← MK True Crime
MK True Crime
Surgeon Allegedly STALKED Ex-Wife Before Murders, Kohberger Accomplice Questions, Fired Coach Maintains Innocence, with Andrea Burkhart
01:06:48
MK True Crime hosts Phil Holloway and Dave Aronberg join the show to discuss surgeon Dr. Michael McKee’s virtual court appearance last week where he pleaded not guilty to murder charges through his high-profile defense attorney, new records indicating that McKee broke into the Tepe home only weeks before the murder of his ex-wife Monique and her husband Spencer, fired Michigan football coach Sherrone Moore’s court appearance last week where his lawyer maintained his innocence against charges of third-degree home invasion, a felony, and misdemeanor charges of stalking and breaking and entering related to an alleged inappropriate relationship with a staffer, why Moore’s lawyer is fighting to quash Moore’s arrest warrant and throw out criminal charges, why the lawyer also requested a Franks hearing, Andrea Burkhart, criminal defense attorney and legal analyst, joins the show to discuss the revelations from the newly unsealed court records in the Bryan Kohberger case, insight into what...
Loading summary
Transcript82 lines
- [00:00]
Commercial Announcer
Your new home is now ready. Dr. Horton, America's builder has new homes that are ready today with new construction communities in Ellensburg and throughout the Greater Seattle area. Dr. Horton has the right home for you. At Dr. Horton we're still building with flexible living spaces, smart home technology and two and three car garages. More communities and more homes available every day. Find your new home in Ellensburg now ready@dr. Horton.com Dr. Horton, America's builder and equal housing opportunity builder. Y nada. Son puras vueltas Pero ahoro un experto de turbotax te preparatus in puestos Puedes contactara un experto yar le toda la informacion tributaria directa mente des la en lucaria de vinar. Puedes estar seguro de que to experto de turbotax se todo ahora los impuestos se ha senasi intuit turbotax. Visita turbotax Punto com para mas informacion solo disponi con turbotax experts actual sessiones in tiempo real solo un applicacion mobil para iOS.
- [01:06]
Phil Holloway
Welcome to MK True Crime. I'm Phil Holloway. I'm a criminal lawyer, I'm a former police officer and I'm an ex prosecutor. I have been in and around the justice system now for the better part of 40 years and I know a great true crime show when I see one. And we have one for you today. So here's what's on our docket. We start with Dr. Michael McKee, the surgeon accused of killing Spencer and Monique Tepe. The doctor has pleaded not guilty. We'll bring you the latest in that case. Plus, we have former Michigan football coach Sharon Moore was in court last week. He's fighting against charges of third degree home invasion, that being a felony. And he also has misdemeanor charges of stalking and breaking and entering. We're going to be joined today by criminal defense attorney and legal analyst Andrea Burkhart. She's joining the show to discuss the latest findings from the recent release of the Brian Kohberger files. Plus the lack of transparency in the Tyler Robinson case out of Utah. I'm joined today by my co host, the Florida lawman Dave Ehrenberg. Dave, of course, is the former state attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, and he's the managing partner at Dave Ehrenberg Law. All right, Dave, let's start with these updates that we have in the Tepe murders. By way of a quick reminder for our audience, Spencer and Monique Tepe were murdered in their Columbus, Ohio home while their young children were asleep. Monique tepe's ex husband, Dr. Michael McKee, was arrested and charged with the murders. He was extradited to Ohio and on Friday he pleaded not guilty through his new attorney. Dave, you know, you've been keeping up with this case. We've all been keeping up with this case. We saw the arraignment in court, which is where his lawyer appeared, you know, on his behalf. She entered a plea of not guilty. They waived for now the bond hearing. So he's sitting in jail. Dave, what's going to happen in this case next and how's it going?
- [03:09]
Dave Ehrenberg
Well, good to be with you, Phil. I would expect Ohio prosecutors to announce whether they seek the death penalty in this case. But as far as what's next, you're going to see discovery in this case will start its march towards trial in he of course is pleading not guilty and then he's going to move ahead with his excellent lawyer. He hired Diane Menashe. I'm not sure I pronounced her name right, but she was a fellow instructor at Harvard Law School's trial advocacy workshop. So she's obvious, obviously knows what she is doing. She's also very big opponent of the death penalty and so perhaps that's one reason why he hired her. But it is interesting the new evidence that has been reported, which is that this guy who seemed like the neighbor next door who's always quiet and then becomes a serial killer, you know, like this quiet guy, well, turns out he's been alleged to have been a domestic abuser. The victim here had complained about his violence towards her and that he was stalking her. And so this wasn't apparently just some one off. And you know, when you look more into the background of McKee, you see some other things that are red flags. Like for example, his ex girlfriend said he was hard to break through to, hard to get to know, had this big wall around himself and he said that he was raised by parents who were older and he really cared for it. But then he never spoke to them. What really no falling out, just has no relationship with his parents. Never trust anyone who refuses to call his mama.
- [04:43]
Phil Holloway
And we have some brand new information as well that's sort of hot off the presses as we record this today. Before we get to that, if we can call for shot one, we have some video and audio of defense attorney Diane Minash entering the not guilty plea for Dr. McKee.
- [05:00]
Diane Menashe
Diane Manashi, on behalf of Michael McKe. Thank you, your honor. With respect to the allegations, we Would acknowledge receipt wave reading enter not guilty pleas to all counts contained therein. We would also waive bond at this time, although we certainly reserve the right.
- [05:14]
Birch Gold Group Announcer
To raise that at a later date.
- [05:16]
Diane Menashe
The plea of not guilty form has been executed and signed on behalf of my client. Nothing further.
- [05:21]
Phil Holloway
Thank you, councelo. I've signed the not guilty plea. I'm signing the bond form indicating the bond has been waved. Anything further? No, your honor.
- [05:28]
Dave Ehrenberg
Thank you.
- [05:29]
Birch Gold Group Announcer
Thank you.
- [05:29]
Phil Holloway
Thank you. You know, Dave, recently on the show, when we first started covering this case, there was not much to be seen except for some a person of interest that police said may have been captured, you know, walking in an alleyway near the home. But police are now saying that that is in fact the defendant, Dr. McKee. Interestingly enough, now we know that he is accused of entering the house with a firearm equipped with a silencer. Now those are very rare, right? So that tells me there was some planning that went involved in this, that there was some measures taken to avoid detection. Although eventually he was of course allegedly detected. But of course the evidence was that he shot his ex wife's new husband multiple times and only shot her once, did not harm the children or the pet. So what is it that you make of this information as we as we now know it is is this going to be, or could it be a death penalty case under those circumstances?
