Gruesome Autopsy Report in D4vd Murder Case, Reality Star Charged with Child Molestation, and Boxcutter-Wielding Mom, with Parks White

Summary

MK True Crime – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Gruesome Autopsy Report in D4vd Murder Case, Reality Star Charged with Child Molestation, and Boxcutter-Wielding Mom, with Parks White

Host(s): Ashley Merchant & Phil Holloway
Guest: Parks White, District Attorney
Date: April 24, 2026

---

Overview

This episode of MK True Crime—soon to be rebranded as "The MK True Crime Show"—dives into three shocking cases currently grabbing headlines: the gruesome autopsy report in the Celeste Rivas Hernandez murder allegedly by singer D4vd; charges against reality TV star Joseph Duggar for child molestation; and an in-depth interview with DA Parks White about a Georgia mother who attempted to murder her autistic teenage son and received a controversial 90-day jail sentence. The hosts, both experienced criminal defense attorneys, provide analysis, legal context, and their signature candid commentary throughout.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Celeste Rivas Hernandez Autopsy & D4vd Murder Case

• [01:31–13:36]
• The autopsy report for 14-year-old Celeste Rivas Hernandez, reportedly murdered by singer D4vd, has been released.
• The body was so decomposed and mutilated that race, sex, and other identifiers were difficult to determine.
• Medical Examiner’s findings:
  • “Multiple penetrating injuries caused by objects” (03:53).
  • Lacerations, including those that may have penetrated bone, suggesting very violent force.
  • Toxicology revealed a mix of benzodiazepines, methamphetamine, MDMA, and alcohol in Celeste's system, indicating she was “plied with drugs and alcohol” (05:27).
• Legal process:
  • D4vd faces first-degree murder charges, alleged to have killed Celeste to eliminate her as a witness in a child sex abuse investigation.
  • His iCloud account contained 8 terabytes of data, including significant child sexual abuse material (CSAM).
  • Discussion about the legal and ethical complications of CSAM evidence exchange.
  • Discovery delays: The preliminary hearing was postponed after new evidence surfaced, particularly regarding the CSAM. (09:17)
  • Investigators wore a wire and/or wiretap, indicating deep cooperation within D4vd’s circle and further legal complexity.
  • Grand jury proceedings involved at least three separate sessions, with uncooperative witnesses compelled to testify. (13:36)
• Legal Explainer:
  • Grand jury testimony itself isn’t admissible at trial unless witnesses change their story—then it can be used for impeachment (14:33, 15:21).

Memorable Quote:

• “There was some speculation that perhaps the body was so decomposed and otherwise so mutilated that cause and manner of death would not be determined. But the medical examiner was pretty clear that it was multiple penetrating injuries caused by objects.” — Phil Holloway [02:52]

---

2. The Duggar Family: Joseph Duggar Charged with Child Molestation

• [18:08–24:47]
• Joseph Duggar, the seventh of the 19 Duggar children, has been accused of molesting a minor during a family vacation in Florida when the victim was just nine.
• The Duggar family is notorious for previous abuse and cover-ups, with oldest brother Josh Duggar previously convicted for child sexual abuse materials.
• Joseph admitted the offense to police and a family member.
• The accuser underwent a forensic interview—a process both hosts express skepticism about, promising to expand on its flaws later.
• Jail calls are played showing Joseph's wife, Kendra, supporting him, focusing on her imprisonment experience, and Joseph complaining about jail conditions and vulgar inmates next door.
• Joseph out on bond in Arkansas, prohibited from contact with minors pending trial.

Notable Quotes:

• “He’s admitted it to at least two people. He admitted it to the police officers… so he’s not really denying this at all.” — Ashley Merchant [19:38]
• “I love that you’re talking about [forensic interviews]… I’m going to need multiple hours to go over it—it’s crazy.” — Ashley Merchant [20:59]
• Jail call excerpt:
  • Kendra: “I’ve been spending a lot of time praying and reading the Bible… but not sleeping great through the night.” [22:53]

---

3. Georgia Mother Attempts to Kill Autistic Son: Interview with Parks White

• [27:08–48:52]
• Case Summary: Diane Sykes, 52, convicted of trying to kill her 15-year-old autistic son by cutting his throat with a box cutter after luring him outside to “see the moon.”
• Trial & Sentencing:
  • Jury found her guilty on multiple serious felonies (attempted murder, aggravated battery/assault, cruelty to children).
  • Despite a potential sentence of up to 73 years, judge imposed a sentence of 90 days in jail plus probation—a move that sparked controversy.
• Legal Analysis by DA Parks White:
  • Not guilty by reason of insanity requires a high bar; state evaluator found her “not guilty by reason of insanity,” but the state and jury disagreed.
  • White argued that Sykes’s actions after the crime—suicide attempts, fleeing, no remorse—indicated clear consciousness of guilt.
  • The family unanimously asked for leniency at sentencing, preferring her to come home.
  • Sykes had been living in the family home for months prior to sentencing, in violation of bond, which was only revealed at the hearing.
  • Discussion about sentencing disparities, comparing this result with a neighboring county’s life sentence for a woman who sexually abused a minor.
  • Explains "guilty but mentally ill" versus insanity, and differences in civil commitment versus incarceration.

Notable Quotes:

• “Everyone’s presumed to be competent and sane… It’s a very high standard. Georgia still has the delusional compulsion component of insanity, which was eliminated under federal law after President Reagan was shot.” — Parks White [31:52]
• “Before the defense attorney could even ask, the judge announced he was going to grant her an appeal bond… and he immediately released her on a $25,000 bond.” — Parks White [37:03]
• “There was, there didn’t seem to be any remorse.” — Parks White [40:12]
• “The family members never want to see another family member punished or almost never.” — Parks White [41:10]
• “Where is that energy every other day in court? Criminal defense lawyers, we live in a world where fair is more of a suggestion than a standard.” — Ashley Merchant (Closing Argument) [59:53]

---

Other Key Segments

Forensic Child Interviews (“Junk Science” Discussion)

• [55:56] Phil Holloway’s Closing Argument:
  • Outlines five key flaws in forensic child interviews, including high suggestibility, interviewer bias, problematic question types, children's developmental limitations, and external contamination (parental coaching).
  • Cites research of Dr. Elizabeth Loftus on false memories.
  • Warns about wrongful convictions from unreliable interviews; urges courts and prosecutors to apply extreme caution.

Memorable Quote:

• “False memories can and are oftentimes implanted in the minds of witnesses by the manner in which they are questioned.” — Phil Holloway [55:56]

---

Jury Trauma & Service

• [51:08–55:20] Mailbag Segment:
  • Listener asks about the emotional toll on jurors in graphic trials and potential legal recourse.
  • Hosts acknowledge the very real “vicarious trauma” experienced by all participants in the system, not just jurors.
  • Jurors can be excused during voir dire for emotional reasons, but must otherwise participate.
  • Emotional support often comes from bonding with fellow jurors after trial.

