← MK True Crime
MK True Crime
MAJOR Ruling in Luigi Mangione Case, Harvey Weinstein’s Mistrial, and Alternative Theory on Murdaugh Murders, with James Lasdun
01:10:11
The MK True Crime Show hosts Ashleigh Merchant and Phil Holloway join the program to discuss the new ruling in the case against Luigi Mangione, the accused killer of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson, what evidence will and won’t be allowed in his state trial, why it differs from what’s admissible in the federal trial, the nuances of what qualifies as an illegal search and seizure, the outcome of Harvey Weinstein’s latest sexual assault case, why jurors say they couldn’t reach a verdict, the surprising gender dynamics at play in the jury room, award-winning author James Lasdun joins Ashleigh and Phil to discuss the latest updates in the reopened Murdaugh murders case, the prosecution’s statement about possibly seeking capital punishment in a retrial, the defense’s insistence that Murdaugh will not consider a plea deal, how Alex Murdaugh matches the disturbing criminal profile of a ‘family annihilator,’ a fascinating alternative theory that could explain what happened at Moselle,...
Loading summary
Transcript166 lines
- [00:00]
A
Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're
- [00:03]
B
not sure where to start.
- [00:04]
A
Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have
- [00:06]
C
to don't know the difference between matte
- [00:08]
A
paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is.
- [00:12]
C
With Thumbtack, you don't have to be
- [00:13]
A
a home pro, you just have to hire one.
- [00:15]
C
You can hire top rated pros, see
- [00:17]
A
price estimates and read reviews all on the app download.
- [00:20]
B
Today in the US there's a break in every 26 seconds. But when intruders step near Simplisafe, home security steps up.
- [00:27]
C
Stop this.
- [00:28]
A
This is Simplisafe. Police are on the way.
- [00:31]
B
Using AI alerts US based live agents help deter break ins. Simplisafe no long term contracts. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at SimpliSafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm Outdoor Deterrence requires a
- [00:44]
A
SimpliSafe Active Guard Outdoor Protection Plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit SimpliSafe.com licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee 2012.
- [00:55]
B
Welcome to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Ashley Merchant, criminal defense attorney from Atlant, Georgia. Today I am joined by my friend and co host Phil Holloway. He is a criminal defense lawyer, a former prosecutor and a police officer. Hey Phil, how are you?
- [01:09]
A
I'm doing great, Ashley. Always happy to be here with you.
- [01:12]
B
Good to see you. So let's talk about what we have on the docket today. We have a lot of big stories coming out. We have a major ruling that we just got in the case of Luigi Mangione. He is the accused killer of United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson. We'll tell you what the evidence will come in and what will not be allowed in his state.
- [01:31]
A
Yeah. And Ashley, we also have Harvey Weinstein news. Back to New York. We've got Harvey Weinstein who scored a victory in court last Friday. We'll discuss the mistrial ruling handed down by the court and what comes next for the three times accuser Jessica Mann.
- [01:50]
B
And joining us later we have author James Lasdin. He is going to share his thoughts on Alex Murdaugh's recently overturned murder convictions and his new book the Family Blood and Betrayal in the House of Murdoch. Can't wait for that, Phil. Let's start with Luigi Mangioni. News. So what's going on with Luigi?
- [02:09]
A
Yeah. All right. So we got quite a lot. So by way of background, folks will of course remember, unless they've been living under a rock, Luigi Mangione, 27 years old is accused of murdering Brian Thompson, who was the CEO of United Healthcare. Thompson was shot and he was killed in in what law enforcement says was a targeted attack outside the Hilton Hotel in Midtown Manhattan on December 4th of 2024. We've got some video surveillance footage of that that we can show our viewers on YouTube. Mangione, of course, faces state and federal charges. He's pleaded not guilty to all those. The state charges actually include second degree murder. He's facing 25 years to life on that. And criminal possession of a weapon. Federal charges include interstate travel and electronic communication for stalking and the use of firearm during a crime of violence. Ashley, we've got some big news, though, because we've got some different evidence coming into each case. What's going on?
- [03:12]
B
Yeah, Phil, we got a big ruling today, so I'm just gonna kind of catch our viewers up on what happened recently in the state court case. And then I know we have a lot to talk about with comparing the difference with the federal court and the state court and why the rulings seem to be a little bit different. But what's happening right now is five months ago, people may rem, there was a hearing that examined whether or not the police obtained certain evidence from him. And the judge just ruled on that. So in New York state court, Judge Caro just ruled on the evidence that was actually found on Luigi's body at the time of arrest. And so he had a backpack, y' all may remember. He was at a McDonald's when he was arrested, and there was a backpack that was with him, but it wasn't on him. So it was. When I say on, I mean around him, but it wasn't physically on him. So it wasn't within arm's reach, which is what we like to spend talk about in the legal community. Arms reach means you can grab it. So it wasn't. And his defense had argued that this evidence should actually be suppressed, meaning that it shouldn't come in in front of the jury, and that the state shouldn't be allowed to present any evidence that the state found in that backpack search. So there's two sets of evidence. There was the things that they found in the backpack and then the things that they found later on, actually the police precinct when they did what they call an inventory search. So what we have in the state court is we have a ruling where the judge says the stuff you found at the SC in his backpack not coming in the stuff you found later on at the precinct when you did what's called an inventory search. That is coming in. So the New York state judge has sort of split those two where in federal court. It's definitely different because the federal judge said, you know what, it can all come in. So it's a very different ruling. And I want to talk to you a little bit, Phil, about why that might happen, why the judge in federal court might find that this is admissible. Where the judge in state court said not so much.
- [04:57]
A
Well, I, I, that's, you know, you're, this is great subject for this show and for this program because it's an opportunity for our viewers and our listeners to, if they don't already know, to learn a little bit about how the federal and state courts do things very differently sometimes. In fact, before we get into that, let's go ahead and call for SOT1A, which should be the judge issuing his ruling in court on Monday find that
- [05:26]
C
the search of the backpack at the
- [05:28]
A
McDonald's was improper warrantless search, that the
- [05:33]
C
backpack was not within the immediate control
- [05:36]
A
or grabbable area of the defendant and further, the people failed to demonstrate exigent circumstances.
- [05:43]
C
Therefore, those items found in the backpack
- [05:46]
A
during the search at the McDonald's will be suppressed. However, the people have established that the
- [05:53]
C
subsequent search of the backpack at the station was a valid inventory search and
- [05:59]
A
therefore the items recovered at the station will not be suppressed.
- [06:05]
C
So as to the Huntley issue, I
- [06:07]
A
find that the defendant was not in custody until about 9:47am so any statements
- [06:16]
C
before that will not be suppressed.
- [06:18]
A
However, as Miranda warnings were not given until some seconds after 9:48 in the
- [06:25]
B
morning, those statements made shortly before that
- [06:29]
C
in response to improper custodial questions that
- [06:34]
A
were not merely a request for pedigree
- [06:36]
C
information will be suppressed. The remaining statements will not be suppressed as they were either spontaneous or request
- [06:46]
A
for pedigree or safety related questions. So those statements will be permitted.