- [06:35]
Dave Ehrenberg
It could be because he killed multiple people, makes him eligible for the death penalty there in Ohio. We'll see if the prosecutors want to move forward with it. But this is the kind of case that gets national attention and there will be some pressure on the prosecutors to give him the ultimate penalty. I mean, this is a pretty brutal crime where you go in there and coldly execute your ex wife and her husband. You leave the kids behind who apparently were there while this is going on. Talk about trauma. And then when you saw that video and you brought this up, Phil, of the person we didn't know was a person of interest who was very coldly, casually walking away from the property. And we thought, we don't know if this person is the one who did it because they're in no hurry. It just seems like a person just walking along like nothing has happened. Well, that is in line with the kind of person Dr. McKee is, where he does seem very stoic. He seems robot like. He seems like a professional killer. That's the kind of person who would walk coldly away committing this brutal crime and not seem to have any remorse for it.
- [07:39]
Phil Holloway
Well, Diane Minash, as you mentioned, she's Kind of got a reputation as a staunch anti death penalty lawyer. And she's had a pretty good track record of success keeping her clients off of death row. Now, I said there was some news that was breaking hot off the presses as we record this show here on January 27th. So let's see what the Columbus Dispatch is reporting that the ex husband, Dr. Michael McKee, it says he visited the couple's Wineland park home just weeks before they were shot to death. Dave, this is according to newly unsealed court records. The affidavit coming from Franklin County Municipal Court provides fresh insight into the investigation. It says that according to court records, video showed McKee going into the area of the Tepe home back on December 6th. Okay, so early last month. And then it showed him leaving a few hours later. But guess what? The Tepes weren't home at the time. Okay? They were at the Big Ten championship football game that night. And court records say that Dr. Spencer told his friends that his wife Monique was court, quote, was upset about something involving her ex husband and she left the game early. Now, what do you make of all that?
- [09:02]
Dave Ehrenberg
Shows premeditation. It shows that this wasn't a one off, that this was something had been ongoing. She clearly had fear of him and he didn't stop. I mean, you have a motive that's very easy to understand if you're going to argue this in front of a jury. It's not like they have to really do a lot of soul searching to come up with, why did he do this? Remember, with Coburger, the big issue is where's the why? And even though you never have to prove the why, because that's not an element of a first degree murder charge. But the jurors always want to know motive. And here you have means, motive and opportunity. And so I think the prosecution is already starting off with a very strong case.
- [09:42]
Phil Holloway
Well, again, according to this new reporting, friends of the Tepes told investigators that after the couple's deaths, they said Monique had spoken to them previously and said that her ex husband had been abusive to her. And listen to this. At least one witness told investigators that McKee had forced unwanted sex and strangled Monique. McKee also made comments that he would, quote, he could kill her at any time. And court records say that he, quote, would find her and buy the house right next to her. It sounds to me, if this is true, sounds to me like someone is obsessed with the ex wife to the point of, you know, if I can't have her, nobody else can have her either. Right. I'm going to make her life miserable. And this is weird to me because their marriage was very short. The time that they lived together as husband and wife was even much shorter, less than a year, I believe. And so their marriage ended back was it 2017 or so many years ago. It's just not like a recent divorce. But by all outward appearances, she had more than moved on. So this is really a head scratcher, what is in the mind of this defendant. And I'm sure that's going to be something the prosecutors are going to delve into when they decide on whether to seek the death penalty.
- [11:03]
Dave Ehrenberg
Well, you can see the profile of this guy being someone who is stoic, solitary and brooding. Someone who sits there under a lamp like Glenn Close and Fatal Attraction turns it on and off and on and off. Obsessive all day. I mean, talking about a marriage that didn't last very long. But he just obviously kept it atop his mind. And now you can see why he allegedly put multiple bullets into her new husband. Because if he's of the mindset that, well, if I can't have you, no one will, well, he's as angry at the husband perhaps as he is to his ex wife. He hates them both. And yet the children there were untouched. And so here's a guy who fit the description of a paid killer. In fact, when we were first discussing this before McKee was arrested, we're thinking, this person was let in. This person, no one heard anything. We saw someone walk away very calmly. This could be a paid hit. Well, it wasn't a paid hit, but it was someone who acted like a paid killer. Because this guy is cold, premeditated and calculating, allegedly.
- [12:13]
Phil Holloway
Well, for those of you who are listening on podcast or watching us on YouTube or even if you're listening on Sirius XM and hear the sound of my voice, make sure that you subscribe to this program, whether it be on podcast or on YouTube, because we are going to be on top of this story as it moves its way through the court system. Mama Conversion.
- [13:05]
Commercial Announcer
ABC's David Muir, the most trusted anchor in America. The most watched anchor in America. Thank you for making World News Tonight with David Muir the number one newscast in America. Most trusted, most watched. David Muir on abc.
- [13:20]
Birch Gold Group Announcer
A new year means new financial goals, like making sure your savings are secure and diversified. Will this be the year you decide to talk to someone from Birch Gold Group? They use an educational approach with a deep understanding of macroeconomics. There are forces pushing the dollar lower and gold higher, which is why they believe every American should own physical gold. So until January 30th, if you're a first time gold buyer, Birchgold is offering a rebate of up to 10 grand on qualifying purchases. To claim eligibility and start the process, just text MK to the number 989898. Birch Gold can help you roll an existing IRA or 401K into an IRA in gold and you are still eligible for a rebate of up to $10,000. Consider making right now your first time to buy gold and take advantage of a rebate up to 10,000 bucks when you buy by January 30th. Text MK to the number 989898. Claim your eligibility today. Again, just text MK to the number 989895.
- [14:21]
Phil Holloway
I do want to move on, Dave. We've got another topic in this segment. We have the former Michigan football coach Sharon Moore. Of course, he's accused in court filings that, that he is accused to have been abusive to his girlfriend. He was fired for having an inappropriate affair. He's accused of stalking and breaking and entering and all sorts of things going on there. But we have an interesting legal maneuver. His lawyers have said that the arrest warrants were based on essentially lies. Okay. And so they've asked for something called a Franks hearing. Now, Dave, you know what this is. But a lot of folks listening or watching won't know what a Franks hearing is necessarily. So real quick what that is. This is a legal proceeding in which a criminal defendant challenges the validity of a warrant by alleging that the police officer who swore out the arrest warrant lied or acted with essentially bad faith disregarding the truth to to obtain it. This comes out of the landmark Supreme Court case called Franks vs. Delaware way back in 1978, hence the name the Franks hearing. This is a tool that can be used to protect the Fourth Amendment rights an accused person has against unreasonable searches and seizures. Okay. That's where the arrest warrant comes in. That's the seizure. To get a Frank's hearing, a defendant is not automatically entitled to one, but they have to make what we call a substantial showing of two key elements. They have to show that the affidavit and contained intentional or recklessly false information. The defendant must provide evidence of this, not just mere allegations that the officer knowingly and intentionally or with reckless disregard for the truth included a false statement or omitted a material fact in the warrant. And so what would happen at that hearing? It's going to be an evidentiary hearing. And if the court grants it, the defendant must prove their claims that There was lies or that there was things that were put in the affidavit that the officer should have known essentially were not true. And of course, the remedy would be the dismissal of the warrant. Now, I say all that because, Dave, as a prosecutor, as a former prosecutor, longtime prosecutor, is this something that you encountered often? Because honestly, I don't see them that often.