---

Notable/Standout Moments

• Ashley Merchant’s closing argument [59:53]: Reflection on mercy and fairness in sentencing, rhetorical question: “Where is that energy every other day in court?”
• Phil Holloway’s prediction coming true about the D4vd hearing: “I told all y’all so. I didn’t think there was going to be a prelim today… This time I was right.” [09:17]
• Grand jury practicalities and legal nuance explained for lay listeners [15:21].
• DA Parks White’s biblical quote on flight as consciousness of guilt:
  • “The wicked flee where no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion.” [33:27]

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

| Segment | Time | |------------------------------------------------|--------------| | D4vd Case Opening & Autopsy Report | 01:31–13:36 | | Duggar Family / Joseph Duggar Discussion | 18:08–24:47 | | GA Mom/Boxcutter Case: Parks White Interview | 27:08–48:52 | | Mailbag: Jury Trauma & Emotional Toll | 51:08–55:20 | | Closing Arguments: Forensic Interviews & Mercy | 55:56–63:13 |

---

Episode Tone & Language

• Direct, conversational, often darkly humorous despite graphic subject matter.
• Legal explanations are thorough but accessible, with both hosts frequently interjecting practical, real-world commentary.
• Clear ethical perspectives: respect for victims, healthy skepticism of institutional fairness, and calls for careful application of science in court.

---

Useful For

• Listeners wanting a comprehensive but digestible breakdown of three high-profile true crime stories.
• Legal enthusiasts interested in real court procedure, not just sensational headlines.
• Listeners seeking informed, sometimes passionate opinions on justice system flaws, both from prosecution and defense perspectives.

---

Transcript

[Mazda Commercial Voice]

You're more than just one thing. You're the boss. Hey Google, what time is my meeting with Tim today? The athlete that class wrecks me. The ringleader. And we're good and always their mom. Everyone in the all new Mazda CX5 more to move every side of you. Learn [e-mail] Google is a trademark of Google LLC. Sequences shortened and simulated.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment. Anyway. Give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for

[Mazda Commercial Voice]

three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required. Intro rate first three months only, then

[Ashley Merchant]

full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra.

[Mazda Commercial Voice]

See full terms at Mintmobile do.

[Ashley Merchant]

Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Ashley Merchant. I'm a criminal defense attorney from Atlanta, Georgia. Today I am joined by my friend and co host Phil Holloway. He's a former prosecutor, a former police officer and currently a criminal defense lawyer. Hey Phil, how are you?

[Phil Holloway]

Ashley? I'm doing great. Always happy to be here with you. And this by the way, is this is our last show before we officially change our name to the MK True Crime show next week.

[Ashley Merchant]

The the is very important. So let's go over what we have lined up today on the docket. Earlier this week, singer David was charged with first degree murder of the 14 year old Celeste Rivas Hernandez. And now the autopsy results have finally been revealed. We'll bring you the details.

[Phil Holloway]

And another dugger son from the show, 19 kids and counting, is facing charges of inappropriate behavior with a minor. We'll discuss that. And we have in Georgia a woman who is serving just 90 days in jail for attempting to murder her disabled teenage son. We will be joined later in the program by District Attorney Parks White to analyze the controversial sentencing.

[Ashley Merchant]

Thanks Phil. I'm excited about that. But first let's talk about Celeste Rivas Hernandez and her autopsy results. They've finally been made public and the results are pretty gruesome. I mean just reading through this, I mean we don't, there's a lot that we still don't know. But what we do know is pretty gruesome. She has decomposed so they weren't able to actually figure a lot of things out because of the level of decomposition. They couldn't tell certain things about her, such as her race, her sex, things like that. Because her body had decomposed so much, it was just, just really, really disturbing. And it was mutilated. Her body was mutilated. So I think this is going to be a really graphic case. But did you get a chance to look at those autopsy results?

[Phil Holloway]

I did. And our friend Lauren Conlon, by the way, who's been a guest on the show with LA Magazine, has done such a great job reporting on this as well. It really helps all of us to keep up to speed. So there's multiple penetrating injuries, actually multiple penetrating injuries. And so there was some speculation that perhaps the body was so decomposed and otherwise so mutilated that cause and manner of death would not be something that could be determined. But the medical examiner was pretty clear that it was multiple penetrating injuries caused by objects. And he used the word plural. So apparently there were, you could see, for lack of a better word, and I hate to be so graphic, but you could see the slice wounds in her torso. And so we know there were probably lacerations to the liver and other vital organs and things like that. So it just sounds and seems like actually it's going to be a very painful and gruesome death that eventually a jury's gonna hear about in that LA courtroom.

[Ashley Merchant]

I think it's just gonna be awful. And the report, so the report is 26 pages. I wanted to talk a little bit about some of the things they actually did find. They said, like you said, the cause of death was multiple penetrating injuries caused by objects, which is just, you know, insane to me. But what it sounds like to me is with these wounds. So what the report actually says is two penetrating runes to her torso that may represent sharp, flat force injuries. So to me, and I know that you've had these cases as well, when there's bone injuries, they usually have to bring in forensic anthropologists, which is a really, to me, it's a really fascinating area of the law. It's a really fascinating issue. You know, for all of our true crime junkies, they've probably heard of the body lab, you know, the body Farm in Tennessee. Forensic anthropologists are the ones that come in and look at when an injury actually goes through the skin, goes through the organs and actually permeates a bone, which is difficult to do, but they're able to do that. And so I wonder in this case if we, that's maybe where we're headed and maybe why it took so, so much time because bone remains are really difficult to actually figure out. I mean, it Just takes a lot of time because, you know, they're essentially doing the work that. That, you know, brushing the certain level off, and they have to wait for that. And decant decontamination, I mean, it just. It's a very lengthy process. So I'm wondering if that may be something. But, I mean, I can't even imagine this family hearing these results. I mean, the. The medical examiner said in his statement that it was unfathomable that they've had to wait this long and grateful that he could at least give the information, give the family some information, because they're just grieving this. This awful loss.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah. And we're hearing also. And speaking of the family, they would also have to hear that if this evidence is accurate, that apparently or allegedly D4VD had plied her with drugs and alcohol. You know, I mean, there's all these allegations about sexual crimes that took place with her prior to her death. The initial drug screening suggested the possible presence of other drugs, including benzodiazepines, methamphetamines, which, by the way, are operate on two different ways. You know, benzos kind of bring you down, make you sleepy, then meth wires you up again, and then mdma, which is commonly known as ecstasy. Right. A party drug. And there was also low levels of alcohol. So, look, you know, this child just had all of these things in her system. And apparently, you know, the prosecutor says that they have evidence that he was lying in wait for her to come to his home so that he could go ahead and take her out and just eliminate her as a witness in this investigation into the child sex abuse.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right. And he. He was scheduled actually for a preliminary hearing earlier today. He came back in Thursday, you know, the day that we're taping this. And that was one year to the day since she was last seen ARR alive at the rented home that he had in Hollywood Hills. So I thought that was really compelling that it's been a whole year. But the report show that he appeared stoic as his attorneys pushed the prosecutors to share evidence. It sounds like they don't have a whole lot of evidence that it's been handed over yet. They seem to think that they should be getting this evidence. And so it sounds like it's some type of a cooperation where they're saying, you give us some discovery and we'll push this hearing back. So the reports that we've got is that his icloud account alone had eight terabytes of information, which is, you know, that's significant, but the biggest thing was a significant amount of child sexual abuse images included in that data. Doesn't say whether those are of Celeste, but I mean, obviously likely there's a lot of images of Celeste. There could be images of other children. But those are really difficult when you're talking about discovery. As you know, Phil, we don't typically when we get discovery, they send it to us. Well, child porn is not something that can be sent because that's re. Victimizing the children. Right, right, exactly. It can't be. I mean, the government can't distribute porn just like you or I can't distribute porn. So we have to.

[Phil Holloway]

By the way, it's, it's, you know, it's the kind of thing and, you know, and I don't do that kind of work. And a lot, there's a lot of reasons for that. One of them is, you know, I can't really deal with going and looking at the evidence. Right. Because you, you would have to go examine everything and you literally have to go to the prosecutor's office to see what they have on their, you know, secure machines there. Right. I think they usually put it on air gapped computers and things that aren't even connected to the Internet.