- [06:55]
B
So this is pretty significant. I mean, this is a big win. But I thought it was interesting when I talk about arms reach, that's really what this ruling is about I was
- [07:04]
A
going to ask you about. So it seems like this judge is ruling. So it's like folks cannot, should understand that these decisions are made. And I don't necessarily agree with every point the judge made. But suffice, let's just say that he's 100% right on this. Notice how it's, it's based on this granular details, very specific details. He said he's in custody at 947. So whether someone's in custody or not makes a huge legal Difference. And things that are outside your wingspan or your arm's reach can make a big difference.
- [07:36]
B
Yeah. And really it's because of officer safety. So that's what it comes down to. Because officers are allowed to search things like you hear about patents down searches. What's a pat down search? You know, the officer saying, is there anything that's going to stick me, hurt me? They're looking for weapons. That's what they're looking for. And so, you know, we allow searches when it involves officer safety. Safety. Because that's our utmost goal. You know, we want to make sure
- [07:56]
A
our officers are safe. Question for that. So don't mean to interrupt you, but look, if we're talking about officer safety, so we know that the, the items of this backpack was at issue. Right. And so the officers apparently did sort of a partial search on this before they officially took him down to the station and all that. And they were saying that because this was not in his arm's reach because it didn't qualify for any exception to the search warrant requirement. But my question then is, what if there were a bomb in there? I mean, if it's, if it's outside your arm's reach, of course you can't access a firearm or a knife or anything like that. But what if there's a. What if there's an explosive device in there? It doesn't have to be in his arm's reach to. To do harm.
- [08:41]
B
No, it doesn't have to. But at the same time, you can't just search a backpack. If I just leave a backpack somewhere and you don't have any probable cause to search that backpack, you don't have any reason to believe that I have a bomb in that backpack. You can't just go and search it and, you know, it's a fine line. What you're talking about makes a lot of sense because a lot of times people want searches done for safety of everyone. I mean, it would be great if we could know if there's a bomb in a bag and we can search that bag. But we have a very fine line with our 4th amendment against search and seizure when it's unreasonable. And what the court said here is that is unreasonable. There was no evidence that he might have a bomb and it wasn't on his person. And so for officer safety, they didn't need to actually search him. But what I think is really interesting for our viewers is the difference between federal court and state court. Phil. Because there's a different result in federal court, right?
- [09:29]
A
Yes, there is. And the federal judge, you know, look, we've got different legal systems. You've got. The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution is grounded in reasonableness. It says that you shall not be subject to unreasonable search and seizure. And for reasons that I'm going to get into a little bit in more detail at my closing at the end of the program, we'll point out that if there's not a warrant, then the evidence is presumably illegally obtained. So there's a presumption that it's going to be suppressed. Now, there's lots of exceptions that have been carved out by the U.S. supreme Court over time, and a lot of states follow those exceptions in lockstep and follow the federal jurisprudence on this issue. But a lot of states, and we can see this in New York, actually, they do their own thing. And I want to dive more into that. But before we do, I think it might make sense to go ahead and take a look at site one, which is Mangioni, who identifies himself as Mark Rosario on body cam footage so we can see what this judge's ruling is basically turning on. This is the incident here.
- [11:01]
C
Yes, sir.
- [11:04]
A
Yeah, sure.
- [11:05]
B
Appreciate it.
- [11:07]
C
Thank you.
- [11:08]
B
Okay.
- [11:10]
A
What's your name?
- [11:12]
C
Mark.
- [11:12]
B
What is it?
- [11:13]
A
Mark.
- [11:13]
C
Mark.
- [11:14]
B
Yes, sir. Mark what?
- [11:15]
A
Aari Lazari. Someone called.
- [11:17]
B
They thought you were suspicious.
- [11:19]
C
Oh, I'm sorry.
- [11:22]
A
Yes, sir.
- [11:22]
B
Thanks.
- [11:28]
A
I thought she looked like someone. Out of New Jersey.
- [11:41]
B
So it's interesting, Phil, some of those statements are going to be admissible, but we actually don't have a ruling yet in the federal case as to whether or not those statements are all going to be admissible.
- [11:49]
A
So let's, let's itemize here. Our producers did a good job here. Thank you. Wonderful crack producer team. Because we have it broken down, so there's certain evidence that's allowed in both trials. Okay. The gun and the silencer. And by the way, that was a big victory for prosecutors getting that in. There's a notebook which prosecutors are calling a manifesto and the defense is calling a diary. There's a USB drive. Now, that's evidence that's going to be allowed in both cases. Now, what is suppressed at the state trial but is also allowed at the federal trial are the following things. There's an ammunition magazine, commonly referred to as a clip or just a mag. We have a cell phone, a passport, a wallet and a computer chip. And all this was found in that backpack. Now, we have pre Miranda statements to police that will mostly be allowed in the state trial with the limited exceptions, that is the false identification. And as you mentioned that federal ruling is unknown at present, but that's sort of the breakdown on it. And you know, it's just so granular in how the judge made his analysis. Actually, it's worth, I think, pointing out and please correct me if I'm wrong, but you know, New York doesn't really have this idea of inevitable discovery. In other words, the federal, in the federal system just say that there's some mistake and police are not acting in bad faith and they take something that is maybe, you know, would be otherwise suppressible, but if it's something that would be inevitably located or found anyway, courts will let it in. And so I've always wondered, okay, is this stuff that was located at the police station, wouldn't it be subject to an inevitable discovery type analysis? But they don't recognize that exception in New York.
- [13:45]
B
Right. I think it's really interesting and I think it actually tells a lot politically about the state. You know, different states that I practice in, you can tell if they are more of a liberal leaning state or more of a conservative leaning state. And this is when you can tell it. So here in Georgia, we have inevitable discovery. This would probably have been admitted. In the federal system they have inevitable discovery. But in New York, which the judges tend to be more left leaning, more liberal and the legislature is more liberal, then you've got this, this rule that says, oh, nope, you can't say it's just inevitably be discovered and be admissible. And what that really means for our viewers is if the law thinks, if the judge thinks that the police will find it inevitably. So like a backpack that's just sitting there, are they going to inevitably find it? Then they're saying that there's no harm because there was no fourth Amendment violation, no search and seizure violations. And so, hey, because we're inevitably going to find it, we'll let it in. And it's kind of a catch all. And so New York is a lot more strict. They hold their police to a higher standard and say, we're not going to let this in just because you claim you would have found it eventually.
- [14:50]
A
So our audience needs to understand Ashley is really a, you know, she's a search and seizure scholar. She's one of the leading experts that I know.
- [15:00]
B
Oh my gosh.
- [15:01]
A
On this subject. And I feel like I know it pretty well. But Ashley, why was this not something that would all fall into the search incident to a lawful arrest, that being one of the numerous exceptions to the. Well, we call it the fourth Amendment, which would be the federal Standard. But of course, you know, the state. States have their own constitutions that have different levels of protection against, let's just say unreasonable or warrantless. Let's just say warrantless searches and seizures.
- [15:31]
B
Right.
- [15:31]
A
Why was this not a. A search incident to an arrest or something for officer safety?