- [16:45]
Dave Ehrenberg
They don't happen that often, but they happen. And in fact, I, as a defense lawyer in my short time in the past year was involved in this situation. So already in the first year of being a defense lawyer on the dark side. I'm joking. I've dealt with this. And we were appealing the decision to grant a warrant based on what we thought was false testimony of the officer. So what we're doing here is for Coach Moore would be that he would say that the officer was given bad information by the victim here, and together they put together an affidavit that was materially false. And thus this whole thing is like fruit of the poisonous tree. Should never have been arrested for this. He should drop everything. I don't think he's going to get that. I think this motion will fail because remember, he's being charged with third degree home invasion. That's a felony. And misdemeanor charges of stalking and breaking and entering. So even if the victim wrongly said that he, meaning Coach Moore, was trying to kill her, and that is, I think, the key to this, because he was not apparently trying to kill her, he was trying to kill himself.
- [17:59]
Phil Holloway
Yeah.
- [18:00]
Dave Ehrenberg
But even if that's true, it's still home invasion.
- [18:04]
Phil Holloway
Yeah.
- [18:04]
Dave Ehrenberg
It's still breaking and entering, and it could still be stalking. There's evidence of that. So that's why I don't think the Frank's motion is going to win here.
- [18:11]
Phil Holloway
Well, it may not. So there is something very peculiar about how this criminal charge sort of got started. And I want to talk about that. But first, if we can go ahead and call for SOT2, which is Moore's lawyer, Ellen Michaels, basically declaring he's innocent and asking for this Franks hearing.
- [18:33]
Diane Menashe
Mr. Moore is innocent of these charges. Today, on behalf of Mr. Moore, we filed a motion to quash the arrest warrant and dismiss the complaint. We've requested that this court grant a Franks hearing because this warrant was issued based on false and misleading statements presented as fact. We're confident the truth will come out in court under oath where it belongs. Mr. Moore and his family respectfully ask for. For your privacy.
- [19:10]
Phil Holloway
Thank you. All right, so, you know, to sort of further set the stage Here, you know, more like you said, Dave is facing felony charges of home invasion, misdemeanor stalking. You know, these are serious crimes. But before the criminal case arose, the alleged victim in the case, the staffer with whom he's said to have had a romantic relationship with this staffer, hired a lawyer by the name of Heidi Sharp. Now, Moore's lawyers are accusing Heidi Sharp. Dave, of being the one who made the original 911 call that alerted the authorities to this incident, and that in the process of doing so, it was this civil lawyer, not the victim, who was sort of setting the narrative, setting the tone.
- [20:01]
Andrea Burkhart
And.
- [20:01]
Phil Holloway
And that those were essentially untrue statements is the claim. And they. They wound up in the affidavit for the arrest warrant, hence the need for the Franks hearing. So I say all that because when I say it's unusual. We. We typically start these cases with a 911 call from someone who is a victim of a crime or who is witnessing a crime or has just witnessed a crime. We don't typically. And 911 is for emergencies, right? We don't typically see a 911 call coming from a civil lawyer who also has an interest in pursuing a civil case related to the same subject matter. Dave, your thoughts?
- [20:45]
Dave Ehrenberg
Prosecutors hate it when there's a civil case that gets in the way of a prosecution, because prosecutors and law enforcement do not want to think that they're being used as leverage for a civil case. Plus, when you're dealing with civil lawyers, they. They can get in the way. They can give the defense a lifeline, like perhaps like this. And they can also conduct depositions that could also conflict with the interests of the prosecution. So you gotta be careful when there's an ongoing civil matter or a civil lawyer involved. That being said, Kelly Moore, the wife of Coach Moore, made a 911 call as well. And when she made a 911 call, right, it said that, I'm worried that my husband is gonna hurt himself. Can you guys track his phone? The operator said, why do you think he's trying to hurt himself? Quote, because he said that to me. He said he's trying to kill himself. She alleged. And he just called me saying he got fired from his job and he's in crisis. I told him I love him and I need him to come home, but I don't know where he is. He said he was on a highway. So there you go. That call sort of insulates the other 911 call, saying, Ah, the only reason why 911 is called because it's contrived civil matter. Nope. You got the wife of the defendant who called as well because this guy was a danger to himself. So that's going to be used against.
- [22:06]
Phil Holloway
Yeah. Well, let's go ahead. Since we're on the subject of the wife and that 911 call, we happen to have it. Surprise, surprise, let's roll slot three and listen to Kelly Moore's call to 911 from December of 2025.
- [22:19]
Kelly Moore
91 1, where is your em. My.
- [22:24]
Phil Holloway
My husband.
- [22:25]
Kelly Moore
I'm worried that my husband's gonna hurt himself and I need, I need you. Can you guys track his phone? Okay. Why do you think he's trying to hurt himself? Because he said that to me. Okay, what did he say specifically? He said he's trying to. He said he's trying to kill himself. Okay. Where is he? I don't have a clue. He just got fired from his job and he's. He's in, he's in crisis. And I told him that I. I told him that I love him and that I need him to come home, but I don't know where he is. He said he was at a highway.
- [22:57]
Phil Holloway
And for those of you who are watching on YouTube, we can show you some video of Moore entering court last week with his attorney Ellen Michaels. They're seeking a 30 day adjournment to gather additional discovery. And so, you know, what we see here is we see them walking to court. We see a very different Kelly Moore than what we heard on that 911 call. We see someone who is literally standing by her, right? And in light of everything that's happened in this case, Dave, people might look at that and say, well, why in the world would she be standing by her man? Why wouldn't she just go ahead and leave him? Is she going to be helpful to the prosecution or is she going to be a defense witness? Where do you think she's going to play a role in this case, the criminal case as it moves forward?
- [23:49]
Dave Ehrenberg
When Governor Jim McGreevey of New Jersey came out to announce that he was a gay man and it was a really embarrassing press conference for his wife who had, who was standing next to him, standing by him. And this was, remember, during allegations of impropriety involving him. Nothing wrong, obviously, with coming out with whom you are, no matter what your sexual orientation. But that press conference was where you really saw someone stand by her man. So is it a surprise that Kelly Moore standing by her man. We've seen it time and time again. We've seen all sorts of Cases where you're thinking, there's no way that this person is going to stand by it. So they have all their complicated reasons. Who knows why they have a small child at home. And Sharon Moore clearly has mental health issues, and perhaps that is part of it, where she really believes that his conduct, his infidelity, perhaps is motivated by mental health issues.