[Ashley Merchant]

So they have. That's a good point. They have to be completely disconnected. So it's hard to find that.

[Phil Holloway]

So they apparently did, you know, when they arrested David, I guess they, they pulled his devices. Right. And they started looking on his phone and they say that they've, they've got that CSAM material on his phone. And so I think that what we will see. Because that's not part of the charges in the case.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right? I know.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah. They're going to charge him with all that stuff.

[Ashley Merchant]

There's going to be a super easy to prove. I know. And the thing with, whenever there's a crime like this and they've got what we call ccm, everyone, you know, Phil was using the acronym. It's child sexual, something material. That's a good question. Abuse depends on ccm. Yeah. But anytime there's ccm, you know, there's that underlying crime that someone's arrested for, like David in this case. But then there can be hundreds of other counts and most of them carry significant prison time. So, you know, that may be ultimately the easier route if they have that, if they, their goal is just to lock them up. But I think that they want to have Celeste's story told in court, and I think our family deserves that as well.

[Phil Holloway]

Speaking of this preliminary hearing. So I, I look, I Want to just go ahead and say, I told you so. I told all y' all so. Because I posted on X a couple of times this week that I didn't think that there was actually going to be a prelim today.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right.

[Phil Holloway]

And, you know, I got into a friendly debate with our friend Mark Garrigos about this.

[Ryan Reynolds]

He.

[Phil Holloway]

He was like, okay, the defense is trying to, you know, call their bluff. And I'm like, you know what? There's. I don't think they even want to go forward with a preliminary hearing. And I. And that may be a decision that wasn't made until the defense found out that there was this, you know, CSAM material on his phone at the time of his arrest. That may have been new information, something that would have caused them to rethink their. Their speed with which they wanted to proceed to a preliminary hearing. Because apparently what's common in Los Angeles is the defense will, you know, they'll waive their time limit so that they can get all the discovery before they do the preliminary hearing.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right.

[Phil Holloway]

But in this case, they were like, nope, we want to go forward. We want to have it now. Now, now, now, now. Oh, wait a minute. Our client had what on his phone in that case? Judge, can we have just a little more time?

[Ashley Merchant]

Right, Exactly.

[Phil Holloway]

I kind of knew this was going to happen. I saw it coming, and I was right. A lot of times I'm not. In fact, maybe most of the time I'm not, but this time I was right.

[Ashley Merchant]

Well, it's an important hearing. I mean, the defense, you know, for the defense, they want to be able to get as much information out as possible because, you know, in theory, they should be able to get information from their client, but that's not always the case. You know, sometimes people didn't do it, and so maybe they didn't have that information to give. And so, you know, they want to make sure that this. This is a fruitful hearing, but they are going to have it. I mean, it sounds like they're not going to not have it at all. They're just continuing a little bit of time so that he can prepare a little bit more so that he can get that. But he is being held without bond. He's actually in the exact same facility, the same jail as Nick Reiner, which I thought was interesting. The Twin Towers Correctional Facility. It's the exact same one. He was just transferred there. He was moved there yesterday, and he's being held there without bond.

[Phil Holloway]

Guess what else we learned? We've also learned, even though this wasn't a true preliminary hearing. And they did. It was more like a status conference. Right. And they just talked about, you know, things. But it did make news that the. In addition to the material found on the phone, somebody was wearing a wire, actually.

[Ashley Merchant]

So I saw that. Yes, yes. Wire testimony.

[Phil Holloway]

So there's been. It's not really new information that the prosecutors were getting information from people in his orbit who are cooperating. But to wear a wire, that's like the ultimate in cooperation.

[Ashley Merchant]

So it says a wire tap, too, which makes me wonder if not only was someone wearing a wire, but if maybe they had a phone tap and they were actually listening to people, which is. It's just. I mean, a lot of people, when they don't know they're being listened to, say a lot of things. So I think that will be really, really interesting. And I know that one of the. They'll have to have a motion to unseal that so that everybody can hear that. And also the grand jury testimony, because all the witnesses testified. But I think we're going to see a lot more in the upcoming weeks about what exactly has been going on during this delay when the prosecutor was really getting their ducks in a row. I think it's also important to note Celeste's parents decided not to attend the hearing, which I do not blame them. They're just absolutely devastated. And I can't even imag what they're going through and getting this new information as it's coming out. So it doesn't surprise me that they certainly wanted to decline to hear that, you know, what was coming out. So we did hear from our friend who's been on our show, Steve Fisher. He wrote on X and he just. So you. Everyone remember, Steve was the PI that the homeowner. So this house where it happened, where David was living, was owned by a different person, and David was actually renting it. So that homeowner hired Steve as a PI and he actually is the one that reported on X that the preliminary hearing has been continued until May 1st. And he thinks that it's really just about discovery. One of the issues is all of the discovery, but that there were three separate investigatory grand juries that were convened in this case. So they definitely put some work in. They had one in November, December, both of 2025, and then one as recently as February. So there's probably going to be quite a bit of information coming up in the next couple of weeks. Phil.

[Phil Holloway]

Yes. Including the names of people perhaps who gave testimony to that grand jury, people that were cooperating witnesses Remember he had the one witness that didn't want to cooperate actually. Do you remember the guy's name?

[Ashley Merchant]

I do, I remember. Yeah it was a, it was another like a colleague of his.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah. And. And he didn't want to come and was. Was basically they did what's called an attachment where they. It's on a. It's an arrest warrant for a witness who is not honoring a grand jury subpoena. So you can drag them into the grand jury kicking and screaming and change but somehow Neo right was the name and got to LA or so and they gave him a bond, they let him out I guess once they proved that they were serious and I'm just curious to know who all actually from the orbit of David people, friends, people that work with him, whatever actually turned on him and testified at the grand jury.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right. It'll be really interesting. I also wonder if they videotaped that because they have the ability to. They don't have to but they have the ability to. So that'll be interesting. But you know people always ask me this so I was just gonna throw this out a little tidbit. People ask if that testimony is admissible because it's in front of a grand jury but it's not admissible at trial in and of itself. And just to sort of explain that to our viewers testimony has to. The witness has to be available for cross examination. So during a grand jury there's no me, there's no you. We're not cross examining these people. And so the testimony it be used if they change their story to what we call impeach them but it can't just be admitted in and of itself. So we get excited about it because it gives us information about what they might testify to on the stand later on but it doesn't just come in, in and of itself. So I just wanted to kind of clear that up because I know there's a lot of questions about that.

[Phil Holloway]

Now here's where it can come in and I know you know this Ashley, but for the benefit of our audience if a witness takes the stand in trial in front of a jury and they change their testimony, they testify differently, the prosecutor can pull out that transcript and say haha, remember testifying on such and such date back in 2025 and you testified under oath, same oath that you swore today to tell the truth and instead of saying what you said today you said this and then they can give the prior inconsistent statement and you know that's the jury can consider that like substantive evidence like anything else in the case. So there's ways to get it in. And the big benefit to the prosecutor is locking that down under oath before anybody decides to change their testimony.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, yeah, it's vital.

[Lemonade Pet Insurance Announcer]

If you're an experienced pet owner, you already know that having a pet is 25% belly rubs, 25% yelling drop it. And 50% groaning at the bill from every vet visit. Which is why Lemonade pet insurance is tailor made for your pet and can save you up to 90% on vet bills. It can help cover checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, basically all the stuff that makes your bank account nervous. Claims are filed super easy through the Lemonade app and half get settled instantly. Get a'@lemonade.com pet and they'll help cover the vet bill for whatever your pet swallowed after you yelled drop it.

