

I got you. Well, Asher, I want to move to snitches because I want to make sure. I love talking about snitches. Oh, boy. In this case, how convenient, right? The perfect witness she just happened to open up to. I have my feelings generally about snitches and specifically this case, but what was very unusual, and I don't know that I've ever seen this. A judge questions the defendant about the defense strategy. Let's play the clip number three, and I want to get your take on it. Let's do that.

[Phil Holloway]

Ms. Adelson, if you please can rise.

[Mark Eiglar]

So I can swear you in.

[Phil Holloway]

Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth? You can lower your hand. Ms. Adelson. Concerning these listed state witnesses for this afternoon, Patricia Byrd and Drina Bernhardt, you have discussed with your counsel the cross examination strategy for these two witnesses. I need you to speak up so you can be clearly heard.

[Mark Eiglar]

Yes.

[Phil Holloway]

You also understand how the cross examination strategy will fit into your theory of defense. You understand how this cross examination strategy will fit into your theory of defense for the case?

[Ashley Merchant]

Yes.

[Phil Holloway]

And you have consented to this particular strategy?

[Mark Eiglar]

Yes. What is that about? Ashley? I've had judges ask my clients about whether they want to testify or not. Or you. It's your right to call witnesses. Your defense lawyer chose not to put on a case. You okay with that? What is this about?

[Ashley Merchant]

Well, I'd be jumping up and down, Mark. You wouldn't be asking my client questions like that. That would not be something I would be okay with. That's something that the state seems to want because they want to try and preserve a record for appeal. Because one of the number one reasons that people try to appeal when they're convicted is ineffective assistance of counsel. And anytime you do that, you're going to be attacking the strategy. Was it a reasonable strategy? Was your client aware of the strategy? How did that strategy play into the overall strategy? So those are the things that he's trying to ask her to preserve the record. That's not helping Donna Adleton. So you. Why are the defense attorneys sort of, you know, participating in this other than to please the judge? This is something that the defense would not want, but the state would want to try and preserve their record.

[Mark Eiglar]

Wouldn't you want a little bit of that, Phil, just to cover your, you know what if this goes down the wrong way? Wouldn't you want the judge covering you?

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah. So I got this unscientific wild ass guest that might explain what's going on. I don't have any personal knowledge of this, but go for it. That could explain it would be. Look, I think there was a sidebar right before that. If the defense went to the judge and let's say it was ex parte, meaning one sided, because you're allowed to do that in certain circumstances when you're discussing trial strategy, that may be one of them. You go to the judge and you say, look, judge, we got this strategy that we still don't know what the strategy was, but it's one that may be unusual. And we want you, judge, you, honor, to make a record so that we don't get nailed for ineffective assistance of counsel on appeal in the event of a. In the event of a conviction. So we want you, your honor, to have our client tell you in court, on the record, outside the jury's presence, that she is okay with whatever this incoherent strategy is that we have is. And in that way, you've. You've shown that your client acquiesces in it, and it closes that door and it's some CYA for the defense. And again, this is, this is just a wild theory of mine.

[Mark Eiglar]

I don't like it.

[Phil Holloway]

That's the case. But I think it fits the facts because as Ashley said, the defense normally wouldn't want the judge talking to their client like that.

[Mark Eiglar]

Right. I don't love judges talking to my clients unless they have to. All right. Patricia Byrd. That's the snitch's name. Excuse me, Jailhouse informant. It's like calling a beggar a roadside entrepreneur. Let's clean her up. Anyway, she. I shouldn't be skeptical. Maybe Donna, in the six to seven months that she was sharing A cell with this woman somehow confessed and became the star witness. Like the DNA of the state's case. Let's play SOT number four. Apparently, you know, this. This. This snitch says that Donna spilled the beans to her. Once you and Donna Adelson became close friends, did she ever talk to you about her pending case?

[Ashley Merchant]

This case?

[Mark Eiglar]

She did. When y' all would have those conversations, did you ever outright ask her whether she did what she's accused of? I did. And what did she say to that? She said she did it was to keep her grandkids, but it wasn't supposed to go that far. Okay, so she said she did do it, and she did it to keep her grandkids.

[Phil Holloway]

Yes.

[Mark Eiglar]

But she didn't expect it to go this far?

[Phil Holloway]

Yes.

[Mark Eiglar]

Did Donna Adelson ever ask if you were ever in custody with a woman named Catherine McBanwa? Yes, she did. And were you ever in Custody with Katherine McBanwa? Yes.

[Ashley Merchant]

Once Donna Adelson knew that, what did.