- [24:45]
Andrea Burkhart
But.
- [24:46]
Dave Ehrenberg
But that's not what he's leaning into here. He's not just leaning into saying that I shouldn't be blamed or given the maximum punishment because of mental health issues. He's saying that the victim lied and the officer misstated things in his affidavit and the whole thing should be thrown out. So they're going to the mat on this. But in the end, the facts are what they are. I have some sympathy for him because of his mental health issues, and the fact is that he did not try to harm the victim. He was trying to harm himself. But in the end, it's still a crime to break into someone's house. It's still a crime to stalk someone. And that's why I think he's gonna eventually be found guilty, even though he may never serve a day in prison. He may just get a diversion in all this.
- [25:28]
Phil Holloway
Well, Dave, as we think about Moore being out of his job and losing the $12.3 million guaranteed by his contract over the next three years, you can take us into the break while we think about how much money that is and how nice it would be if any of us could have just a taste of that.
- [25:53]
Dave Ehrenberg
You know, whenever a football coach gets fired, people say, oh, that's so bad. But they end up with such a huge golden parachute that you should never really be sympathetic that much to a football coach who is going to get paid for the next several years. More money than most of us will make in a lifetime. So there's that. So. But next, Phil, we're gonna dig into revelations from the newly unsealed court records in the Bryan Kohberger case. It's the case that never goes away. And what we learn leaves us wondering, did Kohberger act alone? We'll discuss with criminal defense attorney Andrea Burkhart. Stay tuned.
- [26:34]
Olivia from Ollie
Quiero uno con Verizon nos y vamos cuatro.
- [26:36]
Phil Holloway
IPhone 17.
- [27:02]
Olivia from Ollie
Hey, it's Olivia from Olli. Getting better sleep this year is totally doable. But skip the lettuce tea and the mouth tape. These sleep trends are getting unhinged. Ollie, sleep gummies help you fall asleep, stay asleep, and wake up refreshed. Just melatonin. L theanine and botanical extracts. No weird wet salad aftertaste. Better sleep can start tonight. Go to o l l y.com to choose your snooze. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent any disease.
- [27:32]
Birch Gold Group Announcer
Relief Factor loves hearing from pain free customers and hopes they can help you next. One use named Kim wrote to them to say quote before trying Relief Actor, I struggled just to make it through my work days. I'd collapse on the couch at night, aching everywhere. Within a few weeks of starting Relief Factor, the daily pain began to fade. Now I'm keeping up at work and I still have energy left from my family. There are many stories just like Kim's of parents having more love to give but less stress, less strength to share. Relief Factor does not just ease your pain, it can restore your evenings and your laughter and the simple joy of being present and being a good parent. If you want to feel the difference like Kim with back pain, knee issues or stiffness that is slowing you down, Relief Factor could give you your mobility back. Relief after is 100% drug free and it targets the inflammation that causes pain in order to move better, feel better and actually enjoy life again. Try the three week quick start for just 19.95. Go to relieffactor.com or call 800 for relief. Let's see if you could be next in getting out of pain.
- [28:37]
Phil Holloway
Welcome back to MK True Crime. We have newly unsealed court records in the Bryan Kohberger case. These records reveal what the defense and the prosecution strategies could have been had the case gone to trial and lots more. Here to discuss it is our guest today, criminal defense attorney and legal and legal analyst Andrea Burkhart. Welcome to the program and of course we'll bring in my co host Dave Ehrenberg back for this very important discussion. Andrea, look, we have this. I guess I'm going to start with this article Howard Bloom wrote for the Daily Mail. An interesting piece, right? Based on his belief that there could be an additional suspect still out there. I don't know if you've heard this, but Howard goes in and he points out that, you know, Idaho State Police have briefly released before hurriedly removing what he calls a ghastly cache of graphic photographs revealing the horrifying aftermath of the murders inside 1222 King Road at the house in Moscow, Idaho back in November of 2022. He says that of course he's shocked by the apparent barbarism and the grisly evidence, but he says that gives him something else which he says is disturbing. He says, while I believe Bryan Kohberger is guilty, I have never been able to shake a long held hypothesis that he did not act alone. Now, this newly released evidence only bolsters that belief. Andrea, we'll start with you. Thanks for joining us. What is your take on this newly released information? Because I know you and I have talked a lot about Co Burger. I know you're following it bit by bit as we get more information. I'm very interested to hear your take.
- [30:23]
Andrea Burkhart
Well, thanks for having me, Phil. I very much appreciate the chance to be here. The problem that has really haunted this case since Bryan Coburger pleaded guilty is the inability of that plea to give us real closure to the incident, to understand exactly what happened and why. The concern about potential additional perpetrators has been present in this case really from the outset. The scope of it, the extent of the barbarism as you've described, just raised questions that I think a lot of people shared about the feasibility that a single person would be able to do all of this undetected. So one of the questions that has been triggered by these new releases of information is what is there in the evidence that police had, in the analysis that they did that led them to pursue the theory that they did, that Brian Kohberger acted alone? And these reports contain a number of details that make that question very difficult to answer. Among the most recently released docum are some competing positions and analyses of different experts for the state and for the defense. And those reports show a markedly different interpretation of the same crime scene by the two different sides, and not a real clear resolution, not a real clear adjudication, if you will, of which side had the better position in that, that argument. So it just continues to highlight the number of questions that remain unaddressed by way of how this case was resolved.
- [32:22]
Phil Holloway
You know, Dave, you know, we can see now we've got some of these really just graphic pictures, as hard as they are to look at. They give us a lot of information and give us some context about just how bloody this scene was. And so one of the points that Bloom makes is that, you know, and I'm summarizing and paraphrasing it here, but basically with, with that much blood and the crime scene being as they are, you know, it just doesn't make sense, at least to him, that Coburger's car, for example, would have no transfer blood found in it. And, you know, he says that, that, that lends to the idea that maybe somebody else was involved, along with being pretty compressed as well for committing this many murders in this way in. In such a short period of time. Dave, you know, you've prosecuted a lot of murder cases and you've seen obviously, I think, worse photographs than these, probably. But does. Does that hypothesis make any sense to you as a prosecutor? Put your prosecutor hat on that maybe somebody else could have been involved.
