Murdaugh SUES Crooked Clerk, Tyler Robinson Defense Tactics, and Prosecuting Athena Strand’s Killer, with Wise County DA James Stainton

Summary

MK True Crime – Episode Summary

Episode Title: Murdaugh SUES Crooked Clerk, Tyler Robinson Defense Tactics, and Prosecuting Athena Strand’s Killer, with Wise County DA James Stanton

Date: May 21, 2026
Hosts: Phil Holloway & Dave Ehrenberg
Special Guest: James Stanton, Wise County, TX District Attorney

---

Overview

This episode dives deep into three major cases abroad in the true crime world:

1. Alec Murdaugh’s civil lawsuit against court clerk Becky Hill for jury tampering and the aftermath of his overturned murder convictions.
2. The Tyler Robinson (alleged Charlie Kirk shooter) case and the recurring defense tactic of seeking secrecy in proceedings, plus discussion of prosecutorial conduct and pre-trial maneuvering.
3. Prosecution and trial of Tanner Horner, the FedEx driver convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of seven-year-old Athena Strand, in an in-depth interview with DA James Stanton.

The hosts dissect major legal strategies, comment on defense and prosecution tactics, and share emotional moments from recent trials. The episode is rich with granular legal analysis, the emotional toll of heinous crimes, and the broader societal implications.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Alec Murdaugh’s Lawsuit Against Becky Hill

(Starts ~02:30)

Background and Details

• Murdaugh’s 2023 double murder conviction was overturned due to jury tampering by Becky Hill, the clerk of court, who had unauthorized contact with jurors and later wrote a book about the case.
• Murdaugh is suing Hill under federal civil rights statutes for deprivation of constitutional rights.
• The lawsuit claims damages up to $600,000, primarily to recoup legal fees.

Insights and Commentary

• Dave Ehrenberg: “He actually has a claim, but it’s only gonna go to pay for legal fees... either way, the public is gonna pay for his legal fees, because either the public is going to have to pay for damages from Becky Hill’s conduct or… for his public defenders if he can’t afford his current lawyers.” (03:30)
• Phil Holloway: Emphasizes that the real damage is to the justice system’s integrity; points out the practical and legal limitations to Murdaugh personally profiting from any lawsuit.
• Notable Quote:
  “He can’t get any of this money, right? Because he owes so many people so many things. …Becky Hill doesn’t have any money. She can’t get blood out of a turnip.” – Phil Holloway (08:34)

Lawsuit Strategy

• The lawsuit is seen as much about obtaining subpoena power and investigative tools as about financial redress.
• Raises the potential for discovering wider misconduct or other responsible parties:
  • Murdaugh’s team: “The purpose...is to hold Becky Hill accountable… and to investigate exactly what she did, which we’ll be able to do through the course of civil litigation. We have subpoena power, we can take depositions…” (12:11)

Notable Moments

• Speculation that the real target is county insurance policies rather than Hill herself. (08:45)
• The hosts note the lawsuit may delay retrial and be wielded for further defense advantage, not just compensation.

2. Defense Tactics in the Tyler Robinson Case (Alleged Charlie Kirk Shooter)

(Starts ~21:54)

Latest Case Developments

• Defense is repeatedly petitioning the court to restrict public access to evidence at pre-trial hearings—seeking secrecy on forensic evidence, surveillance, witness statements, and purported admissions.
• Prosecution says Robinson confessed and there are strong admissions.
• Defense accuses prosecution of violating a gag order by clarifying bullet evidence to the public.

Legal Analysis

• Dave Ehrenberg:
  “Defense lawyers benefit from the conspiracies that are flying around about this case. The less transparent it is, the more you can get a juror who believes one of these ridiculous conspiracies…” (23:16)
• The tactic is viewed as a strategy to sow reasonable doubt or invite a hung jury by keeping proceedings opaque.
• Phil Holloway: Criticizes the judge (“He’s Utah. He’s not confrontational.”) for not forcefully limiting repeated defense requests for secrecy. (24:31)
• The prosecutors push back against the “red herring” bullet fragment argument.

Notable Quote

• “This judge allowed them too much room to pursue court closures, no cameras, media blackouts, gag orders, and all this stuff. He should have forcefully come out early on and said, look, I’m not entertaining all this nonsense unless you’ve got a really damn good reason.” – Phil Holloway (24:05)

3. Prosecuting Athena Strand’s Killer: Interview with Wise County DA James Stanton

(Segment Begins ~32:59)

Trial Background

• Tanner Horner, FedEx driver, pleaded guilty at the last minute to the abduction, sexual assault, and murder of 7-year-old Athena Strand and was subsequently sentenced to death.

DA Stanton’s Reflections

• On guilty plea timing:
  “We had gotten a report in the week before from one of our experts, and it did not play well for Mr. Horner, and I think that’s why they ended up doing that.” (33:09)
• On evidence and trial:
  “It’s not often that you actually get video and audio of a kidnapping. …The guilt, I mean, I’m never going to say something’s a slam dunk case because you don’t know, because it’s a jury. But there wasn’t a more slam dunk case that was out there.” (35:22-36:26)
• On seeking the death penalty:
  “...My decision process was…it was based on the age of the child, the level of violence, the…inappropriate sexual…conduct…But ultimately the decision was based on the level of violence. When I got all that video back…that was not a difficult choice to make.” (37:50)

Powerful Courtroom Moments

• The “Sneaker” Demonstration (39:16):
  Stanton showed the jury Horner’s size 13 sneakers, linking their tread to the fatal injuries.
  • Quote:
    “If the sexual assault wasn’t bad enough, the level of violence that one person can inflict on a child, including stomping them with a pair of shoes…that size 13 shoe stomped the life out of her. That’s the truth of it.” – James Stanton (39:56–42:19)
• The “Box with No Apology” (43:15):
  Stanton dramatically pointed out that in all expert notes/interview transcripts on Horner, not once did Horner express remorse or apologize.
  • Quote:
    “You would think in a hundred hours, you would thank all those experts, somewhere, someplace, one single time, stop what you’re doing, quit talking about me, and just say, ‘I’m sorry.’ I don’t think that’s too much to ask, but you can do it. Ain’t in there.” – James Stanton (43:38–44:23)

Defense Strategies Deconstructed

• Defense theory: Horner’s violence was not premeditated but a “catastrophe” triggered by the victim witnessing him using cocaine (supported by expert Dr. Eileen Ryan).