[Aqua Tru Water Filter Announcer]

Did you know many US Homes have toxic chemicals in their tap water? Even though contaminated water looks clear, it could put you at risk for devastating health concerns including fatigue, hormone disruption, cognitive decline, even cancer. Surprisingly, standard fridge and pitcher filters do little to remove most contaminants. And bottled water contains microplastics. So what's one solution? Introducing Aqua Tru, the countertop water purifier, which they say has been tested and certified to remove 84 contaminants including chlorine, lead, forever chemicals and microplastics. Its patented four stage reverse osmosis system, that's what you're looking for, goes way beyond ordinary filters for pure healthy water you can trust. No plumbing, no installation. Aqua True has been featured in Business Insider, Popular Science and named best countertop water filter by Good Housekeeping. Go to Aqua True. That's t r u dot com. Now for 20 off your purifier using the promo code True Crime. This is a great product going ro is the way. It's very maha. We did it in our house. Highly recommend. Aqua True even comes with a 30 day best tasting water guarantee. Again, that's aquatrue.com a Q U a T r u.com promo code true crime.

[Ashley Merchant]

Well, so let's talk about Mr. Duggar. So let's see. 19 kids and counting. I mean, how many crunch do we have now in county or.

[Phil Holloway]

Joseph. Joseph, it's hard to keep these Duggars.

[Ashley Merchant]

I know you think Josh, but this one's Joseph. So it's not Josh. But you know, initially the show, just for some history, premiered back in 2008. It was canceled in 2015 when Josh, who is the oldest Duggar boy, had molested multiple minors, including his own sisters. The assaults were never prosecuted. The Duggars never actually reported the incident. And by the time it reached the media, the statute of limitations had expired. Which is really kind of surprising to me honestly. I feel like they could have gotten around that. But in 2021 nonetheless, Josh was arrested and convicted. Guess what? For none other child sexual abuse.

[Phil Holloway]

Ashley Leopard cannot deny his spots.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yep.

[Phil Holloway]

You know, and so you know, this is why he didn't get prosecuted the first time around. But lo and behold, you know, you got a few years later he's got the same stuff, you know, on the phone.

[Ashley Merchant]

Yeah. Maybe he can share jail cell with Joseph because Josh got 12 and a half years back in 2021 for downloading that, that child porn. And now we have Joseph who's got some allegations.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah, Joseph, Joseph has a problem, legal problem. I mean just lots of problems we've got. You know, I don't think he's even denying it, is he?

[Ashley Merchant]

Actually no, he's admitted it to at least two people. He admitted it to the police officers. He admitt to one other person who had confronted him about it. So I mean he's not really denying this at all. But he's. So Josh is, he's 31 right now and he's the seventh of the 19 Duggar children, which yes, there really are 19. And he was recently arrested March 18 when a 14 year old girl accused him of molesting her on vacation in Florida when she was nine years old. So she went for this thing called a forensic interview which to our viewers forensic interview is a, a term where someone who's got some specialized training interviews children and the whole goal of it is that, you know, you don't want a nine year old to go in with a big scary cop.

[Phil Holloway]

You want me pause you real quick? These forensic interviews, I know that you and I have some actual experience with this in real life, but that's going to be. I'm going to talk more about these forensic interviews in our closings at the end of the show. So stick around. But.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, I'm excited.

[Phil Holloway]

A lot of times that's in the nature of junk science.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh yeah.

[Phil Holloway]

As I'm sure you know, in this case though, it doesn't seem to matter because regardless of whether or not the forensic interviews are, were done right or if it's they were based on junk science, so to speak, he's admitted everything and, and so he's, he's hung himself with really with his own words.

[Ashley Merchant]

Now he has. I love that you're talking about that, that actually Gives me an idea. I'm going to need multiple hours to go over it but I want to go over the forensic interviews too. It's, it's crazy but you know it's just one of that happens in these cases. And so the child did make this report. She said that Josh apparently asked her to sit on his lap several times, covered himself with a blanket one of these times and then molested her under that blanket. She said that she felt uncomfortable. Josh then apologized to her and the alleged victim's father confronted him. And that's what you were talking about earlier Phil. Apparently Duggar confessed to the dad and that's when the investigation began. And then later on there's a recommendation recorded call with law enforcement where he admitted that his intentions were not pure. So we may see a legal battle over what exactly not pure intentions.

[Phil Holloway]

Is there any other kind of intention when it comes to this kind of activity? There's no way for it to be a pure intention.

[Ashley Merchant]

No there really isn't especially I mean he's charged with lewd and lascivious. That's literally the definition of unpure. So he was extradited to Florida and then he got a bond and so now he is back in Arkansas but he can't have contact with minors prior to trial and he is married with kids.

[Phil Holloway]

Well when he was. All right, so we got some jail calls, right? We've got him, he's talking to his wife Kendra who is seemingly standing by her man but she may have some legal problems herself. But anyway let's, let's listen to SOT1 which is Joseph Duggar describing jail life to Kendra and he's found some renewed religion.

[Joseph Duggar]

How are you?

[Kendra Duggar]

I'm alright. I've been spending a lot of time praying and reading the Bible. They got me a bible in here so I'm in solitary so I'm only, I'm in the cell for 23 hours of the day.

[Joseph Duggar]

Really?

[Kendra Duggar]

Yeah. So it's like an eight by area, pretty small area but I've been able to read a lot actually and resting some but not sleeping great through the night but yeah but, but it's good to hear your voice.

[Joseph Duggar]

Yeah, it's good to hear from you.

[Ashley Merchant]

I don't know resting and reading sounds pretty good but.

[Phil Holloway]

Well maybe when you're sipping a margarita by the pool in Florida but not in a Florida jail.

[Ashley Merchant]

Definitely not in jail.

[Phil Holloway]

And then, but well and then we got sought to where he's complaining though about the conditions in jail. He doesn't like his, this guy who admitted to these things with this child doesn't like the vulgar neighbor in the cell next door. Thought to.

[Joseph Duggar]

Yeah.

[Kendra Duggar]

How have you been? Have you.

[Joseph Duggar]

Oh, good. Yeah. It's been pretty intense. Yesterday was a really rough day, but I'm doing okay. I'm here with Jed and we're at John Abbey's and I'm trying to get some business stuff worked out. So if you have any questions, we're going to try to send them through. Travis. Yeah, just send them to you and

[Kendra Duggar]

I'll play where I can.

[Joseph Duggar]

Yeah, no, it's awesome. Yeah, I, yeah, but I, yeah, I got up at. I don't know if you've been sleeping much. Have you been sleeping much?

[Kendra Duggar]

Last night? They actually turned off most of the nights. They have like a light on in my room the whole night, so it's hard to see. Oh, wow. This the guy in one of the cells next door in the holding cell. Like he was supposed to get checked in stuff. He's been throwing a tantrum all day.

[Joseph Duggar]

Oh, wow.

[Kendra Duggar]

It's almost entertaining, except for he's pretty vulgar.

[Joseph Duggar]

Oh, man.

[Kendra Duggar]

Focus on my Bible reading.

[Ashley Merchant]

Wow.

[Phil Holloway]

He doesn't like it.