- [33:35]
Dave Ehrenberg
You know, Phil, I never try to deal with conspiracy theories. I always try to deal with facts. And the facts all point to one person here. Now, could there have been a second person? Well, as Andrea said, the fact that we allowed Coburger, the prosecutors allowed him to plead guilty without giving up the ghost, without giving any more details than he wanted to give, was just really wrong and think it prevents full closure for the families and it leads to conspiracy theories. There is no evidence that another person did it. But there are questions like, could one person have committed these atrocities in such a short period of time? You know, I think it's possible. Remember when there was a witness there, when one of the roommates saw a person coming out and matched Bryan Coburg? Didn't see a second person, saw one person leaving the house. The bushy eyebrows guy who matched Coburger's description. Also all the signs pointing to Coberger. He could have, at every time he was questioned, he could have said there was someone else at the trial. He could have given up someone else to try to save him. He never did, never said another person's name. And so why would he cover for someone? Now, the theory that this individual has, that you're quoting said that he thought Kohberger likely hooked up with someone who, for whatever hellish reasons, wanted one of the students dead. Why wouldn't he give this person up? So that's why it doesn't make sense to me. But the fact that he was allowed to plead guilty without giving up more details opens all these discussions. It's fair game.
- [35:03]
Phil Holloway
You know, Andrea, we launched this show in August of 2025, and we were. Our intention was to launch it sort of contemporaneously with the Co Burger trial. And of course, that didn't happen. We had the guilty plea that sort of came out of nowhere, although I kind of always wondered in the back of my mind if something like that wouldn't happen. But. But now when we look at this in. In hindsight, and it really wasn't that the prosecutor offered it, the Coburger basically offered this deal and the prosecution accepted it. That's kind of how it went down, right and you look at it now with some of this new information, and I see the crime scene and it, to me, it does seem just on its face, a little improbable, not impossible, maybe improbable that a single person was involved. And in fact, before the car containing Brian Coburg, after his arrest, would drove off to take him to jail, he reportedly asks a single question and that was, was anybody else arrested? Andrea? So, I mean, are we barking up the wrong tree here or is there something for the conspiracy theorists to hang their hat on?
- [36:20]
Andrea Burkhart
I think that's a good question, because while we certainly have Brian Coburger admitting his guilt in the context of a guilty plea, he didn't take an Alford plea where you continue to maintain that you're innocent, but just take the plea because it's beneficial to you. He accepted the plea on the grounds that he did the acts he's accused of doing. And so in some respect, that's kind of the end of the story as far as Bryan Coburger's personal involvement is concerned. Concerned. But there is reason to believe from this evidence that there are at least questions about the possibility of an alternative perpetrator or an additional perpetrator. Some of the specific examples that continue to allow these questions to come up include things like the blood sample that was located on the banister of one of the stairways going down to the first floor. This is in the vicinity we can see on, on the photographs of, of some transfer smears that were associated with, with the murders. And so this was an unknown male profile. DNA that was, that was located on the banister seems like potentially highly relevant evidence. The, the type of thing that, that police would, would normally want to investigate. This, to me, rather bizarre explanation. And maybe Dave can share his thoughts on this as well, because I have never seen a situation where a law enforcement agency has made an excuse for not putting a sample into codis. There are restrictions on entering blood DNA samples into codis, but they're essentially there to just make sure you're not putting known samples in. You're not putting in samples that you can readily attribute to a victim or a witness or somebody that you don't suspect to be a potential perpetrator. But if it's an open question, you certainly can. And the explanation that we got from law enforcement that doing so would somehow kick out the sample that they had submitted from the knife sheath is just not. It's not sensible. That's not how CODIS works. So there are some strange explanations from law enforcement that Call into question, why do we still have some of these issues floating up in the first place when it seems like investigation could have and should have been followed along that line?
- [38:58]
Phil Holloway
I thought it was very strange, too. And, Dave, since Andrea sort of posed this to you, I want to do the same thing. Because as she mentioned, two unknown male DNA profiles were found at that King Road house. One on the handrail, another on a glove outside the home state. The Idaho state DNA analyst decided not to enter them into it's. It's the Combined DNA Index System, codis, because, Dave, they said the samples were found in locations deemed non probative to the crime, yet they're at the crime scene. So, Dave, can you help me explain how that, you know, the presence of two unknown male DNA profiles would be non probative to the crime?
- [39:46]
Dave Ehrenberg
Yeah. You had one on a glove outside the house and another, maybe two others inside the home, including a blood spot on a. On a handrail. So the reason why those other samples were not eligible for codis, which is the FBI database, for a DNA profile to be uploaded into codis, it must meet strict standards regarding the amount of DNA and its direct link to a crime. Since this home was a party house with frequent visitors, law enforcement argued that the DNA on services like a handrail or, or a glove outside the house could come from any number of innocent visitors. Did not have the same evidentiary weight as DNA on the knife sheath that was found directly next to a victim's body.
- [40:33]
Phil Holloway
Well, I. Look, point taken. That's, you know, I see what, what your point being about. Lots of people could be in and out of that house, and no doubt were in and out of that house. But, Andrea, you know, why wouldn't you just go ahead and if you can figure out whose DNA it is and rule them out as a suspect once you identify them?
- [40:56]
Andrea Burkhart
Well, I think that's the million dollar question, because certainly nothing in the rules for submitting some samples into CODIS preclude law enforcement from investigating multiple perpetrators. Plenty of crimes take place with multiple perpetrators, and so it requires multiple suspects being potentially investigated. So I take particular issue with the sample from the banister because that was a blood sample. And so just in and of itself, that's far less innocuous than something like touch DNA from the door handle of a. Of a very busy social kind of house. And so it does just. It's incomprehensible to me from an investigative standpoint why police would not have pursued that lead if only to be able to rule it out. To be able to provide an explanation for who that blood belongs to, how it got there, why it's there, and if it's innocuous, then we know that and we can check that box and we can have closure on that particular issue. But by not pursuing that lead, they left it an open question. And that's why this issue of were multiple people involved? This is a prime example of why that issue will continue to recur.
- [42:12]
Phil Holloway
Yeah, I put my ex cop hat on and I say, you know, it's better to have more information is better than less. Right. And so if you can identify who these people are, if it's just people that were there for a party the night before, so be it. And that's what you expect at a college, you know, off campus party house. Right. No big deal.
- [42:32]
Dave Ehrenberg
But this is where. Well, this is where civil liberties get in the way. We have decided that we want to protect privacy rights and civil liberties. And so the FBI has rules, and you'd have to make an exception to the rules that say that you cannot upload profiles from common surfaces unless there's proof, like a blood trail, that the person was involved in the crime. Obviously, the sheath is different. So, yeah, we could change it. But remember, the reason why we don't is that the DNA databases like codis, they contain sensitive genetic information. And there is federal law that limits who can be put into the system, who can be put into the database. Because you don't want to create a surveillance state. So that's where it comes from. So you have to choose which way.