- [15:37]
B
I think that is the perfect question, because I thought that was a very fine line and the judge might go there. And I actually looked at the judge's ruling, and what the judge said was that the initial backpack search did not meet the requirements for a warrantless search. And the reason was there was no concern of a weapon. So your point about there being a bomb or something was an interesting point. But what the judge found was there was no concern that he could actually get a weapon. So we allow these searches incident to arrest, but only for officer safety. What does that mean? That means, can the suspect pull out a knife and cut you? Can they break a bottle and cut you? Do they have a gun? Do they have something like that? Do they have a gun in their bag? Do they have a bomb in their bag? And because there was no evidence that he actually could reach this and get a weapon, there was no allegation. The government was not allowed to say this is a search incident to arrest because it wasn't. It wasn't on him. It was located near him, but it wasn't actually on him. So he wasn't able to go grab it and pull a gun on this officer. So that was really their distinction. And you know, Phil, as you know from doing these, a lot of it just depends on the judge. I mean, one judge down the hall might rule completely differently on this, and we see it every day. It usually is upheld on appeal because it's within the judge's discretion. But that's why the judge matters, because every judge in a courthouse could rule very differently on this, and it could really affect the outcome.
- [16:56]
A
Somebody I was tweeting or posting on X about this and someone raised the question, you know, is this, can the prosecution appeal? And, you know, theoretically they can try, but they're not going to because they got so much in. And there's still a significant amount of evidence on this. I don't think they're going to appeal. But let me just put my. My cop hat on for a minute because I did that before I went to law school. And like, so I go in this place and I had a pretty good idea who I'm dealing with here. I'm going to search that bag. I don't care if it's not in arm's reach, because I want to make sure that he can't lunge for it. Even if it's out of arm's reach. Maybe he can lunge for it. Maybe there's an explosive device in there. I'm going to do then and there on scene in that moment what I think it's going to take, not only to keep me safe, but to keep the public at large safe around me. And you know what? I'm going to talk more about the exclusionary rule, which is the rule that excludes evidence that's unlawfully seized. But I think that under the totality of the circumstances, searching that bag was reasonable. I think it was objectively reasonable. I think they would have found the stuff anyway. And for the. For the safety of everyone involved, that bag needed to be checked. And I will look whether or not it violates the Constitution in New York. Remember, these weren't New York police officers.
- [18:18]
B
Right, Right.
- [18:20]
A
But they have to apply New York law because it's a New York case.
- [18:23]
B
You know, it might surprise you, but I don't necessarily disagree with you. I actually thought the bigger problem was going to with the search back at the station because I thought the inventory search was done and should have had a warrant to actually open things up. So, I mean, this is one of the things that I'm sure our viewers can figure out that even legal minds can disagree on. Debate. We can come up with different analysis. It's really. I mean, it's a case by case analysis.
- [18:48]
C
You ever wonder how far an EV can take you on one charge? Well, most people drive about 40 miles a day, which means you can do all daily stuff no problem. Go to work, grab the kids at
- [18:58]
A
school, get the groceries and still have enough charge to visit your in laws
- [19:03]
C
in the next county. But they don't need to know that.
- [19:06]
A
And the best part, you won't have to buy gas at all. The way forward is electric.
- [19:12]
C
Explore EVs that fit your life. @electricforall.org
- [19:17]
A
I wrote a little song to remind you. Choice hotels get you more of the experiences you value. The Cambria Hotel's got it all. A rooftop bar. Have a ball. Cocktails up here. Feel just right. Is Cambria amazing? All right. Bring a date, your team, or even your mom.
- [19:41]
C
Book direct@ChoiceHotels.com See you on the roof.
- [19:48]
B
Starting something new, especially a business, is hard. So much work goes into something that you are not entirely sure will work out. And it can be hard to make that leap of faith. But it helps when you Have a partner like Shopify on your side to help you. Shopify is the commerce platform behind millions of businesses around the world and 10% of all e commerce in the US from household names like Mattel and Allbirds to businesses just starting out. With hundreds of templates, Shopify helps you build a beautiful online store and 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. Plus, Shopify provides world class expertise in everything from managing inventory to international shipping to processing returns. All with 24. 7 award winning support. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com Megan go to shopify.com M E G Y N that's shopify.com Megan we have got something explosive which is not surprising at all. Harvey Weinstein. We had a verdict, not a verdict. Third time's the charm. Nope. So Harvey Weinstein, to catch everyone up, he was tried for the third time. The first time, if you recall, the state won, but they cheated. And so the appeals court said, sorry, you cheated, you didn't win. Second time they won on some of the victims, but not on Ms. Mann who was on trial here. And so this is the third time. So it was just Ms. Mann, who was the alleged victim here, who testified. And the jury said no, not enough. But the problem is they didn't say unanimously no. And they didn't say unanimously yes for guilt. They said we can't decide. There are some of us that are 100%, no, 100% not guilty and some of us that are 100% guilty. And so we just, we can't reach a verdict. And so the judge had to actually declare a mistrial.
- [21:51]
A
You know, the media has been, they were saying a lot of things about this case, but one thing that they've definitely been pointing out every time you look is that they say this was a majority male jury. But look, they've, they've not been convicted. He's not been convicted. Any time to try. So this is, I think this is a case not so much with the composition of the jury, but with the quality and the nature of the evidence. Our friend Lauren Conlon, who with LA Magazine, who's appeared on this program, friend of our show, has provided some video. We got SOT too, which is a juror who breaks down the jury's doubts in this latest trial.
- [22:33]
B
But you were an actual juror deliberating. I just learned that it was nine to three. Nine votes for not guilty, three for guilty. How did you Feel about the prosecution's case, did you feel like they. They proved it beyond a reasonable doubt? No, you did not. A lot of us did not feel they proved it beyond reasonable doubt. Ultimately, it just came down like all the evidence we felt wasn't in support of Jessica Mann, except for two things. And it was just her testimony. And also Dr. Rocchio, the expert witness, that kind of explained away a lot of our doubts, but not the ultimate doubt of a lot of us felt that we found a lot of holes in her cross examination versus a direct. So that was like, the main deciding factor. Yeah. And can you tell me, the gender split, was it. Yeah, it was nine not guilty, which was. And then three guilty. And it was all men. Three men thought guilty. Every. All the women thought not guilty. This is. This is an interesting phenomenon, and we talk all the time about picking juries. And I mean, half the time I feel like we're trying to decide what's the model jury for a case. And a lot of folks get this wrong. They think that you don't want women on your jury in a sexual assault case. And I can tell you, you don't want women who have unfortunately been victimized previously. But women are hard on women. You know, they are really hard on women historically. And so, you know, this is pretty typical that the women on this jury were all saying, we don't believe her. And I think that's pretty common. We see that a lot, right, Phil?
- [24:17]
A
Yeah, we do. And you know this. I'm so glad that Lauren took that video, because that particular juror who was interviewed basically just blew the media part of the media narrative out of the water. When they point out, you know, this is a majority male jury, the three votes for guilty were men. And all. It was like the women were not convinced. Okay. And she was one of them. And she. You heard it right there from the horse's mouth. The women were not convinced. So, by the way, our producer Michelle asks the question, is it unusual in this type of a sexual assault trial to have a majority male? And the answer to that is. Well, maybe It's. It's. It literally depends on random selection, how many people get put in the potential pool of jurors. Right. So we. We basically deselect juries. We don't actually select. So it depends on what the random. Randomization is of men versus women who are in the early portions of the jury. So, like, if a potential juror. So if you're in, like, say, the first 25. It depends on how the pool of potential Jurors is made up of whether it's mostly men, mostly women, where they're seated, and that sort of thing. But you really can't draw any conclusions from that. And I think the assumptions that underlie this media narrative are just false. You just, to your point, you just can't. You can't just assume that males are going to vote with men and vice versa.