  • Stanton’s rebuttal: Points to evidence of planning and the chronological gap in events (sexual assault occurs between abduction and murder, discrediting a simple “catastrophe” narrative).
  • Quote:
    “You can’t have a catastrophe with a pause in the middle where you do something else.” – James Stanton (53:52)

• On out-of-court defense remarks: Addressed allegations by the podcast’s producer that defense members made callous remarks about “all this circus for an automatic appeal,” emphasizing trial stress but doubting it came from main counsel. (55:25)

Post-Trial Involvement

• Stanton described the automatic appeal process in Texas death penalty cases and his office’s ongoing role in preparing and transferring trial materials. (57:03)

---

Memorable Quotes

• Dave Ehrenberg, on the Murdaugh retrial “gift”:
  “Alec Murdoch should be sending [Becky Hill] a gift basket because she gave him a new trial when he was going to be found guilty anyways.” (06:39)

• Phil Holloway, on media blackout defense themes:
  “Lawyers can be, like, toddlers, and you got to…have boundaries.” (24:31)

• James Stanton, on trial advocacy:
  “You can’t have a catastrophe with a pause in the middle where you do something else. It just doesn’t make any sense.” (53:52)

---

Timestamps Breakdown

| Topic | Time | |------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------| | Alec Murdaugh’s lawsuit & case analysis | 02:30-19:24| | Tyler Robinson (Charlie Kirk shooter) pre-trial defense tactics | 21:54-26:52| | Heartbreaking Anna Kepner update | 26:52-29:14| | Feature interview: DA James Stanton on Athena Strand’s case | 32:59-57:29| | Powerful moments: Sneakers and the “remorse box” | 39:16-44:23| | Appeal process and trial aftermath | 57:03-57:29| | Closing arguments: Education exodus; the dangers of gag orders | 60:13-66:38|

---

Tone & Style

• Direct, legal-analytical, but interspersed with genuine emotion and empathy, especially in the interview with DA Stanton.
• Frequent drawing upon courtroom experience and legal education, especially with host Phil Holloway and guest DA James Stanton.
• Respectful but unvarnished criticism of legal tactics seen as exploiting secrecy or “playing politics.”
• Empathy and community focus emerge in coverage of victim stories.

---

For New Listeners: What You Missed

• A clear, step-by-step dissection of how a “court system screw-up” (in the Murdaugh case) creates ongoing pain for victims’ families and taxpayers, while serving as an unexpected boon for defense attorneys.
• “Inside baseball” stories on how legal arguments and evidence are chosen in court, especially when a prosecutor must weigh the horrifying evidence against the imperative for a fair trial.
• Eyewitness-level insight into the unique pressures of capital murder trials, with reflection on the emotional and ethical weight carried by prosecutors, jurors, and the victims’ families.
• Breaking down how defense claims—like red herrings surrounding DNA evidence or bullet fragments—are used to fuel conspiracy in public perception, and why transparency matters.

---

More Notable Moments

• On trial strategy:
  “Over trying your case…you risk having to do it a second time.” – Phil Holloway, on the risks of piling on character evidence (07:45)
• On jury selection in high-profile retrials:
  “I think they have a good shot at individual voir dire. Probably. …Probably should have been done that way the first time, considering…publicity.” – Phil Holloway (16:43)
• On justice and community grief:
  “…we appreciate when people come in and say, ‘hey, I did it.’ I think we appreciate that as a society. But in this case…because of the type of case it was… I don’t think it carries as much weight.” – James Stanton, on late guilty pleas (36:34)
• On the absence of remorse:
  “He talked for hours about himself and his conditions and his bad home life. …He did have a bad home life. …But you would think somebody…would just go, man, I’m not a good person. I need to be sorry… It’s not in there. Not a bit.” – James Stanton (44:34)

---

Closing Thoughts

This episode covers the complexity and raw humanity of contemporary true crime—from headline-grabbing retrials and defense PR wars to a DA’s gut-wrenching account of seeking justice for a murdered child. The hosts offer an expert, accessible guide through both high drama and fine legal distinctions, while never losing sight of the victims and wider social impact.

Highly recommended for listeners seeking both big-picture true crime context and nuanced, inside-the-courtroom insight.

Transcript

[Commercial Narrator]

For those crazy busy, crazy hungry days when cooking family dinner is off the table, there's Applebee's all you can eat, a table full of unlimited favorites for just $15.99. You get all the tender signature riblets, all the crispy boneless wings, all the golden brown double crunched shrimp, and endless classic fries at a family friendly price. Applebee's all you can eat for just $15.99 per person per order. Now that's eaten good in the neighborhood. Limited time only, so hurry into your

[Phil Holloway]

nearest Applebee's today, avoiding your unfinished because

[James Stanton]

you're not sure where to start. Thumbtack knows homes so you don't have to don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro, you just have to hire one. You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates and read reviews all on the app. Download today.

[Phil Holloway]

Welcome to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Phil Holloway. I'm a criminal lawyer, I'm a former prosecutor and I'm a former police officer. I know a great true crime show when I see one and we have one in store for you today. I'm pleased to be joined by my co host Dave Aronberg, who is the former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida and managing partner at Dave Ehrenberg Law. So Dave, let's go ahead and go over what we have on our docket today. Fresh off his overturned murder convictions in South Carolina, the disgraced former attorney Alec Murdaugh is now suing the court clerk accused of jury tampering in his 2023 double murder trial. We'll bring you those details and an

[Dave Ehrenberg]

update in the Tyler Robinson case out of Utah. Attorneys for the alleged Charlie Kirk shooter are again pressing the court to restrict public access to to evidence at an upcoming pre trial hearing. And will the prosecution be held in contempt for violating the court's gag order? Spoiler alert. No. We'll discuss.

[Phil Holloway]

Dave, you know that's I can't wait to talk about that because I'm finding that particular defense theme to be kind of obnoxious as far as all the secrecy. But we'll talk about that in a few minutes. But later on in the program. Joining us is Wise County, Texas District Attorney James Stanton, who will share his insights on the Capitol murder case involving Tanner Horner. He's the former federal FedEx driver and now convicted killer of little 7 year old Athena Strand. Our Guest has personally prosecuted that case, and I look forward to hearing what his insights are from that courtroom.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

And let's start with the Murdoch lawsuit. So we remember the Murdoch case, right? It's back again after the South Carolina Supreme Court overturned his double murder conviction, saying he didn't have a fair trial because of Becky Hill, the clerk of courts, who decided to make herself the center of her own story, wrote a book, plagiarized it from a BBC reporter, and then to promote it, she wanted a guilty verdict as fast as possible. So she talked trash about the defendant to the jury and you're not supposed to do that. And also there are other issues. According to the Supreme Court of South Carolina. So he gets a new trial and now his, you know, he's. Well, he's suing to get money to be able to pay his lawyers from the original trial, saying that, well, I got screwed out of a fair trial, so you have to pay me. And I think, Phil, that he actually has a claim, but it's only gonna go to pay for legal fees for either then or now. Either way though, the public is gonna pay for his legal fees because either the public is going to have to pay for damages from Becky Hill's conduct or they're gonna have to pay anyways for his public defenders if he can't afford his current lawyers. So either way, Becky Hill did an injustice to all the taxpayers in South Carolina, not to mention the victims families.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah, well, she certainly cost everyone a lot of money and all the taxpayers, at least from South Carolina. And, and she's definitely caused a big problem. She's damaged the integrity of the justice system at large. And you know, I think I got mixed feelings about this particular lawsuit. I think that if it weren't for Becky Hill and her misdeeds, you know, he would, he being Alec Murdoch, would not be back having a second bite at the apple. Because look, anytime you have a retrial, you get the benefit of seeing the other team's playbook. It's a do over. And so he's able to make different strategic decisions. You know, he testified the first time around, Dave. You remember that? He testified and he did so badly, did terribly. And it made him look like an idiot and it made him look very guilty. And so this time he could easily say, you know what? I'm not going to make that mistake again. I'm going to do something else. And his lawyers can do things differently. The prosecutors can make some changes, Dave, but as you know, having been a prosecutor, they are still having to deal with the exact same evidence. They may make some strategic changes, but honestly, it worked well for him the first time around. Why would they change? So he's not really been harmed by anything that Becky Hill's done. I think he would have been convicted anyway, honestly, for sure. But. But he, he gets the benefit of a new trial. So I agree with some of the lawyer's claims. In fact, site one is the Murdoch lawyers announcing the lawsuit. Let's take a listen what they had to say. And I agree with some of this, and some of it we can talk about. We filed a lawsuit on behalf of Richard Alexander Murdoch senior versus Rebecca Hill. In this lawsuit, we. We file it under the federal civil rights statute 42, United States Code 19, 1983, to redress constitutional deprivation of rights. Those rights were Alex right to a fair trial, a right that him be tried before an untampered, untainted jury. With the South Carolina Supreme Court's ruling, it has been adjudged as a matter of state law that she deprived Alec of his constitutional rights, deprived him of a right to a fair trial, and as a result, we've got to do it all over again, which nobody wants to do.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Well, I think Alec Murdoch is glad there's a new trial. So first off, they're suing Becky Hill, but in reality, Alec Murdoch should be sending her a gift basket because she gave him a new trial when she. He was going to be found guilty anyways. This guy had his own voice at the scene of the murder. So whether Beckett Hill did what she did or not, he was proven to be a liar, a drug abuser, financial crimes, all these things. Now in the retrial, the prosecution won't be able to use as much evidence on financial crimes. That's one of the issues the South Carolina Supreme Court said was overkill and went into the propensity evidence that you're not allowed to introduce, meaning he is a bad guy. So he must have committed the crime here. And personally, as a former prosecutor, I think that the prosecutors went too far in days of evidence about financial crimes. I think they could have lost. The jury was boring, and I think they'll have a better case just streamlining it. You don't have to go through all the financial crimes. Yes, you bring it up because it's motive, but you don't just bury them with it. And the Supreme Court has tied their hands anyways.