[Ashley Merchant]

He does not like it. Well, up next, though, we've got District attorney of the Northern Judicial Circuit, Parks White. He is joining us to discuss the case of a Georgia woman who is convicted of trying to murder her teenage son, who was autistic by slitting his throat with a box cutter. Our guest prosecuted, personally prosecuted this case, and he has some thoughts on the shocking sentence the judge handed down just last week. Stay tuned.

[VRBO Announcer]

Early birds always rise to the occasion for summer vacation planning because early gets you closer to the action. So don't be late. Book your next vacation early on VRBO and save over $120. Rise and shine. Average savings $141. Select homes only.

[Lemonade Pet Insurance Announcer (Alternate)]

If you're the proud parent of a puppy or kitten, you know you can't pet proof your entire life. There simply isn't a sock drawer high enough or a couch cover thick enough. But you can pet proof your wallet with Lemonade Pet Insurance. Whether it's an unexpected accident or a routine checkup, Lemonade can cover up to 90% of the bill. Plus, they can handle claims in as little as two seconds. So before you turn into a complete helicopter pet parent, get a'@lemonade.com pet Here's a question.

[Ashley Merchant]

How many brokers does it take to insure your business? If you're like most business owners, the answer is too many. Multiple policies, multiple applications, and no clear view of how it all fits together. And when questions come up, it's not easy to get the clarity you need. Super sure changes that one broker for all your business insurance, backed by a team that works with you year round, not just at renewal. And if you've ever stared at a policy wondering what it actually covers, super sure has a fine print fax tool that translates the legal jargon into plain English so you know what's covered and what's not. Right now you can go to super sure.com and get a full report on your current policies with absolutely no obligation. Find out if you're overinsured, underinsured, or somewhere in between. Go to super sure.com one super agency, one powerful platform. All your policies in one place. Go to super sure.com Megan that's supershore.com paid for by Super Sure Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency.

[Phil Holloway]

Welcome back to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co host Ashley Merchant. Joining us now on the program is district attorney for the Northern Judicial circuit in Georgia, Mr. Parks White. Welcome to the show, Parks. How are you today?

[Parks White]

Good afternoon. Thank you. I'm well, thank you for having me.

[Phil Holloway]

Thank you so much for joining us here on the program to talk about this Sykes case. And look, just to kind of set this up for context, this was a trial that occurred earlier this year in Oglethorpe County, Georgia. And the defendant, her name was Diane Sykes, 52 years old. And the jury convicted her for a crime that took place back in August of 2021, where she attempted apparently to kill her autistic son, who was 15 years old, by luring him outside to look at the moon. And while he was distracted, she used a box cutter to cut across his neck from ear to ear. He survived fortunately. And fast forward to the trial, the jury and I'll let you talk to his parts about the verdict. But suffice it to say, the jury found her guilty. And the evidence, by the way, is compelling and it is very graphic. We do have some photographs that we can show you that are on the graphic side, but we're not going to show you the face of the victim. But suffice it to say, it's terrible. And you know, this is the kind of thing where she would facing decades and decades in prison. And the judge gave a, well, he gave a sentence of only 90 days in jail. And therein lies the controversy. What did I get wrong or right, Parks? And what do you want to add to, to that?

[Parks White]

That that's correct. And for context and, and Clarification or the photographs that I believe in your. In your possession are ones that were introduced at trial and shown to the jury. In this case, the defendant had a. An evaluation vote both for competency and for criminal responsibility. And an evaluator assessed that she was competent in trial, but also returned to finding the stating that she was not guilty by reason of insanity. And Georgia, there's a presumption of sound mind. Every person is presumed to be competent and to be sane. And so knowing that we elected. Instead of relying upon this evaluation, we rely upon the presumption of sound mind, of sanity. Excuse me. And took the matter to trial. In a case in which the. In an insanity defense, the defense has the burden to prove it. We don't have to disprove it. In a sanity defense, they have the burden of proving insanity. So we tried our case, allowed the expert psychologist to testify regarding their opinion, cross examined that expert, and the jury had the option of finding the accused not guilty, not guilty by reason of sanity, guilty, but mentally ill or guilt in. And the jury returned a guilty verdict as to criminal attempt to commit murder, aggravated battery, aggravated assault, cruelty children, the first degree, and three counts of cruelty to children in the third degree.

[Phil Holloway]

Is that every count in the indictment?

[Parks White]

Yes.

[Ashley Merchant]

Parks, I was just curious about. So the evaluator that did it, was it a state appointed evaluator or was it a defense hired evaluator?

[Parks White]

It was the. The evaluator from the. The state department of behavior health.

[Phil Holloway]

Wow.

[Parks White]

However, once again, we're not bound by any evaluator, nor is the jury bound by an evaluator's determination. And reviewing the objective facts of the case, I believe that the evaluator had ignored relevant facts demonstrating cognizance of guilt on the part of the accused.

[Phil Holloway]

Such as what?

[Parks White]

Well, the fact. She seemed to discount the fact that the. The defendant slashed her wrists and tried to kill herself after slicing her son's throat. And during cross examination, I said, doctor, you would agree, wouldn't you, that trying to kill yourself after committing an act is. Shows consciousness of guilt? And she said, well, I suppose in some circumstances it might. I said, well, doctor, can you give me an example in the history of the world where anyone has tried to kill themselves after and on account of something they thought was good or right? And she said, no, I don't suppose. I can't. I was like, thank you.

[Ashley Merchant]

So it's pretty rare, though, for the state I know as a state evaluator to actually find someone meets the standard. I know it's a Pretty high standard. I mean, it's. I'm trying to think back when I've had one case where the state expert actually found my client met that standard. Do you agree? It's. It's pretty rare.

[Parks White]

Everyone's presumed to be competent and sane and meeting the. The standard for not guilty. But reason. Sanity requires a person suffers from a mental disease or defect that renders them incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong or suffers from a delusional compulsion that overmasters their will to resist committing the act. And it is a high standard. Georgia still has the delusional compulsion component of insanity, which was eliminated under federal law after President Reagan was shot. But there's rarely a return by evaluators of a determination of insanity. But still, objectively, it's for the jury to determine and the objective facts supported in this case. She tried to cut her wrist. She tried to drown herself, and she left the scene. She fled from where she had cut her flight.

[Phil Holloway]

Flight is always. And that's the classic consciousness of guilt, because the idea is that if you weren't aware that you had done something wrong or criminal, why would you flee? And so juries tend to look at that, in my experience, as pretty strong evidence that somebody knew what they were doing. But one of the jury options in this case was guilty but mentally ill. Ashley and I probably know what that is pretty well. But for the benefit of our audience, can you explain to us what that would have meant had the jury found her guilty but mentally ill, which is very different from insanity?

[Parks White]

Sure. If I could just touch on what you were saying about flight. As the Bible. As the Bible says, the.

[Joseph Duggar]

It.

[Parks White]

The wicked flee where no man pursueth, but the righteous are as bold as a lion. Which is a line we often use in closing argument when flight is present. But in. The jury had the option of finding the accused not guilty for reason, in which case the. The judge would have committed her, the defendant, to the department of behavioral health for annual assessment and determination of whether I should pose to danger to herself or others. It wouldn't be incarceration, but it would be in the custody of the department of behavior health. For not guilty. I'm sorry. For guilty but mentally ill. The standard is that they suffer from a mental disease that has some sort of effect on the action, but doesn't rise to the level of being insanity, meaning rendering them incapable of distinguishing right and wrong in that circumstance. If they had returned that verdict, she would have been sent into the department of Corrections to be evaluated and for a treatment plan to be assessed. And created during the course of incarceration in this case, her total term, she was not found guilty, but mentally just guilty. And even then, her term of incarceration was just 90 days.