[Mark Eiglar]

Donna Adelson want you to do? She wanted me to say that Mitt Balmain told me when we killed him, I knew my boyfriend. Parents had money. Okay, so basically, she and some other people did this crime, and they did it because her boyfriend's parents had money. Yes. Wow. Wow, guys. I mean, either incredible because it's a wonderful witness for the state or not credible. A load of manure, Phil.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah. So obviously she comes with her own baggage. The defense is going to point out, hopefully, that, you know, she's. She's got some skin in the game. She's doing this for some hope of benefit. If she's a convicted felon, you know, you can introduce all that, and the judge can say, look, you're entitled to completely disbelieve a felon. All of those things are true. And we sort of, those of us who've tried these cases, we know that this is what you sort of standardly would do when you're confronting this kind of witness. But here's the thing that the prosecutor can say, look, we don't get all of our witnesses, you know, from the. From the local convent or the church down the street. We don't have nuns and priests and rabbis who are upstanding pillars of the community. They're not the ones who are in jail with these defendants. And that's just the way it is. And so you have to take their testimony as a whole. And when you look at it as a whole, does she look credible? Does she sound credible? Is she saying things that are just really Wild and not otherwise worthy of belief. But when she said she didn't think it would get this far or words to that effect, to me, that actually is what I kind of think happened. I think Donna was involved in it. She was in it up to her eyeballs. I think she was part of the planning. And maybe the conspiracy just took on a life of its own and it went further than she had originally wanted it to go. And to me, that testimony rings true, despite the fact that this is a jailhouse snitch.

[Mark Eiglar]

So Phil is buying it, actually. I mean, look to her point. She's saying I was her jailhouse daughter. She was my jailhouse mother. Oh. And I'm not doing it for any benefit to me. I'm doing it because I want justice for the Markell family.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah, right. This is a lady who would probably sell her own mother out for a ham sandwich or a honey bun at jail. I mean, come on. And you know, if you were. If you're the defense, you need to expose this. The state's evidence is so weak that they have to bring you the liars, convicted felons, to try to establish their case. That's how bad their evidence is. I would throw it right back in their face. That is how weak it is. They have to bring you liars to try to prove the truth.

[Mark Eiglar]

But Ashley and Phil, there was a script, apparently. What is this script about? Let's look at clip number six and we'll talk about the script.

[Ashley Merchant]

Just know that it was brought to her attention.

[Mark Eiglar]

Brought to her attention that you knew Mag Banawa. Yeah. Okay. And at some point, did the defendant.

[Phil Holloway]

Try to recruit you to become a.

[Mark Eiglar]

Witness for her in this case?

[Ashley Merchant]

Yes.

[Mark Eiglar]

Correct.

[Ashley Merchant]

At some point, did she prepare a script for you of exactly what she.

[Mark Eiglar]

Wanted you to testify?

[Phil Holloway]

She did.

[Ashley Merchant]

I'm gonna.

[Phil Holloway]

This says that.

[Ashley Merchant]

That Kay told you that she told.

[Mark Eiglar]

Charlie on the night of the murder.

[Ashley Merchant]

That some friends of hers were.

[Mark Eiglar]

Went to Tallahassee and killed him.

[Ashley Merchant]

Did K ever tell you that?

[Mark Eiglar]

No, ma'. Am. I would think that that's insane. Except for clip number seven, where apparently. Well, watch it and let's talk about it.

[Ashley Merchant]

What conclusion did you reach in reference.

[Phil Holloway]

To the question, did Donna Adelon write.

[Ashley Merchant]

The script contained in States Exhibit 62? I identified the known writing purportedly written by Donna Adelson as to be the writer of the question handwriting. And is that the highest level of.

[Mark Eiglar]

Conclusion that you reach in your reporting?

[Ashley Merchant]

Identification is the highest level? Yes, ma'.

[Mark Eiglar]

Am. So we just saw Drina Bernhardt before her. That Was the second snitch. Not to be confused with the first snitch, but the second snitch is saying, listen, she came to me. She wanted me to lie for her. And you would think that that is absolute horse crap, except for the fact that someone came in there and said that the handwriting was Donna's. Come on, Phil. Yeah, no, hold on, hold on. Before you give me law enforcement, I want you to put on your defense attorney hat. For once, please tell me that there's value to the defense.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, you know, let's talk about the defense, because late in the day, towards the close of the proceedings on. On Tuesday yesterday, the defense played a rather long security or surveillance video inside the jail that corroborated what that witness said about the script. It literally showed her and Donna adelson sitting at a table, Passing these documents around as if they're just working together to create some document. Because, look, that thing has all kinds of details in it. How would she get all these details unless she had been talking to Donna about this thing? So I know you wanted me to be a defense advocate, but look, I have an issue with the defense essentially corroborating that witness's testimony through the defense's case in chief by literally showing the surveillance video that showed them sitting together at a table Working out something that looked a lot like the document that we see here in this video.

[Mark Eiglar]

Ashley, what do you say in response?

[Ashley Merchant]

I'm jumping at the bit.

[Mark Eiglar]

Handwriting expert.

[Ashley Merchant]

Come on. Soft science? Are you kidding me? Have you ever seen someone be able to get a degree in handwriting? Is that such a thing? These people. It's not. Expertise is handwriting analysis. This is junk science. My 15 year old can forge my name and write a slip that looks just like it, and my handwriting is nothing like her handwriting. This is junk science. It needed to be attacked as junk science. Come on.

[Mark Eiglar]

Okay. All right. Let's talk text messages. Now, that was another major block of evidence that the prosecution said would convince these jurors beyond a reasonable doubt. I want to go to clip number eight. These were text messages between Donna and Wendy After Charlie was found guilty. Now, Charlie was Donna's son. He's serving a life sentence. Let's play that clip.

[Ashley Merchant]

When does Wendy send her Next message?