- [43:16]
Phil Holloway
You don't have a. Wait a minute. You don't have any. You don't have any expectation of privacy in the DNA that you leave behind out in public. Right. We don't have any expectation of privacy in that. And so all I'm talking about is running that against the database to see if it matches some kind of a known offender.
- [43:33]
Dave Ehrenberg
Yeah. By the way, there's another. Well, first of all, in addition to protecting the privacy of people who did not, who were just there for a party and didn't want. Don't want to go into a national DNA database. Also, you know, prosecutors, quite frankly, they don't want to identify these other folks because then it allows a defense to start pointing fingers at innocent people and then say, hey, why don't you investigate Bob Smith? And then here's the empty chair, boss. Smith, he did it. His DNA was on the banister. So there was also prosecution strategy here.
- [44:05]
Phil Holloway
Well, maybe so, but look, it will be real easy as a prosecutor to say, yeah, okay, this belonged to Dave Aronberg and we have a legitimate reason. He was there. He was there playing beer pong the night before at a party and he's not a suspect. I mean, to me that I don't really think that gives the defense much ammunition. But we, we want, I want to move on with Andrea now because I know that she's following this Tyler Robinson case out in Utah very closely. And you've had some interesting commentary yourself and things that you've posted, Andrea, on, on X regarding the, let's just call it the, the privacy that the defense wants in that case out there. You know, we've got the defense is now filing new emotions. They're asking the judge to hold hearings and they want to kick the media out. They want cameras out. They want still cameras. They want video cameras. They want the public out. And they won't even explain, Andrea, why it is they want the public out and they want the filings that they file seeking the cameras out of the courtroom. They want the written documents themselves to be private. What in the hell is going on?
- [45:25]
Andrea Burkhart
Well, this is just a growing pattern that we have seen start to develop in this case over really the last couple of months with an increasing view to keeping the process out of the public eye. And this is largely stemming from the defense in this case. They have filed, as you indicated, a number of motions that they are placing under seal, meaning the public isn't able to able to view them. Hearings on those motions are likely to be held closed so that whatever sealed information doesn't become publicly available in the hearing. And so it's setting the stage for what I consider to be just an extraordinarily undemocratic type of, type of government process where much of the issues in this case that will go directly to the trial, to the admissibility of evidence, to the discovery process, the fairness of the treatment of Mr. Robinson, law enforcement conduct and things of this nature are going to be litigated behind closed doors where we the people are then not able to exercise our right to petition our government for redress of grievances, monitor what is happening in this court process, and then take appropriate action politically if we don't like what it is that we see. So it's quite an alarming trend in my view. But I think it does speak quite a bit to the motive behind the defense team's focus on this particular issue and the need to keep the process under wraps. There is so far still a pretty limited amount of information about the evidence in the case against Mr. Robinson at this point, it's still early in the proceeding. And so all we really have are the basic allegations that supported the. The initial determination of. Of probable cause. But just like with Brian Coburger, we know that much of the investigation in this case is only going to take place after the point of arrest. So there's basically like crime scene evidence and, and some initial communications and things like that that led to Mr. Robinson being arrested. But subsequent investigation has all happened outside of the public eye. So the real reason, I suspect, why the defense is taking such a hard line on keeping this process private is simply because that evidence is not going to be good for Mr. Robinson if it's open for the world to see. The defense has repeatedly expressed concerns about tainting the jury pool, about being exposed to information that would cause you to form an opinion about guilt before the trial. And these are all certainly understandable concerns. He does have a presumption of innocence, but there's just abundant case law going back for decades that strongly indicates this is not the fix, that shutting the public out of the process is not a appropriate way to handle those particular types of considerations.
- [48:49]
Phil Holloway
You know, Dave, look, here's. I'm at the point now, and I'll just say it. I'm at the point now, and I hoped I wouldn't get here, but I don't feel that I can necessarily trust this judge to do the right thing. And the media lawyers who are advocating for the openness of this process, they filed in opposition to this. And some of what they say is that no one trusts what happens in a secret criminal proceeding. Not those who support the prosecution, who wonder whether the case was properly presented. Not those who support the defense, who wonder whether the defendant's fair trial rights were respected. And not even dispassionate observers who are deprived of their right to see how the judicial system works. And they go on to point out, Dave, and this is why I don't trust the judge. Okay. The motion itself provides almost no explanation for why the presumptively public filing should be classified as non public. Nor does it or the order the judge signed that granted it engage in any of the substantive analysis that is required by law before sealing this pleading these pleadings. Dave, I hope you can help me understand what in the world is going on out in Utah with these secret courts.
- [50:05]
Dave Ehrenberg
Yeah, no, I mean, I have issues as well. Who. And this goes into. I think you're going to talk about secret star chambers later. You know, a little sneak preview we don't have, we shouldn't have that in Florida. It's the opposite. We have sunshine laws. So everything's public. It drives me crazy when it comes to federal courts, how they don't have cameras in the courtroom. Certain states like New York, don't have cameras in the courtroom. And when you have this case, which is so rife with conspiracy theories and all these crazy allegations put forward by some podcasters out there, that you do need to have full transparency and this is the opposite. It because not only are you entertaining ideas from the defense that it should be secret, but you're not even flushing out the reason that the defense says it should be secret. So it's double secrecy. All a bad idea.
- [50:53]
Phil Holloway
Andrea, they, they point, the media lawyers point out, they say this repeated. And I like the way they couch this, they say this repeated insistence on a secret prosecution with no mooring in the Constitution needs to stop. Every week seems to bring a new urgent request for unjustified secrecy. And now the defense is not even trying to defend its demands publicly. They want even secrecy decisions to be made in secret. I mean, I couldn't have drafted that any better. Those aren't my words. Another lawyer wrote those, but I think they're perfect. Andrea, you're following this. We're all want to know what, what do you think think is going to happen and what do you suspect is going on with this judge's willingness to put up with this crap so far?
- [51:42]
Andrea Burkhart
Well, I have to push back a little bit on, on your, your view of the judge, because my perspective has been that Judge Graff has been the public's best advocate for transparency in, in this entire case. And the best example of this is at the most recent hearing that was held. The defense had filed a motion to disqualify the Utah County Prosecuting Attorney's office on the grounds that one of the attorneys on the team had a relative who was in attendance at the event at Utah Valley University when Charlie Kirk was shot and was a witness to it. And so there was some redaction to the filings on this motion to keep the identities of the individuals involved confidential, but otherwise we were allowed to see the arguments, the briefing and so forth. So when this issue came up for hearing, the parties, both the defense and the state, and in that case even the media had all agreed for purposes of confidentiality and to maintain these privacy interests and to not put a spotlight on people who would then potentially be targeted and harassed on social media and so forth, this hearing needs to be held in Private. And Judge Graff said, no, we're not doing that. Not here, not now, not on my watch. He said he would consider closing the courtroom on an individual basis, witness by witness, potentially issue by issue. But he rejected the consensus of all three parties that a flat closure of the courtroom was necessary to protect the privacy interests that were at stake. So I have a lot of faith in Judge Graf's embrace of the importance of transparency. And particularly in the context of this case, Utah has some pretty specific rules about filing documents under seal and what qualifies and what doesn't, and what's the procedure that gets followed when somebody does that. And so to some extent, the defense's filing decisions are out of his control, but there is room for reconsideration of those claims, to not just take the defense's position at face value that they think it should be private, therefore it will be. And so my expectation is that Judge Graff is going to reflect the same attitude of intolerance for the degree of privacy that's being sought. He's shown a familiarity with the law and a consistent consistency with the principle of transparency. And I think he's going to hold the defense to it.