- [25:44]
B
No, you can't. And I thought it was interesting because one of the male jurors actually did speak to the media, and this juror said that it started out as friendly, but it became very tense as the trial went on. But I think this was the most interesting thing. He said that several jurors were somewhat suspicious that man could remember everything the prosecution asked her about, but that her memory often failed her on cross examination. And I will tell you, from my experience, I have heard so many jurors comment on that when. And a lot of times it happens with law enforcement officers where they're very forthcoming with the, with the state when they're asking questions. But when I ask questions, it's like they can't even agree on the definition of, you know, what an interview is. And, you know, they're just very obstinate. And jurors see that, jurors notice that and they don't like that. So I thought it was interesting that they picked up on this. And Ms. Mann, and this point, she's almost a professional witness. I mean, God, think about how many times she's testified. So, you know, she's. She should know better.
- [26:37]
A
Well, site three is Jessica Mann describing her experience when she testified in her first trial. Let's. Let's have a listen. Mann spent three days on the witness stand and faced a grueling cross examination from Weinstein defense attorney Donna Ruttunno. What is that like? It's absolutely terrifying.
- [26:56]
B
It's the most stressful thing you can ever do.
- [27:01]
A
You're on the hook for everything that
- [27:04]
B
comes out of your mouth. You're relying on 12 people to hear
- [27:10]
A
your perspective and hopefully witness all these dynamics that comes out in a courtroom
- [27:15]
C
and make a fair judgment.
- [27:18]
A
Mann says she completely broke down on the witness stand when it came out in court that she had been sexually assaulted when she was younger. She left the courtroom and could be heard screaming from a back room. And some questioned whether her emotional collapse would affect the trial.
- [27:32]
B
I was just brutally stretched in every way on that stand, and I just hit a breaking point and I went into tremendous flashbacks. Well, and we actually have her testifying five days this trial. So I know she testified three days previously, but I think we've got another SOT where they're talking about her actual extensive cross examination, which is when she really fell apart. Thursday, marking Mann's fourth day on the witness stand. Now under cross examination, Weinstein's attorney picked at her account. The defense says that they had a four year and everything that happened was consensual. Man disputes that, saying that she consented approximately 10 times and three specific sexual experiences were unwanted. Back in the witness box, Mann testifying, saying that she's stressed. It's not that I don't recall, it's that I'm being very spacey right now. It's hard. This happened and this is stressful after that. This afternoon the judge called for a 10 minute break and then it happened again because Mann said that she was stressed again when she came back out. Ultimately, the judge decided to call it quits early for the day.
- [28:51]
A
Actually there was. So we had this new, we call it the note evidence. Right. So Harvey Weinstein's defense team asked her to review something that was referred to as a reflective note that she apparently wrote herself two days after the alleged assault. And she was, was talking about that and she wrote about conflicted feelings toward an unnamed man and their non exclusive relationship. She said, do I love him or the idea of him? If he is not there in the future, what will I have? And when asked why the note did not mention the alleged assault, she said, quote, I don't have to write that down. So it just seems to me to be because she kind of conceded that it was about him. But that's not really the kind of thing that you would, I think, say about someone who had assaulted you like that.
- [29:39]
B
You wouldn't. Second thoughts, Second guesses are not rape, it's not sexual assault. And I think that's what these jurors saw, that she is essentially having doubts and second guessing what she did voluntarily. And that's not enough. I mean, even though he's serving other prison sentences, it's not enough to convict someone of rape, which can take away their entire life when all you've had really is second guesses.
- [30:00]
A
Well, so we've got real quick, let's go ahead and run. Slot 5, which is CBS New York, had a package on her 2020.
- [30:10]
B
Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg listened in as the prosecutor questioned the actress and hairdresser who said she moved to LA in hopes of pursuing acting full time and met Weinstein at a party when she was 27 and he was around 60, Mann testified. He told me that I was really pretty, like prettier than Natalie Portman. I thought I just got discovered, mann said. After they initially met, the two had dinner at the Peninsula Hotel in la. But Weinstein was annoyed by fan attention and said we're going upstairs. It was like a command in the room. She said she gave him a massage because he kept pushing me to try to do it.
- [30:44]
A
I think this legal team can do a good job of showing that it's
- [30:48]
C
not quite what she says.
- [30:49]
B
She detailed another time Weinstein invited her
- [30:51]
C
and a friend to his hotel room,
- [30:53]
B
allegedly to show them a script for the movie Vampire Academy. Mann said Weinstein took her into another room very aggressively and claims he forced oral sex on her even though she told him unless I'm in a relationship with someone, I'm not doing sexual activity well. DA Alvin Bragg has told us that he is not sure if he's going to try Harvey Weinstein a fourth time, but we will keep everyone posted on the latest. And next up we have award winning author James Lazdin and he is joining us to dive deep into the Murdoch murders. Stay tuned.
- [31:28]
C
In Orlando, meetings reach another level thanks to a growing list of award winning restaurants, a world class convention center, a great hotel community, easy access through the airport and of course the weather. Andrew Moyes, VP of Fan Expo HQ had this to say about Orlando. Orlando really can be that destination where you can innovate, collaborate and look into the future. And that's what makes Orlando unbelievably real. Learn more@orlandoforbusiness.com Folks knew the colonel approved of his new Honey Chili Crisp and Jalapeno Ranch sauces the moment he tasted
- [32:02]
A
them and said
- [32:06]
C
that's right.
- [32:07]
A
No notes, just absolute silence.
- [32:11]
C
Turns out some flavors don't need explaining, they just need dipping. It's saucy season at KFC with new Honey Chili Crisp and Jalapeno Ranch. Get dipping with a boneless bucket today.
- [32:24]
B
Prices and participation vary.
- [32:26]
A
This show is sponsored by Q Collar, the only FDA cleared device in its category designed to help protect the brain from sports related impacts. While we've always relied on helmets, there's a key distinction to make A helmet protects the head, but the cue collar helps protect the brain. The science is fascinating. By applying light pressure to the neck, the collar slightly increases blood volume in the skull. This creates a cushion effect that reduces brain movement during an impact. It's backed by over 25 peer reviewed independent studies. Think of it as a seat belt for your brain. When you're checking off the equipment list for next season, make it helmet, mouth guard and cue collar. So when you're getting your family ready for the next season, think helmet, mouth guard and cue collar. Head to q30.com mk and use code MK for a free sleeve with your order. Once again, that's Q30.com MK for a free sleeve available in 15 colors now with your order. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Phil Holloway, joined today by my co host, Ashley Merchant. We're very excited because joining us now on the program is authority James Lasdon. He's going to discuss his latest book, the Family Blood and Betrayal in the House of Murdoch. And of course, we're talking about the Alex Murdoch trial and of course, the recent news that we're going to have a new trial. Welcome to the program, sir. Before we get into this book, which, by the way, has to be one of the most thorough breakdowns of the Murdoch story that is available, let's start with a quick update. Now that the murder convictions have been overturned, prosecutors have vowed to retry Murdoch for the murders of his wife Maggie and his son Paul. They've even said, I think dubiously, that the death penalty may be back on the table for the disgraced attorney. I'll explain why we think it's dubious with Ashley here shortly. But, James, very welcome very much to the program. Let's start with your reaction to this news that we're going to do this trial all over again.