[Mark Eiglar]

At 5:27pm so this would have been after the verdict was rendered?

[Phil Holloway]

Yes.

[Ashley Merchant]

All right. And she says, I love you very much.

[Mark Eiglar]

Call if you feel like you can.

[Ashley Merchant]

Is that right?

[Phil Holloway]

Yes.

[Ashley Merchant]

And how does Donna adelson respond? Can you read that message?

[Phil Holloway]

Your brother protected you for years. Now you are not guilty.

[Mark Eiglar]

Your lawyer took very good care of you. You can bury me in the dress that I bought for Lincoln's bar mitzvah. And was that sent at 5:31pm on November 6th? It was, yes.

[Ashley Merchant]

So about 15 to 20 minutes after the verdict? Yes.

[Mark Eiglar]

Who does that help, Phil?

[Phil Holloway]

Well, much like the non existent trial themes of both the state and the defense, I think those text messages are vague and ambiguous enough that they can kind of cut both ways. If you're inclined to believe the prosecutor's theory of the case, you can kind of see that as some kind of admission of guilt. On the other hand, if you're the defense and, and you can say, look, these don't mean anything. She's just, she's upset because Charlie was convicted. She's upset because of all these things going on in her circle in her life. So the defense actually can make some hay out of that if they can articulate a way to do so, perhaps in their closing argument.

[Mark Eiglar]

All right, Ashley, take the other side.

[Ashley Merchant]

You know, I think the defense should have put something out early on. Explain this in opening statement. You're going to hear these texts. What does these texts show? These texts show a mother who is saying, you know what? I'm done fighting. Bury me in that dress. That doesn't mean guilt. That just means that she's done. That means she's checked out.

[Mark Eiglar]

Excellent analysis, as I predicted from two of the top attorneys in this country. All right, we're going to Kentucky for a very twisted tale about a sheriff who murders allegedly. Well, no, he did it. Question is why he shot the judge. We're gonna talk about that very soon. And if you have any questions or comments, we really do love to hear from you. We read all this stuff. Phil has no life. He reads every single comment. And Ash and I, well, every now and then we'll look at it. If you want to email us, go to. Sorry, Phil. MKTrueCrimevilmaycaremedia.com Lot of words. I'll repeat it again. MK True. Crimevilmaycare media.com we would love to hear from you.

[Ashley Merchant]

Who'S really on your side when it comes to your health. Insurance companies, bureaucrats, pharmacies that refuse valid prescriptions, not so much. Too many parts of our healthcare system are working against you. Blocking proven treatments, jacking up prices, making you jump through hoops that are unnecessary. This is why I want to tell you about All Family Pharmacy, an independent pharmacy that's on your side fighting for your medical freedom, making it simple to get the treatments you trust without the insurance run around. Just order online. A licensed doctor will review your request and your medication ships straight to your door. It's fast, simple and secure. Right now, Ivermectin and mebendazole are 25% off, starting at just 2 bucks a capsule. And you can save another 10% off with code MEGAN10. Choose from over 200 antibiotics, hydroxychloroquine, NAD plus, antivirals and more, all with a prescription included. Go to allfamilypharmacy.com Megan and use the code Megan10 to save today. That's all family pharmacy where your health and your choice matters.

[Phil Holloway]

All right.

[Mark Eiglar]

Now we're going to talk about a case out of Kentucky where it's like a Bob Marley song. A sheriff who shoots a judge. That really happened. I mean, there is actual footage of the sheriff walking into the judge's chambers and shooting him. I don't know that we're going to see the whole thing, but, but it's so clear what he did. He continues on because I've seen the whole video and you can go to YouTube or Google, whatever you can see, he continues to pump the bullets into the judge. There is no question that he did it. He surrendered. He's been in jail for about a year now, since September. His defense lawyers want to get him out on a $50,000 bond. We're going to talk about that. Welcome back, my wonderful experts. Listen, guys, Kentucky Whitesburg, it's a tight community there. The sheriff, he's a former sheriff, Sean Mickey Starnes goes into the chambers and he just starts pumping bullets into judge and Kevin Mullins and he kills him. He was dead right on the scene. These guys were friends for years. In fact, the shooter was the bailiff for the judge for a number of years before he was elected to serve as sheriff in 2018. Wow. Phil.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah.

[Mark Eiglar]

What is going on here?

[Phil Holloway]

Well, that's a great question. Look, there's no question obviously that the judge was killed by the sheriff. The real legal question is was it murder or was it some other crime, maybe less than murder. The I will say parenthetically, the defense counsel for the, the sheriff has more than once said, and I'm summarizing, he said there's going to be more to this that will make it all make sense. And, and there's some allegations that maybe there was some kind of small town sex ring going on that the sheriff, that the judge was involved with and perhaps the judge was involved with the sheriff's daughter. There's some of that Kind of stuff going on. So we're going to have to wait and see how this unfolds. But the question legally, guys, is, is this a murder or was this some type of manslaughter? Because he had or temporary insanity, which could be an acquittal. But if this is like the irresistible impulse that the sheriff just could not resist pulling that trigger due to something that triggered him, no pun intended, then he could qualify for some type of diminished capacity defense or even an outright acquittal, if the jury believes that that's the case. So it's gonna be very interesting to watch this unfold.