[Phil Holloway]

Now there's something called. We used to call that Dave, over trying your case when I was a prosecutor, and I would say maybe A baby prosecutor, the more seasoned folks in the office, they would say, look, don't overdo it, because if you overdo it, you risk having to do it a second time. And I think that's where maybe these prosecutors might find themselves.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Yeah. And I think, so it's best that the South Carolina Supreme Court is forcing them to tie their hands and blindfold them to the mask like they did with Indiana Jones and Raiders of the Lost Ark, because if you look too closely at it, it'll burn your face off. You like that metaphor?

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah. Look, there's so much that you can do with all this stuff. It's just almost surreal what has happened in this Murdoch saga now at this point. And it is really, truly a saga. We've already had rounds of Netflix shows and all kinds of documentaries and books written about it, and we're just going to have more now. This is just more content, which, as true crime content creators, we love it, and we're happy to be here, and we will be here every step of the way. But about this lawsuit, they're claiming $600,000 in damages, David. They also say that Murdoch's entitled to recovery of attorneys fees. So, you know, he's. He. He can't get any of this money. Right. Because he owes so many people so many things. And I. Look, this has to be about an insurance policy. Our friend over at Court tv, Vinnie Politan, had posited the same idea on a Facebook post that I saw. This seems like, you know, Becky Hill doesn't have any money. She can't get blood out of a turnip, so to speak. She's convicted. She pled guilty. She didn't get any jail time, which is a whole different discussion. But she's pled guilty. She's a convicted felon after, I guess, after this. And one of. One of the charges was perjury. She admitted to that. So she doesn't have any money. She certainly didn't have $600,000. This smells like an insurance policy, and maybe the county has one, and maybe that's where that number comes from. What do you think?

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Yeah, I think that's right. But remember, Murdoch's not going to get the money in his own pocket. It'll go to victims because there's laws in place to protect victims. He stole from them. There's restitution. So he's not benefiting. He's not going to go to his jail commissary. But the reason why the lawyers are gung ho about this is because there is an attorney's fee provision. And so if he wins the lawsuit, which I think he may, I mean, I think there's a decent chance, because a South Carolina Supreme Court pretty much said Becky Hill did something corrupt. Well, and she's a government official, that the lawyers would get an attorney's fee, and so that would help them. Now, what happens in the next trial? How are they going to get paid? I think if they get an attorney's fee from this lawsuit, maybe they'll stick around a little while longer.

[Phil Holloway]

So I have to add to that. I agree with that. But I also would point out that anytime you have a civilization lawsuit, what do you. You know, if you're not looking for something like an injunction, you must be looking for what we call legal damages or monetary damage. Basically, you're seeking money. Okay? So in order to get money in a civil lawsuit, you have to prove that you have suffered some type of actual harm. And in this case, I think you can make the argument. I think it's pretty damn good argument that he has not been harmed because he pleaded guilty to decades in prison, that he's never going to get out just on the things he's pled guilty to, Dave, that have to do with the financial crimes and all of that. The things he confessed to on the stand in this murder trial, by the way, that's. That would keep him in jail for the rest of his natural life and then some. They may not even let him out then because of what he did. So I don't. So I don't know how he can say that he has been somehow harmed because not only does he get a second bite at this apple in his murder trial, he would be in prison anyway. He would absolutely be there anyway. So I don't know that he can actually demonstrate all the elements of the crime that are. Excuse me. Of the claim that he needs to make to prevail in this civil lawsuit. But here's where I think it was brilliant to file this. Even if they never get paid, as we'll see here in SOT2, this lawsuit is filed, and one of the benefits they get from this is they get subpoena power and they get to investigate all of what Becky Hill did. And they can use that maybe for the benefit of him in this murder trial, so they get some investigative powers out of this. Let's take a listen to SOT2. And the purpose of this lawsuit is to hold Becky Hill accountable for what she did. She has not been held account at all for her conduct. And two is to investigate exactly what she did, which we'll be able to do through the course of civil litigation. We have subpoena power, we can take depositions. And so we're, we're going to be able to understand the entire scope of her conduct. She's yet to be thoroughly investigated by the state, and she's not been held accountable by the state. And that's what we hope to do, that's what we intend to do, and that's what we will do with this lawsuit.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Yeah, well, the lawyers are doing what they need to do because they also know that they are able to speak out in the court of public opinion more than the prosecution can. And yet the Attorney General is pushing back. He's running for governor, and he's blaming the defense lawyers for playing politics, saying that these defense lawyers are big Democrats and that's why they're doing what they're doing. And it really is terrible when you're dealing with crime, not politics, and you're dealing with victims, real victims here and their families. And when politics gets in the way, it's ugly. So I get what they're doing. They're being zealous advocates. They still maintain that their very guilty client is innocent, by the way, he's guilty. It's obvious. And the jury the next year will find him guilty, too. But even if he's not found guilty. Good point, Phil. He's not going anywhere. He's got a 40 year federal sentence for his financial crimes running concurrently with a 27 year state sentence for the same crime. So, you know, maybe it's all to do about nothing. But Maggie and Paul deserve justice.

[Phil Holloway]

They sure do. And look, before we get to the Tyler Robinson News, I think it's worth pointing out that the defense team is implying that Becky Hill may have had some help with her tampering activities. And this is designed to maybe see if there's any other people involved. Maybe there's additional defendants they can sue. Let's check out SOT3. And the question is, and Jim and Phil and I have been talking about this, did she do it alone? Did she have somebody help her with this? And if you were sitting in the

[James Stanton]

judge's chambers like we were when she

[Phil Holloway]

brought in information on the jury, you would call the egg lady, we call Myra Crosby and listen to what she had to say. One time it was totally made up about some Facebook page. The second time, inexplicably. Inexplicably, a anonymous email came to the judge. We weren't told about it. It was investigated by the attorney general's office and sled without us being involved. No guardrails on that.