[Phil Holloway]

On the specific facts of this case, I thought it was compelling that the jury found her straight guilty and did not choose because I've seen the verdict form. They could have put a check mark right there on guilty, but mentally ill, but they didn't. They checked straight guilty. And so, you know, she objectively looks like somebody who does have mental health issues, but the jury just said it doesn't rise to that level.

[Parks White]

That's right. And speaking with afterwards that they. After pointing out that the discrepancies between the investigation and the evaluation by the state evaluator, I think they discounted heavily her opinion because of the objective facts that she ignored. And not only that cutting her own wrists, consciousness of guilt through trying to kill herself, but her statements afterwards where she said that she was trying to kill her son and then kill herself, and she was doing so to unburden the family of her son.

[Ashley Merchant]

I had a question about. You were mentioning the civil commitment. I know a lot of our listeners don't really understand what that means. So if she was civilly committed, she would go to a state hospital and it's a lockdown facility, and then she could potentially stay there longer than a sentence, though. Right.

[Parks White]

Potentially an annual review would have to be done by the judge based upon report provided by the Department of Behavioral Health to determine whether she still posed a danger to herself or others.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right. I remember because the one case I ever had that was ngri. It pained me that he was found NGRI, because he ended up staying in the state hospital much longer than the offer was, but it just, it was there. And so it became painfully obvious that you could actually end up staying in custody. I know it's different. It's in a mental hospital, but staying in custody longer if you are, you know, if you are civilly committed. So I think that's interesting for our listeners to understand the difference between the two.

[Parks White]

It's a rare occurrence, but yes, it can happen.

[Phil Holloway]

Hey, I got a question for you. So normally, and I've tried a lot of cases, I know we all three have. Normally, what happens, certainly in these serious, violent or serious felonies, if a jury finds somebody guilty and they're out on bond, that bond typically evaporates. And even if they're not sentenced on the spot, which sometimes they are, but oftentimes sentencing is delayed, but judges usually take the Defendant into custody prior to or pending the sentencing hearing. That didn't happen in this case. Tell me about that.

[Parks White]

That was surprising because you're right. The. The bond is a guarantee to. To appear at all court hearings and issued for a person to be allowed to be released from custody during the pendency of a criminal case. But upon a jury's return of a verdict, whatever the verdict is, the bond is no longer valid. And so upon the return of the guilty verdict, I moved to have her taken into custody because her. She no longer had a valid bond. Before the defense attorney could even ask, the judge announced he was going to grant her an appeal bond. It's not the appellate stage, but that's how he described it. And he immediately released her on a $25,000 bond.

[Phil Holloway]

Okay, so let's. Let's take it from there. So if she's released on an appeal bond, there's no appeal that's been filed. She hadn't been sentenced at this point, I take it, right?

[Parks White]

No.

[Phil Holloway]

So the sentencing happened. How much. How far after that did the sentencing happen?

[Parks White]

The tr. The case was tried at the beginning of February, starting on the second, and went through the end of the week. The verdict was returned on Friday. The jury did not deliberate long after the full presentation of the case with both sides, and then she was scheduled to be sentenced in mid March. The judge, however, was otherwise occupied with another jury trial, and so the sentencing was delayed until April 15, at which point she was sentenced in the afternoon of that day in Oglethorpe County. The judge had some civil matters scheduled before that. There were. There was also a criminal calendar that morning that Diane Sykes appeared on, but she was not reached until the afternoon. And then he. He took up the civil matters first, and then the. The sentencing of the accused occurred.

[Phil Holloway]

So even though there was an appeal bond, she was sentenced and she was taken into custody on that sentence.

[Parks White]

But it wasn't an appeal bond. He just. I think it was just. Okay, he misdescribed it, but it was. It was a bond pending sentencing.

[Phil Holloway]

Okay, that makes more sense. But then let's talk about the sentence. What was the sentence? And what. First off, what did you ask for?

[Parks White]

Based upon the. The charges that. Upon which the defendant was found guilty, she faced a maximum of 73 years in custody. I did not ask for the maximum in this case, even though it was a very egregious and gruesome crime. I think the jury was horrified by the images they saw of this child who had his neck cut so significantly by his Own mother. I asked for a 50 year sentence with the first 25 to be served in custody. And even while asking for that, I, I said, your honor, I allow her, she has the ability to file for a remold with one within one year. She can be re sentenced during that within a year. I'd ask that you impose that 25 year sentence, allow her to file for that and see if she doesn't come back expressing some remorse or contrition. Because she never did. She never apologized. Which is one of those dumbfounding things about this case is that there was, there wasn't, there didn't seem to be any remorse.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, you know, then what did the defense ask for for sentencing? What was their proposed sentence?

[Parks White]

Probation.

[Phil Holloway]

So they wanted straight probation. All right, what did the judge do?

[Parks White]

The judge imposed a 70 year sentence for the offenses of attempted murder, aggravated aggravated battery, aggravated assault, merged and then crow the children in the first degree and concurrent 12 month sentences for the cruelty children, third degree counts, but only 90 days in jail, the rest on probation.

[Ashley Merchant]

And so this is not the victim is her, one of her sons, but she has a couple other children, Right. How many kids does she have?

[Parks White]

She has four children in total.

[Ashley Merchant]

Okay. Including the boy and. And her husband, right?

[Parks White]

Yes.

[Ashley Merchant]

And then all of them, they all came to court and spoke at the sentencing hearing, though, I assume did they did. Okay. And did they want the sentence that you were asking for? Did they want her to come home?

[Parks White]

They did not want to see her go to prison. However, as I pointed out to the judge during the course of the sentencing, there's a good reason we don't allow family members to sentence defendants. Otherwise there wouldn't be a prison in the state of Georgia. I mean that the family members never want to see another family member punished or almost never. And in family violence situations, we often have to arrest victims and bring them to court when they are refuse to cooperate with our prosecution of somebody because the victims are not parties to the controversy.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right.

[Parks White]

State versus the accused.

[Ashley Merchant]

So and she was she on bond throughout the whole case? Because I see the case, what it started in 2021, right.

[Parks White]

Not at first, some custody at the beginning. She also was evaluated for competency, but she was out on bond for the majority of the pendency of the case. And it came out during the course of sentencing that she had been violating her bond for the last nine months, which limited the amount of time that she was allowed to see the victim. And she was not permitted to stay overnight per the bond, but she had Been living in the family household for nine months prior to sentencing.

[Phil Holloway]

You know, every time. Look, I've been doing this a long time. I've been on both sides of this, and I could not even conceive of a case where a parent is accused of slicing their child's throat from ear to ear and then being allowed to have any contact whatsoever with that child. I can't imagine them really being out on bond where I practice, but I can't imagine, certainly if they are, that they would have any. Be allowed to have any contact. But then what you're saying now is that she not only violated the bond, but she was having all the contacts she wanted while she was violating the bond prior to the trial.

[Parks White]

Yes, she. She was permitted to have supervised contact during a window of time with. With her family and the victim. But the. And there's the defects also. It was involved in the case, but she was not permitted to stay overnight according to the bond. But she had been. She had moved back into the house and living there for nine months, which the judge was not aware of until the sentencing hearing.

[Ashley Merchant]

Did she. Did she have any. I know you said that she violated it by living with him. Did she try to attack him again while she was on bond for those years?

[Parks White]

No.

[Ashley Merchant]

Okay. Did you have any violence at all while she was on bond?