[Mark Eiglar]

Number one, I think the pun was intended. And number two, Ashley. All right, this is your client. Hypothetically, it's not. But let's say it's your client, you enter a not guilty plea, which he already did. What is the very first thing that you're doing to try to help him?

[Ashley Merchant]

Trying to get him out on bond. I mean, that is the number one thing you've gotta do. You try to get him out on bond and try and get all the evidence preserved. And I think a lot of people don't realize that, you know, bond is one of those things that is really vital for a good defense. I need my cl. I need them helping me. I need them gathering documents. I need them going to their phone company and getting me phone records. I need them, you know, giving me information about witnesses. It is really hard to defend someone who's in jail and doesn't have access to anything. So that's one of the things I think, you know, the next thing is you investigate. And, you know, when I read about this case, it sounds like it's about to be the next best Netflix documentary. There are sex parties, there are swingers. This whole community apparently was swinging. This judge was involved with litigants in this courtroom. And then the damaging piece of evidence came out at the probable cause hearing where one of the detectives said, right before this judge was shot, they were looking at text, and there was a text from the shooter's daughter in the judge's phone. So just with all of that, I would be doing some serious investigation into what really was going on here.

[Mark Eiglar]

It's hard, Phil, to talk about bond, which is what I'm talking about right now, when Ashley just talked about sex. And I totally want to jump into that, which we will. But let's go to bond. Okay. What is your argument from the prosecution's perspective? Because apparently all their arguments are due by September 2nd. As of this show right now, there has not Been a ruling as far as I know. The guy has been in for almost a year now. What do you argue? I mean, the defense is saying he's not a danger to the community and he's not a risk of flight.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, I think the defense is actually right. This is where you want me to put my defense hat on. But you want me to. Prosecutor, make the prosecutor's case. All right. Prosecutor says, look, judge, this is a. It's a serious crime. It's a capital crime. He could be facing life in prison. That gives him a motive to try to flee the jurisdiction. He's got supporters, he's got people that have voted for him. He's got a network of people out there that could help him orchestrate an escape. It's a small town. There's a danger that he's going to influence witnesses. He's going to be talking to people. He's going to be doing things that defendants on bond are not allowed to do if you release him. And so that's going to be, I think, the crux of their argument. He clearly has ties to the community, but those ties might also be the reason that he would be a risk to perhaps influence these witnesses and people in the community. So that's the state's argument. However, I personally think he should get bond. Despite the gravity of the case. It is unusual in a murder case, although certainly not unheard of, for people to be released on bond. So. So we'll see how that plays out.

[Mark Eiglar]

Wow. Phil, the ever loving prosecutor somehow said the guy should be getting out on bond. Phenomenal. And by the way, Ashley, the other reason why I love my clients getting out on bond, other than the fact that it's a pain in the butt to have to go visit them in the jail, I love for them to come to my office. But as a practical matter, isn't it great when the jurors are having lunch in the one crappy cafe in whatever courthouse this is gonna be at and the defendant sitting right there with you? Oh, my gosh, tell me, Ashley.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, you walk in and out the same door.

[Mark Eiglar]

Come on, you're not. You're not. You're sitting there with them, right? They're holding their wives hands even if they hate each other. Right? It's theater. Tell me about that.

[Ashley Merchant]

It is total theater. And I mean, you're putting your arm around your client, you're walking in and out with them. It is so much better because it's a stamp of approval. It's the same reason that we don't Allow defendants to come into court in shackles and jail clothes because that prejudice you. So it also prejudice the jury for you if your client clients actually out on bond. It's just so much easier, though. I mean, one of the biggest difficulties is these stupid jail recordings. You can't have any conversation. And look at Donna Adelson snitches. My biggest fear is that some snitch is going to lie and say, my client said something in jail, and then I'm going to have to defend against some snitch. I don't have that if my client's out on bond.

[Mark Eiglar]

Right. All right, so, Phil, you've entered a not guilty plea. You tried to get your client out on bonds, and now you're talking about possible defenses. And the defense has already said we're talking insanity ain't self defense. Right. And it's not a whodunit. So you think that that's the right way to go?

[Phil Holloway]

Yes, I think it's the only way to go because the. Obviously, we've seen the video. There's overwhelming evidence that he did the act. But the other part of it, you to have a crime, you've got to have what's called the actus reus. That's Latin for the guilty act. But you also have to have the mens rea, which is Latin for the guilty mind, or what we call the culpable mental state. In this case, he clearly did the act. So the defense has to be focused on the mental state. And if he didn't have the necessary intent because of some defect, because let's just say it was this irresistible impulse. That's sort of what the common law would call this temporary insanity. Right. Did he have this irresistible impulse that he just could not stop himself from firing that weapon because he was so upset by something he had just seen or something he had just heard, then there's a middle ground, too, which is manslaughter, which is like this. It's a crime of passion. It's not quite to the point of being an irresistible impulse, but he was so provoked by something that he just was so caught up in the passion of the moment that he couldn't help himself. And that might gravitate towards a manslaughter. And I want to say that they're probably talking about a plea deal somewhere in that ballpark if a plea deal happens.