[James Stanton]

But I mean, and call us naive

[Phil Holloway]

because we were, we didn't press that.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

We maybe should have taken a little

[James Stanton]

more aggressive, but we still couldn't appeal that on him back then, but we will now.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Okay, they're suggesting the grand conspiracy. There's the only thing better for the defense than having Becky Hill, the clerk of courts, engage in jury tampering is to have two government officials engage in jury tampering. But there's no evidence of that. I mean, she had clear motive. She was writing a book with her co author and she plagiarized it and she decided to make herself the center of the story, which is ridiculous. And as a result, everyone has to suffer. But there's no evidence that there's anyone else involved in this. But the more they can delay, the more questions they can put in people's minds, the better it is from. Meanwhile, the prosecution is trying to now say, all right, you know, we're going to call your auntie, we're going to raise you in a game of poker, and we're going to consider the death penalty. Now, even though before they didn't seek the death penalty, that also, and I know, Phil, you've been active on that online debating with people about whether they can actually seek the death penalty, I would agree with you. Generally, they probably can't because that would be seen as vindictive prosecution. Unless there's new evidence that we don't know about, some reason that they didn't do it before. Maybe new evidence, maybe there's a new enhancement, a new aggravator. No, it sounds vindictive.

[Phil Holloway]

It does. And Ashley and I discussed this on the show earlier this week on Tuesday, and folks can go back and check that out. We covered that particular point. I agree with you. I think that the talk about the potential death penalty, I think that's political bluster. And I agree with you, Dave, that that kind of stuff needs to stay out of these things. However, one thing I think it's worth pointing out. See these lawyers, they, they're like I said earlier, they're going to do things differently. They're going to ask on retrial, they're going to ask the judge to follow up on DNA evidence that was raised during the first trial, things that were never put into the CODIS DNA system. For example, they're going to show that Maggie, they say they're going to show that Maggie had D under her fingernails from an unknown Male who is unrelated to her or any of the other Murdochs. They're going to seek individual vor dire. They're going to act. They want to question the jurors, the potential jurors, one by one. And Dave, our producer, Michelle, asks a really good question. Do they have a real shot at making this happen, the individual voir dire, or is that wishful thinking? And I think they have a good shot at individual voir dire. Probably. I guess objectively looking at it probably should have been done that way the first time, considering the sort of the publicity surrounding this case.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Yeah, yeah, I can see that. But, you know, I think you can get a impartial, fair jury anywhere you go, with or without the individual voir, dear. You just have to make sure that the people are going to follow the evidence and the law. They can know about the case. They can even have their own biases, as long as they say, I'm going to put everything aside and they swear under oath and that they'll be fair. You don't want a Trojan horse candidate there. You don't want someone who's just trying to get on the jury so they can write a book or do something to help one side or the other with an agenda. But these lawyers are good at vetting jurors, prosecutors and defense lawyers. And these are very experienced defense lawyers. Can I respond to the DNA that is so bogus? The DNA that was found under Maggie's fingernails was touch DNA. It was degraded and it could have been from touching a doorknob. I mean, remember, the theory of the defense is had drug dealers who were going after the family because they had beef with Alec Murdoch and his son and whatever, and they used this high caliber rifle and shot and killed Maggie from far away. Well, there's no sign of a struggle. So the fact that there's DNA under her fingernails proves nothing. And it was introduced in the first trial. And again, Sled Law Enforcement division said this is nothing. This is a red herring. And so now I don't think it's going to matter.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, we will see. And of course, folks, make sure you subscribe to this channel on YouTube, also on podcasts. Keep listening to us on Sirius XM because we here at MK True Crime, the channel, and on this show, the MK True Crime show, we will be all over this retrial as it grows near

[Commercial Narrator]

for those crazy busy, crazy hungry days when cooking family dinner is off the table. There's Applebee's, all you can eat. A table full of unlimited favorites for just $15.99. You get all the tender signature riblets, all the crispy boneless wings, all the golden brown double crunched shrimp and endless classic fries at a family friendly price. Applebee's all you can eat for just $15.99 per person per order. Now that's eaten good in the neighborhood. Limited time only, so hurry into your nearest Applebee's today. Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in and that's too late. Simplisafe is changing that.

[James Stanton]

Stop. This is SimpliSafe. Police are on the way.

[Commercial Narrator]

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

[Phil Holloway]

SimpliSafe Active Guard Outdoor Protection Plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit SimpliSafe.com licenses for alarm license information.

[Commercial Narrator]

Tennessee 2012 Starting something new, especially a business, is is a challenge. So much work goes into something that you're not entirely sure is going to 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 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. It's time to turn those what ifs into into with Shopify today. Sign up for your $1 per month trial today at shopify.com k t c go to shopify.com mktc

[Phil Holloway]

I want to talk to you Dave, you mentioned in our opening about we have Charlie Kirk, alleged assassin Tyler Robinson back in the news today. They are again asking the court to hide evidence, conceal it from the public in an upcoming hearing. So they have this preliminary hearing scheduled for July. In a preliminary hearing sometimes that's called a probable cause hearing and it's for the purpose of deciding basically two things. If a crime probably was committed and if this defendant is the one that probably committed the crime. That's a very simplistic way of putting It. But they don't have to show much. It's not beyond a reasonable doubt, but the prosecutor will show some of the cards that they have, but not. They won't show all of their cards, but they have said, Dave, that they're going to introduce forensic evidence science, surveillance footage, recordings of witness statements, autopsy findings, messages that they allege contain admissions of guilt by Robinson and various other things, including the note prosecutors say that Robinson left his roommate, romantic partner Lance Twiggs, which reads, quote, I had the opportunity to take Charlie Kirk out, and I'm going to take it. Dave. Why, why, why do they keep coming back to this request of this judge to close the courtroom?

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Because defense lawyers benefit from the conspiracies that are flying around about this case. The less transparent it is, the more you can get a juror who believes one of these ridiculous conspiracies. Maybe they believe a foreign government was involved or something else, which is just ludicrous because we have a confession already. We know who this. We know the killer is. This is not a hard case. But if there is no transparency, then you have all these podcasters out there who are firing up the conspiracy machine, and all it takes is one juror with some doubts, and that's a hung jury. So I think that's what's going on here. Plus, they'll say that the more the evidence that gets out to the public, the more likely there is of a jury taint. Well, maybe so, but I think another reason is what I just said, that conspiracy theories benefit the defense.

[Phil Holloway]

I said early on, this judge allowed them too much room to pursue court closures, no cameras, media blackouts, gag orders, and all this stuff. He should have forcefully come out early on and said, look, I'm not entertaining all this nonsense unless you've got a really damn good reason. And he didn't do that. Okay? His style, his personality, he's much more genteel. He's pleasant.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

He's Utah.