- [34:54]
C
I mean, it was both stunning but also not a total surprise. The Supreme Court's hearing on the appeal made it clear that they took it pretty seriously, these allegations of jury tampering. So when they came back finally with a reverse, it wasn't a total surprise, although, I mean, it is a kind of staggering piece of news. I think it's definitely got to be good for your bond. I think they did the right thing, I should add.
- [35:26]
B
Yes, I think we all think they did the right thing. And it's going to be interesting to get to watch it again. I mean, and we know, you know, he's serving 40 years on federal charges and 27 years on state charges. So the big question is, are they going to really retry him? And if they do, are they actually going to try to seek the death penalty, which, you know, the, the gentleman who is the elected district attorney there, Alan Wilson, he is apparently running for governor. And I can't help but wonder if that has some influence in his decision on how to handle this in the media. I don't know. Did you get to know him at all or talk to folks that knew him for your book?
- [36:01]
C
I didn't get to know him. I tried, but he wasn't very communicating.
- [36:07]
B
He wasn't accessible.
- [36:09]
C
Not to me. I, as far. I mean, it's. I don't totally understand the law here, but, I mean, Dickhart Putlian, the defense chief defense attorney, at his news conference today said that he. That you're not allowed to. That it's not lawful to suddenly bring in a death penalty for what appears to be sort of vindictive reasons. I guess this will play out. He did accuse Wilson of being political rather than legal. So we'll see.
- [36:44]
B
Yeah.
- [36:44]
A
So there's a. Speaking to your point about the death penalty, there's a case where I think it's 1969, US versus Pierce, I believe it is. And basically it stands for the idea that you can't punish someone for exercising their right to an appeal. Now, it's a rebuttable presumption that doing so would be vindictive. And so the, the burden that would be necessary for prosecutors to prove is that it must be based on objective information concerning identifiable conduct on the part of the defendant occurring after the time of the original sentencing proceeding. So you tell me, unless I've missed something, we haven't heard or seen anything about any identifiable bad conduct by Murdoch since the date of his conviction, have we?
- [37:35]
C
Since the date of his conviction? Not that I'm aware of. There were possible attempts to hide money, but that was before he was even indicted for murder. It was while he was in prison talking to his son and things like that. But, no, I don't think there's any grounds for that for saying that at all.
- [37:57]
B
Yeah. So on that same vein, I mean, they're saying that they want to seek the death penalty. And you talked about in your book and what I like to call residual doubt, but you were talking a little bit about, let's see, what you called it. You called it a possible alternative theory. You said that there were flashes of doubt after the trial, that you even had flashes of doubt. And to me, that really plays into this decision whether or not to seek the death penalty, because one of the most common reasons that jurors reject a death sentence is residual doubt. So if you, and you seem pretty convinced in your book that Murdoch is guilty but still have these flashes of doubt, it almost seems like a waste of time and money and litigation for them to even seek the death penalty, because this was a circumstantial case.
- [38:43]
C
Honestly, I'd be surprised if they do in the end, but who knows? They might, it might be just politically expedient to do that. But I would be surprised. I mean, I had doubts and I think a lot of people had doubts, a small amount of doubt. I think after the, after the verdict, I asked a lot of people how they felt about it and surprising number said, yeah, they probably got it right, but I have like a 5% uncertainty and that's pretty much what I felt. And so I did spend a lot of, I mean, there were holes in the case and there was, I had some really deep resistance to believing that this guy who's not in any obvious way kind of completely nuts, would have just cold bloodedly killed his son in particular. I mean, people do kill their spouses, unfortunately, quite often, but it's very unusual to kill your own offspring just in the hopes of sort of staving off exposure for his embezzlements. This looming storm theory. I had a lot of trouble just getting my head around that psychologically. Then also, there were some holes in, in the case, in the story that the prosecutors told. There were sort of unexplained tire tracks. There was phone evidence that could have tilted just as easily in favor of Murdoch as it tilted against him. So, you know, I was predicting a hung jury. I thought someone was not going to be able to cross that line.
- [40:23]
A
And in fact, wasn't it something like that? Yeah, 45 minute verdict, as I recall. So on Monday, the 18th of May, which is the day we are recording this program, the Murdoch defense team has stated that he will never take a plea deal for these murders. And of course he's taken some plea deals, but he will not, he says he will not take any plea deal. And honestly, I don't think one is going to be on the table. And parenthetically, I think that the, the talk about the death penalty being on the table is just bluster. I don't think they're actually going to do that. I think the law is pretty clearly against that being something that could even be on the table. But, you know, you talk about something in the book that I want to hear more about, which is the idea that there's this family annihilator motive. Right? So you talk about that throughout the book. So can you explain what, what that means and how it may apply to this particular case?
- [41:24]
C
This was a term I had never heard before. Creighton Waters turned to Alex Murdoch and said, are you a family annihilator? And he didn't Explain what he meant by it then. He did raise this, he did say this phrase again later on in the trial, but he never really went into the background and it raised, piqued my curiosity and there is a certain amount of literature on this criminological category of the family annihilator. So I looked into that. I mean my purpose in writing the book was pretty single mindedly to try to understand Alex Murdoch, who he was, what the internal processes that drove him to this terrible crime were, as well as what the kind of external things that enabled him. And in the course of that I did look into the literature on this, this kind of crime, the family annihilation. And there are ways in which he obviously, you know, is part of that pattern. He does resemble other family annihilators who are.
- [42:31]
A
List, you mentioned John List in your, in your book.
- [42:35]
C
Well, the same. There's, there's the. The person I was following most closely was this French guy, Jean Claude Roman, who, who like many of these people was a sort of middle aged, outwardly successful guy who was actually leading a double life. One that involved forgery, embezzlement, theft. And over time the jeopardy of these, that he was incurring over the, with these embezzlements escalates to the point where the whole picture come, is about to come crashing down. And at that point these, these men take their families alive. They usually do it. Almost all of them do it. And this is where Alex Murdoch differs from them. They usually then turn the weapons immediately on themselves, either in a successful or an attempted suicide.
- [43:32]
B
Right. And so why do you think there was nothing? Why do you think there was. There wasn't that or I mean, was there some evidence of that, some evidence of suicidal thoughts with him? Because that does seem to fit the profile that you're talking about up.
- [43:45]
C
It does. And I mean there are a couple of cases where that didn't happen and where the killers were more like Murdoch in the sense that they were doing it for more sort of out of a more kind of self interested motive that they would kind of leave their families or leave their wives for another woman or something like that. You know, there was that episode three months later on the old Selcohatchie Road, which is still somewhat mystifying. And was it, was there some element of attempted self, I mean, attempted suicide that I ultimately. I don't think so. I think all.
- [44:27]
B
Are you talking about Cousin Eddie? Is that the Cousin Eddie incident?