[Mark Eiglar]

All right, well, Ashley, you want your client to walk, they're paying you the big bucks because you want to actually have them do no time. Because the sheriff doing time in Prison at all. That is rough times, Big bad. So one thing you're going to pull out of your playbook is trashing the victim. Right. And before I ask you to give your thoughts on that, that. Let's go to clip number 11. They've already started to trash the victim because apparently the victim, this judge, might have been having some sex with some people. Let's. Let's take a look at that clip.

[Ashley Merchant]

I was kind of like informal intern in there, like, learning office management and stuff. And I went over to his office to take it to learn how to take a deposition. And that was the first interaction that I had with him as far as the sex and stuff goes. What happened? I gave him oral with my shirt pulled down. And whenever we're done, he threw money in my face, told me to clean myself up, and reminded me that I knew better than to tell my sister. And what was his job at that time? Assistant commonwealth attorney. And then after that point, that's when he started introducing me to his friends, the other lawyers. And we would do sex parties and perform shows and have sex with them for money.

[Mark Eiglar]

Did you feel like you could say no?

[Ashley Merchant]

No, no. And he.

[Phil Holloway]

They would make sure to make you.

[Ashley Merchant]

Feel as small and degraded and belittled as possible to take your power away, you know? So, like, I have to say, like, we were having fun, too, you know, like we were doing drugs, was doing coke, doing a lot of cocaine, partying, you know, like, it wasn't like they were just, like, they weren't raping, like, physically like. You know what people think about when they hear the word rape? It was. It was consensual. The whole town was doing it. You know, nobody cares. They're all swingers. It's all a big party to them. It was just, like, so normal.

[Mark Eiglar]

Did you ever have sex with him.

[Phil Holloway]

After he became judge?

[Mark Eiglar]

Yeah.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah. When he was the judge? Yes. I've had sex with him in the chambers. I've had sex with him upstairs. You had sex with him in the chambers?

[Mark Eiglar]

Yes, Ashley. Oh, my goodness. Right. I'm going to make sure that my Netflix subscription is renewed for sure, because this is huge.

[Ashley Merchant]

I know. I want to buy into that documentary.

[Mark Eiglar]

How does this help the defense if it's not so painfully obvious?

[Ashley Merchant]

You know, it actually. So how. I think it can help the defense. And one of the things I want to talk about is the fact that the defense actually filed a motion for a different venue. No, no, no. You don't want a different venue. She just said this whole town knows about These sex parties, you know, that not going to come in at trial. The only thing that could potentially come in is if what the sheriff had knowledge of. So if he had knowledge that his daughter perhaps, let's just say maybe that was something about the text. If he had knowledge of something and that helped formulate whatever that heat of passion was, whatever his mens rea was, his thought process, that would be relevant. But all this other sex parties and everybody knows it. No, but listen to her. She says everybody in the town knows about it. So why do you want to change a venue when that jury pool is going to know all this stuff that you wouldn't be able to bring up in front of the jury? Because. Because it's not relevant. The state's going to try and keep it out, but boom, you have it already.

[Mark Eiglar]

Phil, I want to get your take. But first, clip number 12, more testimony about the judge for, I mean, the former judge. And it really does look like they're trashing him. But maybe it's based on reality. Here's Sarah Davis. Clip number 12. You know, you know inmates were having.

[Phil Holloway]

Sex with the judge?

[Mark Eiglar]

Yes, pretty much that's kind of the.

[Ashley Merchant]

Thing that everybody in the county knows. But it was kind of confirmed to me after working in the jail, especially after being invited to a party myself. What happened?

[Mark Eiglar]

I said, no thank you.

[Ashley Merchant]

I declined and kind of just went.

[Mark Eiglar]

Back on to what I was doing. It was just one of those things.

[Ashley Merchant]

Of was I just asked that, like did that just really.

[Mark Eiglar]

To a sex party?

[Ashley Merchant]

Yes. Who asked you? It was Mr. Mullins himself.

[Mark Eiglar]

Phil. So to Ashley's point, she's saying don't move this case at all because you want to keep it here. Everybody knows about the parties. I want to play one more clip and then ask you your thoughts. Cuz this is important. This is that same gal, Sarah Davis, who's going to testify that maybe the perpetrator was helping us. We're going to go to clip number 13 and then I'll get your thoughts.

[Phil Holloway]

Phil, what did you think when the.

[Mark Eiglar]

Sheriff shot the judge?

[Ashley Merchant]

A lot of the corruption was going to come out. I knew that this was going to be.

[Mark Eiglar]

That was going to be the beginning.

[Ashley Merchant]

To set everything aside to make people come in and people's voices finally be heard. Because even I believe that the sheriff, he either knew something or something was going on that he knew about that we all might not know about, but he was doing something to protect us.

[Mark Eiglar]

Well, he's a hero according to Sarah Davis. Your thoughts, Phil?