[Parks White]

There was an arrest for aggravated stalking during that. That time period.

[Phil Holloway]

Okay, wait a minute, hold on there. There was an arrest for that?

[Parks White]

Yes.

[Phil Holloway]

And so aggravated stalking is based on the violation of the court order and basically a pattern of doing it over and over again. What happened with that aggravated stalking charge? Because in Georgia you can get a couple of decades in prison just for that.

[Parks White]

I can't really discuss that. The case right now.

[Phil Holloway]

Fair enough. Fair enough.

[Ashley Merchant]

We understand. So, okay. But she did have a mental illness. Right. Even though you didn't think that she rose to the level of insanity, you do agree that she did have some mental illness?

[Parks White]

The evaluator concluded so. And she has been treated for mental illness, but I believe that it was a condition that was. That pre existed this act. Yeah, the. The. And I know she has. She's. She's under a physician's care or she has prescriptions that she's now following.

[Ashley Merchant]

Oh, good. And since she's been following those, she hasn't had any other violence. She hasn't taken a box cut her to a son or anything violent since she's been on those prescriptions?

[Parks White]

No, she hasn't.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, this is a. This highlights something that I talked about earlier A couple days ago on the show, which was the fact that in Georgia judges, well, all over judges have very wide latitude in sentencing and sometimes judges sentence too harshly and sometimes they don't sentence harshly enough and then sometimes, you know, they make other mistakes. But this also highlights. There's another case that highlights this sentencing disparity, if you will, or contrast from even one county to another. This is another case out of your office that I see was reported. I'm looking from the central Georgian back on April 16, which is just the day after the Sykes sentencing. And I think you mentioned this also on a Facebook post. This involves the sentencing of a 34 year old woman in Hart county who pled guilty to repeatedly sexually abusing a 13 year old victim. Over the course of two years. She got a sentence that was life in prison followed by 20 years. And this is just next door to Oglethorpe county, is that right?

[Parks White]

Yes, it's a. Hart county is also in the circuit. It was a blind plea and the sentence was imposed by Judge Neesmith, who's our newest superior court judge. The, the fact pattern, I'm reluctant to describe it because I don't want to identify the victim in any way, but it was a horrific crime and the, the percentage was appropriate considering the conduct.

[Phil Holloway]

I think you could say they're both horrific. You know, it may be in different ways, but if you got someone getting life plus 20 for a crime against a 13 year old and then you get 90 days in jail for trying to take the life of a teenager in the next county, that's, that's a, that's a big difference.

[Ashley Merchant]

So that other case that was, that was repeated conduct. So I'm guessing that was a little bit different since it was repeated. And did the victim's family in that case, I'm guessing they were not there asking for leniency.

[Parks White]

They were not there asking for leniency. But also it shows that the difference between judicial temperament and you know, Judge, Judge Neesmith has, in his background has experience being on the side of the state. He was a former prosecutor. Years ago he worked as an assistant district attorney. Judge Wasserman in Oglethorpe county spent his career as a defense attorney and as the public defender. And I think it's important to be a balanced judge and have some experience on both sides. Which judge ME Smith has. He's been on the side of a defense attorney as well as a prosecutor. Well, Judge Wasserman spent his entire career practicing on the defense side. And yeah, and a lot of times

[Phil Holloway]

judges come to the bench with no criminal law experience either, and then suddenly they're presiding over criminal cases. But what we would want, I think in a perfect world or a perfect justice system, is that judges, irrespective of where they came from in terms of their practice before being a judge, that they moved to basically being an umpire who's calling balls and strikes objectively without out the thumb on the scale for either side. But look, we're going to leave it there with Parks White, the D A and the Northern Judicial Circuit of Georgia. But before we let you go, can you tell us, is there any appeal going on in this case? What do you expect to happen, if anything, with regard to this case?

[Parks White]

In every criminal case that goes to trial, we normally expect an appeal to occur that will be beginning with the motion for new trial, which will be filed 30 days after the signed sentence is filed or the notice of appeal. We expect that to happen. It may not happen because the penalty wasn't it was so minor that there's a chance that the defense attorney might see that there's not any value to retrying the case or seeking to have the conviction reversed. So we'll have to wait and see. But we always anticipate appeals after jury trials.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, we'll leave it there. Thank you so much for your time. We'll continue to follow this case and may welcome you back here anytime. Okay. All right, guys. Up next, we have our closing arguments and your questions from the Mailbag. Stay tuned.

[L]

Do you love your pets? Do you love suspense? Do you love it when your pets keep you in suspense because they ate something mysterious? And who knows what the vet visit will cost? If you answered yes twice and then no, you should protect your pet with Lemonade Pet insurance. It can save you up to 90% on vet bills for checkups, emergencies, diagnostics, all the stuff that leaves you financially on the edge of your seat. Get a quick and Easy [e-mail] pet and get your suspense somewhere else, like from a riveting podcast.

[Phil Holloway]

Starting something new, especially a business, is hard. So much work goes into this thing that you're not entirely sure is going to even work. And it can be hard to make that leap of faith. Trust me, I've done it. But having a partner like Shopify on your side can help make all the difference. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all E commerce in the United States, from household names like Mattel and Allbirds to businesses that are just starting out with hundreds of templates. Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store that matches your brand's style. It's packed with great AI tools that write product descriptions, page headlines, and even enhance your product images. Their marketing tools also help you create email and social media campaigns wherever your customers are scrolling. Plus, Shopify provides world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns. All with 24, seven award winning support. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com Megan go to shopify.com Megan M E G Y N that's shopify.com slashed Megan

[Ashley Merchant]

welcome back to MK True Crime. Before we get to our legal mailbag and our closing arguments, we want to let all of you, our listeners, know that starting next week, we'll be transforming into the MK True Crime Show. Dave, me and Phil, we're not going anywhere. We're just switching to dropping new episodes every Tuesday and Thursday. And we're happy to report that our friends and True Crime contributors, Mark Iglersch and Jona Spilboard will start their own show, Positively Legal next week along with in the well with Mark Garagos and Matt Murphy. Big things happening next week, so make sure you're subscribed to our YouTube channel and follow us on social media. And now it's time for our legal mailbag. So listener Selena asks. I read that in the sentencing phase of the Athena Strand trial, jurors broke down in tears when hearing some of the last words Athena uttered before she was killed. How incredibly heartbreaking it was to hear this. It made me think of what jurors are exposed to when selected for cases, especially for highly emotional or intense cases. It seems unfair that jurors are forced to take in such emotionally disturbing information. Can a juror refuse to listen or view images that recount a terrible crime? Could a juror ever sue the courts for emotional distress stemming from having to serve on a jury and be exposed to horrific testimony and images? All right, so I will give you my two cents on this and then we can see Phil's opinion on it. But this is one of the things I call vicarious trauma. And I think everybody, including prosecutors, you know, I rag on prosecutors, but everybody in the system feels this. This is something that is not just jurors. I feel it, prosecutors feel it, police officers feel it, and jurors definitely feel it. It's a great question. Everybody has it. Death penalty is definitely worse because the whole point is you're having the worst of the worst. But unfortunately, jurors can't check Out. And that's one of the things that always ask jurors during jury selection, their ability to actually sit and, you know, be human, because a human would have a problem with this type of evidence and this type of testimony. And that's where we really are able to talk to jurors. And I can tell you personally, I've had jurors break down and cry and recount certain things in their lives that made me know that they were not emotionally able to handle jury duty. And they were very happy for me to relieve them of that duty. And I think most lawyers are able to do that and do that regularly.