- [44:30]
C
Yes. He claimed that he had hired his, or he'd asked his cousin Eddie to Shoot him in the back of the head. Shoot him in the head. To shoot him dead so that his surviving son, Buster, could claim the life insurance. I. I don't believe that that's what happened. I think it's just. Well, it is still a bit mysterious, but I think really what was going on is that he. He had set up the original murders to look as if vigilantes had come to Moselle. This is why he uses two weapons. And police, I think, had initially sort of believed that. I mean, Paul was getting threats because of the boat crash, there were these two weapons. But by the time, by September, which was the old Salkahatchie Road episode, that scenario was beginning to fall apart. And he knew that police were looking at him as the real suspect. And so I think what he was doing on the old Sakahatchee Road was trying to revive that scenario. Because the first thing that happens, the first story that arises is he's been taken to ambulance. Taken. Taken to the hospital in an ambulance, covered in blood. And he's telling police that somebody drove past him and took a shot at him. And that immediately reinforced the kind of vigilante scenario. Yeah, it looked like somebody really did have it in for this family. That story fell apart after less than a day, I think. And his next story was. Okay. What I was really doing was I was in such despair. I felt it would be better for me to be gone and for my family. And I wanted my son Buster to be able to claim the million in insurance. And I didn't realize that there's a suicide exclusion policy on my. On tours, on my policy. And so I had to make it look like murder. And so I got my cousin Eddie to come and take a shot at me. And that's what he did. But he. He missed. The problem with that, aside from the fact that Eddie vehemently denies it, that's what happened, is he does have a. He did have a bullet wound in his head. It's a very superficial one, but, you know, there's a shot there. There's an entry wound and an exit wound. Something happened. Eddie was there. Eddie told me and told others that he, He. He took the gun. I mean, he claims that. That he wrestled with Alex, Alex was trying to shoot himself, and that he wrestled the gun away from Alex. I don't think Alex was trying to shoot himself, but I don't know. I mean, honestly, it's pretty unfathomable, unfathomable what actually happened there. Although I do think that fundamentally what it was about was reinforcing, reviving that vigilante shooter scenario.
- [47:14]
A
I want to back up just a minute to the actual, you know, murders themselves. So you talked in your book about what the trigger was for these alleged murders. So, so you mentioned a moment ago, in your answer to Ashley's question, you talked about the boat crash. And by that you're referring to the 2019 boat crash that killed Paul's friend named Mallory Beach. And so there was a lawsuit. Right. So you point out in your book that there was a scheduled hearing on June 10th of 2021 regarding financial matters. And at that hearing, there was going to be full disclosure of Murdoch's finances. And of course, as we now know, the finances were a big mess. And a lot of the. Whatever finances he had or money that he had may have been a result of theft and other malfeasance. And so you say that that looming hearing might have been the trigger for the murders which occurred on June 7, three days prior in 2021. Can you. You sort of expand on that idea just a little bit?
- [48:23]
C
Well, that's not my theory. That's the prosecution's theory. That's part of their theory. There were two. They had this thing, this theory that they called the theory of the looming storm. And the looming storm consisted of that impending financial hearing which they claimed would have laid open his finances. In fact, the defense was able to make a pretty good case that it would not have done that. It would. It would have advanced that process, but it would by no means have immediately laid it open at. On the 10th, three days after the killing. The way that the prosecution was saying, much more compelling, was the other part of their looming storm theory, which was that on the seventh, on the very day of the murders, his law firm, Alex's law firm, the chief financial officer, Jeanne Seckinger, confronted Alex over some missing fees that she believed he was hiding from them. And he vehemently denied to her that he was hiding them from her. In fact, he had stolen them. Their conversation, this confrontation, miraculously for him, or not miraculously or horrendously, if you want to, depending on how you look at it, the conversation got interrupted by a phone call, and Alex was able to sort of get. Get away without continuing that conversation with Jeannie Seconder. But he knew that she was on to him about this stolen money, that. This money that he had stolen from his law firm. And he knew that he was going to have that if he, if he wasn't going to be exposed by Jeannie Seckinger, he would have to get the money back where it was supposed to be. And that was going to take some time. It did take some time. He did get it back, but he needed that time. And he would not have had that time had there not been this murder that very night. So to me, that's a much more compelling piece of the prosecution story. And I think it's true. I mean, I 100% believe that that was what was going on.
- [50:41]
B
Do you think that was his mindset when he was going into this?
- [50:45]
C
Yeah, definitely. I mean, the timing is just too, is too, it's too close. I mean, you know, that very afternoon, I mean, it had been building for a few days, but that very afternoon, it looked like it was coming to a head. I think he knew he had to do that. Something had to happen. Some big diversion had to occur.
- [51:05]
B
My question, he probably didn't mean to kill them. Like, if there's some diversion. I mean, you said diversion.
- [51:12]
C
Exactly. That, that's my, I mean, I spent a lot of time because I had some, you know, I, I had these doubts. I did spend a lot of time trying to come up with an alternative scenario that would be consistent with not only all the facts that we know, but also what we know about Alex's personality, his kind of behavioral characteristics. Also with the lie that he told about going to the, going to the kennels that night because he had told Lis that he wasn't at the kennels where Maggie and Paul were murdered at the time of their killing, and with the lie that he told about the lie he told when he was trying to explain that lie. So, in other words, any alternative theory would have to be consistent with the facts with Murdoch's character, with the lie he told and the lie he told about the lie. And what I did come up with one. And, you know, I was gonna say
- [52:09]
A
you, Pop, you posited in your book. Let me get to that point. I think this is where you're going. The theory that Alex may have been attempting to stage a near miss to garner sympathy. Right.
- [52:19]
B
Like he did with Uncle Eddie. Right.
- [52:21]
A
Yep. Things just got all up. That's what Alex told Eddie. And you, you, you sort of posit in the theory, and others have had this too, that Maggie and Paul were unintentionally killed. Now, I, I, considering the brutality of these murders, I, I don't know that I could get behind that. But you said you haven't abandoned that theory, that, that they were not supposed to die. Could you explain?
- [52:51]
C
Yeah, as he said, Cousin Eddie told Me and, and told it on, on Netflix that after the murders, Alex told him. He asked Alex what happened at Moselle and Alex told him things got all up. When he told me that, you know, I, I didn't think much of it. I'd heard him say it on Netflix. But then I started wondering, well, what things got fucked up and how would they have gone if they hadn't got fucked up. And then you put that together with one of Alex Murdoch's sort of weirder characteristics, which is that he is someone who, who goes in for staging elaborate scenarios. He did it on the. By his own admission, on the old Sakahachi Road. He seems to have done it at the murder scene by using the two weapons and all the rest of it. This is how his mind works. It seems to be a little bit of a family tradition. His grandfather did similar things, his great grandfather rather. And so I thought, well, what might he have done? And of course, it's not very difficult to think of it. He might very well have thought that night after Jeanne Secondary had confronted him, you know, what if someone came and took a shot or threatened or, you know, took a shot at Paul and Maggie? After all, Paul had been threatened, so it would seem credible. And if, if I can call into the police and say someone's just, you know, taken a shot at my wife and son, they're okay, but, you know, this is bad. There would have been a similar effect, I think, to what actually happened after the murder. So, you know, my theory is that that's what he was perhaps trying to do. Set up a staged attempted murder in exactly the way he did three months later on the old Salkahatchie Road and that something went wrong, it got fucked up.
- [54:56]
B
I totally see that as possible.