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah. So I think the state actually does want to transfer the case for all of those reasons, because, look, if everybody in the county actually, you know, was aware of. Of this, it's going to be really hard to find a jury that's going to look at it objectively and base their decision on what they hear in the jury, in the courtroom, and only in the courtroom. So I think a change of venue makes perfectly good sense. We've seen cases here. In fact, there was the Victor Hill case here in Georgia involving a sheriff and former sheriff now in Clayton County. He stood trial on some federal, some state corruption charges. And he was tried in the same courtroom in the county where, you know, his jail was and where his deputies were working courtroom security. And he was found not guilty, unlike dozens of corruption charges. Fast forward a few years. He was charged by the feds for something unrelated, but still another crime in the broader district of the Northern District of Georgia. So you had jurors who were less sort of familiar and maybe weren't the ones that voted for the man to put him in office. And then he was convicted in federal court. So there's a great reason why you don't want to try elected officials in the county where they are elected. It's too small of a jury pool. It's the same people that he. He has won a countywide election or perhaps more than one. So it just makes sense to move it.

[Mark Eiglar]

All right. We'll have to wait and see whether the request to change venue is granted. The consensus seems to be keep it here. This town knows what he was up to. All right, so coming up, you want to stick around? This is a bizarre case. If hypothetically, I asked my friend Phil. Hey, Phil, I want to play a game. I'm going to give you a rifle, and I'll have a rifle. And then I'm going to ask that you shoot at me, and then I get to shoot at you. Okay? Okay. That's crazy, right? Well, two guys did that, and there were some fatal consequences, as you can imagine. And also, we're gonna talk about somebody who died at Burning Man. It's not an isolated incident. Apparently, there's a number of deaths over at that festival. We're gonna talk about that in just a moment. Also, we'd love to hear from you. If you have any emails you wanna send to us, please do. So it's mktruechrimelmacaremedia.com Again, mktruecrimelmaycaremedia.com We would love to hear from you.

[Ashley Merchant]

I've been talking a Lot about Riverbed Ranch lately because I love their steaks. Those Riverbend Ranch steaks are something else. Riverbend Ranch has taken Black Angus beef to a whole new level. Did you recently hear rfkj, head of the Maha movement, saying, really? All he eats is red meat and fermented products? Hello? Riverbed Ranch has got you covered. For the last 35 years, Riverbend Ranch has been creating a very elite Angus herd by using ultrasound to select genetically superior cattle with a focus on flavor and tenderness. When you buy from Riverbend Ranch, you're not only supporting the 64 Cowboys and Cowgirls and their families who work on the ranch, but you're also supporting over 260 other US ranches and the hundreds of American families who work on them. Them. It is born in the USA, raised in the USA and processed in the USA. It is aged to perfection for 21 days and shipped directly from the ranch to your home. This is not your average Black Angus beef. So order from Riverbendranch.com use the promo code Megan for 20 bucks off your first order and let me know what you think. Riverbendranch.com promo code Megan.

[Mark Eiglar]

Okay. My dear friends and experts, we're gonna talk Burning Man. Have either of you been to that very famous music and arts festival?

[Ashley Merchant]

No. I always wanted to go, but after reading about what's been happening, all the.

[Phil Holloway]

Dust, I'm a little not interested.

[Mark Eiglar]

Anyone concerned? Well, now you're not gonna go. Apparently, there's a guy who was found. I don't mean to laugh. Let's get serious for a second. A man was found lying in a pool of blood. They've labeled it a homicide. They're investigating it. Phil, what's going on?

[Phil Holloway]

That's a great question. And I. Look, this is the kind of thing where, you know, this. This Burning man goes back, I think, into the late 80s. It started on a beach somewhere, and now it's out in the desert in Nevada. And it's really taken on a life of its own. But apparently you're taking your life into your own hands if you just set foot in the place. Because apparently they have a young adult male that was found murdered out there and in a pool of blood. And now the thing is over and everybody's gone. And it's, like, out there in the middle of the desert. And that's a hell of a kind of a crime scene to try to process. And the cops don't seem to have any leads right now.

[Mark Eiglar]

Now, no. And they clean up after Burning Man. Oh, by the way, there's a body here. So there goes your crime scene, Ashley. This isn't the only death, though. There's been a few people. One was electrocuted in 2023. There was someone who died of drug intoxication. Is it much ado about nothing? In other words, when you bring thousands of people together, aren't some just gonna die?

[Ashley Merchant]

I mean, I think there's some of that, but this is a little extreme, you know, especially this one where he's found in a pool of blood. But if you can imagine, there's probably stampedes. I mean, you've got a mix of people that are prob. Sleeping well, probably taking multiple different substances, you know, partying for days on end out in the woods, out in the wilderness, out in the desert. And this type of stuff happens, you know, And a lot of the memories are probably not going to be very good. So I think the investigation would be really difficult. You've got people who are witnesses that are on drugs. They don't know what's happened. But I think that the people that go deserve to know what happened, deserve to know if it's safe or not. But I can't imagine what the waiver looks like. Like, when you're buying tickets for this event. With all of these deaths, it's got to be like one of those events. I don't know if you ever did one of those tough mudders. Those used to be really popular. I almost signed up until I read the waiver. And you have to sign what I call a death waiver. I wonder if they have a death waiver at this. At this event.