- [54:28]
Phil Holloway
Well, I'm glad he has you, Andrea, to defend him publicly. I'm still concerned the fact that he's even willing to consider closing it under certain circuit. You know, that really does trouble me. And Dave, I want to get your opinion on this because Andrea brought up the, the motion hearing that was begun previously. This is the motion to recuse the, the prosecutor's office. Dave, have you ever seen a court hearing proceed so slowly? It was trying, it was excruciating. It was like trying to watch thick, cold molasses come out directly out of a tree.
- [55:09]
Dave Ehrenberg
Especially where you are in Florida, everything is warm and free flowing. You know, I, I, I'm, I'm not surprised because this is a very high profile case. This is being watched throughout the world. And I do think that the judge knows it and wants to make sure that every T is cross, every I is dotted. So I'm not surprised. It's slow, but I do agree it should be transparent. And I'm glad Andrew is there to push back against you, Phil, because I don't know much about Judge Graff. So it's good to know that she has, has faith in him because the last thing I want is for us to lose faith in the process here because that will breed even more conspiracy theories. So let's just hope that we get justice, we get transparency, and it gets done as soon as possible.
- [55:54]
Phil Holloway
All right. Well, speaking of that hearing on the disqualification that's next scheduled for February 3rd. At that time, His Honor Judge Graff will continue the hearing that started on January 16 regarding whether the Utah County Attorney's Office should be disqualified because one member of the prosecution's adult child was at the event where Charlie Kirk was killed. I think it's a specious argument. I don't know the judge will tell us whether or not he thinks it's a specious argument, presumably sometime this decade. Andrea, I want to say thank you very much for joining us here at MK True Crime. And by the way, tell the folks in our audience how they can find you.
- [56:37]
Andrea Burkhart
Yeah, you can find me on YouTube, on substack, on X or my, my primary platforms. You can just find me under my name, Andrea Burkhart or my handle at a Burkhart Law on substack. I keep archives of some of the cases that I follow. So I've got a fairly comprehensive archive of legal documents from the Tyler Robinson prosecution. YouTube. I like to watch the court hearings and, and give analysis as they're taking place. And X is X. So I'll have a variety of takes on those different platforms.
- [57:13]
Phil Holloway
Andrea is a good follow. And by the way, you know, check out her channel. If you haven't followed us on YouTube or subscribed on YouTube, do so. And by the way, hit that like button on this video. And if you're listening on podcast, you can also subscribe on YouTube and, and Vice versa if you like to watch on YouTube. YouTube, but you can't always watch. You know, we're available here wherever you get your podcast and of course, on the Megan Kelly Channel, Sirius XM Channel 111. Andrea, thanks so much for joining us. Up next, we'll have your mail and Dave and I will present our closing arguments. And remember, we want to hear from you, our audience. You can email your comments and story suggestions to MK True Crime and@devilmaycare media.com we'll be right back.
- [58:32]
Olivia from Ollie
Hey, it's Olivia from Ollie. Getting better sleep this year is totally doable, but skip the lettuce tea and the mouth tape. These sleep trends are getting unhinged. Ollie Sleep gummies help you fall asleep, stay asleep and wake up refreshed. Just melatonin and L theanine and botanical extracts. No weird wet salad aftertaste. Better sleep can start tonight. Go to o, l, l y.com to choose your snooze. These statements have not been evaluated by the Food and Drug Administration. This product is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease.
- [59:01]
Birch Gold Group Announcer
You know Pure Talk's favorite holiday? It's President's Day. Because they believe wireless service should only cost you a couple of presidents. Just a Jackson and a Lincoln to be exact. That. That's 25 bucks a month. And that 25 bucks a month will get you from Pure Talk, unlimited talk text, and plenty of data. Now compare that to big wireless. They would rather celebrate Benjamin Franklin Day so they can charge your family hundreds every month. They love the Benjamins more and more and more as long as you're paying them. PureTalk is an American wireless company that supports our veterans and invests in a US Only customer service team. So when you call, you're talking to someone right here at home. We all know they're trying to find a polite way not to say you're calling India and speaking with somebody in Bangladesh or someplace like that. Pure Talk uses the same towers as the big carriers, so enjoy superior 5G coverage without the inflated price. Just 25amonth for talk text and plenty of data. No contract, no cancellation fee. What are you waiting for? Go to PureTalk.com Kelly and you'll get 50, 50% 50 off your first month. Again, that's PureTalk.com Kelly to make the switch to PureTalk.
- [60:15]
Dave Ehrenberg
Welcome back to MK True Crime. We'll get to our closing arguments, but first we have a request from listener Katie. She says would love to hear you guys cover the Ryan Wedding story. I feel like this is going to be a movie in a couple years. Yeah, maybe even sooner. Katie, great timing because Ryan Wedding just was arrested last week. They'll bring us up to speed.
- [60:37]
Phil Holloway
Yeah, Katie, great timing because we want to talk about Ryan Wedding too. Now, for those who may not be aware, Ryan Wedding's an ex Olympic snowboarder from Canada. He's been on the FBI's most wanted list and he was arrested just recently. In fact. Let's go ahead and roll SOT4, which is FBI Director Kash Patel referring to Ryan Wedding as a modern day El.
- [61:04]
FBI Director Kash Patel
Chapo just to tell you how bad of a guy Ryan Wedding is. He went from an Olympic snowboarder to the largest narco trafficker in modern times. He's a modern day El Chapo. He is a modern day Pablo Escobar. And he thought he could evade justice. But these brave men and women put together prosecution package, put together investigative package, put together an operation strategy. And here we are today, bringing him to justice for trafficking hundreds of kilos of Cocaine and also for the murder of innocent civilians.