[Phil Holloway]

He's not. He's Utah. He's not confrontational. And so. And look, usually I'm complaining that judges don't let lawyers be lawyers, but sometimes, you know, lawyers can be, like, toddlers, and you got to put. You got to, like, have boundaries, right? And so he didn't establish those. And these lawyers keep trying to go back to this. Well, over and over and over again. And honestly, I find it to be tiresome. I'm going to talk more about gag orders in my closing a little later on in the program. But, Dave, they are accusing that they being the defense team, they're accusing these prosecutors of being in contempt of court for responding publicly sort of to the defense motions that basically raise the idea that because there was a fragment of a bullet that couldn't be, you know, sufficiently tested at the crime lab to be matched to a specific rifle that, you know, maybe, maybe that gives rise to some other person being the shooter, it's total red herring. And the prosecutor said, look, I can't talk specifically about the case because the judge has a gag order. And I'm paraphrasing here. He said, but generally speaking, you know, when you have these bullet fragments that can't, they're too tiny, they're too degraded to be tested. It doesn't necessarily mean that, you know, that gun can be excluded. And that's true. It's accurate. It doesn't comment specifically about this case. But they want him thrown in jail.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Never going to happen. I don't like the tactics and I know neither do you, Phil. And remember the defense, they put out some information that again, spread like wildfire, which was, oh, there's a finding that the bullet doesn't match the gun. Oh, my goodness. And so the conspiracy theorists had a huge day with it. Well, that's not what was said. That's not the reality. Right. So the prosecutors came out and said, wait, no, no, no. It's just that they couldn't determine whether it matched or didn't match. It was inconclusive. It was not that it did not match. And that's why the prosecutors came out, because they want to stop the conspiracy theories and give the truth. They're allowed to say it. I think it was a responsible thing to do. Shame on the defense lawyers, trying to sanction them for it. But doesn't matter. This judge is not going to punish the prosecutors for coming out and speaking the truth in response to a lie.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, before we get to, before we get to our break and our, our guest from Texas coming up in the next block, Dave, I want to talk about the Anna Kepner case. We've been covering that as well here on the channel and on this show we'll continue to do so. This is 18 year old Florida resident Anna Kettner, who was found deceased while on vacation on a cruise with her family back in November of 2025. We have some video of the FBI who has jurisdiction of the case and the medical examiner removing her body from the ship. And of course, we have her father now who has gone to her high school graduation and has accepted her high school diploma in her stead. Let's run SOT4.

[James Stanton]

It was hard being in her place. To do that is very hard.

[Commercial Narrator]

Anna Lee Kebner, Christopher Koepner stepping up to collect his daughter's high school diploma at what should have been her high school graduation.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Our time with Anna was short, but

[Commercial Narrator]

it left us with many memories that we will forever cherish.

[James Stanton]

We waited for her name to be

[Dave Ehrenberg]

called and I walked up and grabbed the diploma.

[James Stanton]

My wife set up the senior table and it was great.

[Commercial Narrator]

And his father walking off stage, shedding a tear as his daughter's classmates and their families applauded up out of their seat. The family telling ABC News they're frustrated and upset that Anna's stepbrother th the son of Christopher's wife Chantel, remains free.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Well, first off, it's heartbreaking. And just so you know, they wore shirts with blue butterflies on it as a tribute to Anna. Blue was her favorite color. So that's why they both wore those shirts. You know, Phil, I'm just hoping for justice here. I as far as why he's out, he's remember he's being tried as an adult, but he's been out for a while on house arrest. He's not committed any new offenses. He's not really a threat to leave the country. And they apparently feel that he's not a threat to anyone else while he is waiting trial. I do think the evidence against him is very strong.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, in the prosecution, the government, I should say. That's how we refer to federal prosecutors. They are seeking his detention. There's a detention hearing coming up later this month or at least a decision we expect from the judge in the case as to whether or not the stepbrother should be in custody pending his trial, which is currently scheduled for later this fall. We'll be keeping an eye on that. Coming up, folks, we have Wise County, Texas District Attorney James Stanton. He will be here to discuss the Capitol case against Tanner Horner. He's the ex FedEx driver accused and now convicted, I should say, and sentenced to death for the brutal murder of seven year old Athena Strand. Stick around.

[Commercial Narrator]

Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in and that's too late. Simplisafe is changing that.

[James Stanton]

Stop. This is Simplisafe. Police are on the way.

[Commercial Narrator]

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 [e-mail] sxm or with promo

[Phil Holloway]

code sxm Outdoor deterrence requires a Simplisafe Active Guard Outdoor protection plan starting at 49.99amonth. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information.

[James Stanton]

Tennessee 2012 Close your eyes. Listen to Monday.com feel the sensation of an AI work platform so flexible and intuitive it feels like it was built just for you. Now open your eyes. Go to Monday.comstart for free and free.

[Phil Holloway]

Finally, breathe.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Did you know that three out of four US Homes have toxic chemicals in their tap water? Gross. Even though contaminated water looks clear, it could put you at risk for devastating health concerns including fatigue, hormone disruption, cognitive decline, and even cancer. Surprisingly, standard fridge and pitcher filters do little to remove most contaminants. And bottled water contains microplastics. So what's the solution? Introducing Aqua Tru, the countertop water purifier. Tested and certified to remove 84 contaminants, including chlorine, lead, forever chemicals and microplastics. We all hate those. It's a patented four stage reverse osmosis system that 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. Join 98% of customers who say their drinking water is cleaner, safer and healthier. Go to aquatrude.com now for 20% off your purifier using promo code True Crime. Aqua True even comes with a 30 day best tasting water guarantee. That's aquatrue.com a Q U a T R U.com promo code T R U E C R I M E. Welcome back to the MK True Crime show. Joining us now is wise county District Attorney James Staton. Welcome James. As a reminder for our audience, James prosecuted the case against Tanner Corner. He's the guy who's convicted of killing 7 year old Athena Strand. Earlier this month, a jury sentenced Horner to death. So James, first off, thank you for your service as a prosecutor. I used to be the state attorney in Palm Beach County. You're the current da. Same position, different titles, but you actually go in the courtroom and try murder cases yourself. Kudos to you.

[James Stanton]

Yes.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Can you tell us what it was? Yeah. Can you tell us what it was like in the court when Hoarder entered his last minute guilty plea moments before the trial was set to begin?

[James Stanton]

Yeah, that was a surprise. It doesn't really change anything. You know, I don't know if you guys have tried these types of cases before, but you know, all the evidence is still coming, whether it's A guilt case or whether it's a punishment case, it's, it's going to be the same. So it's, it wasn't really that big a deal. I did have to change my opening. The judge gave me five minutes to change my opening and said, here you go, big boy. You make it happen. So sometimes you get that. You guys have been around judges. You know how that works. So the judge, Judge Gallagher in this case was wonderful. He was a real blessing, I think, for both sides. He was fair for both sides and, and very direct. You know, when he made rulings, I don't know if y' all watch any of the trial and saw a lot of it, he was very direct and, and quick in his rulings, which makes things very efficient. But, you know, getting that guilty plea. We had gotten a report in the week before from one of our experts, and it did not play well for Mr. Horner, and I think that's why they ended up doing that.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, look, I, I have you asked if either one of us had ever been involved in cases like this. And I would just say there's never been a case like this. This is one of the worst, most egregious, horrifying cases I have ever seen of any kind. And I just, you know, it was difficult. You asked if we watched it. Yeah, we watched a lot of it. We talked about it a lot on this program. Our producer, Natasha, was actually in the courtroom for a lot of us. And yeah, so we followed it, but it was difficult for us to do. I can't imagine what it must have been like for you, but I have a couple of follow up questions on that. You answered one of them, I think, a moment ago about why you think he pleaded guilty. And I agree with you. It seems to me like sometimes it may be your best defense to a jury is like, okay, ladies and gentlemen, the jury. He's admitted his responsibility. We're not denying that. We just want you to spare his life. And I think, I mean, I get it objectively, I see how that could be a reasonable type of defense. I've seen it before in other cases. I'm sure you have too, but on a personal level, I've done it. Was that a relief to you? Yeah, yeah, but so it makes sense. But was it a relief to you?