[Mark Eiglar]

Well, I'll tell you this. Speaking of death waivers, two guys who didn't sign any death waivers decided in Texas. It would be a great idea. I'll give you a rifle. You use a rifle. We're going to shoot at each other. But they're not that crazy, right? They did wear a Kevlar helmet to protect them. Phil, as you can imagine. First of all, those helmets are not 100% bulletproof. Right. And number two, one of them died, and the other one is facing murder charges. Sean O'. Donnell. He's 37. He was taken into custody. Apparently, they were drinking. Not very smart when you're doing this. What's going to come of this?

[Phil Holloway]

You know, this is. You know, they're not crazy. No, but I think really, really dumb. This is like the stupid thing, stupidest thing that I've seen in a long time when it comes to firearms. Look there. You don't need to drink alcohol and mix that with your target practice. And look, these are rifles. We're not talking about shotguns that sometimes young people, maybe in South Georgia, in the general vicinity of where I grew up, might have been known to kind of to fire from long distances was, you know, 20 gauges in general directions and things like that. That was dumb enough. But you're talking about rifles. And we've got these Kevlar vests or helmets that, as you mentioned, are not, like, bulletproof. And there has been a lot of soldiers who have lost their lives in combat due to head wounds despite wearing these things. So I cannot overstate just how ridiculously stupid and tragic and preventable this was. If people would just use a little bit more common sense, mix less alcohol with guns, you're gonna have less. Things like this happen.

[Mark Eiglar]

Good advice.

[Phil Holloway]

You know, you hate to see it. You really do.

[Mark Eiglar]

The victim, 34 years of age, Aaron Prout. Let's say you're representing the accused in this case, Ashley. I know you could do a great job. He didn't intend to. To kill his buddy. What's your defense here?

[Ashley Merchant]

Right? I mean, definitely it would be. There's no intent, but it'd be something called mutual combat. You're allowed to fight with someone else if you both mutually agree to the terms of the fight. And, you know, that's. That's a defense. And so I would be looking to see what type of agreement they had, as stupid as it is, what type of an agreement they had. And if, you know, he was a willing participant. If the victim was a willing participant in this and he knew what the risks were and he voluntarily engaged in this mutual combat. That's like, if two people want to go out and take it outside and have a fight, is it a crime?

[Mark Eiglar]

So we can all agree if we want to have a bullet in our forehead, we can ask someone else to do it. And we shouldn't be in legal trouble at all.

[Ashley Merchant]

Well, no, I mean, definitely not that, but I don't think he asked for a bullet in his forehead. I think he expected to have whatever stupid game it was. He expects he's going to be playing this stupid game and they didn't foresee the result.

[Mark Eiglar]

Okay, so it is time. Thank you for our legal mailbag. Apparently, people have been sending in emails to us, and again, please send us stuff. We read it, we love it, we talk about it. We improve our show with it. Mktruecrimel may caremedia.com Ashley, we got some mail this week right we did.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah. We got someone who's watching the Donna Adelson trial. Kelly, she was very passionate about Dave Aronberg's take on Donna and her testimony and particularly her son. She thinks Donna is a controlling person, and she doesn't think that she ever could become laid back or change her tune, really. You know, one of the things that stuck out, and I think it might have been something I said. She said, donna doesn't have trauma. And, you know, I talked a little bit about people and their responses to trauma. You know, I agree. I disagree. I mean, everybody has their own trauma. Whether she's a good person or not, I'm sure she has some type of trauma. But she also says that she thinks Donna is a sociopath. So if you want to watch Don Adelson, we're streaming it live on our YouTube channel so you can catch up with the trial, see if Donna testifies or not. See what? The closing arguments. So definitely tune in to our channel.

[Mark Eiglar]

On YouTube really quick. By the way, I'm just taking this out of order. Yes or no, Phil, Should Donna testify? Yes or no?

[Phil Holloway]

No. Ashley, is that fast enough for you?

[Mark Eiglar]

No. It was the fastest you've ever spoken. Ashley, go. Yes or no. Should Johnna take the stand in her own defense? Yes or no?

[Phil Holloway]

Yes.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yes.

[Mark Eiglar]

Oh, my goodness. Okay. In very few words, Ashley, why a.

[Ashley Merchant]

Client should always take a stand in their defense if they can Always. She's going down right now. She is going down unless a client tells me flat out they did it. They need to explain. A jury expects them to explain.

[Mark Eiglar]

Phil, real quick, take the other side. Go.

[Phil Holloway]

She's going to get eviscerated on cross examination. These prosecutors know this case up, down, left, right, through and through. They know it better than any people on the planet, except for maybe Donna Adelen. But the thing is, they're a lot smarter than she is, and they're going to eat her lunch.

[Mark Eiglar]

I love we didn't plan that. I love there's a split, and I'm more towards. I don't know, likely. I don't want my client to ever testify. Donna, they're going to like her. Mama. Donna, she's going to be unlikable. You know it. We've heard her on those already.

[Ashley Merchant]

Unlike horrible.

[Mark Eiglar]

So anyway, can't get much worse. We'll. We'll see. All right, so now I got you fired up, and it's time for our closing arguments. So that's the segment where you get to rant. I have no idea what you guys are going to Say, I've been looking forward to it all week. We'll start with you, Ashley. What do you want to rant about? All right.