[Phil Holloway]

You know, actually, this Tanner Horner sentencing trial out there in Tarrant County, Texas, this is. That's probably one of the most horrifying trials that I've ever discussed or known about or had any connection with whatsoever, media or otherwise in my career. And, you know, we had jurors that, you know, I guess they were sobbing, right? And the. There was just literally that wailing in court. And what they were having to listen to was the audio of the torture and murder of 7 year old Athena Strand. And you know, I tell you, I don't know that I could have, if I were on the jury, I don't know that I could have sat there and listened to that. But. Yeah, but the answer, honestly the short answer to the question is, do they have to? Well, yeah, they do. I mean, and if they don't, if they refuse to participate, well, then it could listen to. I mean, that can lead to a mistrial.

[Ashley Merchant]

Right.

[Phil Holloway]

And that's not what prosecutors or judges want to do. Now, you do have alternates and things like that, but if, if you have problems with juries to the point that they can't participate and they can't deliberate. I had a woman one time during jury deliberations, she was so upset that she just busted out of the jury room and ran down the hall and laid in the hallway just sobbing uncontrollably. And we almost had to do a mistrial because we were out of alternates at that point. So. But the emotions are real and they're humans. And we don't expect people to leave their humanity at the door, the courtroom. We expect them to bring it with them. But it is truly a challenge sometimes. And that's why it's truly called jury service, because it is a service to society for people to sit and listen to and see things that oftentimes are just terrible things to look and see.

[Ashley Merchant]

It is, it is definitely a service. And before we get to your closing argument, Phil, one thing I did want to mention is I've actually talked with a lot of jurors that have served on juries where I've been one of the advocates, and they've become friends. And so they do actually find solace with each other because they've gone through a similar experience. I've had them reach out to me because sometimes, you know, maybe they found my client guilty or didn't find him guilty, and either way, something awful happened, and so they want to talk about it and sort of process it. So they do help each other. So that has been one of the good sides of humanity that I've seen, where people are actually going through this experience together and then helping each other on the other side. So, Phil, you want to take it away with your closing argument?

[Phil Holloway]

All right, so I mentioned earlier in the show that I wanted to talk to you about forensic child interviews, and I've talked in other closings here on this program about what I would call, and other people call junk science. Right. And how junk science, if it infects the criminal justice system, can lead to horrible and horrifying results. But often these things, these forensic child interviews, they are presented in court as if they are reliable science. And this is not just an interview between a police officer or an investigator and a witness. This is people that they go and they get trained in these techniques and they're referred to as forensic interviews, as if they have some more weight that they should be given than just an, I guess, a garden variety interview. But they are presented as if they have the weight of, like, solid science behind them, but they really don't in many cases. And they can be fundamentally flawed. And these things can fall into the bucket that we call junk science. Research reveals that there are five major problems with these types of interviews. Number one, there's very high suggestibility in young children who will readily incorporate false details from leading questions into their memories. Famed memory expert Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, who I've interviewed, and she's a. It was a great interview, and I learned so much. In fact, I even studied her work in law school. She has conducted research with startling results. False memories can and are oftentimes implanted in the minds of witnesses, by the way, the manner in which they are questioned. So false memories can be implanted. And number two, interviewer bias and confirmation bias. Interviewers oftentimes enter with preconceived beliefs and steer the child towards those conclusions. Have you ever heard the phrase, if you're a hammer, Everything looks like a nail. That's what I'm talking about. If the person who's doing these interviews is steeped personally in their philosophy in terms of being an advocate for one side or the one side or the other, they're no longer objective and they're not calling the balls and strikes. The third big problem that studies have identified is, well, problematic question types, overuse of yes or no questions, forced choices and repeated suggestive questions. These things contaminate the responses and it reduces the accuracy or the validity of the end product. Fourth, we have memory and developmental limitations. Children, children of all ages can struggle with source monitoring, time concepts and distinguishing reality from suggestions, yet they will report false accounts with confidence. And number five, external contamination and procedural issues. These include parental coaching, which we see a lot, by the way, and inadequate video recording, which we also see a lot. These well documented defects mean many interviews that are produced by this method. They produce unreliable testimony at trials. And guess what happens when you have unreliable, unreliable testimony at trial? Well, you've got wrongful convictions. And wrongful convictions destroy people's lives. And it destroys confidence in the justice system. So courts must treat this. In fact, prosecutors and juries must treat this evidence with extreme caution, demand full video review and expert scrutiny. This is not solid science, despite what some say. It just simply is not. It is psychological vulnerability oftentimes disguised as justice. Ashley, that's it. That's my rent. That's my clothes. Back to you.

[Ashley Merchant]

Thank you, Phil. That was great. All right, so I'm going to talk about one of the cases we talked about here today a little bit. So let me get this straight. In this one case, there is a state appointed evaluator, not a defense handpicked expert. Not that we do that, but this one says that this woman meets a very, very high legal burden of insanity. Talking about Diane Sykes. This expert says that she meets that standard. Not even close. Meets it. And it's very high. You just heard our guest say it's very high standard. I've been practicing 24 years and I've only had one client that the state evaluator said met that standard. It's hard. Okay, fine. The state says they disagree. They call it consciousness of guilt. They say she was fleeing. They say she tried to commit suicide. Jury goes with it. That's fine. It happens. State usually gets the benefit of the doubt at the jury trial. And it is a very high burden to prove insanity. You have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which is hard for a defendant to do. So then we get to sentencing. And that's when suddenly, all of a sudden, reality shows up. So this lady's husband, her kids, her four kids, even the victim come to court and they tell the judge, let her come home. We want her home. She's been out on bond for years. No violence. She actually has been doing well. She's been taking her medicine. No violence, no re offense, nothing like that. So what? When a judge is determining sentencing, what are they supposed to think about? What protects society, what protects the public? Sounds like treatment, medication, stability. Sounds like that's working. Not a prison cell. We have enough of those every single day. We see situations, every state, every country where people are dying in our prisons. So what does the judge do? He gives her a short sentence, a long probation sentence, and tells her she's got to stay on her medicine. And now that's not justice. That's an injustice. Because this is really interesting. The state usually gets its way, and a judge usually leans hard on the defense, but now we're calling the system unfair. So it actually looks like mercy to me. It's sort of fascinating to me when a prosecutor discovers this concept of fairness and unfairness the moment a judge does not do what they want. Because where is that energy every other day in court? Criminal defense lawyers, we live in a world where fair is more of a suggestion than a standard. We file motions, they get denied. We don't get a hearing half the time. We argue issues clearly on our side and we lose. We watch the state get continuance after continuance, get the benefit of the doubt, get the max sentence, get these draconian sentences every single day. You know what? We adjust. We just keep going. We just keep going. But the second the tables turn, it's outrage. It's not right. It's not fair. How could the court do this? Something's wrong with the judge. Welcome to our world. Welcome to criminal defense with we're unfair isn't shocking. It's just every other Tuesday. The difference is we don't stand up and complain. We just take it. Take the hit, adjust, just keep on fighting. Thank you all for joining us. We hope that you all will follow us on this new show that we're doing. And we thank our guest, Parks White, and thank you so much to my co host, Bill Holloway. And thank you for joining us. I hope everyone has a great, great weekend.

[Mazda Commercial Voice]

You're never just one thing. You're the boss. Hey, Google, when's my next meeting? The athlete that class wrecks me and their mom. Everyone in the all new Mazda CX5 more to move every side of you. Learn more at mazdausa. Com. Google is a trademark of Google llc. Sequences shortened and simulated.