- [61:34]
Phil Holloway
This of course ends a multi year search for the 44 year old. As Director Patel says he's accused of running a transnational drug trafficking operation. The criminal enterprise described as having ordered multiple murders, including the shooting death of a federal witness just last January. Webbing, by the way, competed in the 2002 Winter Olympics. And he was taken into custody Thursday, that last Thursday night in Mexico City. So that's what all this is about. But you know, this is the thing that, you know, you never know what, what you're going to get when, you know, you get a little celebrity. Right. Sometimes we see people, they have success in the Olympics or in other places and they go in a certain trajectory. This is someone who had very, very good athletic success in the Olympics and now he's looking at spending the rest of his natural life probably in a supermax prison here in the United States. Now, that being said, he's pleaded not guilty and his attorneys say that he's not guilty of anything. They did not ask for bail, but they said they would ask for bail later. Dave. The judge ruled that based on the information they had before them at the time, there would be no bail warranted anyway. Kind of makes sense if you've been on the FBI's most wanted list for years and years.
- [63:01]
Dave Ehrenberg
Yeah, it's not just drug trafficking, it's murder where he attempted allegedly to and killed a person this year. Because was it this year or is it last year? Was it January? It might have been. I thought it was this year, but it could have been last year. Year when he was being sought after and he wanted to eliminate a witness. But this, this guy, Ryan Wedding is obviously very competitive. He is an Olympian and so he tries to be the best at everything he does and that includes allegedly drug trafficking. So this is a made for TV movie. Katie, you're spot on on that. Wonder who will get to play him? Maybe that's for the next round of comments.
- [63:38]
Phil Holloway
All right, Dave. Well, now we're at the point of the show where it's up to us to give what we call our closing arguments. So, Dave, what's on your mind today, buddy?
- [63:49]
Dave Ehrenberg
Phil, the tobacco playbook has officially come for big tech. For 30 years, these tech giants have hidden behind Section 230, a 1996 law that treats social media platforms like neutral bookstores rather than editors. It effectively immunizes them from being sued for anything a user posts. But I'm seeing a massive strategic shift that is finally happening here and that's Plaintiffs are no longer suing for the content. They're suing for the delivery system. If that sounds familiar to you. Well, in the 1990s, the breakthrough against big tobacco was proving that cigarettes weren't just tobacco, but engineered nicotine delivery devices designed to maximize addiction. Today, we're seeing evidence that these platforms are addiction delivery devices. By framing the algorithm as a defective product rather than protected speech, lawyers are successfully bypassing section 230. There is a trial starting this week in Los Angeles that could be a harbinger of many other trials to come involving Facebook and YouTube and TikTok. The evidence is pretty compelling. Internal memos have surfaced where employees literally call themselves pushers. They knew that features like Infinite scroll though the automatic play to the next video. They were designed to hook children and prioritize outrage because outrage drives profit. But this defective design does more than just addict. It creates a high speed funnel for propaganda, directly fueling the global surge in anti Semit Semitism that we see today. So by treating the algorithm as a product liability issue, we are finally stripping away the shield, because this isn't about censorship. It's about holding a manufacturer responsible for a dangerous machine. These companies are finally being forced to check themselves and frankly, accountability is long overdue.
- [65:53]
Phil Holloway
You know, that's, it's interesting that we are couching these lawsuits as products liability. Right. Because, you know, I'm not a product liability lawyer, but I did go to law school. We talked some about it. Right. And so it's not that the products are alleged to be working improperly. They're alleged to be working just like they were designed to. In other words, the, the plaintiffs are saying that these products are in a defective condition and not because they don't work the way they're supposed to, but because they're unreasonably dangerous. And as of this recording, I think it was, TikTok has entered into a settlement on the eve of that trial. But that's going to be a, that's going to be a big one. We'll have to see how it all plays out for Facebook and all the rest of the tech giants. But Dave, you know, when we were speaking with Andrea, we were talking about the Tyler Robinson case and the, the events in, in this case out in Utah, some of which are very deeply troubling to me. And of course, I'm speaking about the tendency that this case seems to have towards becoming private. Okay, So I want to talk in more broad terms for my closing about openness of courts in, in America, the principle one of the principles that our courts are founded on in the United States, they were deliberately designed this way as a direct reaction against the abuses of a court known as England's Star Chamber. Okay, the Star Chamber was abolished way back in 1641. But before that, it was a secretive royal court. It was known for arbitrary justice through secret proceedings. These secret proceedings, they enabled mass, mass injustices. Things like compelled and forced testimony. Punishments were administered without due process. It suppressed dissent, it suppressed political dissent, and it bypassed all of the common law protections that benefited both the citizens and the accused. Our American founders, of course, knew this history very well. So much of our American law is based on, I guess, doing it different than the way England did it to us at the time of our founding. And this is no exception, because colonial Americans, they also faced similar crown courts that denied the safeguards, and they operated oftentimes in secret. So to prevent this judicial tyranny, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights built in specific and explicit safeguards. The Sixth Amendment guarantees speedy public trials in an impartial jury. That, of course, is the opposite of the Star Chamber secrecy. We have due process clauses in both the Fifth and the 14th Amendments, and these due process clauses prohibit the arbitrary deprivation of liberty. And the only way to make sure that that isn't going on in the courtroom is through the sunlight disinfecting power of open courts. Right. The right to confront your accusers in public and the right to remain silent. These things all operate as counter to the secret accusations that took place in the Star Chamber and other courts, and forced confessions and other atrocities. The Seventh Amendment, of course, preserves the public jury trial right in civil cases. So it's not just limited to criminal cases, it applies in civil cases. Our Constitution and our laws were established on an independent judiciary, but not one without constitutional limits. There are no prerogative courts. We must have public jury trials, no secret courts. Today, the word star chamber remains a legal term of art. And it's oftentimes cited in appellate opinions that tell courts that they're supposed to stay open, right? American courts routinely cite this as the epitome of what is unconstitutional. In short, courts all throughout the United States, both federal and state, are supposed to embody the antithesis of the Star Chamber, that being transparency and public proceedings. Thanks everyone for watching today and for listening to us. Thanks for being a part of our MK True Crime audience. And a very special thanks to our guest today, Andrea Burkhart, and to my co host, Dave Ehrenberg. Thanks for joining us and have a wonderful week. Converiz iPhone17 sin intercambio termino consent to.
- [70:45]
Olivia from Ollie
Familiar comparison Yavate Quattro iPhone17.
- [71:05]
Greenlight Infinity Announcer
Did you know? 39% of teen drivers admit to texting while driving. Even scarier, those who text are more likely to speed and run red lights. Shockingly, 94% know it's dangerous, but do it anyway. As a parent, you can't always be in the car, but you can stay connected to their safety with Greenlight Infinity's driving reports. Monitor their driving habits, see if they're using their phone, speeding, and more. These reports provide real data for meaningful conversations about safety. Plus, with weekly updates, you can track their progress over time. Help keep your teens safe. Sign up for Greenlight infinity@Greenlight.com podcast.