- [54:59]
A
The idea that he's got a propensity to stage elaborate scenes, I, I've never actually thought about that and I find that fascinating. I'm kind of to give that some more thought, but I just keep going back to how brutal and horrifying these murders. I mean, you're talking about shotgun killings, right? The, the amount of just physical damage that's inflicted by, by shotguns on the victims is extreme. And so I, I just, I'd have to understand more about how, if, if that theory is correct, how you would get from, from staging like a near miss to, to actually what happened.
- [55:37]
B
Well, James, I want to ask you about the. Oh, sorry, no, finish.
- [55:42]
C
Well, just to answer your question, I mean, Alex Mottot was in touch with some, some very sketchy people. People on the day of the murders, he, he was in touch with people with, with records for him, drugs and robbery. We don't know why the police omitted those texts from the, from the condensed timeline that they gave jurors, but, but we can see them on the, on this complete timeline that Sled made public. He, he was with, he was also in touch with people from the Cowboys gang, which is a very violent gang in Walterboro that seems to have been supplying him with some of his opioids pills. My hypothesis, I suppose, is that he gets some people who are, who are willing to do this kind of thing and take the kinds of risks involved. Perhaps he was offering to pay them, perhaps he had some hold over them. He had a hold over all kinds of people. They come along. Paul Murdoch is not someone you would, could easily count on being able to take a shot at without getting yourself into trouble. I mean, this was a very tough young man, 22 year old, being threatened, seldom out of reach of a loaded weapon. It's not hard to imagine something going wrong. And whoever comes along, whoever came along to do this fake murder or whatever murder attempt or whatever it was, deciding they didn't want to leave any witnesses. Now, you know, as I say, I'm 95% convinced that Alex did it, did it alone and did it for the reasons and in the manner that the prosecution laid out. But the 5% of me that doubts goes to that other scenario. And I've yet to, I've run this by, you know, lawyers connected to the case who are very much convinced of Alex guilt. And no one has yet been able to point out any serious kind of flaws in it.
- [58:01]
B
That's interesting. So I want to ask you about the ultimate thing that got the jury verdict overturned. Becky Hill, the county court clerk. So as we know, she improperly influenced the jury. She was accused of making comments, biased comments against him. And apparently there are some rumors that she got a juror removed who was leaning to the side of the defense based on a Facebook post. So what I'm curious from you is do you think that she was doing this as a lot of people do for book sales or do you think there was something else about it?
- [58:37]
C
I mean, it's hard to. Yeah, it's hard to imagine that she was so driven. I mean, I think it's clear that she did want a guilty verdict, to sell books. She spoke openly about that. She wanted to buy a house on the lake and all the rest of it. I think she was also in her own mind playing a role in some kind of biblical battle of good versus evil. I mean, there's a lot of religious stuff that's around this story. She was sort of praying with the jurors. And so it wouldn't surprise me if she thought she was doing the, the right thing, you know, spiritually, morally, whatever. But I also think that you have to ask the question, you know, why was she. And to me, this is a more interesting question is okay, she want, for whatever reason she wanted a guilty verdict. Why was she not confident of getting one and so unconfident that she felt the need to sort of tip the scales? And she, I think it's very clear that she was responsible for the removal of the one holdout, known holdout on the juror. I mean, there are so many sworn affidavits now that point to this. I find it completely convincing that she targeted this so called egg juror, Myra Crosby, and first of all tried to sort of get her thrown off for some Facebook postings that claim she'd been gossiping about the trial. These postings seemed to be completely fabricated. When that didn't work, suddenly there's an anonymous email to the court saying that Becky had talked to a couple of her rental tenants, that Myra Crosby had talked to one of her, the juror had talked to one of her, to two of her rental tenants. And all this is happening in the last hours of the trial, the last couple of days. And I think there was a real worry on the prosecution side that the case was not going to go the way they wanted it to. It only takes one juror to hang a jury. Becky had repeatedly asked Myra Crosby whether she was, whether she'd made up her mind. The judge himself asked her the day before the end of the trial whether she had made up her mind. I think he was only doing that to make sure that. I mean, I think you're not supposed to make up your mind until you deliberate. So I don't think there's anything untoward necessarily in the judge asking her. But Becky Hill should not have been asking her.
- [61:18]
B
But anyway, they had their finger on the scales of justice.
- [61:22]
A
Well, James London, we have to leave it there. I think we can all agree that, that Becky Hill did us extreme disservice to the idea of fairness in the court system. Before we let you go, tell folks what your website is and remind us the name of your book and where we can find it.
- [61:42]
C
I have a website, jamesladsden.com My book is called the Family Man. Blood and Betrayal in the House of Murdoch. And I do want to just say that this Alex Murdoch is a detestable person. But this is about due process and I think the appeal court's decision is a decision that supports due process and I'm in favor of that and I
- [62:08]
A
think we all can agree on that. Thank you so much for being with us here on the program. And up next folks, we have our closing arguments. Stick around.
- [62:19]
C
In Orlando, meetings reach another level thanks to a growing list of award winning restaurants, a world class convention convention center, a great hotel community, easy access through the airport, and of course the weather. Andrew Moyes, VP of Fan Expo HQ had this to say about Orlando. Orlando really can be that destination where you can innovate, collaborate and look into the future. And that's what makes Orlando unbelievably real. Learn more@orlandoforbusiness.com traditional home security only alerts
- [62:49]
B
you after a break in and that's too late.
- [62:52]
A
Late.
- [62:52]
B
Simplisafe is changing that.
- [62:54]
A
Stop.
- [62:54]
C
This is Simplisafe. Police are on the way.
- [62:57]
B
We don't just alert, we stop crime before it starts. SimpliSafe plans starting around a dollar a day. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring at SimpliSafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm Outdoor deterrence requires a
- [63:11]
A
Simplisafe Active Guard Outdoor Protection plan starting at 49.99amonth. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee 2012.
- [63:17]
B
You may have tried everything out there to aid your metabolism and stay healthy. Diets, detox teas, juice cleanses and other so called miracle fixes that are just hype. Verasity is a company founded by a hormonal health coach whose personal experience with metabolic issues inspired her to develop actual holistic solutions for achieving optimal health. Verasity is a unique blend of herbal extracts, green coffee bean extract and magnesium and it provides an all natural way to get energized, sharpen your focus and slim down if that's your aim. Their metabolism Ignite formula is the number one doctor recommended GLP1 booster and a natural GLP1 alternative. No side effects, no allergens, just a plant based blend specifically shown to reduce hunger by 85% and help people lose an average of 9 pounds in 90 days. Verasity is drug free, clinically proven and doctor formulated. It's safe for everyone including expectant or new moms breastfeeding. Just two capsules with breakfast to feel more energized, clear headed and in control. It's simple, natural and actually fits seamlessly in your daily routine. So before metabolism ignites cells out again, make the switch to GLP1s the natural way. Head to VeracityHealth Co and use code MK for up to 65% off your order. Once again, that's Veracity V E R A C I T Y Health Co for up to 65% off. And make sure you use our promo code MK so they know we sent you. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. Now it's time for our closing arguments. Phil, take it away.