[James Stanton]

I mean, did your mindset, I mean, to be honest with you, don't mean to interrupt you. To be honest with you, the evidence in this case was so overwhelming from the beginning. I mean, it's not often that you actually get video and audio of a kidnapping. Okay. Which is very rare anyway. I mean, kidnapping is. Almost never happens, and if it does, it almost never happens as a stranger. Right? I mean, you guys are aware of that. Usually kidnappings are family related or, you know, a mom and a dad. And that's normally how it works. But it's almost never a stranger. When you have video of that and then, you know that obviously, you know, Athena was killed. The guilt, I mean, I'm never going to say something's a slam dunk case because you don't know, because it's a jury. But there wasn't a more slam dunk case that was out there. As far as the evidence for guilt, it was absolute. We had it on video. I mean, when do we have that?

[Dave Ehrenberg]

So, James, what, why, why do you think you pled guilty in the end? I mean, just as you mentioned earlier, just to save his hide so he wouldn't get.

[James Stanton]

I agree with you. I think it was strategic. It was strategic. I think it was just one way to say, hey, I took responsibility. Hey, I took responsibility. You know, that works in a dope case. It works in a dwi. It works in something that, you know, people kind of go, I think we, as a, as Americans, you know, we appreciate when people come in and say, hey, I did it. I think we appreciate that as a society. But in this case, because of the type of case it was, I, I think it fell flat and the case was like, what, almost four years old. When we do this, I think if you plead this thing two years in, a year and a half in, I think that makes a difference. But when you wait four years and you do it, when you're staring down the barrel of everything, I just, I don't, I don't think it carries as much weight.

[Phil Holloway]

Hey, James, can you walk us through sort of your decision making process as the district attorney, the person who makes the decision to seek the death penalty in a case. I understand this is your, your first one. You've had opportunities in the past to seek the death penalty. What goes through a prosecutor's mind, I guess. And when you, when you make that difficult decision, what kind of things do you consider?

[James Stanton]

Well, I'll be honest with you. I mean, this is Texas and you know, a lot of people have a misinterpretation of Texas and the death penalty. They kind of look at us here in Texas like we're the execution state. But in reality it is a tiny, tiny, tiny percentage of cases. And you remember in Texas there are cases that they are available to seek the death penalty, but the majority of the time the DA's do not. So it's a very, very small percentage. And my decision process was it was based on the age of the child, the level of violence, the what we believe to be some form of inappropriate sexual, you know, conduct on the part of the defendant. All of those went in there. But ultimately the decision was based on the level of violence. When I got all that video back, and I knew the level of violence that he'd inflicted upon Athena, that, that was not a, A, a difficult choice to make.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

James, one of the most powerful moments is when we watch you show Tanner Horner sneakers. And that was just such a moment. I want to show the sot, and then I'm going to ask you if you can explain why you thought it was important to show the jury the sneakers. So first let's, let's show the video and then we're going to have you answer that question.

[James Stanton]

And I don't want anybody to ever forget what kind of warrior that little girl was. I don't know if anybody could have. Could have withstood what she withstood. He can choke her, he can beat her, he can do it over and over again. But what do we know? We know the end result was right here. This is what, what it took. That's what it took to beat the

[Phil Holloway]

life out of her.

[James Stanton]

If the facts were not bad enough, if the sexual assault wasn't bad enough, the level of violence that one person can inflict on a child, including stomping them with a pair of shoes,

[Phil Holloway]

And

[James Stanton]

I wonder where that tread light print came from anymore, because we know. Wow.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Yeah. Please, can you talk about that? Your decision to bring up the sneakers.

[James Stanton]

Well, what you didn't see and which we, we, we kept from the public was the autopsy photos. We did that on purpose. We did not show the jury the entirety. We admitted him, of course, into evidence. But we showed the. We showed the jury one picture. One. And it was just a picture of her face and her about this level right here about her chest. And we did that on purpose. The autopsy photos, I will tell you, gentlemen, it's. You can't unsee it. Okay, let's just put it that way. We showed the jury one picture. We also did that with the body recovery. We showed them one picture with her body out of the water. That was it. The picture we showed them. You could see the tread like pattern. And if you remember the testimony of the me, The ME described a zigzag tread like pattern in her report that came from those shoes. And so the jury has seen that one picture with that tread like, pattern, and it is very. When I say distinctive, I mean unmistakable what that pattern is on her body. That's why you have the shoes. Because if you've seen that picture and I turn those shoes over, you know exactly where that pattern came from, and that's why we show them the shoes. That's. That's why it's important, because that size 13 shoe stomped the life out of her. That's the truth of.

[Phil Holloway]

It's just so powerful. I mean, that's in. It's. And look. I mean, it's. It's really effective trial advocacy as well. And, you know, he certainly gave you a lot to work with. I think the evidence of guilt was obviously overwhelming. Convincing a jury, though, to. To. To impose a death penalty is. Is. Is sometimes a tougher ask than just, you know, saying, well, I want you to find this person guilty. So I think that that was really effective. I'll tell you what else was really effective. You had a. You had a part of your closing where you showed a container that was filled with psychological research, and you pointed out that there was something missing from that. So let's. Let's talk about what that something is that missing. We'll talk about that after we have a look and listen to SOT6.

[James Stanton]

I dug through some stuff. That's a bunch of reports, notes, everything that came right over here. Everybody. How many hundred hours? Hundred hours or more. How many psychologists? How many experts? You know, what you won't find in

[Phil Holloway]

this box right here?

[James Stanton]

I'm sorry. Not a single time. In this entire box. Now what this entire box is full of. It's all about Tanner. He's more than happy to talk about his life, more than happy to talk about his problems. He's more than happy to talk about that. You would think in a hundred hours, you would thank all those experts somewhere, someplace, one single time, stop what you're doing. Quit talking about me and just say, I'm sorry. I don't think that's too much to ask, but you can do it.

[Phil Holloway]

Ain't in there no better way, in my view. I've never seen anybody really demonstrate lack of remorse in such an effective way.

[James Stanton]

Just to give you a full disclosure, a little inside baseball, that was. That was kind of spur of the moment. Sometimes when you're in the middle of it, things hit you, and you feel passion. You feel something that really sets the tone. And in that particular case, I had sat there through me. I saw the experts, One psychologist after the other, one expert after the other, one person on there. And I'd had to listen to them talk about. All about Tanner. Woe is Tanner. Tanner this Tanner's bad employment. Tanner, this Tanner. I mean, it was just on and on, and I just sat there, and I was fuming. I mean, I literally was angry because I'd heard so much about him. And I'm sitting there, and I look down and I see this pile of paper, and I was like, that's it. That's what I haven't seen. Literally six psychologists, evaluators, experts, the guy with fetal alcohol, the brain scan guy. I mean, the lead paint guy, the. I mean, all these experts, that's all their reports in that box. I took them all. I took all their notes, and I put them in that box. And I asked myself, is there a single time he's ever said he's sorry? Nope, not in the box. It ain't in there. And that's. That's just it. It came to me like that. It's not in there. He talked for hours about himself and his conditions and his bad home life. And don't get me wrong, there's. There's. There's a lot of truth to a lot of that stuff. He did have a bad home life. His mom does have prison struggles and drug issues. I mean, that's all true, but you would think somebody who's been talked to for I don't know how many hours by these people would just go, man, I'm. I'm not a good person. I need to be sorry about this or something. It's not in there. Not a bit.