[Ashley Merchant]

Well, I actually had something I wanted to rant about and changed my mind. I know, I know. So it's an ad lib rant. When I was listening to the jail snitch in Donna Adelson, it just really made me think about, you know, what if Donna had told all of these other people at the jail, I didn't do it. I had nothing to do with it. All this stuff that, you know, a completely different side of the story. I think a lot of people don't realize that what our law says is anything you tell people as a defendant that helps you is not admissible at trial. So the only time evidence is admitted of your statements is if you said something bad. And we call that self serving statements.

[Mark Eiglar]

So.

[Ashley Merchant]

And I have another example of it. And I think that law is ridiculous and I think people need to know about that. You can talk to the police and if you tell the police I didn't do it, that's not admissible.

[Mark Eiglar]

Right.

[Ashley Merchant]

If you tell the police I did it, that is admissible. That's ridiculous. At a client once, and this is the end of my rant, but had a client who gave a full statement to the police and the police were threatening to take his, his young daughter away from him and his wife. And he wanted the child to go home with his wife. So he told the cops what they wanted to hear. And at the end of the statement, he looked at the camera because he knew it was recording and said, I lied about all of that, that the cops had left. I just wanted our baby girl to go home and be safe with her mother. So I lied to protect my daughter. Guess what came in at trial, the 19 minutes where he said he did stuff to her. And that one minute where he said, I made it all up and this is why I made it up. Didn't come in.

[Mark Eiglar]

Love your rant, Phil. Time for you closing arguments. Here we go.

[Phil Holloway]

By the way, I agree with Ashley. I do think the self serving statements should be allowed in in certain circumstances. All right, but look, this is not really a rant. The first part of it's not. At least because I wanted to just take a minute to thank the people behind the camera, so to speak, the people that you don't hear or see, who are our wonderful producers who help all of us stay prepared. They help us stay organized, they help make this show possible. And by the way, in the Last month that we've been doing this MK True Crime show. The numbers are really, really promising and very positive. The show is doing so well. And I just, I gotta mention Steve and Natasha Madison and our great tech people, Grace and Radar. I think these folks do a great job. And I just wanted to take a minute to recognize all of them for helping us to look our very best and to be our best on the show. Now on Adelson, my biggest rant, and I'm getting this from, I get inspiration from the chatters on the YouTube channel. So if you interested in this trial, by all means, check out the YouTube channel at MK True Crime and join the chat because the consensus is that the defense is just not organized here. And I think that the same could be said also for the prosecution to a certain degree. Look, we don't see a lot of fire in the belly from these lawyers. They all seem like, in my opinion, like they're kind of like a little bit of sleep, maybe, maybe disinterested. I don't know what the deal is, but I personally would like to see a lot more energy from the counsel in the case. But certainly the defense, I think, lacked a theme. These are the kinds of things that really, really just make me, I don't know, gives me the heebie jeebies, I guess is the right word. When I watch this and I see that there's so many things left on the table that these lawyers should be doing and could be doing, I think a lot more could be done with this case. Finally, I want to just mention if any of you who are the true crime lovers in our audience are going to be out in Denver, Colorado this weekend for CrimeCon, you may run into me there. I'm going to be there along with our own Matt Murphy, MK True Crime colleague and contributor here. So if you're out in Denver and you see us walking the halls, please feel free to say hi, we'd love to see you. And that's it for me.

[Mark Eiglar]

Thank you for your close. My close is going to be very brief. You know, I want to thank. Thank judges and prosecutors. That's right. A defense lawyer is thanking judges and prosecutors, those who still take risks. Nowadays, judges and prosecutors have been crucified more than ever. When they take risks and it blows up on them, right where they take a risk and give someone probation when it could have been prison time, that's needed in our system. And 99% of the time it works out, the 1% where it doesn't, they get crucified. And I'm seeing more and more a chilling effect where judges and prosecutors are afraid to do the right thing because the media is going to blow it up. So I want to thank those prosecutors who continue to be courageous, those judges who take risks on people like my client, who through a drug addiction did some really stupid stuff but got into recovery and now is living a wonderful life, his best life life. So I thank you and I also want to thank all of you as we conclude. First of all, thank you to my two, two guests, Phil Holloway and Ashley Merchant. You guys are fabulous class acts. Love you. Hope I get in trouble in Georgia so you can represent me. And I want to and and all of you guys, I'll take 20% off your next felony. So go be naughty. All right, listen, thank you for joining me today. It's been wonderful hosting MK True Crime. We want to hear from you. We don't just say that symbolically. We really want to know, know what you have to think. Don't ask about my skin care regimen. Enough of that. Okay? It's pickleball and good DNA. Go to mk true crimeevilmaycare media.com mk true crimeevilmaycaremedia.com you want to reach me, go to speaktomark.com next shows drop Friday. Thank you so much for joining us and I hope you all choose to have have a wonderful day.

[Ashley Merchant]

Are you ready to get spicy?

[Mark Eiglar]

These Doritos Golden Sriracha aren't that spicy.

[Ashley Merchant]

Maybe it's time to turn up the heat or turn it down.

[Mark Eiglar]

It's time for something that's not too spicy. Try Doritos Golden Sriracha spicy but not too spicy.