- [64:57]
A
Well, thanks, Ashley. I appreciate it very much. You know, we spent a lot of time here today on the program talking about the exclusionary rule and how it applies to keep evidence out of a trial and away from the side of a jury, right when they're trying to decide somebody's fate. So I want to talk about what is this exclusionary rule and why it's a good thing to have actually in our system of justice. The exclusionary rule is a rule that bars the use of evidence that is obtained somehow illegally, typically in an unconstitutional means, in a criminal proceeding. So this rule is grounded in important public policies. We call this a prophylactic rule, and it's out there, and it exists so that cops can know it and sort of understand it, but it actually is kind of convoluted in practice. But these things are supposed to protect our system of justice. So I think, after all, we can agree that that evidence seized by law enforcement that's not reasonably seized and not there's not, if there's an unreasonable search and seizure, we all can agree that that would violate the Fourth Amendment. And so these things are presumed to be unconstitutional and therefore not admissible in court. Now, this is a. It's a rebuttable presumption, okay? So if there is a recognized exception to the. The requirement of a search warrant, then the evidence would therefore become admissible notwithstanding the absence of a search warrant. The primary basis for the exclusionary rule, though, is to deter police misconduct. So when I say it's a prophylactic rule, that's what I'm talking about. Because excluding illegally gathered evidence in theory discourages law enforcement from violating the Fourth Amendment or the state search and seizure laws, whatever the case may be. So knowing that this evidence would be suppressed or excluded from the trial, the idea is that this would motivate law enforcement to respect the constitutional and legal bounds rather than to cut corners simply to obtain and secure convictions. So this promotes accountability and it prevents the rewarding of unauthorized unconstitutional or illegal behavior. So another basis, though, is that of judicial integrity. So the idea here is that courts must not admit evidence that is the product of any kind of government wrongdoing. And I use that word kind of loosely. I'm not saying that all evidence that might run afoul of search and seizure laws is necessarily wrongdoing, because as we've seen in the case today in New York, we had law enforcement that was trying to keep themselves and the public safe, but at the same time, the judge said it violates the admissibility rules and therefore should be suppressed. So, anyway, to allow this evidence, though, to be used generally would make the judiciary sort of complicit in compounding constitutional or legal violations. And to do otherwise, of course, would erode public confidence in the fairness of trials and would undermine the court court's role as guardians of the laws and guardians of the constitutions, not only of the United States, but of the various states in the United States. This rule also protects individual rights by providing a remedy for violations and ensuring the government does not profit, if you will, from its own illegal or unconstitutional acts. And it upholds the principle that no one is above the law. So, in short, the exclusionary rule is indispensable for balancing effective law enforcement with the preservation of liberty and the rule of law in our criminal justice system. Ashley, that's it. That's my rant. That's my closing.
- [68:53]
B
Thank you so much, Phil. That was awesome. Because we were talking about that today, and it's really important, and I'm actually going to talk about an issue that was something that we were talking about today, and it was whether or not the death penalty can be imposed a second, you know, the second retrial, essentially, for Alex Murdoch. And, you know, one of the reasons that this was prompted was, I know there was some back and forth. The prosecutor is saying that they can. That they can seek this on retrial. And, you know, I tend to agree with you that they can't. But I did a little bit of research on it, and there's no definitive law on it, except for the one that you mentioned earlier in our show. So I just want to kind of talk a little bit more about that and then talk about another reason why it may not make sense for them to seek the death penalty on retrial. So the case you talked about earlier, Phil, it's a 1969 case, North Carolina versus versus Pierce. And essentially it says that for due process, the law requires vindictiveness against a defendant winning an appeal. To get around that vindictiveness the defendant has to be free from retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing court. What does that mean? That's a lot of gobbledygook. That means that if you win on appeal, you can't get a higher sentence just because you won on appeal. And that's kind of what it sounds like here. So the reason for this imposition of a higher sentence after retrial, like the death penalty, if it's going to be a more severe sentence, it has to be based on some kind of conduct, and it has to be affirmatively identifiable after the appeal. So you asked that question earlier, Phil, and you're right. I don't believe that they can seek the death penalty on appeal, but I do think that they are going to have to litigate this issue if they want to try. So I think that if they really want to try to seek the death penalty, they're going to spend years trying to litigate this issue, because we really just don't have any appellate opinions on this specific instance. But what I think is actually more important is why would they want to seek the death penalty at this point in time? And tying into what our guest talked about a lot today, there's this concept of residual doubt. But before I talk about it, I think it's important to explain, explain to all of our listeners that a death penalty case is not what a lot of people realize until they're actually sitting there watching it. We saw it a little bit with the Tanner Horner trial, but we only saw the end of it. So when someone seeks the death penalty, it doesn't just change the possible sentence that can come out of it. It actually changes the entire framework of a trial. It changes everything. One of the most significant things that it changes is how a jury is selected. The jury is different in a death penalty case. And I think that is the single most important factor when you're considering whether or not the state of South Carolina is going to seek the death penalty. In this case, the questions are different that you ask the jurors. The weight in the room feels different. And in this case where the prosecution is saying that they originally chose not to seek the death penalty, but now all of a sudden, they're going to seek the death penalty. I think they're going to have a really hard time actually getting a death verdict if they're even allowed to, because it's the same evidence. Nothing has changed, and the jury's going to know that. So any good defense lawyer is going to harp on the fact that Nothing has changed. It is just a different ask. And why are we making this different ask? Because we're sour grapes that the first trial was unconstitutionally biased and influenced by this county clerk. But what I want to talk about with the jury is death qualifying. That's what it's called. Death qualifying. A jury means that you remove people from the entire jury selection process who could not vote to execute someone. So that's important. Think about that again. People who are not for the death penalty. Me, I'm not for the death penalty. Generally, I would probably be removed before I even get there. So it sounds reasonable. But what you really do when you filter out all of those folks is you get a pro prosecution jury. Duh. I mean, it makes sense. You get a pro prosecution jury, they're going to be pro prosecution on guilt and they're gonna be pro prosecution on punishment. But what I think they're underestimating in this case is the fact that there was residual doubt. We heard it from our guest today, we heard it from jurors. I think there was a lot of residual doubt. And what happens in a death penalty case case, it's not usually the worst of the worst. It's usually the slam dunkest of the slam dunks. It is proven that most jurors who vote against the death penalty do so because of what's called residual doubt. And this case is got residual doubt printed all over it. So if you have a death qualified jury, they're going to expect an airtight case and they're not going to expect residual doubt. And I really can't help but think it's going to backfire on the state of, of South Carolina if they do seek the death penalty. But I want to thank Phil, my co host and I also want to thank our guest today, James Lazdon, talking about the Murdoch trial, which I'm sure we'll be talking about a lot more in the future. And thank you all for joining us. We hope you have a great rest of your week. Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in. And that's too late. Simplisafe is changing that.
- [74:04]
A
Stop.
- [74:05]
C
This is Simplisafe.
- [74:06]
A
Police are on the way.
- [74:07]
B
We don't just alert, we stop crime before it starts. Simplisafe plans starting around a dollar a day. Save 50% on your new system with professional monitoring@simplisafe.com sxm or with promo code sxm.
- [74:20]
A
Outdoor deterrence requires a Simplisafe active guard outdoor protection plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information.
- [74:26]
C
Tennessee 2012 Close your eyes. Focus. Listen to work getting done with Monday.com relax as AI does the manual work while your teams are aligned on a single source of truth? Feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Notice you're limitless. Now open your eyes, go to Monday.com start for free, and finally, breathe.