[Phil Holloway]

I mean, maybe the. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised. I mean, obviously, a lot of these things are done for purposes of trial preparation. I'm kind of surprised that maybe his lawyers didn't coach him to at least interject some of that in there.

[James Stanton]

Yeah, I don't know. I mean, it's. It's one of those things. I mean, you've. You've done all this stuff, but if you. If. If you want to come in there and say that you have some redeeming qualities, that you don't deserve a death sentence, that you deserve life without parole, and you have some redeeming values. I mean, that's. That's the theory behind it. That's the theory behind question number two. We found you to be a future danger, but is there something redeeming about you that can kind of pull this back a Little bit kind of pull it back away from the death penalty and allow you to serve out your life in prison. Being remorseful. That's what you do. You know what I mean? Legitimately remorseful about. About how it happened. And he's just not. Yeah, I mean, I guess he is. You know, that one psychiatrist lady, she said something about how well he's remorseful, but apparently you got to have a degree in psychiatry to be able to understand how he's remorseful. I. I don't get it. It's just not in there.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

It's a great argument. And just you speak to just common sense and the anger of a community that. And it hears all these eggheads with fancy degrees trying to tell them, oh, yes, he's remorseful. And they also tried to say that he didn't have the intent to kill. That was key to the defense. He had a woman doctor, Eileen Reed, a child forensic psychiatrist, who claimed that Tanner Horner did not intend to kill. And you crossed her really well.

[James Stanton]

Eileen Ryan.

[Phil Holloway]

Yeah, I lean Ryan.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Oh, is it Ryan? Dr. Ryan.

[James Stanton]

Ryan.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

I'm gonna play Dr. Ryan. Right, right. We're gonna play that SOT, and then I'm gonna ask you on the other side a question about it. So let's play SOT7.

[Commercial Narrator]

When he put her in the truck, in my opinion, he didn't plan on killing her. It wasn't until he recognized. Now it's so much worse because I've put her in the truck, and now what am I going to do? I think. Think it may be in my notes, it was when she asked him, are you a kidnapper? That he thought, now this is now I'm really done. Something to that effect. And that's when he made that decision. Not when he saw her. When she saw him snorting the cocaine.

[James Stanton]

So we have the end result. But what you missed was what happened in the middle.

[Phil Holloway]

Which is what?

[James Stanton]

Sexual assault. That happened in the middle.

[Commercial Narrator]

No, I think that he. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your question.

[James Stanton]

He kidnapped her, he sexually assaulted her, then he killed her. That's how this goes together.

[Commercial Narrator]

Actually, that's not what he told me. And that's not my opinion.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

That's not what he told me. Oh, my gosh. That's such a great moment. Yeah.

[Phil Holloway]

So he's lying to the expert, James. Yes.

[James Stanton]

Oh, he lied to all those experts. So that. That lady, Dr. Ryan. And just full disclosure, Dr. Ryan in her field is a legitimate professional. She is degreed. She is. She's credentialed in her field. I mean, she Is a, a, a, a a very well recognized professional in her field. So I'm not going to speak ill of her, obviously, because in her field she is, I mean, all these experts that you saw, I mean, I beat up on a few of them, but they are legitimate experts in their field. But on that particular day, I, you know, you just kept giving me fastballs down the middle and I'm just going to keep hitting them. I mean, I mean, you know, when, you know, the whole point of that, of Dr. Ryan's testimony was the catastrophe theory. Y' all may remember that from what she was talking about. The, the seven year old girl saw him doing blow, you know, off the hood of his truck and then all of a sudden he has a catastrophe because of all these conditions and kidnaps her and kills her. The problem with that theory is one, I think it's a lie. I think he's figured out that we now know he has to explain why he covered up the front camera. And so that's his reason now. But it doesn't explain why in the middle of that he decided to be inappropriate with her sexually.

[Phil Holloway]

That's the problem we have that. I don't mean to interrupt you, but I think this is an excellent topic to dive into. We've got site 8 which is some of the defense talking about this theory, this idea that, you know, I, Athena saw him do some cocaine which basically triggered a chain of events that basically to pull the jury away from premeditation and say it was sort of a spontaneous thing, spontaneous decision, no premeditation. Let's run side eight, which is part of the defense closing argument on that point.

[Commercial Narrator]

Tanner delivered the packages to Athena's house. Barbies and he got out, delivered the package, decided to snort a little cocaine because he had had insomnia, was tired, had all these other issues and she saw him and he thought that she was going to tell on him and if she told, he would lose his job. If he lost his job, he would lose his car. If he lost his car, he wouldn't be able to have transportation. Transportation for the baby. He didn't have transportation for the baby. Something could happen. He couldn't do this. It just kept snowballing in his mind. Now there was no planning, there was no premeditation, there was no preparation.

[Phil Holloway]

All right, so there I wanted to just go ahead and just for the benefit of our audience and so I had interrupted you, so please, I'm curious to hear your thoughts on that part of the strategy.

[James Stanton]

So I mean, it makes sense. The defense team on this. They are, they're definitely qualified professionals at what they do. This is their job. And I think that's the best defense that they could make. There was, I believe, some pretty clear evidence of premeditation. You know, when we find you on the same road the day before at a different house covering up the camera an hour and 15 hour and 20 minutes before you end up on the road two days in a row and there just happens to be two 7 year old blond haired little girls that just happen to be on the same road. I'm not a coincidence guy. So I think that was definitely some form of planning. But when they're arguing that, you know, he just was doing cocaine, it just, he figured out we knew there was something else going on and that was what he came up with to cover that, if you will. And I'm sorry, I think you may have seen my clothing when I talked about how that what 7 year old girl is going to know that he's doing blow off the hood of his truck. I mean, come on. I mean, I hope a 7 year old girl does not know that. I hope that she does not know what that is. But it misses the point. The point being is you had this stopping off point in the middle where you decide to be inappropriate. I mean you can't have a catastrophe with a pause in the middle where you do something else. It just doesn't make any sense. But you know, given the evidence, I mean, I think that was probably the, the smartest argument to make.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

James, this is so interesting to hear what was going on in your mind and also your thoughts about the defense lawyers because there was something that happened out of the jury's earshot that was picked up by Natasha, our amazing producer here. And she is from that community, from your community. And she was there in the courtroom and she said that she was right. Right. And you know, we're so, we're so happy to have her lead the way here. Natasha was sitting on the defense side, right behind the defense team and heard one of the members of the defense team say out loud, all this circus for an automatic appeal seems kind of callous. How would you have responded to that?

[James Stanton]

You know, I think anybody who's been in trial then hasn't said something that they would like to take back is lying. These are high pressure situations. This is a maximum pressure situation both for me and them. And I'm sure that I probably lift off to somebody somewhere sometime that I'd probably like to take back as well. I don't usually hold my tongue. And I've, I've definitely had to apologize in some stressful situations when I said something that was inappropriate. Now, I would hope if that's what was said. I don't know who, who said that I would, I doubt that that was defense counsel. I seriously doubt that. I'm not sure because I didn't hear anything. That's not how they, that's not how they operate. As far as the two, two defense counsel that was on it, Ms. Anderson and Mr. Goble, they don't operate that way. But I, you know, I mean, we're all, we're all, we're all lawyers. And you know, if that was said, I, I would, I would hope that, you know, somebody, you know, didn't mean it or was just reacting to the stress of the situation because obviously you just found out your, your clients go into the, you know, going to death row.

[Phil Holloway]

James, in 30 seconds or so we got left, tell us what your office is going to do in terms of being involved in. Speaking of the appeal, the automatic appeal, we know this is going to take years. What is the degree of, I guess, involvement that your office is going to keep with the case moving forward?

[James Stanton]

Well, obviously we're going through all the evidence and notes and files and everything else. We're packaging all that up. We don't do the appeals here. You've got to be certified to do that in Texas, to be a capital appellate writ lawyer and that kind of thing. We have somebody in the office that, that we do some appeals here, but it's, we're going to contract that out, which is what happens in most rural offices. It gets contracted out.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

Well, James Stayton, we appreciate you very much. That was an amazing segment. Yeah. And we hope to have you back sometime, but hopefully we'll never have a case like this again. And up next, your questions and your closing arguments. Our closing arguments. Stay tuned.

[Commercial Narrator]

Your home holds the story of your life. Renewal by Andersen. Windows are built to weather every season with you. They frame the little moments and the big ones. From first steps to graduation to new beginnings. While life keeps moving, our windows stand strong through every chapter. Let Renewal by Anderson be part of your story. Windows built to last. Visit renewalbyandersonhome.com to learn more. Traditional home security only alerts you after a break in. And that's too late. Simplisafe is changing that.

[James Stanton]

Stop. This is Simplisafe. Police are on the way.

[Commercial Narrator]

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

[Phil Holloway]

SimpliSafe Active Guard Outdoor Protection Plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information. Tennessee2012 this podcast is sponsored by Qcaller.

[James Stanton]

Thank you.

[Phil Holloway]

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 cue collar helps protect the brain. The science is fascinating. By applying light pressure to the neck, the collar slightly increases blood volume inside 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 backslash MK for a free sleeve. It's available in 15 colors now with your order. Welcome back to the MK True Crime Show. I'm Phil Holloway along with my co host Dave Ehrenberg. This is the part of the program where we give you our closing arguments. So Dave, I'll let you go first because it's a Florida first kind of day.

[Dave Ehrenberg]

I love it. It should always be that way. Thank you Phil. On Sunday, I attended my niece's high school graduation in Delray Beach, Florida. I'm proud to say that she finished at the top of her class. But here's the kicker. She didn't apply to a single Ivy League school. She was not interested in in applying to Harvard, her uncle's alma mater. Instead, she's heading to her top choice, Northwestern. And she was not alone. I watched some of the best and brightest students in South Florida actively eschew the traditional liberal bastions of the Northeast. Why? Some are worried about campus antisemitism. Others are just tired of the chaos. So they're choosing schools like Northwestern, Stanford and Southern schools. Places where learning still comes before mob rule. In fact, since 2019, applications to southern universities have shot up by 55 50%, far outpacing northeastern schools for some of America's so called elite institutions of higher learning. The Bill has come due. And the real cost is not the looming Department of Justice fines for failing to address campus antisemitism. The real cost is the loss of talented students who want to learn, not get indoctrinated. So when feckless administrators kowtow to extremism, ignorance, and students radicalized by Chinese TikTok and Qatari billions, this is what happens. You lose your luster. It breaks my heart to see students pass over my alma mater. But until these institutions clean up their act, focus on independent thought, and protect all their students from harassment, the exodus will continue. Weakness and appeasement have a price tag, and right now, Harvard and other Ivy League schools are paying it. That's my closing statement.

[Phil Holloway]

Well, that's good stuff, Dave. And look, I want to talk about something that we discussed a little earlier in the program in the context of the Tyler Robinson case. There's a gag order there, and the defense team is saying that the prosecution has violated, you know, that gag order by responding to some. Some pleadings that the defense filed, and they did so in public. And I think that's just dangerous. I think gag orders in general are dangerous. So. So why is that? It's because they silence the very people we need to hear the truth from. So when a judge slaps a gag order on a case, they're basically telling the public, you don't need to know what's happening here. And that's just not wrong. I think it's. It's dangerous. Gag orders violate our First Amendment rights to a free speech and, of course, to a free press. The First Amendment is more than just free speech. It includes the right of the press to gather the news and to report it. And our founders did not create the First Amendment so judges could decide what we are allowed to hear and what we're not allowed to hear. The press exists to gather news and to inform the public, particularly in high profile, newsworthy cases that affect all of us. In every criminal case of any type of society at large is always at least one of the victims. And that's why here in my home state of Georgia, every criminal indictment ends with the language that it's brought in the name of and on behalf of the people of the state. And it's against the good order, peace, and dignity thereof. Society is a victim. Other jurisdictions use similar language because the people at large are the victims. So when you gag the parties or the lawyer, you're gagging the public's rights as victims to know the truth about what's going on in courtrooms. Another problem with gag orders is that they create an information vacuum. As Dave was talking about earlier. What fills a vacuum is rumors, speculations, and conspiracy theories. Without facts from actual parties and their attorneys, the public is left in the dark and they make up their own narratives. And folks, that's not justice. That is chaos. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly said that prior restraint on speech is the most serious and least tolerable infringement on the First Amendment rights of us as citizens in the United States. Yet judges keep issuing these orders like they're going out of style. They claim it's to protect the fairness of the trial, but there are plenty of other ways to ensure the defendant gets a fair trial without shutting down public courtrooms. A vigorous and thorough jury selection process is almost always sufficient to offset any risk of prejudice from pretrial publicity. The public has a right to know what their government is doing, and that includes courts, especially the courts. Gag orders don't protect justice, they protect secrecy. And secrecy in government is where mistrust and doubt are born. When you silence the voices closest to the case, you're not protecting the system. You're actually undermining the system. So next time you hear about a gag order in a high profile case, ask yourself, who benefits from the public being kept in the dark? The answer is almost always never the public itself. I want to say thanks to all of you for watching and listening to us today here on the MK True Crime Show. And if you haven't already subscribed on YouTube and on podcast, please do that. And of course, listen to us when you get a chance on Sirius xm, the Megyn Kelly Channel. And I want to say a special thanks to James Stanton, the district Attorney who had to prosecute that. The worst of all cases that I think we've ever even talked about on this program. And of course, thanks to my co host, Dave Ehrenberg. And thanks again to all of you for joining us. And we'll see you back here next time on the MK True Crime Show. Have a great week.

[Commercial Narrator]

Est Episodio es presentado por opener. Los dias en los quenecesitavas prescription medica para la pildor anticonceptiva anterminado Opel estadis

[Phil Holloway]

pon il enia y la mayoria de

[Commercial Narrator]

las tiendas Toma el control de tu salud Reproduventiva con Opel US alcodigo Birth control y recive venticinco porciento de descentent to primer meste Opel en opel Punto. Com. In the US there's a break in every 26 seconds. But when intruders step near Simplisafe, home security steps up.

[James Stanton]

Stop. This is Simplisafe. Police are on the way.

[Commercial Narrator]

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.

[James Stanton]

Outdoor deterrence requires a Simplisafe Active Guard

[Phil Holloway]

Outdoor Protection plan starting at $49.99 a month. Visit simplisafe.com licenses for alarm license information.

[James Stanton]

Tennessee 2012.